Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETfEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, September 9, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey Jr., Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, Joe Tarvin and B. J. Dow Melanie Stockdell and Frank Burggraf John W. Cox, Gary Carnahan, Steve DeNoon, Bill Stiles, Ervan Wimberly, Bobbie Jones, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hailey and the minutes of the August 26th meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. JOHN W. COX - CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST 735 LAKESIDE DRIVE - HOME OCCUPATION BARBERSHOP The second item on the agenda was a request for Conditional Use submitted by John W. Cox to operate a barbershop at 735 Lakeside Drive; R-1, Low Density Residential District. Cox stated that he wished to operate a for himself and his customers. Harry owner stated that he had no objections MOflON single -chair basement barbershop Jackson, an adjoining property to the Conditional Use. Tarvin moved to approve the request which was seconded by Hanna. Upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 2 KATHY LUTHER - CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST 403 N. WEST - YOUTH WITH A MISSION COUNSELING The third item on the agenda was a request .for Conditional Use submitted by Kathy Luther to operate a counseling office for living alternatives which is a ministry of "Youth With a Mission", a non-profit organization Property is located at 403 N. West and zoned R-3, High Density Residential Jones, of the Planning Staff, stated that there have been no calls received by her office concerning this request. Gary Carnahan, representing Luther, noted that office use is permissible in R-3 District upon Planning Commission approval. He presented pictures and indicated that the three required parking spaces would be provided in the back via a drive along the north side of the house. In answer to Madison's question, Carnahan said that no one will live on the premises but two people would staff the office from 9-5, six days a week. He added that counseling would normally take place on an individual basis. NOTION Hanna advised that three corners of this intersection have businesses and that most of the neighborhood is occupied either with businesses or rental units. He said he was in favor of granting this request and moved approval, seconded by Tarvin. Upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. REZONING PETITION - R85-18, J.B. HAYS MT. COMFORT ROAD EAST OF SALEM ROAD The fourth item on the agenda was Rezoning Petition R85-18 submitted by J. B. Hays for 7.52 acres located on Mt. Comfort Road east of Salem Road. This item had been tabled at the meetings of July 8th and 22nd to await action on an ordinance amendment. Said amendment has not yet been approved by the Board of Directors and the representative of this petition requests that this item be tabled until such action is addressed by the City Board. MOTION Upon a motion by Jacks and a second by Green, this item was tabled until subject amendment is addressed by the Board of directors: the vote was 7-0-0. Chairman Hailey advised that the ordinance amendment is on hold awaiting a joint meeting between the City Board and the Planning Commission which has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 24th at 7:00 P.M. • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 3 REZONING PETITION R85-23 1ST NAT'L BANK OF TAHLEQUAH The fifth item on the agenda was Rezoning Petition R85-23 submitted by First National Bank of Tahlequah for property located at the northeast corner of East Huntsville Road and Sherman Avenue. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential; requested is R-0, Residential Office. Chairman Hailey explained that this item was inaccurately described as a re -zoning petition. He said it was originally addressed by the Commission in March of this year as a C-1 request which was denied and subsequently came back as a C-2 which was not recommended. He said it was not tabled by the City Board and the petitioner returned to the Planning Commission with a similar request for R-0 which is the request today (the agenda mistakenly indicates R-2). Hailey advised that on May 28th, the Commission voted to not re -hear this item for twelve months. Jones reported that City Attorney McCord has directed the Planning Commission to re -hear this case as the zoning being requested is different than the original. In answer to Hailey's question, Jones replied that McCord was aware that the Commission had requested not to address this property for 12 months. MOTION Hanna, seconded by Jacks, moved to proceed in hearing this re -zoning petition. The motion passed 7-0-0. Planning Consultant Wood noted that in the original request for commercial zoning on this property, he had added a footnote recommending that R-0 might be considered as a possibility for a re -use of the property as the existing structure on the property is suited for office or possibly multi -family use, which would establish a buffer and create a transition. He said his thinking included possibility that the intersection of Hwy. 16 and Happy Hollow, particularly on the north side, would eventually become commercial. Madison asked what the General Plan indicates and why Wood had mentioned that same would need to be amended. Wood replied that it presently indicates R-2, Medium Density Residential and that amending the General Plan was not necessarily an immediate need. Jones referred to a memo from a neighbor, Mr. Harris, indicating no opposition to this petition. Jacks said he thought the request was reasonable, given the history of the property. He noted that the building was established before the homes of the people who now live in the neighborhood. 02 cD • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 4 Hailey opened the Public Hearing and Chester Grigsby, 1620 Huntsville Road, stated that the last time he attended a Commission meeting regarding this property, it was determined that this case would not be heard again for a period of one year. He said that he and other neighbors would like to keep the area as it is, residential. Homer McBroom, 1615 Huntsville Road, said he would hate to see another business in the building and that he, too, wished to keep the area as it is. James Lacy, 1321 Huntsville, expressed concern that, if an office use is allowed here, it would open the way for a liquor store. Hailey stated that a liquor store could not be allowed in this district and he closed the Public Hearing. Tarvin said he did not think that a building standing empty was enough justification for a re -zoning. He said he was opposed to the request and would vote against it. Jacks asked if the building was built before the current City Ordinances were adopted and Jones replied that it existed before the City annexed the area. Hanna stated that he did not like the idea of bringing this case back time and again and that he would prefer it be given a Conditional Use so that the neighbors would always know what was being allowed. He said he would vote against the petition. Madison said she was in sympathy with the neighbors who have persistently fought against this but, at the same time she did not feel it reasonable to expect a property to remain vacant when the owner is equally persistent which he seems to be. She said that, according to the ordinance, the location is not desirable for single family homes because of its location on a principal arterial, and that offices would be more suitable to the neighborhood. Tarvin said it was not the residents' fault that Highway 16 was accepted as not fair to use that fora h nging ltheterial atmospherenof the neighborhood. Tarvin agreed ct as justifia with Hanna that a Conditional Use would be more acceptable. Green said he could see both pro and con in this issue. He said the property is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood and even though the General Plan does not indicate single-family homes in this location, there are already many people who have built such and seem to be planning to live there for some time He said it might help if Commissioners knew what the specific plans for the building were, but added that this is the third time this case has been heard without a representative present. Green said he would vote to leave it as is. He pointed out that the intent of the relative ordinance ao7 • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 5 is that all non -conforming items become conforming He said, although re -zoning was one way to accomplish this end, he didn't think that it was fair to the neighbors to drop an R-0 District in the middle of their single-family residents. Hanna agreed that, if the owner had approached the Commission with a concrete plan for a non-offensive use, it may have made an impact. MOTION Tarvin, seconded by Green, moved to recommend denial of this petition. Upon roll call, the motion to deny passed 6-1-0, Madison voting "nay". Hailey advised that the petitioner may appeal this decision to the City Board. JOE FRED STARR - SUBDIVISION REG. WAIVER N. COLLEGE BETWEEN JIM RAY PONTIAC & SIGMA (IBM) The sixth item on the agenda was a request submitted by Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Joe Fred Starr for a waiver of Subdivision Regulations (lot split). Property is located on N. College south of Zion Road between Jim Ray Pontiac and Sigma Properties (IBM); zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Jones advised that a waiver for the minimum size of lot is, being requested. Steve DeNoon, representing Mr. Starr for Lindsey, advised that this is being handled as a courtesy to Jim Ray in order that he may sell a portion of his property at some future date without having to execute a lot split. Jim Hall, Attorney representing Jim Ray, noted that Ray does not want any restrictions to be placed on his property (Lot 3 in the distributed diagram) which would infringe on his ability to sell the lot or to built on it separate and apart from Lots 1 & 2 which is occupied by the Cadillac/Pontiac Dealership. In answer to Green's question, Hall replied that there is no dispute as to the property lines involved. Green asked Jones whether this case would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission should Ray desire to sell his Lot 3 and Jones replied that it would not, as long as the requested lot split is approved. She noted that two lots (3 & 4) are being converted into three lots. MOTION Tarvin, seconded by Green, moved approval of the requested waiver. The motion passed 6-0-0, Madison being temporarily absent. o • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 6 JOHN MCLARTY - LITTLE ITALY RESTAURANT 724 W. SYCAMORE - LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of the large scale development plan submitted by John McLarty for Little Italy Restaurant located at 724 W. Sycamore. Property is zoned I-1. Upon a request from Chairman Hailey, Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had approved this LSD on September 5th subject to Plat Review comments. He noted that members had discussed (1) screening on the west boundary line resulting in the retention of existing vegetation and, (2) improvements along Chestnut resulting in none being requested. LLOYD HOBBS MOTEL - LSD 1255 S. SHILOH, S. OF HWY.62 WEST The eigth item on the agenda was consideration of the large scale development plan submitted by Lloyd Hobbs for a motel located at 1255 S. Shiloh Drive, south of State Highway 62 West. Property zoned C-2. Upon a request from Hailey, Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had approved this LSD on September 5th, subject to Plat Review comments, with the exception of leaving 15th Street as it is, and no additional r/w being required along Shiloh. Jacks noted that a waiver was requested for the required screening along the west property line between this property and the mobile home park. Representative Ery Wimberly advised that the petitioner has agreed to fill in enough vegetation to become view obscuring within two years, thus eliminating the necessity of a waiver. Madison advised that one of her concerns regarding this property was the possibility of inflicting noise and lights from the motel into the mobile home park. She said she wanted to be sure the screening would be provided; Wimberly assured her it would taken care of. MOTION Jacks moved to deny the waiver request; seconded by Madison, the motion passed 7-0-0. (Large Scale Development approved). EOA HEADSTART DAYCARE - CONDITIONAL USE 401 S. LEWIS, LEWIS PLAZA The next item to be considered was item 1110 on for Conditional Use submitted by EOA, Headstart to be located at 401 S. Lewis (Lewis Plaza The request is for 15 children at any one time the agenda; a request for a day care center Housing Development). with a maximum of 30. a0? • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 7 Jones advised that an adjoining property owner had visited the Planning Office voicing an interest in some type of fencing between properties. She said she referred him to the Housing Authority. Jacks said he was aware that the structure is built in to a hillside and subsequently the activities would take place towards the central portion of the building to which he had no objections. Madison inquired further into the party who had requested fencing and Carlisle explained that his major concern was people cutting across his yard. NOTION Jacks moved approval of this request seconded by Madison. There was no one present to speak either for or against this appeal and upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - TO ADD ANTIQUE SHOP AS INCLUDED USE IN USE UNIT 12 Considered next was the ninth item on the agenda, a Public Hearing to address antique shops as an included use in Use Unit 12, thereby allowing such shops by right in an R-0 District. Approval of this amendment would also permit antique shops in the C-1, I-1 and I-2 Districts. Hailey opened the Public Hearing. Bill Stiles, antique shop owner, stated that there are 11 antique shops in Fayetteville and all but two of them are either in R-1 or R-0 Districts (Mokes Antiques and Calico Corner being the exceptions). He said he did not research his property very well before purchase and assumed that the block building was commercial when he bought it. Stiles said the building was built before City annexation and, although zoned R-1, has never been used for any purpose other than commercial. He said he has owned the business for 13 years and would like to have it "legalized". Stiles noted that antique shops do not generate much traffic and he could not see any reason why they should not be permitted in an R-0 zone. He said that his antique shop on the corner of Locust and Meadow is surrounded by uses more offensive than his shop; a dentist office, AHEC Doctor's Clinic and a dry cleaners. He said he would like to add some warehouse space at his shop on Highway 16 east but will not be allowed to do so because its status is a (change in) non -conforming use which prohibits the structure from being enlarged. Jacks said he felt that R-0 District is tending to become a "catch-all" when it was originally designed to be an office and high-density zone for near downtown. He said the pattern did not really develop and the R-0 became a regular office zone. He said the only miscellaneous ai0 • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 8 items in this zone are uses that are incidental to office use. He said that, with a few exceptions, antique shops are a contained, neat useage and he was at a loss as to where they should belong. Green pointed out that funeral homes are also allowed in an R-0 District and Jacks replied that that was a good illustration of the "catch-all" classification he referred to. Madison noted that sales which are allowed currently in an R-0 District are office or studio related. She said that antique shops open an entirely new spectrum of retail sales and added that she said she did not understand the difference between antiques and used furniture. Stiles said he did not understand what the criteria is for placing particular uses in specific zones. He said it was very stressful to have to come before this Commission to discuss whether or not he will be able to continue to make a living from antique sales. In answer to Hailey's question, Stiles said that he cannot be issued a Conditional Use permit for his shop on Meadow. Jones explained that Stiles is attempting to legalize his shop on Meadow and to rezone his shop on Huntsville in order to expand. She said the Huntsville Rd. location has a certificate issued and is approved for a change in non -conforming use but may not be expanded. She further advised that Stiles requested to have his rezoning petition tabled until this Public Hearing took place to see whether the ordinance would be amended allowing antique shops in R-0 zones. Dow expressed concern that, although Stiles shop is very neat, other antique shops may not be. Stiles replied that any business can become a "junk pile" even in a commercial zone if the owner does not take care of it. He said there were ordinances to enforce neatness. Jones suggested that certain conditions could be written in to apply to antique shops or a new use unit could be created requiring antique shops to be a Conditional Use in R-0 and perhaps other zones as well. Green said that there are residential neighborhoods where antique shops in converted houses are unoffensive but he said he could also understand that antique shops in an R-0 zone is a little out -of -step with must of what is already acceptable in that zone. He said he would have no objections to it as a Conditional Use. Hanna pointed out that an antique shop next door to an expensive office complex might be considered offensive and Stiles replied that he might find a dingy office offensive right next door to his antique shop that example hof He e as spent Mecan Originals several housand industr allars complex rbeing•locateda across the street from one of his antique shops. Stiles added that it seemed people were against antique shops in this town. a�� • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 9 Madison said that, on the surface, Conditional Use seems to be a good solution but she said it seems that each time a Conditional Use is requested, the Commission tends to approve them unless there have been strong objections voiced. Madison also said that, although Stiles was in a tight situation he had, by his own admission, made some errors when purchasing his property. Stiles replied that he did not wish to burden anyone with this problem which he pointed out is of the City's making. He said the City annexed his shop on Highway 16 and gave it an R-1 District. Madison explained there was a General Plan to follow and Stiles said he didn't understand the plan as an industrial complex was allowed occupancy directly across the street from an R-1. He said he has operated the antique shop on 16 West for 12 years and is a better neighbor than most. He noted that area residents had the opportunity to attend this meeting and speak against it if they had wanted to. Hailey assured Stiles that his problem was not a burden to this Commission as it is the type of problem the Commission is supposed to address. Jones advised that there is a Use Unit (#2) that is a Conditional Use throughout the City (in all Districts) which consists of "...uses which may be conducted anywhere in the territory or jurisdiction but which can be objectionable to nearby uses and are therefore permitted subject to Conditional Use permits in all Districts". MOTION Madison made a motion to add antique sales to Use Unit 2. Seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS MEETING WITH THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Hailey announced a special meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors scheduled for Tuesday, September 24th at 7:00 P.M. in Room 326. He requested any suggestions for discussion be submitted to the Planning Office in order to be added to the agenda. REQUEST TO AMEND RECENT AMENDMENT Planning Director, Carlisle, advised that she had recently experienced difficulty in working with a newly adopted ordinance amendment while attempting to apply it to two existing homes in a previously platted subdivisions, one of which needed replacement of a bathroom which had rotted and fallen off and another for which a bathroom was being proposed. She asked if the intent of the ordinance had been to address only new homes as put forth in the amendment, or if it was to address a4- • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1985 Page 10 both new homes and existing single family dwellings which would not be able to meet current setbacks if an addition were proposed. Carlisle said that City Attorney McCord has recommended that she present this amendment to the City Board with an addition "...in a previously developed subdivision platted prior to June 29, 1970 and with the approval of the Subdivision Committee: (1) A new single family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standards in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback it not less than five feet; and (2) An addition may be made to an existing single-family structures in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standards in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is not less than five feet". Commissioners Jacks, Hanna and Madison recalled that the intent of the amendment to the ordinance, which was discussed in sessions of the Update Committee, was to address both new homes to be built on lots which are too small to meet current requirements and also additions or replacements to existing homes which were built before current requirements became effective. MOTION Jacks moved to recommend revision of the amendment as stated by Carlisle. Seconded by Madison, the motion passed 7-0-0. CONCEPT PLAT FOR TRAVELER S CENTER Ery Wimberly presented a Concept Plat proposed for a "traveler's center", commercial subdivision to be located at the intersection of Hwys. 112 and 71/471 interchange. He indicated that the internal loop drive would align with Trucker's Drive on the west side of Hwy. 112. Commission members indicated no objections to the proposed traffic pattern and Wimberly said he would proceed with plans. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBER Chairman Hailey extended a welcome to new Planning Commission member, B. J. Dow, noting that most meetings last considerably longer than this evening. There being no further business, he adjourned the meeting at 6:40 P.M. c9lS