Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 24, 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, Green, B. J. Paul Skwiot MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Madison Julie Nash, "Butch" Robertson, Stan Dow, Fred Hanna, Frank Farrish and The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the February 10, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES Commissioner Green made the following correction: Page 6, third paragraph from the bottom, should have read "...the restaurant employed 4 to 5 people while Design Solution employed about 10 to 12..." Green also made the following correction: Page 10, last paragraph, a half sentence needs to be omitted. With these corrections, the minutes stood approved. LETTER REQUESTING RE -HEARING OF CONDITIONAL USE GRANTED - 1600 MISSION BLVD. Jacks announced that City Attorney, Jim McCord was present for possible advise on Item #7 on the agenda, a letter from the Fayetteville Public Schools requesting a re -hearing of a Conditional Use for a church and church related school granted by the Commission on February 10, 1986. McCord requested that said item be heard at this time and upon a motion by Nash and second by Dow, this request was unanimously approved. Jacks advised the Planning Commission by-laws treat a rehearing in a particular way and require that same may be granted for the sole purpose of calling attention to a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration. McCord verified this statement and noted the ordinance sets out criteria for the Commission to address in granting Conditional Uses. In response to McCord's inquiry, Jacks noted a letter received from the Public School system requesting a re -hearing after notification of all adjacent property owners but without stating any particular error. Jacks asked for comment from a representative of the Public Schools. Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 2 Winston Simpson, Superintendent of Schools, stated he was not prepared to state any of the criteria above mentioned with the exception of the fact that it was stated at the original hearing that the principal of Root school had been contacted and was known to have stated she had no objections to the petition. Simpson said the principal has told Simpson that she did not have a conversation with anyone regarding this issue. Simpson said the request for re -hearing was made so that the schools might present the concerns the conditional use for a church related school would have on the use of their property (located across the street). Simpson noted that Roger Staub, Minister of the church in question, has made a verbal commitment with the school and with another property owner, not to establish a school on subject property. He advised if a satisfactory, binding agreement can be made between the property owner and the school, concern for this particular action will have been met. McCord advised that the attorney representing the church has indicated the church will withdraw their request for approval of a school and the Planning Commission may rescind their previous action and approve the conditional use permit for ehureh purposes only. Simpson requested a copy of records to review of the original hearing but Planning Director Carlisle advised that dictaphone tapes are re -used and the original transcript is not available. Hanna said the superintendent's office had been called regarding this issue, not the principal of Root School. He added that this was a moot point anyway as, under the ordinance, the school was not required to be notified. He said he didn't think the Commission failed to meet the criteria for conditional use approval and felt there was no basis for rehearing. MOTION Hanna moved to deny the request for re -hearing. Farrish seconded followed by discussion. Simpson said if the church follows through with the commitment made by Mr. Staub, the church school becomes a non -issue. McCord said a bill of assurance could be executed, running with the land, agreeing that no school will be used on the premises and no further action will be required by this Commission. Jim Crouch, representing John Tyson, stated that his client did not receive notice of the previous meeting although same was not required. Crouch said he thought the owner of a parcel of property was required to file for conditional use adding that the church was not the owner of said property. Crouch said his client or the school system may file a law suit against the City of Fayetteville to stop the time from running out on the granting of the school conditional use. He said he felt it would be in order for the ehureh to rescind their request for a conditional use for the school. A representative of the church said the church was more than willing to enter into a bill 0,j Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 3 of assurance to be filed as a matter of record although he did not want to waive any rights already established at the previous hearing. The question was called and upon roll mall. the motion to deny a re -hearing passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - RE -ZONING PETITION R86-2 JOHN H. STOUT - 3295 OLD FARMINGTON ROAD The third item on the agenda was a public hearing on re -zoning petition R86-2 submitted by John H. Stout for .49 acres located at 3295 Old Farmington Road. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural; requested is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Consultant Larry Wood reported as follows: C-2 is not recommended for the following reasons: 1. The requested zoning district is contrary to the General Plan recommendation; and 2. The granting of commercial zoning would tend to commit the remainder of the Hwy. 62 frontage east to One Mile Rd. for the same purpose. Wood said the Commission might consider R-2 or R-0 as an alternative as either one of these districts would carry out the intent of the plan. He distributed a copy of a special study in subject area indicating recommendations for the use of this property which was amended by the Commission in 1984. Jacks inquired if there were anyone present to speak in favor of this petition. Kenneth Rader, speaking for the petitioner, said it was not his client's intent to proceed with the use of the property in any way contrary to property owner's or Commissions' interest. He said commercial zoning was requested on the basis of all the property being used in a business -like manner in this area. Rader said he would like to continue the request for C-2. Kathleen Taekett, an owner of property to the north of the property in question said she was in favor of the C-2 zoning for this petition as well as her own property. Nester Gilbert, 3295 Old Farmington Road, advised the address given for this petition could be misleading because this is his address and the property being rezoned is actually 3390 W. 6th Street. Jacks asked for speakers in opposition to the petition on the floor and hearing none asked for questions and comments from the Commission. Skwiot asked for further comment from the petitioner as to reasons for the request. Ltp- • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 4 The representative of the ehureh said they have entered into a contract to sell their building which lends itself to a business use rather than residential. He said the ehureh has no objection to an R-0 district which they see as an alternative and had chosen C-2 because everything surrounding their property seemed to be zoned that way. NOTION Nash moved denial of C-2 District and a recommendation of approval of R-0 District. Robertson seconded. Dow commented she was also against C-2 zoning as it would constitute spot zoning. Green asked Wood why the area in question was assigned "quasi -public" in the General Plan and Wood replied it was expected that the ehureh would remain at this location which he felt was an error in his recommendation. Green said he was not opposed to C-2 in this area and Hanna agreed noting the area labeled R-2 will never be built as medium density residential. Hanna added if the petitioner didn't object to the R-0, he would not be opposed. Upon roll tall, a motion to deny C-2 and recommend approval of R -O passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR DAY CARE AND CHURCH SCHOOL AND LSD FOR ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH - RWY.265 AT TOWNSHIP The fourth item of consideration (Item #3 on the agenda) was a conditional use request for a church and future K-6 grade school submitted by David Splett, Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church. Also requested is approval of the large scale development plan submitted by St. John's for the property located at Highway 265 and Township Road. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Splett stated the property use will be for worship facility as well as a day care center. He said the site plan has been arranged so that a kindergarten through sixth grade school may be considered in the future. Farrish inquired as to why a re -zoning petition was not filed and Splett replied the conditional use application had been initiated by the previous Pastor in 1983 and was being continued at this time although he said there was no objection to a re -zoning. He requested the conditional use be granted at this time so construction plans may progress. In answer to Dow's question, Splett advised the conditional use request is for the school which was not previously addressed. Lloyd Boling, 2360 Crossover Road, referred to minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1983 which reflects objections to a ehureh school. He said these property owners still object to said school at this location. He said he was not opposed to parochial schools, in general, but felt that under this conditional use application, the school should be denied. Boling pointed out that the church agreed LY • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 5 in 1983 to not include a school in their plans. Boling noted his home is located on the east side of Highway 265 diagonally across from the subject property. In reply to Hanna's question, Boling stated his concerns were congestion, delivery and pick-up and creation of school zone. Hanna said he didn't think this area would be impacted by a school at this intersection. He added he felt schools should be located so that children may walk to them. Jacks made note of the 1983 minutes reflecting the fact that no school would be built. Jim McGinty, a member of the church, advised that when the property was purchased, the purpose was specifically for a church but since that time, both the pastor and the mood of the congregation has changed. He said the congregation includes younger members who would like a day Bare or elementary grade school although this will not be pursued at the present time. He addressed the congestion issue and advised that the property is heavily wooded and will be left as natural as possible to provide a buffering privacy zone for the church. McGinty noted the main entrance will be on Township Road although Highway 265 will be used until Township is constructed. Katherine Adam, a member of St. John's and area resident, verified that the nature of the congregation has changed and the opportunity of providing a service to the community in the form of a day care center is seen by church members. Ed Karloski, another church member, advised that there were two people opposed to a church school at the time of the original conditional use and apparently none others have come forward to speak. Robert Jeske, member of St. John's, said it seemed the reasons given for objecting to a school at this location was for the safety of the children. He said he thinks that has been taken care of through the large scale development process. Boling noted he has no objections to a day Bare center and Nash suggested delaying approval of the school conditional use. Green pointed out that things change over the years and the issue to consider today is whether an elementary school is a proper use at subject address. MOTION Green made a motion to approve the conditional use as requested. Hanna seconded followed by discussion. Hanna noted the construction of Township Road and the four-laning of Highway 265 will change the complexion of the area in question. It was determined, on an amended plat, that the main point of access will be on Township Road. Jacks agreed with Commissioner Nash's suggestion to delay the conditional use of a school. Farrish said he would prefer a re -zoning but didn't have a problem with a conditional use. He added it seemed like an • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 6 outstanding use for the property. Green said he found no indieation of a promise by the Commission to not address a conditional use for a school at a later date than the original 1983 request. Jacks noted that a motion to approve indicates the Commission's consideration of all criteria required in addressing a conditional use request. Upon roll call, the motion to approve the conditional use passed 7-1-0, Nash voting "nay" Jacks advised the large scale development plan for St. John's had been approved by the Subdivision Committee contingent upon proof of permit for a temporary drive on Hwy. 265 and the execution of a bill of assurance for a sidewalk along the east property border. He noted it had also been recommended that the City be consulted regarding on-site drainage. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR ANTIQUE STORE WILMA FADDIS - 927 N. COLLEGE The fourth item on the agenda was considered next. A conditional use request for an antique store located at 927 N. College was submitted by Wilma Faddis. Property is R-0, Residential Office. Faddis stated she has been in business from the beginning of February. There being no comments from the audience, Jacks turned discussion to the Commission. He mentioned that a motion to approve implies all criteria of conditional use have been addressed. MOTION Farrish made a motion to grant the conditional use as requested. Green seconded and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAT - BUD TOMLINSON VALLEY SUBDIVISION - EAST OF OLD WIRE & NORTHWEST OF MISSION The fifth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a concept plat for Valley Subdivision submitted by Bud Tomlinson for property located east of Old Wire Road and northwest of Mission. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Tomlinson advised he is proposing 24 lots on eight and three-quarter acres at 3100 sq.ft. per lot. Jacks pointed out the proposed cul -de -sae which is fairly long and Tomlinson noted allowances are sometimes made for hilly terrain. Jacks said access through to the east needs to be retained; Dow agreed. Farrish suggested a stub -out on the east boundary be provided and Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 7 Hanna suggested an easement instead of a stub -out. Jaeks stressed the importance of an eastward connection. Jerry Sweetser, neighboring property owner, said the problem is sometimes handled by making prospective lot owners aware that a street will eventually be taken on through. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT - CEDAR CREEK JERRY SWEETSER - EAST OF OLD WIRE S SOUTH OF TOWNSHIP The sixth item on the agenda was the approval of the final plat of Cedar Creek Subdivision submitted by Jerry Sweetser for property located east of Old Wire Road and South of Township. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Jacks advised this plat was approved at the Subdivision Committee of February 20, 1986. MOTION Green moved approval of this final plat. Seconded by Nash, the motion passed unanimously upon roll tall. MOTION Nash moved to address the proposed Landscape Ordinance at this time as it is Commission policy to consider items of such nature before in-house matters. The motion carried by consensus. DISCUSSION OF LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Jacks announced that Commissioner Hanna replaces Madison on the committee assigned to research this issue. Sylvia Swartz, 607 N. Razorback Road, stated she felt there should be a strong ordinance saying that any tree that must be cut down, should be replaced and not with a shrub as is allowed in some areas. She added she thought the new tree should be viable and be maintained in a fashion so that it will live. Lois Imhoff, 1619 Clark Street, expressed her concerns and her support of an ordinance that will protect and replace trees when necessary. Sonya Decker, 2823 Hyland Park, said she chose her neighborhood because of the abundance of trees. She said she has lived in other areas of the country that have enforced similar ordinances. Decker said Fayetteville construction people might be convinced that Fayetteville would be a much better place to live, and attract more business by having a mild ordinance. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 8 Commissioner Nash read a letter in support of the landscape ordinance signed by fourteen Fayetteville residents dated January 28, 1986. She said the original committee has expanded to include Fred Hanna, B. J. Dow, Jeremy Hess, Jack Butt, Richard Bass, Melanie Stoekdell and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce. She advised a letter has been addressed to the City Board inquiring into what their members are willing to support. Nash said if there is no support, there is no point in continuing time invested. She said she was in favor of holding a public hearing if the Commission was in support of same. She advised of another meeting of the Committee scheduled for February 26, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 111 of City Hall at which time all trees with a diameter of 6" being marked on plats will be discussed. Carlisle noted that Patti Reid, Parks and Recreation Department had been on the original committee and wished to remain active on same. Nash concluded with a note that this issue will be discussed by the City Board at their regular meeting on March 4, 1986. HEARING ON DRAFT TO AMEND ORDINANCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The eighth item on the agenda was consideration of a draft to amend the ordinance for conditional use permits Jacks inquired whether the Commission wished to set a date for a public hearing for subject draft. Dow expressed feeling that a sign announcing the intent of conditional use should be set. She added she would like the use units considered as well. Farrish noted the question of whether a property owner across the street is considered an adjacent property owner. Green noted the blank space in the draft calling for a specific number of feet within which a property owner must be notified. Carlisle clarified the code currently requires adiaeent property owners and policy has not dictated notifying those property owners across the street from that property under petition. MOTION Green moved to hold a public hearing regarding the drafting of an ordinance to amend the code addressing conditional use permits and adding 500' to the blank which exists as criteria for notifying property owners. Skwiot seconded and upon roll call, the motion passed 8-0-0. MOTION Nash moved to hold a discussion at the next meeting of the Planning Commission regarding conditional uses possible in an R-1 District. Dow seconded and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 9 DISCUSSION OF SCOPE WORK - GENERAL USE PLAN The ninth item on the agenda was new General Use Plan. considered next; scope work for the Consultant Larry Wood inquired which areas of the general plan the Commission would like to see updated noting that he and Planning director Carlisle would then prepare a scope of work. He noted the procedure that would be followed if Fayetteville had never had a General Plan and added that, in this ease, he would like to know of items of main concern to Commissioners. Jacks clarified that the issues considered by the Commissioners would then be sent to various planners for Request for Proposals. Wood said he thought it would be more economical to sub -contract some of the work locally, although he thought an opinion from someone outside the City would be more objective. Jacks asked if a new zoning map will be required and Wood replied that the current map is difficult to work with and a new one with a different scale would be preferable. Jacks asked about a portable zoning map for each Commissioner; Wood suggested using a section atlas. Green said he did not fully understand the material under review but did suggest a committee be formed to find out what the Planning Office and Regional Planning can really use and to then weigh it out against what Commissioners need. He volunteered to Chair a committee for this purpose. Jacks and Wood agreed that some community facilities need addressing although Wood thought most of that area was not necessary. Farrish advised of his recent visit with City Manager Grimes who has obtained information regarding an economic impact model from Arlington Texas which addresses the cost of services and the revenue the services generate. He said Grimes has given the plan to him to present to the Commission for whatever use may be gained from it. The plan was given to Wood for review. Jacks appointed a committee to address the scope of work for the new general plan consisting of Frank Farrish, "Butch" Robertson and Stan Green as Chairman OTHER BUSINESS Jacks announced that City Board Member Orton has reminded him that the Street Committee will hold a discussion with engineers on Wednesday at 3:30 in Room 326 to discuss a route from downtown to Highway 265. Director Orton has requested input from the Planning Commission. In review, Jacks noted that the original Master Street Plan showed �- • • • Planning Commission February 24, 1986 Page 10 a tie from Mission Blvd. across Rockwood Trail to Hwy. 265. He said that the residents of Rockwood Trail have carried their concern to the Board who have put the issue out for re -consideration by area engineers as well as local residents. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M. !S