HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-25 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday,
March 25, 1985 at 5:10 p.m. in the Board of Director's Room of the
City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Newton Hailey, Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks,
Barbara Crook, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Stan Green,
Joe Tarvin and Trey Trumbo
None
Larry Wood, Jim Lindsey, Steve DeNoon, David Davis,
Carl Collier, Harry Gray, C.E. Yerton, Chester
Grigsby, James Lacey, Richard Melton, F.H. Martin,
Keith Cearly, Don Hunnicutt, Paula Brandeis, members
of the press and others
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Hailey and the minutes of the March 11, 1985
meeting were considered.
MINUTES
Correction from Commissioner Madison: Page 12, paragraph 3 should
read "...and the recent reappraisal of property will value property
as its highest and best use, then a rezoning might be agreeable with
the owners".
With this correction, the minutes stood approved as distributed.
PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING APPEAL R85-4
AW REALTY - NORTH SIDE OF JOYCE STREET
PART ONE. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning
appeal R85-4 submitted by AW Realty for property located on the North
side of Joyce Street west of Old Missouri Road and represented by
Jim Lindsey and Steve DeNoon. Zoned R-2, requested is 14.56 to R-0
and .43 to C-1.
Consultant Wood re -capped his recommendation as follows: He said
he recommends the Commission consider a change to R-0 on the larger
tract and that, although he did not feel changing the smaller parcel
to C-1 was good zoning practice, he would recommend C-1 along with
another reocmmendation that the Commission amend the R-0 District
'75
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 2
to include a drug store as a use by right and at a later -date re -zone
the C-1 to R-0. He recommended that the Commission take the bill
of assurance that has been offered and when the C-1 is rezoned to
R-0 the bill can be returned so that there will be no encumberances
on the land.
Lindsey said that the gas company has been trying to develop this
piece of property for many years against the limitation of the flood
plain. He proceeded to give extensive background on the acreage and
zoning of the gas company property and in the general area.
Lindsey said he felt it was important to retain the area surrounding
the R-0 request as R-2. He also noted that there are many uses allowed
in R-2 upon appeal that are uses by right in R-0. Lindsey said he
felt that R-0 was justifiable in this area. He advised that there
is a piece of current R-0 land which is cut off from the highway by
the 100 year flood plain. Lindsey said that without the gas company's
participation, Joyce Street would probably not have been built and
that the road was put in across their most desirable and usable property.
Lindsey advised that there has been no opposition thus far to this
petition from residents or from Consultant Wood and he felt it was
a fair request. He added that there are plans to develop some of the
parcel immediately as a doctors complex and a drug store. He noted
that there appears to be a glut of R-2 land in this area but he said
it was unlikely that this area would develop as R-1. Lindsey noted
that the C-1 request is to allow the drug store the ability to sell
items other than pharmaceutics.
Crook advised that the area would open up north of this request if
the proposed north/south street is developed. She asked Lindsey why
he felt the A-1 north of this request would not develop as anything
except R-2 and Lindsey replied that it would be expensive to develop,
as much fill would be required.
Madison clarified for Lindsey that the north/south street north of
Ellenberger Road has been located. Lindsey advised that the gas company
is cooperative as far as opening up new areas for developing and said
he thought there is still a discrepancy as to the exact location of
said street. Madidson said Ellenberger is shown on the plat as being
on the west boundary of Butterfield Trail Village.
Dr. David Davis advised that he selected this particular area for
his practice because it has many feeder roads and is convenient to
both Springdale and Fayetteville.
Mr. Collier, proprietor of Colliers Drug Store, said he likes this
area because it is near Butterfield Trail Village with its elderly
population which has prominent medical needs. He said he will offer
delivery service to these residents not currently provided.
R6
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 3
Lindsey said two of the proposed buildings in the planned large scale
development have been sold and, including the pharmacy, seven units
will be occupied.
•
Peggy, Dr. Reynolds nurse, agreed that this is a great location because
it is in between Springdale and Fayetteville.
There being no other speakers either for or against this petition,
Chairman Hailey closed the public hearing to Commission discussion.
Jacks noted that there is an existing commercial strip along Highway
71 and there seems to be a band of R-0 that developed around Ellenberger
with residential from that point, north and south. He said he felt
that any intrusion would tend to commit Joyce Street to this sort
of activity. He said he agreed that a certain part of Zion Road was
appropriate as R-0 and he added that he thought the amount of footage
planned for doctors' offices at the requested site was extremely large.
Jacks said he sees this area as not necessarily being medical and
the request is a heavier zoning than he would like to have across
from Butterfield Trail Village. He said he would hate to see an office
and/or commercial development strip along Joyce Street.
Tarvin said he could understand Jacks' point
of the appearance of the planned buildings,
lessens the concerns expressed by Jacks. He
of the proposed buildings were nicer than the
but added that the nature
as well as the quality,
said he thought the looks
next door apartments.
Madison commented that the large scale development proposed for this
site is only 5 acres and she added that the Commission has no idea
what will happen to remainder of the 14.56 acres in this request.
She said she could not support this request without such plans.
Crook advised that once this has been rezoned to R-0, the Commission
will have no control over how it will be built upon. She added that
she would like to see the R-0 District stay to the west of the proposed
north/south road. She said there are already two R-0 centers in the
Hwy. 265 area and she didn't see a need for additional R-0.
Tarvin noted that the Commission will have no control over the apartment
buildings that could be built here either. He said he thought the
impact on the area might be less with a R-0 than a R-2 and that it
seems like an appropriate use of the property in view of what is across
the street.
Trumbo agreed with Tarvin, especially because some of the units have
been committed.
Haily said he had a problem with rezoning property on the premise
that it is already sold. He said he would rather look at the parcel
in terms of reasonable use for R-0.
77
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 4
Tarvin advised that Lindsey had said that he would buy the property
himself and develop it, and that he cannot have sold buildings at
this time because AW Realty owns the property and not Lindsey.
Lindsey said that the property immediately to the west of this request
drops off steeply in the rear preventing enough width to develop it.
He said there are only 5 or 6 useable acres in this development and
he added that there is enough space on AW's property for 2,400 apartments.
Lindsey said, that in light of this, he could not understand the objection
to approximately 17 doctors' offices and he thought that there would
be many complaints about the additional traffic created by apartments
and not the office complex that would serve them. He said that at
the intersection of Joyce and Highway 265 there is no availabe office
space left, and he noted that there has been a tract of 15 acres rezoned
to R-0 on Zion Road with no demand except that the petitioner desired
that zoning. Lindsey advised that, although he felt an impending
sale should never influence a zoning decision, he felt he had demonstrated
a concrete development plan. He said if the Commission would feel
more comfortable rezoning only the 5 acres proposed for the large
scale development, he would accept that and he noted that the reason
he has brought back the entire 15 acres for rezoning is that the Board
of Directors had recommended that action.
NOTION
Hanna said he agreed with Wood in that 15 more acres of R-0 in this
area would not be a negative use for the land and he also agreed that
the parcel had the potential for a dense apartment complex. He said
he thought a good planning practice would include a larger buffer
for the existing R-2 parcels. He moved to recommend approval of this
request for 14.56 acres from R-2 to R-0. Tarvin seconded, followed
by discussion.
Madison advised that a dense apartment complex could still happen
in an R-0 District. Hanna replied that he didn't feel that apartments
as cited would be a negative use in this area. Madison noted that
professional offices are allowed in Use Unit 25 (R-2) for no more
than 4 doctors which is permissable when granted by the Commission.
Crook explained that when R-0 uses are approved upon appeal in an
R-2 District, it is a conditional use, as is R-2 uses in R-0 District.
Wood stated that he had been concerned about the same issues as expressed
by some Commissioners when he first looked at this request. He said
he changed his recommendation when he found that there would be 330
ft. of R-2 remaining to the east of this request and he didn't feel
that R-0 would extend as far as Old Missouri Rd. He repeated that
he would feel comfortable with R-0 but not high density residential
because of the traffic problem that is developing in this area.
78
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 5
AMENDMENT
Madison requested to amend the motion to apply to only the 5 acres
scheduled for the large scale development. Hanna and Tarvin accepted
the amendment in view of the fact that Lindsey accepted this proposal.
Upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval of 5 acres from R-2
to R-0 passed, 5-3-1 with Jacks, Stockdell and Crook voting "nay"
and Given abstaining in conflict of interests.
MOTION
Stockdell moved to hold a public hearing to discuss an amendment to
the ordinances which would allow a retail drug store in an R-0 zone.
Hanna seconded and the motion carried unanamously.
PART TWO. The second part of this rezonig is a request to rezone
.43 acres from R-2 to C-1 for purposes of retail sales from a drug
store to be located within the medical complex discussed above.
MOTION
Crook moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested with
a bill of assurance as offered (that use be restricted to said drug
store) until it is determined whether a drug store shall be allowed
in R-0 zone at which time the City would initiate a rezoning of said
parcel to R-0 and release the bill of assurance.
Upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval of .43 acres from
R-2 to C-1 passed 7-1-1 with Jacks voting "nay" and Green abstaining
in conflict of interests.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR
LINDSEY OFFICE COMPLEX
JOYCE STREET WEST OF OLD MISSOURI
The third item on the agenda was consideration of the large scale
development submitted by Lindsey and located on the north side of
Joyce Street west of Old Missouri Road. This LSD had been approved
by the Subdivision Committee on January 25, 1985.
MOTION
Stockdell moved recommendation of this LSD subject to 1. Plat Review
comments; 2. the dumpster site being marked on the plat; 3. extra
lighting installed on the southeast corner; 4. Subdivision's recommenda-
tion that a variance be granted on the screening requirement between
the drug store and the office space with 10% landscaping in lieu of
'79
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 6
screening because the C-1 area is integral and complimentary and 5.
appropriate off-site improvements and a 30 ft., right-of-way dedication
being be required if this property is found to abut the proposed north/
south street between Zion Road and Joyce Street. Madison seconded
and the motion to recommend approval passed 8-0-1 with Green abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING PETITION R85-8
KENNETH HORN - SOUTH SIDE OF DRAKE FIELD
The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition
R85-8 submitted by Kenneth Horn for 3 acres located on the east side
of Highway 71 immediately south of the entrance drive to the Drake
Field terminal building from A-1 to C-2.
Consultant Wood's recommendation follows: C-2 District is recommended
because 1. The property has frontage on a principal arterial and is
adjacent to the airport on one side and industrial uses on another;
and 2. The public facilities and services are available to support
commercial development.
Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers was present to answer questions
on Horn's behalf. There was no one else present to speak either for
or against this petition.
MOTION
Jacks moved to recommend approval of this petition. Hanna seconded
and upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0.
PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING PETITION R85-9
C. E. YERTON - 3345 SOUTH SCHOOL
The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition
R85-9 submitted by C. E. Yerton to rezone .42 acres located at 3345
S. School from A-1 to R-1.
Wood's recommendation was to consider the change to R-1 because the
property is presently being used for residential purposes and he did
not feel that R-1 District would impede the future use of the property
for industrial purposes.
No one, aside from Mr. Yerton, was present to speak either for or
against this appeal.
MOTION
• Stockdell moved to recommend approval, seconded by Hanna, upon roll
call the motion passed 9-0-0.
So
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING PETITION R85-10
1ST NAT'L BANK OF TALEQUAH - HUNTSVILLE RD AT SHERMAN
The sixth item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition
R85-10 submitted by the 1st National Bank of Talequah, Oklahoma to
rezone lot 9 and the west 50 ft. of lot 10, block 3 of Green Hills
Subdivision located at the northeast corner of Huntsville Road and
Sherman Avenue from R-1 to C-1.
Consultant Wood stated that C-1 District is not recommended for the
following reasons: 1. Commercial development is contrary to the General
Plan recommendation of residential; and, 2. C-1 District at this location
would tend to commit other properties along Huntsville Street of a
similar nature to commercial development.
No one was present to speak for this appeal but several residents
of the neighborhood in question were present to speak against.
The resident of 1516 E. Huntsville, speaking for the neighbors, said
that they would like to keep their neighborhood as it is and that
if a sale barn went in, it would create a dangerous situation with
not enough room for parking. He requested this petition be denied.
Chester Grigsby, 1620 E. Huntsville, said that the neighborhood is
residential except for this property and the Dower's property and
the residents don't want any businesses in this area.
James Lacy, 1321 E. Huntsville, agreed that there is not enough parking
at this location to accomodate an auction house.
MOTION
Crook made a motion to recommend denial of this petition based on
the Planning Consultant's report. Hanna seconded and upon roll call,
the motion to recommend denial passed 9-0-0. Chairman Hailey noted
that this decision could be appealed to the City Board.
REQUEST FOR WAIVE OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE
ROBERT MELTON - COUNTRY WAY AT FERGUSON AVE.
The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the driveway
safety zone subitted by Robert Melton for property located at Country
Way and Ferguson Ave.
Melton stated he was requesting this waiver because it was difficult
to make a house look different from those around it with consideration
of setbacks, particularly on corner lots. In answer to Crook's question,
Melton said the drive will lead directly into the garage.
8►
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 8
MOTION
Jacks moved approval of this request, seconded by Hanna, the motion
to approve passed 9-0-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
KEITH CEARLY SPEARS ON CITY BOARD'S REQUEST THAT PLANNING COMMISSION
EXAMINE LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE HIGHWAYS 265 AND 45 AREA.
Chairman Hailey noted that a public hearing has been set for April
8, 1985 to discuss the recommendations of the committee that has made
a study on the area in question. Hailey invited Cearly to attend that
hearing, as well as to speak at this time.
Attorney, F. H. Martin, representing Cearly, stated that Cearly has
owned the parcel of property on the southeast corner of subject intersec-
tion (except for the area encompassing the liquor store) for some
time. He added that the property was zoned C-2 at the time of purchase,
having been established in 1967. Martin noted that this property
was zoned C-2 long before the adjacent residential neighborhood was
developed. He said that real estate agent, George Faucette Jr., had
obtained an application for a large scale development from the Planning
Office in late January at Mr. Cearly's request. He added that Cearly
has hired an architectural firm to draw out the plans for the proposed
development and they are well under way. Martin said that his client
wishes to make this fact known to the Commission and that he opposes
any down -zoning of the property.
Cearly said the plans for the large scale develoment will probably
be presented within the next couple of months. He said he was not
notified that a change in the zoning of his property is being considered.
Hailey stated that the motion to hold a public hearing to initiate
a rezoning failed to pass, but that if it had passed, the residents
in the area would definitely have been notified.
Crook said she thought the best form for Cearly's comments would be
the public hearing, at which time more people from the area will be
present to discuss this matter.
Wanda Yoe Smith said she wanted the Commission to know that any attempt
to rezone effects not only the developer, but also the area residents. She
also noted that, within one month of her husband's death, she had
to defend the zoning of this parcel against Roy Clinton and she added
that she has never known why or for whom Clinton was speaking. Smith
said she felt serious consideratin should be given when someone tries
to change zoning in mid -stream (of someones plans).
09
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 9
HOWELL TRUMBO OFFICE/RETAIL COMPLEX
FRONT STREET - VANTAGE SQUARE SUBDIVISION
At a meeting held earlier today by the Subdivision Committe, the office/
retail complex, large scale development plans, submitted by Howell
Trumbo and represented by Don Hunnicutt were approved subject to 1. Plat
Review comments; and 2. the Committee's recommendation of the approval
of a waiver for maximum driveway width.
MOTION
Crook moved approval of this large scale development, seconded by
Tarvin, the motion to approve passed 8-0-1, Tiumbo abstaining.
RICHARD'S FURNITURE
COLLEGE AT DRAKE STREET
The Subdivision Committee also approved this large scale development
at the meeting today subject to 1. Plat Review comments; and 2. submittal
of written description of utility easements; and 3. the Committee's
recommendation of the approval of a waiver for maximum driveway width.
MOTION
Crook moved approval of this LSD, seconded by Madison, the motion
to approve passed 9-0-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THREE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS - ART III APP.0
1. Crook introduced the first proposed amendment; dates to apply
for the contribution to the Parks' Greenspace ordinance for subdi-
visions and large scale developments as requested by the City
Board.
MOTION
Crook moved approval of the first amendment as drafted which reads.
(6) The requirements of this section shall not apply to any devel-
opment where the subdivision plat was filed of record after September
12, 1960 and before January 20, 1981.
Stockdell seconded, followed by discussion.
• Crook clarified that "filed of record" referred to the final plat
being filed at the County Court House.
83
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 10
Green said he did not think it was fair practice to apply the ordinance
to a developer who filed on September 11, 1960 but not to the developer
who filed on September 12, 1960.
Crook said the ordinance would not be applied unless the developer
presented a subdivision or LSD that had not been previously submitted.
Wood said he didn't see any problem in that the requirement had not
be imposed because a plat was filed before the ordinance was in effect
then the fee would not be applicable anyway, unless it was replatted.
Crook said after consulting with Administrator Jones, she found that
there are only a few parcels that will fall into this category of
having been platted but never developed. She added that the intent
was to not subject a developer to two sets of rules.
Green said he recognizes the intent but he felt that each case needs
to be examined on its individual merits. He agreed with Crook in
her example of the ordinance applying in the case of a developer platting
a parcel in 1920 and then recently putting together five or so lots
and developing them as a large scale development. He said he felt
that in the case of Park Place, it would not be good to apply the
ordinance because it was platted and development begun during the
period when the ordinance either was not in effect or at least not
in force and that to apply it at this time would not be fair.
Crook noted that any action needed has already been taken by the Board
with regards to Park Place. She advised that an arbitrary date could
have been chosen, but instead, a logical cut-off point was sought.
The question was called and the first proposed amendment passed 8-1-0,
with Green voting 'nay".
2. Crook introduced the second proposed amendment which addresses
unique circumstances which a developer may have. She noted that
the intent was to lend guidance as to when and how to consider
requests for waivers of the Greenspace Ordinance. The proposal
reads:
(5) "Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, after consul-
tation by the Commission with the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, the Board of Directors, upon determination that enforce-
ment of the ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship and
that the problems of the developer reflect unique circumstances,
may waive or vary the requirements of this section, provided:"
(The underlined portion represents an addition to the original ordinance).s
814
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 25, 1985
Page 11
Crook advised that a unique circumstance may be a topographical feature
or an extremely large subdivision, or a property which is difficult
to develop and the City wishes to encourage the development of.
MOTION
Crook moved to recommend approval of this proposed ordinance as drafted.
Stockdell seconded, followed by further discussion.
Green advised that he would vote against this proposal. He said he
is repeatedly hearing the arguement that the intent of the ordinance
is that waivers can only be granted in situations similar to those
mentioned by Crook, but he said he interprets the ordinance differently.
He said he felt that if the original ordinance had intended to allow
waivers for unique circumstances only, it would have been written
into that ordinance. Green said he thought approval of this proposed
amendment would make it virtually impossible for anyone to be granted
a waiver, especially a small developer.
Madison said she felt uncomfortable with this proposed amendment as
it is and would vote against it.
Crook said she has looked at court decisions of other citys' ordinances
on waivers and they say that no waivers shall be granted unless the
circumstances are unique.
Green said he did not think the present ordinance was indefenseable
simply because it includes the right to grant waivers.
The question was called and the motion to approve the second proposed
amendment passed 5-4-0, Green, Tarvin, Madison and Hanna voting "nay".
3. Crook introduced the third proposed amendment which addresses
any unique needs the residents of a subdivision may have. The
proposal reads: "(g) The special needs of the residents of the
development, due to the uniquesness of the needs, cannot be met
by existing or planned public facilities". This entire paragraph
represents an addition to the existing ordinance.
MOTION
Crook moved to recommend approval of this proposed amendment as drafted.
Seconded by Stockdell, the motion to approve passed 5-4-0, Green,
Tarvin, Madison and Hanna voting "nay".
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15.
8'5