Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 23, 1986 in theBoard oif Direntors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jaeks, Sue Madison, Buteh Robertson, Frank Julie Nash Paul Skwiot Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Farrish, B.J. Dow, and Rodney Ryan, Doyle Faubus, Mary Margaret Durst, Jerry Allred, members of the press and others The meeting was ealled to order by Chairman Jaeks and the minutes of the June 9, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES The following correction was entered by Commissioner Madison. Page 12, under Other Business should read, Madison asked that Mr. Grimes supply the Planning Commission with a synopsis of his travel on anything pertaining to planning. With this correction the minutes stood approved as distributed. DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE The second item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Amendment to the Green Space Ordinance. Jacks stated he had a question about adding land with regards to tracking the credits. Rodney Ryan stated the planning commission recently considered an earlier draft of the amendment to this ordinance. At that meeting, there were comments indicating a desire for the City to expend a cash contribution in a different park quadrant than the subdivision. Ryan stated they had a meeting with the City Attorney, Jim McCord on June 17, 1986 and this amendment would be prohibited by State Law. Ryan also stated money cannot be spent although land can be banked. Ryan noted that a developer could construct something in the Northwest quadrant and give more land than is required of the green space ordinanee • • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 2 with the understanding that the additional land that is given could be banked for future development. Jacks asked in that same district and Ryan replied in any district. Jacks asked if a developer in the Northwest quadrant gave 10 acres in excess of the required amount the developer could then take credit for this in the Northeast quadrant, so ultimately we would end up with 10 more acres than planned for in the NW quadrant and 10 less in the NE quadrant. Ryan stated it would be very possible. Ryan stated each ease that dame before the Advisory Board would have to be reviewed very carefully as to the need for land in that particular area and if they considered banking, it would still have to come before the Planning Commission for approval and to the City Board for approval. Farrish stated when the Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment it was his understanding if a developer had land in quadrant "A" that he wanted credit for and was building a new subdivision in quadrant "B" he could make a contribution of the land in lieu of the cash payment in that quadrant provided that quadrant "A" would be reimbursed from quadrant "B". Farrish then added he had spoken with David Lashley about this and Lashley stated it would not be possible for quadrant "A" to be reimbursed. Farrish felt if this is so then we need to take another look at this banking ordinance. Madison asked if the Parks Board had met and discussed this new situation and if they still endorse the Banking procedure. Ryan stated they had met on Monday, June 16, 1986 and still endorse the banking procedure because it has possibilities for the future. A large area of Fayetteville is going to be extended and there will be a need for a large park in that area. Madison stated there will be residents in subdivisions that will be paying for green space and it will not apply to their quadrant and one of the goals is to have neighborhood parks. Ryan felt if it were possible we would prefer to reimburse financially. The only reimbursment right now that could be made would be money from the general fund or CD money. That would be the only way any reimbursement or any additional purchases of land could be made according to the law. Jacks stated he was surprised the City Attorney thought this was legal. Jacks noted he thought McCord said you have to be very meticulous about spending money we acquire in any particular quadrant. Carlisle stated the land will be banked, not the money and Larry Wood stated he was also surprised the City Attorney would allow the banking as credit for another quadrant. • Connie Edmonston of the Parks Department, said the banking can be in the same quadrant. If the developer is developing in a quadrant • • • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 3 and if his final plan showed the number of lots to be used with open land behind the subdivision then they could pink out the park land wanted and Jacks stated if it worked that way he would not have a problem. Farrish asked if the parks board has a recommendation on how the quadrants that gave up land would be reimbursed or would they ever be reimbursed. Ryan stated there would not be an absolute guarantee the quadrant would ever be reimbursed. Jacks stated he has some questions for the City Attorney before action on this amendment. Madison stated she would be willing to strike the part that reads "or in a different park quadrant" and replace it with "in the same quadrant". Dow stated some of the subdivisions in the Northeast quadrant would benefit from this amendment. MOTION Robertson moved to table this item until the next Planning Commission meeting with the City Attorney to attend, seconded by Madison. The motion passed 8-0-0. . PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-10 DARROW DOYLE FAUBUS - 2255 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The third item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-10 submitted by Darrow Doyle Faubus for 1.16 aeres located at 2255 E. Huntsville Rd. Request is to rezone from R-1 to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Distriet. Wood recommended not re -zoning to C-2 for the following reasons. 1. C-2 Distriet is eontrary to the recommendation of the General Plan. 2. Commereial zoning at the location requested would tend to commit everything from Happy Hollow Rd. to Hwy 265 for eommereial purposes. Dow asked Larry Wood if the Mhoon Beef Company was a non conforming use in R-1 district and Wood stated yes. Jenks opened the publie hearing and asked anyone in favor of this rezoning to speak. Doyle Faubus stated his reason for requesting ehange is to build a small repair shop for lawnmowers, tillers ete. - for small engine repair. Richard Mayes stated he was not in favor of nor against this petition • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 4 but noted the Northeast corner of Hwy 265 and 16 East was given a C-2 zoning for the purpose of increasing the value of the property but nothing has been done as promised. His question was how mueh of this area will eventually be C-2 or will there be one small parcel of C-2 and the rest remain R-1. Jacks asked if there were any more questions from the audience in favor of or against this rezoning. _ Nash asked Carlisle if this business could be done under R-0 or R-2 and Carlisle stated it has to be C-2 and permitted under use unit 17, trades and services for small engine repair. Carlisle stated the Planning Offiee had approaehed Mr. Faubus with a Home Occupation but he felt he may have to hire someone therefore he opted to go for a rezoning. Madison asked Carlisle if there were provisions on a home oeeupation for hiring additional help and Carlisle stated the eode says you cannot hire anyone other than a member of the family residing in the residenee and there shall be no additional structures. Carlisle stated this property is R-1 to the North and A-1 to the South • and this partieular use is not allowed in A-1. • Madison stated she had no problem with a small engine repair shop but she could not support the commercial rezoning. Madison stated she would be willing to allow a Home Obaupation if something ban be worked out with the Planning Offiee. Hanna stated he also could not support rezoning this strip C-2. He felt it would allow too many other uses and there are too many vabant buildings on Huntsville Rd. that have been rezoned to C-2 and obviously business in that area do not do well. Faubus asked was there any way he eould build the small engine repair shop if he operated it himself. Madison stated if he wanted to add on to his house he could do that but under a home oeeupation he cannot add an additional structure. Madison stated Mr. Faubus's problem eould be worked out in the Planning Office with a Home oeeupation. MOTION Madison moved to allow a home occupation in R-1 distriet for the repair of small engines, seeonded by Dow. The motion passed 8-0-0. MOTION Hanna moved to deny the request for rezoning from R-1 to C-2, seconded • . Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 5 by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-11 HAROLD AND KATHERINE HANTZ AND MARY MARGARET DURST - 855 & 857 FAIRVIEW The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-11 submitted by Harold and Katherine Hantz and Mary Margaret Durst for .8 of an acre located at 855 and 857 Fairview Drive. Request is to rezone from R-3 to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Wood recommended re -zoning to R-2 for the following reasons. 1. The request is to reduce the development potential from 40 units to the acre to 24 units to the acre; 2. The property to the west was recommended for R-2 District and the property to the south is currently R-2 District; 3. The requested rezoning is not inconsistent with the General Plan, in that, the General Plan recommends public or multi -family for most of this area; and 4. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. • Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this rezoning. • Mary Margaret Durst stated this rezoning was to make the neighborhood in conformance with Mr. Jan Thomas's rezoning. There being no opposition Jacks closed the public hearing. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of this rezoning from R-3 to R-2, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 473 & 477 N. GREGG - JERRY ALLRED The fifth item on the agenda was a request by Jerry Allred for a Con- ditional Use for a Professional Office located at 473 and 477 N. Gregg, this property is zoned R-3, High Density District. Jerry Allred stated he was requesting a conditional use for this property to convert from a small apartment building to a small Medical office. Jacks asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Allred. Hanna asked Allred if he was going to convert the whole piece of property from apartments to offices. Allred stated the back building will remain apartments and the front part will be the professional offices. /// • • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 6 Madison questioned the front width on Gregg Street and the size of the parcel. Carlisle stated the lot is 56 feet north and south and 190 feet east and west at the bottom and 170 feet east and west at the top. Madison then asked if this was an ante and Carlisle stated no. Madison then stated a conditional use for a professional offiee in an R-3 District requires one acre in area and has to be 100 feet wide. Carlisle then stated Mr. Allred is going to the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance on the bulk and area requirement. Madison asked Mr. Allred what part of an anre this pareel was and Allred stated approximately one half of an acre. Madison asked Mr. Allred how many offiees are planned and Allred stated 3 offiees with staff. Madison stated she could not support this conditional use beeause of the requirements of our ordinanees that it be an acre and that it be 100 feet wide and felt this pareel is already to small for its present use. Green stated Mr. Allred will not get to use this property for professional offiees unless the Board of Adjustment approves his request for a variance. Green also stated we could make the motion contingent upon the Board of Adjustment granting the varianee. Dow asked if this was the lawful step in eoming to the Planning Commis- sion before going to the Board of Adjustment and Carlisle stated no but the last Board of Adjustment meeting was eaneelled and the next meeting will be July 7, 1986. Hanna stated the commission had granted conditional uses sometime last year for a counseling offiee and classes, one at the corner of West Street and LaFayette and the other at Garland Street two blocks North of Maple. Hanna stated that he was not opposed to this conditional use and felt the density use would not be any greater than for the apartments. Franklin Williamson stated he was very pleased to see a professional building tome into his neighborhood and how could anyone possibly question people of this caliber opposed to having fraternities in the neighborhood with parties and loud noises all hours of the day and night. MOTION Hanna motion moved to grant the Conditional Use, seconded by Green. The to approve passed 7-1-0, Madison voting "nay". COMMITTEE REPORT TREE ORDINANCE The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Tree • • • • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 7 Ordinance. Jacks stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting for the cost figures involved for this proposed tree ordinance. Nash stated Larry Wood is involved in a census survey and would not have the figures needed until the middle of July. Nashconsidered having the public hearing in conjunction with the cost study. Jacks asked Commissioner Nash if she was considering a public hearing on the tree ordinance by itself. Jacks then stated the need for the complete package as to the ordinance and cost effect before a public hearing mould be held. Dow asked what the proposed date would be for the cost study and Larry Wood stated it would be early July before he could get them. Jacks stated the next meeting is the 14th of July, they should have the cost figures by then to be able to discuss all aspects of this ordinance before taking it to a public hearing. Jacks stated Larry Wood had run cost estimates on 2 shopping centers at one time and asked Wood what kind of examples he had in mind for this most estimate on the tree ordinance. Wood stated Fiesta Square, Hot Wheels at Hwy 45 and 265 and a vacant parcel. Frank Sharp stated he was concerned because he use to work in Colorado in the 50's and has since been back and found that some of the cities have handled their growth very well where others have not. Sharp feels Fayetteville has to be very careful about the growth. James Gilmore agreed with Mr. Sharp and added we need more input and involment from the community is needed. Nancy Sife, a new resident in Fayetteville added she would like to keep the wooded areas in Fayetteville and not have developers some in and cut down trees on commercial properties. Jacks stated he had a couple of reservations on the language of the ordinance such as legal documents. When they begin to talk about granting waivers and appeals based on extra landscaping, Jacks felt this ordinance would not function well with language as such. Farrish stated these items should be addressed before a public hearing is held and Jacks stated yes these all need to be cleared up before the public hearing. Green felt the ordinance should be reviewed by the City Attorney and let him decide if it is enforeable, what problems he sees from a legal stand point and have the cost study with all available information • • • Planning Commission June 23, 1986 page 8 on this ordinance and have all the answers before holding a public hearing. Madison asked that the City Attorney look at this ordinance and do something about the wording. Jacks agreed the language is too vague for an ordinance. Robertson stated McCord will take the ordinance and revamp the language so why not wait until that is done and have the cost estimates before trying to discuss this any further. Jacks said the City Attorney will take what ever we send to him and put it into ordinance form. Jacks asked to put this item on the agenda for the July 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting for a discussion with the cost figures and the City Attorney present. Dow asked what would the minimum time be to advertise for a public hearing and Carlisle stated the public hearing has to be advertised 15 days prior to the hearing. Carlisle stated the cost to the $169.00 per month and $2,028.00 City. Jacks asked he would like as to these costs. City would be about $6.50 an hour, per year by administration of the to see some reaction from the City Green stated a request for cost be made to Mr. Daryl Burch to ask for some input as to which department will make this type of inspection for the tree ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. •