Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 28, 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., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Joe Tarvin, Stan Green and B.J. Dow None Don Ward, Vernon Wilson, Jim Irwin, Henry Hickman, Jim Hatfield, Gordon Wilkins, Bill Stiles, Kim Fugitt,Greg Moldenhauer, W.B. Younkin,Don Studebaker, Rudy Moore, Philip Moon, Sandra Carlisle, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hailey who announced that the petitioner of Item #3, a request to approve the large development plan for a mobile home park (Mrs. Helen Del Pup, developer) had called to request that item be tabled in order to further develop necessary information. Upon a motion from Tarvin and second from Hanna, Item #3 was unanimously tabled until further notice. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were unanimously approved as distributed. JACKS COMMENTS Jacks advised that he threw away 47 copies from his agenda; items of duplication, items of no use, etc. He pointed out that it amounted to over 1,000 copies of this meetings agenda alone. Stockdell agreed, noting that legal descriptions and notices of public hearings are not needed. There were no objections to Jacks request to omit these items from future agendas. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DON WARD — OLD WIRE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP The second item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split) submitted by Don Ward for property located on the north side of Township Road just east of Old Wire Road. Property c37 • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 2 is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and the request is for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lot splits; the Planning Commission can approve up to three splits and may recommend action to the Board for the fourth. It was noted that sewer is available but the property owner will need to extend water to the property. Jones, Codes Technician, said at the time the hearings on Township took place, the Board asked that a street: tie Township to Old Wire Rd. to the north, to Stanton, Magnolia or Country Way. She said she advised the applicant that there may be some concern over this issue as well as that of increasing the number of drives onto Township Rd. Ward said he has cooperated fully on giving r/w at this location and added that he felt the way he has presented the proposed splits is the only economically feasible way for anything to be done with the property. Ward pointed out that his neighbor to the west has been allowed a driveway closer to the intersection than his drives ,would be. He also pointed out that a recent lot split approval necessitated Winwood Baptist Church having three drives on Township. He said has worked on this property for three years to reach a reasonable solution and concluded that he would like to have the Commission approve tracts "B" and "C" with a recommendation to the Board to approve tract "A". MOTION Stockdell said she was not inclined to approve of three additional driveways exiting onto Township Road and moved denial of•this request. Madison seconded, followed by discussion. Tarvin said it was his understanding that subdivision regulations, although discouraging homes facing on collector streets, do not prohibit them. He said he didn't think one drive for all three tracts was a good plan and couldn't find anything wrong with allowing the request and would vote against the motion. The question was called, and the motion to deny the request failed to pass 3-5-0, Madison, Stockdell and Dow voting in favor of. MOTION Tarvin, seconded by Green moved approval of the request to approve splits for tracts "B" and "C" with a recommendation that the Board look favorably on the request for splitting tract "A". Madison clarified that Ward owns the property adjacent on the north to Old Wire Road as well as the parcel in question. She said she felt a plat was necessary to review the entire tract as the purpose of subdivision regulations was to avoid splitting off lots piecemeal. Tarvin's motion passed 5-3-0, Stockdell, Madison, Dow voting "nay". • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-27 VERNON WILSON - 1120 N. LINDELL The fourth item on the agenda was Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R85-27 submitted by Vernon Wilson for .34 acres located at 1120 N. Lindell at North Street. Property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, requested is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. In Planning Consultant, Larry Wood's absence, Carlisle read the planning report. She said C-2 is recommended for the following reasons: 1.The property is located near the intersection of two principal arterials and in a high density area which is creating pressure for more intensive commercial development than the existing C-1 District allows; 2. The traffic volumes and density development have out grown the neighborhood commercial concept of the General Plan; and 3. C-2 District would expand the commercial potential to this compact market. The petitioner agreed to answer any questions and there being no one present to speak either for or against the request, Chairman Hailey returned discussion to the Commission. MOTION Stockdell, seconded by Hanna, moved to recommend approval of this request to the City Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC NEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-28 CROUCH TRUST - N. OF DRAKE AND E. OF HWY 112 The fifth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R85-28 submitted by R. A. Lile - Crouch Trust, for 2.88 acres located on the north side of Drake Street east of Highway 112. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, requested is C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare. Carlisle read Wood's recommendation: She said C-2 is recommended for the following reasons; 1. The property is adjacent to the intersection of U. S. Hwy.71 and State Hwy. 112 which is the recommended location for commercial development; 2. There currently exists C-2 District and commercial development on two sides of the property and the University Farm property on the third; and, 3. The public facilities and services necessary to serve the property are available. Jim Irwin, representing Mr. Lile, added that the proposed use of this property and some adjacent acreage is a motel site. There were no comments from either the audience or the Commission. MOTION A motion by Jacks, seconded by Hanna, to recommend approval to the the City Board passed unanimously upon roll call. o739 • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-29 HENRY W. HICKMAN - 2601 OLD FARMINGTON RD. The sixth item on the agenda was a Public R85-29 submitted by Henry W. Hickman for Old Farmington Road. Property 1s zoned A-1, fare Commercial. Hearing on rezoning petition 1.96 acres located at 2601 Agricultural to C-2 Thorough - Carlisle read the Planning Report; C-2 District is not recommended, but R-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The introduction of C-2 District at this location would open up the west side of U. S. Hwy. 71 to commercial development; 2. R-2 District would establish a transition from the commercial development to the south and the residential properties to the north and west; and, 3. R-2 District is consistent with the General Plan. Carolyn Schisler was present to represent the petitioner and to answer questions. In answer to Hailey's question regarding her thoughts on R-2 classification, Schisler replied that the surrounding area is already zoned C-2 with the exception of one property which has plans to petition for rezoning in the next six months. Jacks and Stockdell agreed with Wood's recommendation of holding the line on commercial development at this location. MOTION Stockdell, seconded by Jacks, moved to recommend denial of this petition, followed by discussion. Hailey advised that an appeal of a denial could be made to the City Board by requesting same in writing by Wednesday morning. Jones added that the petitioner must file that appeal within 15 days. Green noted that he would vote against the motion because he said he couldn't think of a much better place for commercial property than on the 71 bypass. He said he would rather live adjacent to commercial property than adjacent to the highway. Tarvin agreed, adding that the residential areas in this location are already isolated and he questioned whether anyone would be interested in developing this parcel as R-2, as per Wood's recommendation. The question was called and, upon roll call, the motion to deny failed to pass by an even vote, Hanna, Halley, Tarvin and Green voted against and Stockdell, Madison, Dow and Jacks in favor of. No recommendation for the Board of Directors. y'J Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING PETITION R85-30 JIM HATFIELD — INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE & O1.D MISSOURI The seventh item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on rezoning petition R85-30 submitted by Jim Hatfield for 4.72 acres located just north of the intersection of Old Wire and Old Missouri Roads. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, requested is R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Carlisle read the Planning Report: R-1.5 is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The property is isolated from existing single-family developed by churches on three sides; 2,. The R-1.5 District would help provide a variety of dwelling unit options within the neighborhood; 3. The property is located at the intersection of a collector street and a minor arterial street; and 4. The public facilities and services are available to serve the development. Hatfield, the developer, stated that his intention was to build owner - occupied duplexes at this location. Hailey opened the public hearing and Dennis Bailey, 2823 Stanton, said he was sympathetic to the City employee who had the task of placing the sign advertising this public hearing as he had to make four passes before he was able to identify the sign. (Carlisle noted that new, highly visible signs have been recently made that will be in use soon). Bailey stated his real concern was that property in the area will be considerably affected with regard to aesthetics. He noted that the churches that border the property provide part of the low density quality that exists. He said this would be the only piece to be zoned anything other than R-1 from Old Wire & Township, Old Missouri and Rolling Hills back to Highway 71. Bailey said he has moved three times in fourteen years he has lived in Fayetteville because of deterioration in area zoning. He said he has seen his neighbors homes standing in two to three feet of water because of the way the City handled certain drainage problems in some locations. In reply to Madison's question, Jones said that the duplexes across from Butterfield School have a Conditional Use in an R-1 District. Ann Bailey, 2823 Stanton, spoke in opposition to the petition, requesting that the flavor of the neighborhood be allowed to stand. She noted that there are many places in Fayetteville to build duplexes and added that it doesn't seem appropriate to add more people in an area where the streets are already so heavily traveled. Gordon Wilkins, 3119 Mission Blvd., said that he has seen the proposed plat and noted that the smallest lot is 80' wide and the largest is 100'. He said he has been in the real estate and building business in Fayetteville for 32 years and did not think the planned density would devalue the property in the surrounding neighborhoods. He said • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 6 there would be 14 lots and added that other communities already use the concept of mixed type of housing in a single area. He pointed out that the East Oaks Subdivision did not harm re -sale value of property in the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed and Jones advised that the Planning Commission has already approved a Conditional Use for a mixture of 5 duplexes and 8 single-family homes in this subdivision. She said. that prior to 1970, this property had a zoning classification of R-2 which at that time meant a maximum of duplexes. She said that R-1.5 would allow up to 12 families per acre with a maximum tri-plex. Madison advised that 33 units per this parcel are allowed if zoned R-1 and 56 if zoned R-1.5. She noted that this subdivision is limited to one cul-de-sac street onto Old Missouri, which she approved of, but could not see 56 units using only one point of access. She said she thought it was a very benign use of the property and would vote in favor of it. Stockdell said she had mixed feelings in that R-1.5 would create a buffer zone from the R-0 District but expressed concern regarding the ingress/egress to one of the busiest and dangerous intersections in the northeastern part of town. Hatfield said the entrance is placed as far north on Old Missouri as is possible. He said that the Nazareth Church owns the property directly to the north. Stockdell said she would vote against the appeal because of the traffic problem and not because of the type of housing, which she felt was desirable. NOTION Madison, seconded by Hanna moved to recommend approval of this appeal. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-3-0, Stockdell, Hailey and Tarvin voting "nay" APPROVAL OF BARGO ENGINEERING AND HACKNEY BROS. LSD EXTENSIONS The eighth and ninth items on the agenda were the approval of the extensions of both Bargo Engineering of 1755 Armstrong Road and Hackney Bros. located at Armstrong and Pump Station Road. These were both approved at the Subdivision Committee of October 17th without any requests for waivers. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - ANTIQUE SHOP BILL STILES - 1934 E. HUNTSVILLE RD The tenth item on the agenda was a Conditional Use request submitted by Bill Stiles for an antique shop at 1934 E. Huntsville Rd. Property is presently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Hailey advised that this is the first C.U. request under a new ordinance allowing antique shops to be located (by C.U.) in any zoning district. • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 7 MOTION There being no comments from the audience, Jacks, seconded by Hanna moved approval. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-20 BILL STILES - 1934 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The eleventh item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R85-20 which was table at the meeting of August 12, 1985. Petitioner Bill Stiles requested the petition be withdrawn. MOTION Upon a motion by Jacks and second by Stockdell, petition R85-20 was unanimously approved for withdrawal. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - ANTIQUE SHOP BILL STILES - 304 W. MEADOW The twelfth item was a Conditional Use request for an antique shop submitted by Bill Stiles for property located at 304 W. Meadow.. Property is zoned R-0, Residential/Office. MOTION Stockdell, seconded by Jacks moved approval of the petition followed by discussion. Stockdell commented that Mr. Stiles has been trying for some time to find some means of legalizing his antique operation and she felt he should have fees for his petition returned to him. She amended her motion to include a means of refunding said fees. Jacks accepted and upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. REQUEST TO RE -HEAR REZONING PETITION R85-24 KIM FUGITT FOR J.C.ENTERLINE - E. SYCAMORE AT COLLEGE The thirteenth item was a request to re -hear rezoning petition R85-24 submitted by Kim Fugitt on behalf of J. C. Enterline for property located on E. Sycamore just east of N. College. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this petition at the meeting of October 7, 1985. MOTION Based on additional information being provided by the petitioner, Jacks, seconded by Hanna, moved to re -hear the appeal. Stockdell inquired as to the new information and Hanna replied that new drawings have been provided, clarifying the property lines which were in dispute at the original hearing. Jones explained some of the additions indicated in the petitioner's drawings. The motion to re -hear this petition passed 7-0-1, Hailey abstaining. • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 8 MOTION It was determined that the petitioner, as well as the neighboring residents, were under the assumption that the appeal would be reheard at this evening's meeting. Stockdell, seconded by Tarvin, moved to re -hear the petition at this time. The notion passed 7-0-1, Hailey abstaining. _ Hailey opened the public hearing on rezoning petition R85-24 and requested the petitioner present the new and/or additional information. Fugitt explained the property lines as indicated on his drawings which he passed out to Commissioners. Greg Moldenhauer, a neighboring resident who was previously opposed to the approval of this petition, stated that he wished to withdraw his opposition based on Fugitt's assurance that everything would be done to preserve the tree line along the creek. He thanked Commissioners for their sensitivity to the property owners adjacent to subject parcel. W. B. Younkin, another adjoining property owner, stated that he didn't think this rezoning would be a problem and added that there is a lot of land to serve as buffer between his property and commercial zones. MOTION A motion by Stockdell and second by Hanna to recommend approval of.. this petition passed unanimously upon roll call. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CHILD CARE MARY STUDEBAKER - 2663 E. HUNTSVILLE RD The fourteenth item on the agenda was a Conditional Use request for child care submitted by Mary Studebaker. Property is located at 2663 E. Huntsville Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Jones advised that, in an R-1 District, there is a limitation of ten children allowed with 250 sq/ft. of land area and 80 sq/ft. of outdoor play area per child required. She added that, if the outdoor play space is within 50' of other residential property, it must be screened with a privacy type fence. MOTION Stockdell, seconded by Hanna, moved approval of the petition. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. a V9 Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 9 LETTER FROM JIM VEASEY REGARDING LOTS 34 b 35 OF SUl41ERNILL SUBDIVISION The fifteenth item on the agenda was review of a letter from Jim Veasey to Commissioners regarding Lots 34 and 35 of Summerhill Subdivision. Hailey advised that the Planning Director has received word from the City Attorney that the subdivision covenants existed at the time Veasey purchased his property and the City does not have the right to make changes at this time. Rudy Moore, attorney representing Veasey, stated that the covenants were not on record at the time of the plat review but were filed about eleven months after that time Hailey said that the City has no legal right to deny a building permit for the lots in question. Moore said he felt there was a gap in the planning process in that there is no recourse, except a lawsuit, for the City to take authority to restrict building permits He said it didn't make sense to have a procedure allowing covenants to be at variance with representation made at the plat review. Moore said he thought it within reason for the Commission to recommend that the Building Inspection Department not issue a building permit for a duplex on this lot (34). Madison asked for clarification and Moore replied that the covenants allow a duplex to be built on Lots 34 & 35, while these lots were not specifically mentioned as such at the plat review meeting. Madison asked if lots needed to be identified specifically for duplexes or single-family homes and Jones replied that she has tried to get developers to tie this information down but, in this case, the plat showed a maximum density of 60 units on a specific: number of lots. She added that the covenants were not seen by the Planning Commission. Hailey asked if Veasey bought his property after the covenants of the subdivision were filed and Moore replied that he did, but the problem exist in the circumvention by the developer of the Planning Commission regarding the presentation of covenants before final approval. Stockdell asked what representation Moore was making and he replied that covenants are generally filed much closer to the time of final plat approval and he, again, requested a recommendation from Commissioners to not allow building permits for the lots in question. Madison commented that the subdivision procedure needs to be examined more closely in the future. Stockdell noted that there is not a legal precedent which would allow withdrawal of the building permit (which has already been issued) based on the covenants, which are not legally binding documents. Hanna agreed that duplexes should not be placed with single-family homes. Hailey suggested Moore talk to City Attorney, McCord, for further opinion. L/5 • Planning Commission October 28, 1985 Page 10 PETITION TO VACATE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY KANTZ LANE - STEWART FDGITT The sixteenth item on the agenda was a consideration of a petition submitted by Stewart Fugitt to vacate excess right-of-way on Kantz Lane in Royal Oak Estates. Philip Moon, representing the petitioner stated that Fugitt would like to vacate the cul-de-sac and straighten the road, subject to all rights-of-way and easements. Jones advised that this was the result of two subdivision plats, the first of which platted and constructed the cul-de-sac, the second extended the street and created more lots. She said the cul-de-sac had been dedicated and the excess radius needs to be removed. MOTION Upon a motion from Jacks and a second from Madison, recommendation to vacate the excess right-of-way was unanimously approved. • COMMITTEE REPORTS • A. BED AND BREAKFAST: Jacks expressed concern that the bed and breakfast issue may be treated as "quaint" while he felt it would most certainly wind up being strictly business. He advised caution, although he was in favor of the idea. Madison advised of a letter she had written outlining two sets of objections which has been entered into the Bed and Breakfast file. Hanna said the committee tried to put together a file showing how other cities have handled the issue and added that the Commission could have complete control over what goes in, especially on a temporary Conditional Use basis. He said if there were complaints at the end of one year, the license would not be renewed. Jones advised that the next logical step was to have the City Attorney draft an ordinance of the bed and breakfast proposal for consideration of Commissioners and to advertise the public hearing in the newspaper 15 days before a public hearing. Commissioners elected to discuss a first draft of the proposed amendment before holding a public hearing. B. LANDSCAPE; & C. STUDY OF SUB -REQS. Both committees are in the process of holding meetings; no reports. DISCUSSION OF 1986 MEETING SCHEDULE Commissioners agreed to the scheduled proposed by the Planning Office including meetings on Tuesday following holidays; one meeting in December. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. 5,79