Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville was held on Monday, April 22, 1985 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna and Stan Green MEMBERS ABSENT: Melanie Stockdell, Joe Tarvin, Barbara Crook and Trey Trumbo OTHERS PRESENT: Consultant Larry Wood, Carl Behner, Bobby Marks, Bob Brandon, George Ray, J.O. York, Barbara Cox, Max Johnson, Eula Moody, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey who announced that item #3 would be tabled. Next the minutes of the April 8, 1985 meeting were considered. MINUTES Commissioner Madison made the following correction: Page 15, motion amendment; should read "..Madison refused to accept the amendment and Hanna seconded..." Commissioner Green made the following correction: Page 7, there are two items numbered six in the motion of approval for Walnut Grove. He noted that the first #6 was eliminated from the final approval. With these corrections; the minutes were approved as mailed. APPEAL R85-13 - CARL BEHNER NW CORNER MOUNTAIN AND LOCUST The second item on the agenda was R85-13 submitted by Carl Behner for corner of Mountain Street and Locust C-3. consideration of rezoning appeal property located at the northwest Ave. Property zoned R-0, requested iia • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 2 Consultant Wood said that C-3 is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Except for approximately a 250 ft. section, all of Mountain Street from School Ave. to Hwy. 471 is presently zoned C-2, C-3 or C-4; 2. C-3 District exists across Locust Ave. to the east; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve a more intensive development pattern. Jones advised that this property had been zoned C-3 prior to 1970. Petitioner Behner stated that he owns both the Mountain Street Laundry and Hershels Radiator Shop but not the stone apartment building which has been mistakenly included in the distributed plat maps. He said he wishes to bring this property back into conformity in order to make the necessary improvements to the laundrymat which he cannot presently do because of zoning restrictions in R-0 District. MOTION Commissioner Jacks noted that this property was City zoned R-0 in the 1970 plan because it was felt, at that time, that this area would probably be used for government offices. He moved recommending approval to the City Board. Hanna seconded and upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval passed 5-0-0. Hailey advised that the City Board will address this recommendation at their meeting of May 6. SPEE-DEE MART, HWY 16 AT RUPPLE RD. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HOYET GREENWOOD Item #3 on the agenda, discussion of the large scale development plan for Spee -Dee Mart located at Hwy. 16 West and Rupple Road was tabled upon a motion from Hailey and a second from Hanna. More information on drainage proposals are needed for this discussion. APPEAL R85-14 - BOBBY MARRS SOUTH SIDE OF PROSPECT AT GREGG The fourth item on the agenda was rezoning appeal R85-14 submitted by Bobby and Doris Marks for property located on the south side of Prospect at Gregg Avenue. Property is presently R-1; requested R-2. Consultant Wood advised that R-2 could be recommended for the property but it may not be of any use to the applicant. Just west of this property is a 25 ft. dedication for Gregg Avenue which extends south from Prospect Street 550 ft. This dedication is presently the only access for 10 lots (all undeveloped). If the applicant proposes to build other than a single-family house, it appears the City would ask for a 25 ft. dedication for the rest of Gregg Avenue and a 5 foot 113 • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 3 dedication for the rest of Prospect Street. These 2 dedications would reduce the lot size to about 6119 sq.ft. which would only allow a single-family house to be constructed in the R-2 District. The City would need to vacate Gregg Avenue to allow other than a single-family house. If the City does not want to vacate Gregg Avenue, the applicant might as well leave the zoning R-1. Madison asked if the proposed new zone of R-1.5 would be of any help in this situation and Wood replied that it would not. Marks stated that he had wanted to build a duplex at this location but that, after hearing the planning report, he requested to withdraw his appeal to rezone and asked the Commission to consider a discussion of Conditional Use for a duplex in an R-1 zone instead. MOTION Jacks moved that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw his request to rezone this property. Seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 5-0-0. Bob Brandon, 649 Wilson, stated that, if the City grants either a R-2 zoning or a Conditional Use on Marks' property, he was aware of many other property owners in this neighborhood (between Maple and Prospect) who would like the same consideration so that the properties may be rented and, if the request is not granted, he requested that the neighborhood be treated as the R-1 district that it is. He said the question was whether this property would be owner -occupied or a rental. Brandon said he would also like to see the usage of the street consistant with the property use (R-1) which is residential. He said, according to the City's Master Street Plan, Wilson is a residential street but is being used as a thoroughfare street. Brandon said that, if it is the intention of the Board to treat this neighborhood• as single-family, owner occupied, then he said he would like to request that the usage of the street be brought into conformity with present City zoning and if not, he would to notify the Commission that there are others who would like to upgrade their properties to a higher density status. Marks said his intention was to build a duplex to rent to college students as this location is convenient to the campus. Wood advised that there will not be enough square footage to build a duplex. He said the code requires 12,000 sq.ft. and this property will have 9,281.25 sq.ft. Barbara Cox, 632 Prospect, said that she is a (surrounding) property owner and was not notified of this proposed rezoning. Administrator Jones advised that the petitioner of an appeal is responsible for supplying the Planning Office with names and addresses of the applicable property owners and that she does recommend that the petitioner examine tax records at the County Court House for record of ownership. I1q • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 4 Cox said that the property has not been described correctly either on the posted sign or in the newspaper. Jones advised that the sign was mistakenly placed on the wrong property at first but was corrected. Cox advised that there is a problem on the corner where subject property is located which is that Frisco is a dirt street that is already highly impacted with traffic. She said she spent the winter rescuing people from the creek and that she could not see anything being built here until the City paves Frisco. Cox said she has gotten no response from the City when she has repeatedly made requests to close the street. George Ray, 434 Prospect, said that all the area homes are single family and that he was opposed to any change in that status. J. 0. York, 683 Wilson, noted that there have been two houses in this neighborhood rented to 5 university students each which created quite a disturbance. Eula Moody, 503 Prospect, said that this area is already extremely congested and she thought there was no control over rental properties. Max Johnson, 524 Prospect, said he wished to urge the Commission to • not approve of a Conditional Use for duplex on Marks' property. • Madison stated that she was opposed to any rezoning or Conditional Use around the park area but she advised Brandon that the Commission has no control over whether or not a property is rented or to whom. Brandon repeated that he is requesting that the Commission do what it can to bring the street into conformity with the neighborhood. He said that Wilson, between Prospect and Maple, is a residential street and added that there is a lawsuit against the City to stop the completion of widening Gregg and North Street. He requested that the Commission recognize this set of facts and send to the City Board, some statement to the effect that it is known that this street is being used as a thoroughfare, which is not in compliance with its designation on the Master Street Plan and that either the street should be changed to a major thoroughfare, in which case the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing, or, the City should take appropriate action to prevent this street from being used as a thoroughfare because it has a degrading affect on the neighborhood. Chairman Hailey advised Brandon to speak with the Planning Office in order to have this discussion formally placed on an agenda for further consideration. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 5 REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT - B. BLOCK/S. BATES 2033 SOUTH ASHWOOD The fifth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split) submitted by Beverly Block and Dr. Stephen Bates for property located at 2033 S. Ashwood. Jones advised that this property will be subject to sufficient right-of- way on Ashwood as well as the Greenspace Ordinance requirement. MOTION Jacks made a motion to waive subdivision regulations as requested. Hanna seconded and the motion passed 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT DENNIS HOME FURNISHINGS - 3525 S. SCHOOL The sixth item on the agenda was approval of a large scale development submitted by Dennis Home Furnishings located at 3525 S. School. MOTION Jacks moved that this LSD be approved as per the Subdivision Committee recommendation subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. execution of a sidewalk Bill of Assurance on S. School; and, 3. waiver of off-site improvements to Sunrise Mountain Road. He noted that this developer will have to obtain a parking variance from the Board of Adjustment to proceed with his proposal. Madison seconded and the motion to approve passed 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS - WOODLAND HILLS W. WEDINGTON, WEST OF GARLAND - RALPH GRAY The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of amendments to the large scale development preliminary plat submitted by Ralph Gray for Woodland Hills located at 1200 W. Wedington Drive, west of Garland. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the proposed amendment (to build 162 units instead of 100 units) as per Subdivision Committee approval subject to 1. Plat Review comments; and 2. the new report from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. He noted that this developer is still required to improve James Street at the time of completion of 40 units or at the end of one year. Madison seconded and the motion to approve passed 5-0-0. 116 • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 6 OTHER BUSINESS SCREENING'REQUIREMENT 1917 GREEN ACRES ROAD The first item of other business was a request for waiver of a requirement for screening between the parking on this property and the adjacent R-0 zoned property to the south. Property owned and represented by Dr. Larry Woodruff. Woodruff stated that the reason for this request is that most of parking for this property is on the north side with only four spaces on the west side facing the south property line. He said that these parking spaces cannot be viewed by the adjoining property and that he felt the requirement is unnecessary. MOTION Madison moved approval of a waiver with 10%, landscaping in lieu of screening in compliance with the code of ordinances. Hanna seconded and the motion to approve passed 5-0-0. • FIRST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD 1355 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE - SIDEWALK B/A • The second item of other business was a request for a sidewalk Bill of Assurance submitted by the First Pentecostal Church of God located at 1355 Morningside Drive and represented by Pastor Curtis. Jones directed attention to a memo from the Street Superintendent explaining that the developer is remiss in his obligation to install sidewalk by February 1984 and requested no further delay. Curtis said that, although he had tried to contact Street Superintendent Powell regarding this matter, he was unable to and has spoken with Powell's assistant, Al Rukgaber who recommended the sidewalk not be installed at this time because it was uncertain as to the width of the street and also that there are no other sidewalks to connect with except two blocks away. Curtis said he was willing to install sidewalk at the call of the City but did not think it was necessary at this time because it might get torn up later. MOTION Jacks moved acceptance of a Bill of Assurance. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion. Madison pointed out that there are numerous sidewalks in town with the potential of being ripped out when streets are improved or widened but are still necessary and being used at this time. n7 • • Planning Commission April 22, 1985 Page 7 Jacks acknowledged Madison's observation but said he was not in favor of a pie& of sidewalk in the middle of nowhere. Hanna agreed. The question was called and the motion passed 4-1-0, Madison voting "nay" DISCREPANCY BETWEEN TIP AND MASTER STREET PIAN Jacks referred to a copy of City Board minutes of November 20, 1984 acknowledging his resolution to look into the discrepancies between the TIP and the City's Master Street Plan. He then requested a clarifi- cation of the last paragraph (300.6) in which Mayor Noland suggested that some checking be done to make sure that any changes to the Master Street Plan have been incorporated into the Plan. Green agreed that he would like to know what the results of the checking are. Jacks stated that he would like to present this as an informational item to the Board requesting their position on this issue and whether they agree with the TIP or the Master Street Plan. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. 1/4 118