Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 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: MINUTES Newton Hailey Jr., Sue Madison, Fred and Stan Green None Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Hanna, Joe Tarvin, B. J. Dow Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Eben Jones, Vernon Wilson, George Faucette, Earle Bullock, Herbert Holcomb, Mima Wallace, Carolyn Schisler, Gordon Wilkins, Sandra Carlisle, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others Chairman Hailey called the meeting to order and the minutes of the November 25, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-31 EBEN & LINDA JONES - 2407 MT. COMFORT RD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R-85-31 submitted by Eben and Linda Jones to rezone .45 acres located at 2407 Mt. Comfort Rd. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential; requested is R-2, Medium Density Residential. Planning Consultant, Wood recommended R-2 for the following reasons. 1. The property is on a proposed minor arterial and adjacent to the U.S. Highway 71 Bypass; and 2. Water and sewer facilities are available. Jacks expressed hopes that a study could be undertaken for zoning in this area as there have been several petitions submitted recently with not much in the way of guidance. Wood agreed, noting a study which took place several years ago based around a request for a R-0 petition but said he did not feel uncomfortable recommending R-2. Mr. Jones stated that, three houses on subject pointed out that he is although the entire area is zoned R-1, the property have existed for twenty years. He also requesting a lot split if his request • • • Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 2 for R-2 is approved (see Item #3). He said the property must be zoned R-2 in order to meet bulk and area requirements. (The parcels would not meet bulk and area requirements for R-1). Hanna suggested that the middle house might not be replaced if it were destroyed. Carlisle advised that it would be in conformance if it were zoned R-2, but not R-1. Hanna was ,advised that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to waive lot sizes and he expressed hesitancy in rezoning this small area which is surrounded by R-1. Green suggested denial with a recommendation that the Board of Adjustment look favorably upon waiving the required lot sizes for an R-1 District. MOTION Stockdell moved to table this item until it is addressed by the Board of Adjustment. She added a recommendation that the Board of Adjustment look favorably upon waiving or varying the bulk and area requirements for this property. Hanna seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Dow explained that approving an R-2 zoning in this location would amount to "spot zoning" which the Commission is hesitant to do. Jones advised that he was not aware that there was any other alternative and Hailey commented that, due to the circumstances, the petitioner should not have to bear the expense of the Board of Adjustment application REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS EBEN S LINDA JONES - 2407 MT. COMFORT The third item on the agenda was a request for two lot splits for property located at 2407 Mt. Comfort Road. The petitioner advised that the splits were applicable only with a favorable vote on Item #2 (see above). MOTION This item was unanimously tabled upon a motion from Stockdell and a second from Jacks. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-32 VERNON WILSON - 1170 N. GARLAND The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R85-32 submitted by Vernon Wilson for 4.96 acres of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial property located at 1170 N. Garland. Requested is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planning Consultant Wood gave the following report: C-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: ash Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 3 1. Several of the properties in this area, previously zoned C-1, have been rezoned to C-2 District, to take advantage of a wider range of commercial opportunities; 2. The property is located at the intersection of two principal arterials which is the location recommended by the General Plan for highway commercial; 3. The public facilities are available to serve the property. Madison inquired as to several lots backing up to James Street to the north and was informed that they are zoned C-1. Jones indicated that the portion of this property which fronts on Wedington Drive is zoned R-2. Jacks clarified with Wood that this neighborhood has evolved from a neighborhood shopping area to something broader. Dow asked if Wilson had a specific use in mind for the C-2 zoning and Wilson replied that he has clients with several uses in mind. George Faucette Jr., 2127 N. College, spoke in favor of the rezoning petition, agreeing with Wood's description. He also asked if certain restrictions could be placed on the property eliminating taverns, nightclubs and bars from operating here. Herbert Holcomb, 548 Grey Avenue, spoke in favor of this petition, explaining that this corner has grown immensely since he has lived in the neighborhood. He said he thought it would be beneficial. MOTION Stockdell moved to recommend approval of this petition. She advised that she did not wish to add restrictions to the recommendation as she did not feel that was the Commission's business. Hanna seconded and upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MEADOWS W. EARLE BULLOCK & GAIL S. BULLOCK - HOWARD NIcKELL ROAD The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of plat of The Meadows submitted by developer, W. Earle property (19.50 acres) is located approximately 1 1/2 the City limits on Howard Nickell Road. MOTION the preliminary Bullock. The miles west of Jacks, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, moved that this plat be approved subject to the stipulations considered at a meeting of said committee on December 6, 1985, as follows: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. a Bill of Assurance guaranteeing dedication and construction of a5? • Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 4 the second half of Lindy Drive when that property is released from a life trust; 3. Lindy Lane be re -named Lindy Drive and Meadow Wood become one word. Tarvin seconded followed by discussion. Faucette advised that he was not against the proposal but pointed out that there is already a development by the proposed name located in the growth area on Fat Gully Road east of Fayetteville. Bullock said he spent considerable time researching a name for his subdivision and was not aware that he was duplicating. Jacks amended his motion to include a resolution to the duplication of names. Tarvin accepted this amendment and the motion to approve passed unanimously. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOYCE TEAGUE - 3712 DINSMORE TRAIL The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of Subdivision Regulations submitted by Joyce Teague for 18+ acres located north of Highway 62 at the end of Dinsmore Trail. Jones advised that this will be the second split and the Commission • is being asked to waive the 5 acres to a requested 3 acres. • Mima Wallace, 509 N. Olive, spoke for Mrs. Teague asking that the lot split be approved and noting that the respective purchasers currently own the parcels which are contiguous to and adjacent to the Teague property. She said George Christopher and Karen Pope propose to buy part of the acreage and Bob Tackett proposes to purchase the acreage with the dwelling. Wallace advised that there is a City street that serves as ingress/egress to the properties. Hailey asked if the purchasers were aware that water and sewer is not available to the property and Wallace replied that they were. Tackett said he was aware, too, that approval of this lot split did not automatically entitle him to improvements of the unpaved road serving this property. He added that he would love to have the road, which is within the City limits, paved as soon as it becomes feasible. MOTION Tarvin moved approval of the petition seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Stockdell offered encouragement that the property be connected to the City sewer as soon as is possible. Madison said she intended to vote in favor of the motion only because there is no proposal to increase the density. She also said she would not like to see the density increased at the top of this hill in view of the length of the dead end street. The motion carried unanimously. (*NOTE: This lot split is subject to parks fee of $105). • • • Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 5 WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE KENT AMBROSE - 3121 WARWICK DRIVE The seventh item on the agenda, a request for waiver of the driveway safety zone submitted by Kent Ambrose for property located at 3121 Warwick Drive, was withdrawn as the petitioner had hired an architect and solved his problem. WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE G. WILKINS & J. LINDSEY - FOUR LOTS/EAST OAKS The eighth item on the agenda was a request to waive the driveway safety zone submitted by Gordon Wilkins and Jim Lindsey for four lots located in the East Oaks Phase I Subdivision on the north side of Hwy. 45 and Crossover Road. Requires: 40' from intersection; Proposed: 25' from intersection. Codes Technician, Jones, explained that the house plans for these lots could be reversed with the living areas of the homes fronting on Crossover Road but that the developers propose facing the garages for these properties on Crossover Road, thereby insulating the homes from the noise of the highway. MOTION Jacks moved approval, seconded by Stockdell, motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR BED & BREAKFAST INNS Hailey opened the public hearing and Herbert Holcomb proceeded to express his feelings regarding this proposed ordinance. Holcomb advised that he would speak to the ordinance but not for it. He said he has been involved in the growth of this city both directly and indirectly since 1947 and in a very active way since 1953. Holcomb posed the following questions with regard to Bed and Breakfast Ordinance: 1. How does it benefit the commercial community, namely the motel and hotel, in any economic way? 2. How does it benefit the general R-1 community in maintaining their property values for their economic benefit and their general tax purposes? 3. What community of R-1 people have made any demands for such an ordinance and for what purpose? 4. What economic benefit can anyone gain from such an ordinance in an R-1 community other than commercializing a single family residence which is contrary and makes a sham of our present zoning ordinance? (*Holcomb's note: As written, only the larger homes aci Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 6 of any area could receive permits to make use of this ordinance, suggesting that we commercialize the larger homes in the R-1 community). 5. What privilege could I gain from this proposed ordinance to get rid of freeloading relatives from my home that I don't already have under the natural uses of R-1 zoning? George Faucette Jr. advised that he was generally in favor of the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance but expressed curiosity as to why it would be allowed in all zones, specifically in R-1. He said he thought there was a need for this use in the community. As a result of Hailey's inquiry, the Commission agreed to discuss the Bed and Breakfast proposal at this time. Hanna said he was not prepared to answer Holcomb's question at this time and added that the committee appointed to study this issue did not specifically address how it would benefit people in R-1 zones. He said the committee felt there would he some opposition in every zone and so made it a Conditional Use in order to retain some control in each situation. Hanna noted that an operator of a Bed and Breakfast Inn would have to have their permit renewed each year. Hailey asked how many requests there have been for B 5 B in the Planning Office and Codes Technician, Jones, replied that 4 or 5 inquiry's or requests have been received in the last several months, some of these have been repeat requests. Hanna pointed out that this proposal did not automatically give permission to anyone to run a Bed and Breakfast operation and added that neighbors within 300' must be notified of a petitioner's intent, giving them some protection. Holcomb inquired into the policing authority for zoning violations, stating that one of his neighbors is currently in violation of the ordinance which he would like to have addressed. Hanna stated that his committee attempted to draft an ordinance that would be easy to police. He said they did not want it open to rooming houses or student housing. Holcomb expressed concern that the ordinance would apply to only the larger homes in town. Hanna explained that a home with only one extra bedroom could offer that room for B & B. Dow noted that there was a maximum of five bedrooms that could be offered. MOTION Hanna moved to continue the public hearing, seconded by Stockdell, the motion passed unanimously. at,ot Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 7 Green expressed several points relevant to the proposed draft. He said he developed some wording that might address certain questions or complaints. His suggestions follow: 1. Section 2(a) second paragraph: Strike valid and operation of the bed and breakfast facility and add "those items required to be considered by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use permit as described in Art.9, Sec.6(c)App.A." He explained that he would tie it to said section because it addresses everything the Commission is obligated to consider before granting a Conditional Use, i.e. ingress/egress, safety, traffic flow, noise, parking, glare, service problems, screening signs, general compatibility. 2. Section 2(b) first paragraph: Extend notification to any property owner within 500' of the boundary line...as in a home occupation. 3. Section 3: Insert the word "owner" to "...permanently occupied private home..." Hanna noted that no committee member had strong feelings on this last point but they generally did not consider that a bed and breakfast operation would be run by a lessee. 4. Section 2(h): Green said it be too restrictive for many older homes which are currently safe but do not meet current building codes. He asked about inspection requirements for hotels/motels. Jacks said he felt a point could be made for a commercial type operation maintaining safety standards. Green responded that it may make it restrictive and inquired into the nature of hotels and motels. Madison said she would like to see provisions for re -inspections as is required in child care situations. Faucette expressed his desire to allow an inn of this nature to be operated by a manager and not necessarily occupied by the owner. He said if this resulted in problems, neighbors would have the opportunity to object at the time operators sought renewal of their permit. Planning Director, Carlisle, advised that she has gathered information on bed and breakfast and will further research other cities similar programs to share at a future discussion. Tarvin said he felt if a business were allowed in a residential area it should be owner occupied. Holcomb clarified that he would like to see the R-1 District excluded from the proposed ordinance. He added that the ordinance did not address advertising. The question was called and the motion to continue this public hearing passed unanimously. • • • Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 8 REQUEST FOR RE -HEARING - REZONING PETITION R85-29 CAROLYN SCHISLER FOR HENRY HICKMAN - OLD FARMINGTON RD. The tenth item on the agenda was a request for re -hearing on rezoning petition R85-29 submitted by Carolyn Schisler on behalf on Henry Hickman for 1.96 acres located on Old Farmington Road. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, requested is R-0, Residential Office. This petition was denied on November 12th and a request to re -hear was denied on November 25th. Chairman Hailey advised that the request to rehear was denied on the assumption that five affirmative votes were required. Research of amendments to the Commission's bylaws have since shown that a simple majority is required to grant a re -hearing. Hailey also noted that an addendum to the petitioner's request which asked Commissioners to approve an R-0 District if the original C-2 request was not acceptable, was overlooked. He added that he was open to addressing the request for R-0, Residential Office District. MOTION Hanna made a motion to re -hear Hickman's request as R-0 District. Stockdell seconded and the motion passed unanimously. MOTION Hanna moved to re -hear the petition at this meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Planning Consultant Wood said that supporting an R-0 District would satisfy the transition and buffering that he felt was needed in this area even though it would open it up to some commercialization. Jacks said he thought an R-0 would give an indication to the end of commercialization along the by-pass. He also repeated that he strongly felt a land use study was necessary along the by-pass, particularly the service drives. Hailey noted that a request for updating the General Land Use plan has been submitted in the 1986 Planning Budget. Hailey opened the Public Hearing and Schisler commented that the property in question is not suitable for either agriculture or residential. No one else was present to speak either for or against this petition. MOTION Hanna, seconded by Jacks moved to recommend rezoning to R-0 District to the Board of Directors. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 9. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - WILKINS PLACE CORDON WILKINS - OLD MISSOURI & OLD WIRE RDS. The eleventh item on the agenda was the approval of the preliminary plat of Wilkins Place submitted by Gordon Wilkins. Property is located at the intersection of Old Wire and Old Missouri Roads and was recently rezoned to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. (This plat was previously submitted as "Sunny Acres" by Jim Hatfield in August, 1984). MOTION Jacks moved approval of the plat subject to contingencies specified at the Subdivision Committee meeting as follows: 1. Original Plat Review comments; 2. Lot Ill be split into two; 3. Subdivision name and name of internal street be changed to Wilkins Place; 4. the cul-de- sac be reduced from 46' to 40'; 5. the island be eliminated from the cul-de-sac; 6. the cul-de-sac streetlight be moved to the north side of the cul; 7. a drainage easement between Lots 8 & 9 be approved by the City; 8. a drainage easement along the west property line, the width as required by the City Engineer; 9. a provision in the covenants that the drainage easement will be maintained by the owners in such a way as to not block the flow of water. Hanna seconded and the motion passed unanimously. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairman Green reported there have been three committee meetings with people other than Commissioners attending, including four developers. He advised that discussion included whether or not there should, indeed, be a Landscape Ordinance and if so, how it will be accomplished. He said that some of the concerns expressed include how future maintenance would be handled, the cost of administration and the added expense of new business settling in Fayetteville. Green advised that Commissioners Dow and Madison and Dr. Einert of the U. of A. have drafted a preliminary ordinance which does not address administration and enforcement. He also noted that the Committee concluded at their last meeting that there remains much work to be done on this proposal and that they wished to present it to the entire Commission for further input. He also expressed the possibility of holding a Public Hearing on the concept of the Landscape Ordinance to solicit feedback from people like City Board members, interested City Administrators and additional developers. Green suggested distributing copies of the preliminary draft to use as a basis of discussion among Commissioners before its presentation at a Public Hearing. He said the Committee was basically at an impasse and would like to know if there 1s any support for this concept before investing any more time on it. a6.> Planning Commission December 9, 1985 Page 10 In answer to Hanna's question, Jones advised that the present ordinance: 1. requires screening between residential property and non-residential type uses as an alternative to a privacy type fence; 2. for a residential zone with parking for six or more spaces - between the parking and the street; 3. in commercial areas adjacent to or within 50' of a residential zone, landscaping is required between parking and street; 4. the required building setback may be reduced from 50' with parking allowed between the building and the street to 25' with no parking allowed between and street with 10%, of the area in landscaping. She further explained that "landscaping" is required to be 18" high at the time of planting. Jacks noted the incentive value in this ordinance. Commissioners agreed to send a copy of the preliminary draft to the full Commission, the City Board, the City Manager and whomever else the Planning Office might think would have an interest in this issue. Discussion is planned for the second Planning Commission in January. STREET AND SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Wood reported that this committee has met several times and he requested Commissioners' reaction to what has been developed thus far, although the material does not necessarily represent a final recommendation. He said the Committee felt street specifications needed to be addressed before dealing with other details of proposed regulations. Wood advised that two factors to be considered in dealing with the details of streets; soil conditions and axle loading (weight of the vehicles). Wood noted that the present classification has been changed in that additions have been made. The descriptions of street specifications may be found attached. Hailey advised that the streets. were kept narrow because of existing soil conditions and expense. In answer to Hanna's question, Hailey repeated that this report covers width and axle load. Hailey advised that the Committee intends to meet with representatives of concrete and asphalt companies to discuss this matter further. Green asked why the proposed rights-of-way measurements are so much larger than the planned paved area and Hailey replied that one reason was that the Committee felt sidewalks should not be placed immediately adjacent to the curb and that, secondly, it provides space to build erosion -preventing slopes where necessary. Green pointed out that this type of design allows the construction of a larger street in the future and that the less r/w that is required, the more freedom a property owner'will have with their property. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. • RESOLUTION NO. /- 2l6 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPEDITING A LAND USE STUDY IN THE DEANE-SOLOMON/PORTER ROAD AREA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has referred Rezoning Appeal R85-31 to the Board of Adjustment for review of a variance on area and lot width requirement so as to avoid "spot zoning"; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Board of Adjustment denied a request for variance on said appeal; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment appreciates and concurs with Commissioner Jacks' comments concerning the importance and need to expedite a land use study or studies necessary to provide guidelines for the future growth of the Deane Solomon, Porter Road area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the Board of Adjustment hereby requests the expedition of a study or studies of land use in the Deane Solomon, Porter Road area. • PASSED AND APPROVED this 15 1986. ATTEST: BY : L,c:4.:: cze L 44; • day of APPROVED: BY: ,92/"-av • a�7