Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TBE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 14,_1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Skwiot Steve Barthelomy, Delvin Nation, Carina George Faucette, Dewitt Smith, David Dave Jorgensen, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi members of the press and others Heckathorn, Williamson, Franzmeier, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the June 23, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES The following correction was entered by Commissioner Dow: Page 4, paragraph 4, should read, Dow stated, in theory, it may seem unfair that one quadrant may not be reimbursed. But in specific cases the quadrant may indirectly benefit. For example, in the proposed Quail Creek Park in the Northwest quadrant some of the subdivisions in the Northeast quadrant would also benefit. With this correction the minutes stood approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-12 FAYETTEVILLE BIBLE CHURCH - 2809 MOUNT COMFORT ROAD The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-12 submitted by the Fayetteville Bible Church for 4.7 acres located at 2809 Mount Comfort Road. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to P-1, Institutional. Wood recommended rezoning to P-1 for the following reason: 1. P-1 District is the appropriate District for uses such as a church. Madison asked Wood if there was a shortage of available P-1 zoning and Wood stated he could not answer that question but the only one he is familiar with that is zoned P-1 is just South of the interchange • • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 2 at Mount Comfort and Hwy 71. There are other churches in that area but they are not zoned P-1. Jacks opened the public hearing and asked anyone in favor of this rezoning to speak. Steve Barthelomy 1022 S. College, stated they felt there is a shortage of available churches for people in the area. Barthelomy stated that they had talked to the residents in the area and there was no opposition and as for the traffic flow, they see no problem. Madison asked if they were currently holding services in that location and Barthelomy stated yes. Madison then asked if they have a Conditional Use permit and Barthelomy stated no. Madison then stated they were in violation of the zoning ordinance. Jacks stated he had received a call from Mr. Kimbrough who was not really in opposition but had some questions pertaining to this parcel. Hanna stated the amount of land and area involved in this rezoning looked proper to him to rezone to P-1. Madison stated her reason for voting in opposition was there is not a shortage of churches or available church property and further more this allows them to have a school in a P-1 district. She stated there is a fairly dense residential area across the street and Mount Comfort Road is narrow at that point. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of this rezoning from A-1 to P-1, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 7-1-0, Madison voting 'nay". LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DELVIN NATION SEQUOYAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - 1910 OLD WIRE ROAD The third item on the agenda was a request for approval of the proposed addition (LSD) for Sequoyah United Methodist Church submitted by Delvin Nation, for property located at 1910 Old Wire Road. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jacks, speaking for the Subdivision Committee, advised that the committee had approved this LSD subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. accept- ance of a dedication of ROW along Old Wire Road; 3. improvements to Old Wire Road with a maximum of one half of paving the street and curb and gutter; 4. accept a bill of assurance on the sidewalk along Old Wire Road. Jacks noted the Subdivision Committee had asked for a written opinion from the City Attorney as to the screening requirement on the North side of this property. ey • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 3 Sandra Carlisle stated they are requesting a waiver on the fencing and screening requirement which will allow Sequoyah United Methodist Church to plant vegetation 18" high to a coverage of 10%. This request is for a portion of the South boundary line which is adjacent to the proposed new construction. MOTION Nash moved approval of_this. LDS as. per the. Subdivision Committee report, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-9 LEO AND CARMA HECKATHORN - NORTH SIDE OF ZION RD ACROSS FROM PARK LAKE APARTMENTS The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-9 submitted by Leo and Carma Heckathorn for 2.0 acres located on the North side of Zion Road across from Park Lake Apartments. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-0, Residential Office. Wood recommended not re -zoning to R-0 for the following reasons. 1. R-0 District is contrary to the recommendation of the General Plan; 2. R-0 District at the location requested would be an intrusion into a developing residential area; and 3. R-0 District at that location would tend to commit the interior of a residential area to other than residential uses. Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this rezoning. Carma Heckathorn Rt.2 Box 157, Springdale, stated they had made an offer to purchase a 5.25 acre tract of land, with an existing house. The attraction to this particular piece of property was the central location and the possibility of having enough additional land on which to build a small office on the back side. Mrs. Heckathorn stated they had checked the zoning for this area and found on the South side of Zion there is R-0 zoning and on the North side of Zion there is R-0 zoning. She felt that the rezoning would not endanger the value of the property in and around this area. Jacks asked Mrs. Heckathorn how many employees they would have and she stated three including one family member. • Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this rezoning. • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 4 Jamie Jones, 1654 E. Zion Road, stated he adjoins this property on the West and said Mrs. Heckathorn had visited with them about the rezoning petition. Jones stated to Mrs. Heckathorn they would be opposed to rezoning the North side of Zion Road for several reasons; primarily the rezoning would be for the convenience of the Heckathorns and also for the three reasons Mr. Wood gave. Jones then stated these were very strong reasons to deny the rezoning petition and he also stated they had been given assurances in the past that unless there is a real need to change the General Plan that Commercial and R-0 Districts would not be extended East of the Dr. Offices on Zion Road. Jones stated there are no offices to the best of his knowledge on the North side of Zion Road between U.S. 71 and HWY 265. Leonard Ostendorf stated he lives two houses East of the property in question and Jones was a little bit off on there not being any R-0 zoning on the North side of Zion Road. Morris Henry rezoned a piece of property on the East end, away from the central part of Zion Road where the residential area is. Ostendorf stated it was wrong for one family to move into the neighborhood and dictate to the people who have been living there for many years. • Allen Robbins stated he lives on the South side of the property in question and would like to voice his opposition to this rezoning petition. Billy Carnes stated they own the property Northeast of the Heckathorns and are opposed to the rezoning petition. Les Childers stated they adjoin the Heckathorns on the West and they are opposed to any further zoning changes. Madison asked George Faucette if there is currently any R-0 property on the market and Faucette stated without any specifics he felt there is some R-0 available. Nash asked if this use could not be accomplished under a Conditional Use Permit and Carlisle stated there are no Conditional Uses available for an office in A-1 District and for a Home Occupation they could not hire anyone outside the family. NOTION Madison moved to deny the request for rezoning from A-1, to R-0, seconded by Dow. The motion to deny passed 8-0-0. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY DEWITT SMITH • The fifth item on the agenda was a request to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance submitted by Dewitt Smith to allow • • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 5 Beauty shops with up to 6 chairs as a use by right in Use Unit 12. Jacks stated the R-0 zone was written in the 1970's revision when the Commission anticipated a much higher density of residential property. The commercial aspect was written into the zone to take care of activities which would serve. the office and residential population primarily. Jacks noted the letter from George Faucette indicated Larry Wood's letter supports an operation limited only by economics. Jacks then stated he did not agree with that assesment and Jacks said he did not see anything in Wood's letter that would indicate we should open R-0 zone to economics, Jacks stated he is not against this petition necessarily but the background is important to this consideration. George Faucette stated Woods letter is self explanatory and that the use is keeping with the intent of the R-0 zone. Faucette stated the extremely restrictive parking requirements (1 space per 100 sq. ft. of shop area) imposed on beauty shops is too stringent. Nash stated she felt it was not unreasonable to up the chairs to six and also felt the parking requirement is a little stringent. Madison stated her concern about the beauty shop is the professional offices allowed in R-0 such as Dr. Offices, Dentist Offices and whom- ever are not restricted on the number of customers they can have but on the number of professionals. We do not tell a dentist how many chairs they can have and she feels the use unit is totally out of line. Madison asked Mr. Stinnett how many chairs would one operator usually work. Mr. Stinnett stated on an average basis, an operator would do one client per 30 minutes and usually that is in one chair. If a chemical service is being performed there might be one or two clients per chair or per cosmotologist so there would be no more than 2 customers per cosmotologist. Madison then asked if he had 6 chairs he would not have more than 4 professionals employed and Stinnett answered no. If we had 6 chairs we would have 6 cosmotologist employed. Nash asked the procedure on amending the ordinance and Jacks answered the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing. MOTION Nash moved to recommend a public hearing to amend the zoning ordinance Article 6, Section XII of Appendix A to include Barber and Beauty Shops with 6 or fewer chairs in Use Unit 12, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. After further discussion it was decided that the notice for the public hearing will advertised 15 days before the August 25th meeting. • • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - DAY CARE CENTER 16 SOUTH DUNCAN - DAVID WILLIAMSON The sixth item on the agenda was a request by David Williamson for a Conditional Use for a Day Care Center with a maximum of 30 children. Property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District, located at 16 South Duncan. This item was tabled at the May 27th and June 9th, 1986 meetings. Jacks asked Williamson how many children he stated at the last meeting he would be watching. Williamson said according to State and City Ordinance he qualified for 41.5 children and never said how many children he was actually going to have. Williamson stated he has done everything required by City Code and as for the parking, the code requires 1 space for every 1500 sq. ft. The building has a total of 2500 sq. ft. which requires 2 spaces and he is showing 4 spaces. Williamson stated in Fayetteville there is a big need for a low income day care center. Madison asked Mr. Williamson if it was still in his plan to have apart- ments in this building as well. Williamson stated yes, he plans to have 3 apartments and the parking is in the rear of the building. Madison then asked if the shared driveway was the access to the parking for the 3 apartments and Williamson answered yes. MOTION Nash moved to grant this Conditional Use with a stipulation to review in one year and Dow asked Carlisle if the parking was adequate. Carlisle stated when Williamson comes in for a Building Permit, the Planning Office will check the required parking and Jacks stated he thought the parking was adequate. Madison asked Larry Poage from the Fire Department if they would have any problem accessing this building for a fire if there were cars in all 4 spaces. Poage answered there would be no problem with the cars as long as they are parked 10' back from the front door. The motion was seconded by Robertson followed by further discussion. Farrish stated he had a problem with the motion as to what they were going to look at in one year. Nash said she would be willing to drop the review in one year from the motion. Parrish stated it was not fair for someone to come in and be allowed a conditional use and then for the Commission to review the use in one year and possibly shut them down. Parrish then stated there are various agencies that have ongoing comments to review an operation • • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 7 as this and our primary concern would be the traffic patterns and such and Williamson seems to be meeting all of the requirements. Madison stated she would vote against this conditional use because she is worried about the double dipping on this property as to a dual use with a day care center and apartments. Williamson stated the apartments will be used for students who are working on their Masters Degree for Child Development. The apartments will house the students while they work in the day care center. The question vas_ called, and the motion to approve the request as site plan presented passed 7-1-0, Madison voting 'nay'. WILKINS PLACE SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT DAVE JORGENSEN NORTH -'OF -OLD -WIRE"& WEST OF OLD MISSOURI The seventh item on the agenda was a request for approval of the final plat of Wilkins Place submitted by Gordon Wilkins and represented by Dave Jorgensen. This property is located North of Old Wire and West of Old Missouri and is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential District. Jacks asked Larry Wood to explain the R-1.5 zone and Wood stated it's a single family, duplex and up to a triplex District. Madison asked if the original preliminary plat showed the street light in the middle of the street. Jorgensen stated they moved the light to the side because it would be dangerous with the island and people coming off Old Missouri and entering the subdivision from both directions and having no street light. MOTION Dow moved approval of this final plat, and seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. COMMITTEE REPORT - PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE The eight item on the agenda was a discussion on the proposed tree ordinance. Nash stated the City Attorney was unable to attend this meeting as requested for an opinion on the amendment but Larry Wood was present with the cost estimates. Larry Wood stated he was asked to test the Tree Ordinance as written. Wood stated they tested it basically on 4 sites, 2 existing and 2 hypothetical sites. The first site was at the Southwest corner of • • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 8 45/265 which is the Hot Wheels location. The test was done on one half of the 2.47 acres of which is developed and there were some assump- tions in testing this parcel and total accuracy was not guaranteed. Wood stated there are 3 basic requirements in the ordinance; 1) Frontage buffer strip (excluding access); 2) Developed land area (excluding structure); 3) Vehicular use area; in testing the cost for 1) the requirement would be 18 small trees; under 2) the 4% requirement would require no trees and under the 10% there would be one tree required based on the land area; and under 3) there would be 13.7 trees required for the vehicular use area based on what was paved in that area. Page 2 of the cost study takes the required amount of trees and costs them out. The average price of a small tree would be about $22.50 per tree and installation would be about 50% of the cost of the tree. The total dollar amount for the trees and installation would be $1,103.63. Wood stated the cost study for Fiesta Square would be $11,761.88. Nash asked Wood would there be any way to estimate what the building cost would be and Wood stated probably less than 1%. Green asked how big the small trees have to be when planted and Wood stated minimum of 5' tall with a 25' spacing between trees. Farrish said there would be more cost involved as to curb and gutters and the loss of land, plus watering and continued maintenance. Farrish then added the SWEPCO building is landscaped beautifully but it would fail miserably according to the proposed tree ordinance. Green stated if you put 14 trees on the Hot Wheels parking lot there would be no place to park. Wood stated the next two costs were based on a one acre parcel. The first one would have frontage of 208' on one street and would end up with 16 trees required with a cost of $540.00. The last one with the same parcel but double frontage would be 23 trees required and a cost of $776.25. Wood stated the last page is taking the hypothetical parcels and showing the credits for existing trees. Jacks asked Wood if he had anything to work from on a yearly maintenance cost based on numbers of trees etc. Wood stated whoever maintains the square should have an annual contract and that would give us some insight on a yearly maintenance cost. Jacks stated the Commission had received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce asking that any action on the Tree Ordinance be delayed. Jacks asked Carlisle if the Chamber of Commerce is proposing a total revision of the City Ordinances and Carlisle answered Mr. Christy told her they wanted action deferred until they could go through the ordinances and see what in the way of landscaping is required now by the developer and what the cost would be opposed to this ordinance. 411. • Planning Commission July 14, 1986 Page 9 Carlisle stated Christy brought this letter in specifically for the tree ordinance and wants to investigate other entities as well, because other Cities are getting businesses that the Chamber had hoped would come to Fayetteville. MOTION Nash move to forward the letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the Board of Directors, seconded by Madison, followed by further discussion. Jacks asked Wood to make an amendment to the cost study for maintenance cost, such as curbing and additional land and Maintenance. MOTION Robertson moved to table this item until the next meeting with the City Attorney to attend, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks stated to the Subdivision Regulation Committee that Carlisle would like for us to bring our packets to the next Planning Commission meeting for discussion. Jacks stated there is a need for the Update Committee to start operating again. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. /4,