Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-10 Minutesy • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 10, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors' Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, "Butch" Robertson, Frank Farrish and B.J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Nash and Paul Skwiot Jerry D. Ford, Patricia Quinn, Phillip Moon, Kent Theral, Gene Housely, Jim Lindsey, Homer McBroom, Chester Grigsby, Brooks Marshall, Dale Clark, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis and others The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman, Ernie Jacks, and the minutes of the meeting of January 27, 1986 and a special meeting on January 30, 1986 were considered. MINUTES Commissioner Madison noted a correction on the first page of the January 27th minutes: The petition was for a church and school; bible school was not stipulated. Commissioner Green noted on Page 8, fourth paragraph, that Joyce Street was not built by the City. He explained that the City paid for the additional cost to construct four lanes rather than two lanes. Commissioner Jacks made the following correction to the minutes of the meeting of January 30th. Page 3, fourth paragraph, he said the criteria of extremely deep lots applying to tandem lots was agreed upon by the committee that studied tandem lot regulations and not his sole personal opinion. ELECTION OF OFFICER FOR 1986 Jacks requested that Dow, Chairman of the Nominations Committee, announce the slate of nominees for officers of the Planning Commission for 1986. Dow advised the committee proposes Ernie Jacks, Chairman; Julie Nash, Vice -Chair; and Fred Hanna, Secretary. MOTION There being no further nominations, Robertson moved the slate of nominees be accepted and approved. Dow seconded and the motion passed 6-0-0, (Farrish having not yet arrived). Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 2 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LEN EDENS DUNCAN'S LIQUOR STORE - WKDINGTON AT BY-PASS The second item on the agenda plan submitted by Len Edens of Wedington and the west side Committee had approved this meeting of February 6, 1986. was approval of a large scale development for one-half located on the south side of the by-pass. Jacks said the Subdivision large scale development plan at their There was no opposition. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R86-1 HWY. 265 3 JOYCE ST. - JERRY FORD The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on rezoning petition R86-1 submitted by Jerry Ford for 3.64 acres located on the east side of Highway 265 and Joyce Street. Property is currently A-1, Agricultural requested is C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Farrish arrived at this point. Jacks cited portions of Planning Consultant, Wood's, report. He noted Wood has recommended C-1 District for the following reasons: 1. The zoning requested is consistent with the General Plan recommenda- tion of light commercial; 2. The public facilities and services are available to serve the potential development; and, 3. The property is located at the intersection of two principal arterials. Jacks noted that Wood also advises his recommendation is made on the assumption that water and sewer facilities will be extended to serve the property and if they are not, he considers the rezoning premature and it is not recommended. Ford, 5749 Kingston, stated that he has owned this property for nine and one-half years with the intention of it being his primary financial investment. He said he has had many inquiries regarding renting his proposed facility. Ford advised the inquiries have included a public accountant, a CPA, two doctors, and other professionals. He said he found similar facilities in the area fully occupied. He noted he plans on a first class masonry building and added he will abide by whatever is required to extend sewer and water to his property. Jim Lindsey, Lindsey & Associates, stated that he owns the nearest commercially zoned property, at 265 and Zion and that he is in full support of Ford's petition. Patricia Quinn, an adjacent property owner, stated she would have been happier with an R-0 classification, but felt fairly comfortable with Ford's plans which he explained to her. • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 3 There being no further comments for or against this petition, Jacks closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Commission. Madison advised that C-1, neighborhood commercial, is to serve the immediate neighborhood and she thought the surrounding area was too sparsely settled to be considered a neighborhood. Ford replied that the area is developing rapidly in a professional direction. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of Ford's petition with a bill of assurance that water and sewer will be extended to subject property. He said he agreed about the sparsely populated neighborhood but said neighborhood may be construed merely as land surrounding the property. Dow seconded followed by discussion. Green inquired into the cost of extending sewer to the east side of Highway 265 and whether or not the property owner should bear the entire expense when others will benefit from said sewer when those neighboring properties develop. Jacks said Ford was not being requested to pay for the sewer and that it is hoped the City will bear some of the financial responsibility in providing this facility. He pointed out that a large scale development may be denied for lack of sewer. Green noted that lack of water and sewer does not prohibit the Commission from granting a re -zoning request. Hanna added that lack of sewer can be addressed during the large scale development process which this property must enter into. Hanna withdrew his stipulation that a bill of assurance for extending sewer be executed. Dow accepted this amendment and the motion to recommend approval to the City Board passed 6-1-0, Madison voted "nay" WARREN COTNER - APPEAL FROM LSD REQ0IREMENTS The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal to forgo large scale devel- opment requirements submitted by Warren Cotner for 1.56 acres located at Highway 112 north of the by-pass. Cotner's re -zoning petition from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial was approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 1985 and by the Board of Directors April 2, 1985. Jacks commented that concern has been expressed by the neighboring property owner regarding this proposed development. Phillip Moon, attorney for Cotner, stated that his client has a different interpretation of large scale development. He advised that Planning Director, Carlisle, has ruled the property in question exceeds the one acre limit and must abide by the ordinance. Moon said that, although the area amounts to 1.56 acres, an oversized pond on the acreage was • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 4 enlarged to control the marshland, resulting in the reduction to .88 acres which may be developed. He further said only the barn will be developed including an addition of 1,200 s.f. with the entire project amounting to 5,600 s.f. Moon said it is his position that, under the provisions of the large scale development, this project does not meet criteria because it is under one acre, the structure is less than 10,000 s.f., it does not require 25 or more parking spaces and the ingress/egress has not been changed at all. He said the only road put in is in the A-1 area which links up with existing roads. Moon contended that the lake and the spring house are not part of the development although they are part of the 1.56 acres. Dow asked the reasons behind requesting the original 1.56 acres and Moon replied that it had been reduced from the original request of 7 acres to satisfy the Planning Commission. He said his client knew that the development would not entail the entire 1.56 but didn't know at the time of the rezoning just how much was needed. Hanna advised that this issue had been brought up both at a Commission meeting and before the City Board where it was noted that it would be brought through the large scale development process because of screening requirements, particularly because of neighbors who opposed this project. Moon said his client has spent a great deal of money thus far and would like to cut cost on the administrative end of the development and get on with the construction. Hanna said he couldn't see where going through with the LSD would save time or entail much expense. Moon replied that Cotner is on a time -table and the barn could be worked on from the inside. He said Cotner has been issued a wine permit from the ABC and has six months to have the barn in compliance. Dow pointed out that more details would have been worked out at the time of the rezoning had this not been considered a LSD. She read portions of minutes of that meeting where this had been indicated and Moon replied that there was never a mandate requiring the LSD. Madison said she was very sensitive that developments proceed through the LSD process as it serves a very real purpose. She said when she notes a rezoning request of less than an acre, she is aware that it will not go through the LSD and added that she would not have voted favorably regarding this 1.56 acres if she thought it would avoid that process especially as there were concerns from neighbors. Madison said the Commission recommended approval of what Cotner felt was a minimal amount of property for the proposed development. Moon said they did not know that the lake would take that large an area and explained that existing circumstances were unforeseen. Madison added she had been very concerned about access from the beginning. • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 5 Jacks advised the ordinance states all large scale developments must be reviewed. Moon asked if the lake would be included in the acreage and Jacks replied it would. Moon noted a bill of assurance which Cotner executed stating that the property shall be restricted to a winery and the lake was not part of the winery. Madison said that any developer could find little pieces on their property which were not integral to the development that he would want to scale out. Moon said Attorney McCord's main concern seemed to be parking spaces. Carlisle stated that Cotner's building permit, as presented to the Planning Office, notes that it will be 12,000 s.f. and added that Cotner did not submit a site plan by which to determine required parking. She said the property is in excess of one acre and McCord had concurred with her that the project should come under the LSD regulations. MOTION A motion of denial from Dow, seconded by Madison, passed unanimously. CHANGE IN CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST 1ST NAT'L. BANK OF TAHLEQUAH — E. HHY.16 The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a change in Conditional Use submitted by the First National Bank of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The property is located at the northeast corner of Huntsville Road and Sherman and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Director Carlisle indicated that through researching this issue, she found that a change in conditional use was granted from H & H Restaurant Supply to a carpeting concern from on August 11, 1980; on August 10, 1981 a change in conditional use was granted from H & H to a computer software concern; on March 25, 1984 the Commission denied a rezoning appeal from R-1 to C-1 which was appealed to the City Board and referred back to the Commission where it was again denied on May 13, 1985; a rezoning appeal from R-1 to R-0 was denied September 9, 1985 with the City Board in agreement on October 1, 1985. Jacks noted correspondence from McCord indicating a feeling on the part of the owner, with which he agrees to a certain degree, that attempts to rent the property are legal evidence of continuation of the non -conforming use. Kent Theral, attorney representing the petitioner, stated the last non -conforming use was a computer software store which designed computer disks. He said the test for a request to change a non -conforming use is whether the new use will be equally or more appropriate than the existing use. Theral advised that H & H continued to operate on this R-1 property as a non -conforming use in 1970 when the City zoning ordinances were adopted. He noted that the owner of the computer • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 6 store had 10-12 employees, with as many ears, involved in the electronic manufacture of computer software with some of the premises devoted to storage. He said, although Design Solution ceased operations in late 1984, the premises were continued to be use for storage of their equipment until late 1985. Theral advised the petition, as submitted, is to return the premises to the same use as H & H Restaurant Supply for Commercial Services which will include some retail sales and the storage and repair of restaurant equipment with five employees. He added the only clients will be representatives of restaurants and that salesmen will call on clients at their locations. He said Commercial Services is an existing business located in West Fork and will re -locate to subject property. Theral said the appearance of the building will be improved although no additions will be made In answer to Jacks' inquiry, Theral replied that Bobbie Jones, previous Planning Administrator, had ruled that storage of equipment contributed to the continuance of a non -conforming use. In answer to Madison's question, Theral said the equipment was still on the premises at the time of McCord's recent correspondance and added that there was no intention of the owner to abandon the conditional use status. He noted the first re -zoning attempt, by Jerry Hyatt, was within six months of the October 1984 date. Theral said Hyatt told him he was advised that the conditional use had expired and a rezoning petition was the only course of action to pursue. Farrish asked the current non -conforming use and Theral said it is the computer software store. He added the building was used commercially before the zoning ordinances of 1970 were adopted. Jacks expsressed surprise at the City Attorney's opinion, stating he thought it negated the ordinance. Theral reiterated there was never any intention on the part of the owner to give up the conditional use citing the fact that a "for lease" sign has been continually posted on the building. In answer to Dow and Madison's questions, Theral explained that H & H Restaurant Supply had employed about 4-5 people and Design Solution had employed ten. Homer McBroom, 1615 E. Huntsville Rd. (area property owner) advised that the neighborhood in question is strictly residential which is the way the residents of the area would like to keep it. Commissioner Hanna said he recalled that some of the area residents had stated during one of the re -zoning requests that they would have no objections to a business of the same type of H & H. Lg • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 7 McBroom said he was a builder and could not understand why the structure couldn't be made into a nice home with a two -car garage which would be preferable to him. Gene Housely, petitioner and owner of Commercial Services, stated that he was unaware of the history regarding this property. He said he has lived in the Fayetteville area for fourteen years and plans on remaining. He said he wants very much to re -locate to Fayetteville and has an understanding of the neighborhood objections. Housely said his company is very solvent and very strong financially. He said he intends to cosmetically repair the building and wishes the property to revert to its previous use. He said he will employ about five people. Madison asked if the parking lot were paved and Housely replied it was not but, if that were a condition, he would agree as he thought it would make the property more attractive. Farrish inquired into the light retail anticipated and Housely replied about 2,000 s.f. will be devoted to a showroom but added that retail sales are very small because most of his clients are restaurants. Chester Grigsby, 1620 E. Huntsville Road, advised that a 60' lot exists between his property and the property in question. He stated that H & H had used the loading dock in the rear for washing equipment brought to them in trade and allowed the greasy water to flow into a ditch and down to Grigsby's property. He continued saying that H & H had the old, used equipment sitting outside in the front of the building. Grigsby said he was not against Housely and his business but would hate to see a repeat of the dirty water problem. He requested the Commission require a bill of assurance from Housely to address this issue if permission is granted for conditional use. Housely stated he is an exceptionally neat and organized person and does not operate on that level. He said provisions for floor drains have been made and his business would not be that intensely involved in cleaning equipment. He expressed understanding of the problem and offered to execute a bill of assurance as part of the conditional use stating that the drainage problem would be addressed. Hanna stated he has, thus far, been opposed to rezoning this property because of neighborhood objections and, although he sympathized with the neighbors, he could not see the building sitting vacant from now on. He disagreed with McBroom, saying the building could not be made into a residence. Hanna said he felt the current request was reasonable. Jacks agreed, but both he and Madison expressed concern regarding the opinion rendered by City Attorney, McCord. She asked if there were a distinction between granting a conditional use to a business and to a property and Carlisle replied it is granted to the property. • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 8 Madison said the question lies in whether or not this use is equally or less intense than the software store. She questioned a portion of the ordinance which addresses itself to eliminating non -conforming structures. She added she felt the decision must be based on the intensity of the use even if it is not the best for the neighborhood. Carlisle reminded the Commission that "appropriate conditions and safeguards" may be applied by them when granting a conditional use. Green noted retail traffic would be more intrusive than the computer business. He said he had no problem with the number of employees but would not like anything stored outside. Housely agreed to execute a bill of assurance addressing all Commission concerns. Farrish expressed concern that Housely might not always be the owner of the building and Carlisle stated the conditional use would go with the property, applying to future owners. Jim Lindsey, Lindsey & Associates, stated that his company has tried to work with this property for several years. He said the lot on alone is worth about $10,000 and would cost up to $10,000 to tear down the building. He said it is an extremely unique and difficult situation to address. Lindsey said he thought if this property were McBroom's, and the neighbors knew he made his living from it, this political question would not exist. He said the political question is tied to a huge difference in the economic value. Lindsey said he thought the neighbors were in a totally paralyzed state until the ordinance is changed unless a less intrusive use were considered. He asked McBroom if there any use he would be comfortable with and McBroom replied he thought the entire area was to be housing project. Green pointed out a provision in the ordinance which states that when a conditional use has been granted, nothing over 10% of the replacement cost of the structure may be spent on remodeling or repairs of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring and plumbing during a twelve month period. Green inquired into the amount of retail expenses expected and Housely replied that 95% of his business is with restaurant clientele and that he does not carry home kitchen equipment. Green expressed concern regarding limiting the amount of retail sales in the future in order to protect the neighboring residents and asked Housely if he would limit the number of cars to ten. Housely replied that he would. The question of abandonment of a conditional use was discussed and Theral said not only the objective standard should be applied but a subjective standard as well. Green noted there was a misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding this case and that he read part of McCord's opinion to mean that, although it has been more than six months at this time, the petitioner did not have the opportunity to act earlier than this. Dow requested the ordinance define the issue of abandonment in better terms so that it can be enforced. She said she did not Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 9 like using a subjective measure and although, she felt the Commission was being forced into it at this time, she expressed hope that the issue will be clarified. NOTION Green moved to grant the change in conditional use to restaurant supply and repair business subject to a bill of assurance stating that 1. employees be limited to five; 2. there be no outside cleaning or storage; and, 3. number of vehicles be limited to ten at any time. Hanna seconded and the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. LSD APPROVAL - QUALITY INN HWY. 112 AND 71 BY-PASS - KENNETH COCKRAM The sixth item on the agenda was the approval of a large scale development plan submitted by Kenneth Cockram for 7.41 acres located on the south side of Highway 71 by-pass and Highway 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee approved this development at their meeting of February 6th, subject the notification of the adjacent property owner to the south. Jacks advised he believed Mr. Cockram did not understand that said notice be presented by the time of this meeting. Green expressed concern that this item be addressed at a future date so as to allow additional in -put, if any. Commissioners agreed this LSD was approved subject to the same stipulation made by the Subdivision Committee. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CHILD CARE BROOKS MARSHALL - 1212 N. SANG The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use request for child care up to six children. The property is located at 1212 N. Sang and is zoned R-1. Marshall stated he is in the process of purchasing the property and would like to have hours from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. He said he has checked with the neighbors who have signed a petition stating they have no objections to this plan. MOTION Hanna moved.approval of the request as requested. Seconded by Robertson, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. 1 Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 10 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED QUAIL CREEK PARK The eighth item on the agenda was a request for discussion regarding the proposed Quail Creek Park to be located on the south side of Drake Street, west of N. College Avenue. Dale Clark, Parks and Recreation Department, stated that the Parks Department needs the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed location for the park. He advised that the park will be bound on the south by Drake Street which is unimproved at this time but has been designed to go through to Gregg Street. Clark pointed out that it is customarlily the responsibility of the developer to extend streets and the Parks Department requests to know the City's attitude towards Drake; should it be finished; if so, how shall it be paid for? Clark said the Parks Department would very much like to put the park at this location but the cost of the park land would be minimal compared to the cost of improving the street. After further discussion, Hanna suggested setting a time frame to the construction of Drake Street. In response to Green's question, Carlisle stated that the City paid in part for constructing Drake Street from N. College to the Younkin property. Clark noted that, if the cost of street construction is prohibitive, this location may not be a good one for a park. He said he needs Commission approval for both the proposed park location and the extension of Drake Street should be extended. MOTION Robertson made a motion to approve the location for Quail Creek Park as proposed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Hanna seconded and the motion passed 7-0-0. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Dow moved to recommend Drake Street be extended from the point where it currently ends to Gregg Street in alignment with the south side of the proposed Quail Creek Park. Madison seconded with all Commissioners in agreement that an east/west corridor is needed at this location. Green said he felt it only fair, that if other developers are required to bear part of the Drake Street construction cost, that the Parks Department be requested to contribute their fair share as well. He said consideration of applying the "rational nexus" requirement for off-site improvements is in order. Green continued, saying he felt the Commission's duty was to encourage people to use land that is already in the City rather than going to the outskirts, on the State • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1986 Page 11 highways, where they will not be required to pay for street improvements. He pointed out that this plan of development will help to keep the cost of City services lower. Jacks agreed, requesting Green speak to the City Board regarding this issue. Green added that the Commission is at the point of taking a long, hard look at new regulations and of making a recommendation to the Board. Jacks noted that the problem of off-site improvements has been addressed, somewhat, in the committee that is examining the new Subdivision and Street regulations. Green said that rational nexus does make sense in some cases. • OTHER BUSINESS 1. Jacks requested that scopework, to be headed by Larry Wood, be placed on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. 2. Jacks appointed Commissioner Nash to the Landscape Committee replacing Green and acting as Chairman. He requested discussion at the next Commission meeting. 3. Jacks appointed Commissioner Dow to the Subdivision Committee Madison noted that Director Hess would like to be notified of Landscape Committee meetings. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M.