Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday August 11, 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 and Frank Farrish MEMBERS ABSENT: B.J. Dow, Julie Nash and Paul Skwiot OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Wood, Gary Carnahan, Tim Stinnett, Ervan Wimberly, Tom Hopper, Peter Gunn, Jana McGuire, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jaeks and the minutes of the July 28, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND APPENDIX A OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow six chairs for barber and beauty shops in Use Unit 12. Use Unit 12 presently allows four ehairs. Chairman Jacks opened the hearing to those in favor of the amendment. Tim Stinnett, Route 6, Box 440 Fayetteville, stated he had spoke to the Doctors in the area of his beauty shop on Green Aares Road and they are in favor of the ordinance to allow 6 chairs. Jacks asked was there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition there being no opposition the public hearing was closed. MOTION Madison moved to reeommend approval of the ordinance as drafted to the Board of Directors for their consideration, seconded by Robertson. The motion passed 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-13 2740 JOYCE STREET - PETER L. & CLAIR GUNN The third item on the agenda was eonsideration of rezoning petition R86-13 submitted by Peter L. & Clair Gunn for .46 of an acre loeated at 2740 Joyne Street. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agrieultural to R-0, Residential Office District. Wood reeommended rezoning to R-0 for the following reasons: 1. The west line of the property under application generally lines up with the R-0 District on the South side of Joyce Street; 2. R-0 District tan be the start of the buffer from the anticipated commercial to the east, on the north side of Joyne Street, and 3. The publie facilities and serviees are available to serve the antieipated development. Jaeks opened the publie hearing to anyone in favor of this rezoning. Peter L. Gunn, 2740 Joyce Street stated they are planning to build a 2200 square foot aeeounting firm on the site, there is an existing house on the site but it would be removed. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition there being no opposition the publie hearing was closed. Madison stated on paper it resemble spot zoning but Larry Wood's comments elarified her noneern and she saw no reason to oppose. NOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of this rezoning from A-1 to R-0, seconded by Madison. The motion passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CHILD CARE JANA MCGUIRE - 335 NIGHTINGALE The fourth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for child Bare with a maximum of ten (10) children. The property is loeated at 335 Nightingale and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jana MaGuire stated the house is located on a eul-de-sae and the traffic would not create a problem. Jacks asked if she had eontaated the appropriate state ageneses and McGuire stated yes she had spoke with Nonnie Vance. Madison asked what the hours of operation would be and McGuire stated at this point we would open at 8:00 a.m. and Close at 3:00 p.m. but if there were a request we may stay open a little later for a few /c • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 3 students. Madison asked what. she meant by classes and McGuire stated it would be something like a pre-school with activities and learning periods while they care for the children. Jaoks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition there being no opposition the public hearing was closed. Madison stated she was concerned about there being 10 lots on that circle and if you have 10 parents picking up and dropping off children it would at least double the traffic, but since it does not seem to bother the neighbors it would not bother her. MOTION Madison moved to grant this request for conditional use for child care, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARADISE VALLEY SUBDIVISION TRACT B SOUTH OF JOYCE AND NEST OF OLD MISSOURI - LINDSEY, SEXTON & REYNOLDS The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of the preliminary plat of Paradise Valley Tract B submitted by Lindsey, Sexton & Reynolds and Represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe. The 7.12 acre tract is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential Distriot and is located South of Joyce and West of Old Missouri. Jacks noted this tract of land had been considered a few months bask but the developer had changed the concept from 21 single family units to 12 single family lots. Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plat subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. Proof of notification; 3. Bill of Assurance for street improve- ments to Joyce Street with the maximum of one half pending final resolu- tion by the City Board as to determination of off-site improvements; 4. Bill of Assurance for a sidewalk on the South side of Joyce Street. MOTION Jacks moved approval of this plat, seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OAXRIDGE ADDITION 1100 E. TOWNSHIP - OAXRIDGE LTD. PARTNERSHIP The sixth item on the agenda was plat of Oakridge Addition submitted represented by Ervan Wimberly. The Density Residential Distriot and is West of Old Wire Road. consideration of the preliminary by Oakridge LTD. Partnership and 4 acre tract is zoned R-1, Low located South on Township and • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 4 Jacks advised this plat was recommended for approval at the Subdivision meeting this afternoon subject to: 1. Waiver of the Jog Distance between Hummingbird Lane and Township Common; 2. eontingent upon 2 receipts of adjoining property owners; 3. sidewalk on the South side of Township and one side of Hummingbird Lane; 4. Plat Review comments. MOTION Madison moved to approval of this plat, seconded by Robertson. Further discussion followed and Hanna stated they had utilized this piece of property very well and should be complimented for only 2 driveways onto Township. Farrish asked if the driveways were covered in the Subdivision Committee comments and Jacks stated the plat showed the 2 driveways naming off Township and 6 drives coming off Hummingbird Lane. Wimberly stated in the approval for the Tandem use lots it was approved with 2 driveways onto Township and noted if they wanted to include this in the motion that would be fine. AMENDMENT Madison amended her motion as follows: the lots fronting on Hummingbird Lane would have driveways aeeessing on Hummingbird Lane and there would be no more than 2 driveways onto Township. Robertson accepted the amendment and upon roll mall, the motion to approve the preliminary plat as amended passed 6-0-0. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Tree Ordinance. Jacks stated the Tree Ordinance Committee Chairman was not present at this meeting. Jacks stated what we have before us now is a very minimal amount of entities, he said we are making so much about the quality of life in Fayetteville and it seemed to him that the City should have something on the books that would be direeted at this. He said we tried three years ago to get something and never did, he said Bentonville has had an Ordinanee since 1980 and he wished we could get something on the books having to do with tree preservation. Jaeks stated the problems we have had so far was all the various eomments coming from all directions on the Tree Ordinance whish 1s proper and we have more comments tonight. Jacks stated he would like to get these all Bleared up onee and for all and let the landseape committee get bask together and streamline this Ordinance so we could at least agree on a public hearing. Jaeks advised he was expressing his own personal opinion to do something and it seemed to him that we owe this to the citizens of Fayetteville and the future generations. • Jacks stated the Planning Commission had received letters from the Chamber of Commeree and the Board of Adjustment asking that we hold • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 5 off on any decisions until other ordinanees in the City be examimed. Larry Wood noted the 6 drawings are of 2 sites, one site is a square site with one aere and the other site is a rectangular site with one aere and offiee buildings loeated on the property and with the maximum square footage we could get out of the site and still meet the parking requirements, he went on to say they are 3 drawings for each of the 2 sites, the first drawing showed the basic dimension of the site and the size of the parking and parking areas, the second drawing showed the number of tree's that would have been required before the amendment was made two weeks ago and the third drawing whish ends up being 4 tree's for the one aere site is the way the ordinance reads now. Jacks asked was the first drawing for the 2500 sq. ft. plus the vehieular requirement and Wood stated it was the 4 and 10% provision, the buffer provision and the vehicular service area and Jacks then asked the third drawing was essentially the new amendment whieh would be 1 per 5000 sq.ft. Wood then noted he went to an engineer, and asked him to cost out what additional construction would have to take place to accomodate the tree's, which there was very little additional curbing required in this design to protect the tree's because of the few number of tree's that were involved. Madison asked Wood where the eost was showed for the additional curbing and Wood stated there was no additional curbing required he said once you pull the tree's out of the vehicular serviee area you already have your curbing in plaee basically at the edge of the parking spaces. If eurbing was required it would run an additional $6.00 a foot on eurbing. Farrish stated Larry Wood had done a great deal of work on this, however he did not agree with the figures. Farrish inquired to the drawing before the changes were made and asked if the ordinanee ealled for 1 tree for every 2500 sq.ft. of vehicular parking and those tree's had to be contained within the parking area and Wood answered yes. Farrish then stated the drawing showed 1 tree within the parking area and there is 26,000 sq.ft. of vehieular parking area which would mean there would have to be 10 tree's. Wood stated he had a conversation with Commissioner Nash about the interpretation of this ordinanee and he assumed that a tree planted next to the vehicular service area satified the need for it to be in the vehicular use area. Farrish stated his understanding was there had to be so many along the road in the buffer strip and so many within the vehieular service area and Wood stated his interpretation was they eould be interehanged as long as they were adjaeent to the eurbing paved part of the parking lot. Madison stated she had trouble with the current drawing she said the drawing showed 4 tree's and she name up with 5 tree's. Jacks stated the latest ordinance allows tree's around the perimeter /- S • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 6 essentially without being parking area. NOTION Robertson moved to table this item indefinitely until sunk time as existing ordinances eau be studied and updated, senonded by Hanna, and followed by further discussion. Hanna pointed out that he agreed somewhat with Jacks as to an obligation to the future generations. Hanna stated he was beginning to dream about this Tree Ordinance and now they have turned into nightmares and went on to say everytime we discuss something about the ordinanee something else is brought up. Hanna stated we have been diseussing this for months and months and something different comes up everytime, this is the same thing that happens to someone who comes in and tries to develop a pieee of property in Fayetteville. He realized there are a lot of people in favor of the Tree Ordinance and there are also a lot of people opposed to it and he said some people think this ordinance sounds simple and some think it would not be too expensive and Hanna stated he did not believe it would be simple or inexpensive. Hanna stated he is not prepared to put another ordinanee like this in the book and felt some more work needs to be done on it. Jacks stated the difficulty in the ordinanee is the administration and he agreed that's where it was stopped before but we have some information from the City staff that we have not brought out as yet. Jacks stated he did not understand the reference to looking at existing ordinances. Farrish stated he agreed with Dale Christy's comments about the difficulty a developer has to go through to develope in Fayetteville, when you consider the sign ordinanee, screening ordinance, the proposed landscape ordinance and the parking ordinance and Christy's comment was the process needed to be streamlined and Farrish stated he could not disagree with that regardless if we have a tree ordinance or not. His opinion on the preservation of tree's is it should be encouraged and Farrish stated if we are going to have this ordinance we should send it back to the tree ordinance committee with a few suggestions and then eonsider the suggestions and what the processes are. Farrish stated the problem he had with the public hearing is why do we need to rush into this ordinance when we could take the time and simplify the proeess. Farrish also said the citizens would have to put up with this as well as the developers. Green stated Farrish's comments about the Chamber of Commeree letter were helpful because he did not understand exactly what the letter was trying to say and Green stated they are all valid points now that he understands. Green stated he would vote for this motion and he would be willing to vote for a motion to drop this ordinance entirely. He felt it would not be appropriate to send this question back to the tree ordinanee committee, because they are talking about building rc 1 • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 7 permits, building inspection process, and a lot of things that go beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, to really streamline the development process and make it more manageable for the people who are subject to this process and administer it. Green stated we have been talking about this ordinance since October of last year. Hanna stated we have a motion to table this item and he would be infavor of recommending we not have this ordinance right now in it's present form. Green stated there are two separate questions: 1. do we need an ordinance like this right now and to him the answer would be no; 2. the development process needs to be streamlined and how can we aeeomplish that and the answer to that would be yes it needs to be streamlined and he felt it would take more than just the Planning Commission to be able to aseomplish that. Green stated we have looked at this ordinance along time and we have heard a lot of pros and negatives at these meetings and there has been a lot of opposition to this ordinance ranging from the very first meeting of the original landseape committee right up to the Chamber of Commerce letter and the Board of Adjustment letter and comments we have received from the City staff and he felt it is the Planning Commissions obligation to hold a public+ hearing on something we think is desirable and would work and his eoneern is this ordinance is so extensive as to the administration in the future, cost to the City, cost to developers, cost to replace tree's that die. Green stated if we need this ordinance then we need to spend money directly on the problem and not administering an ordinance like this and was not saying he would be in support of this at this time but is saying if we need it there is a better way to aeeomplish it than this ordinanee and get more for the City dollars in terms of administering this ordinance. Green stated he would be willing to vote for a motion to drop this ordinance entirely, he said he would be willing to support analyzing and streamlining all development regula- tions. AMENDMENT Robertson amended his motion to drop the Tree Ordinanee entirely, Hanna accepted the amendment followed by further dismission. Madison stated she would vote against this motion, she felt as long as the Commission has worked on this and the amount of publie interest that had been generated over the proposed ordinance both in favor and opposed is justification alone to hold a public hearing. Madison stated we do not hold publie hearings just on things that we support as a body and it would be a diserviee to people not to let this aome to a public hearing and she submitts they are afraid of what the public might have to say, what harm can there be in generating an ordinance as weak as this with minimal requirements and if it was killed in a public hearing so be it, she stated we had spent a great deal of • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 8 time at many meetings doing far more trivial things than this and she cannot understand why the three of them have decided to kill this ordinance, maybe the numbers worked out right but she was appalled they had that since of lank of duty to the eitizens of Fayetteville. Madison stated there are petitions on file wanting this tree ordinanee, there had been people sit here meeting after meeting both in favor and against many of them waiting for a public hearing to speak there mind and now you have denied them that ahanee and she failed to under- stand why, there is no plan to revise the City Ordinanee, and we can't even get an Update Committee together to take Bare of some petty problems that are cropping up. Phyllis Ride of the Northwest Arkansas Times asked if Robertson's motion included Mr. Green's suggestion to streamline the existing ordinanees and Robertson stated no. The question was Balled, the motion to drop the Tree Ordinance entirely passed 4-2-0, Robertson, Farrish, Hanna and Green voting in favor of and Jacks and Madison voting "nay". Madison asked if there was any stipulation on the ordinanees as to what would start the ordinanee again and Jacks stated he thought simply to start over as an item on the agenda. Green stated this was the first time the full Planning Commission had voted on the eoneept of the landscape ordinanee he said it first name up at a joint meeting with the City Board last September or October and two Board Members were in attendance at the time it name up as topic of diseussion, he said a committee was appointed at that time and no vote of the Planning Commission was taken as to whether the body supported the eoneept of this ordinanee or not and the City Board subsequently passed a resolution saying they supported the addition of landseape materials in the any of Fayetteville and Green stated he supports the addition of landscape material but does not believe the resolution was intended for us to work on a Landseape Ordinanee. Green stated he felt it was important that the Body had never anted or expressed it's eolleetive opinion about the landseape ordinanee at any time. Madison felt this was not a matter of chance that this happened to be on a night when three members were missing and Hanna responded he had know idea who was going to be here tonight. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GLEN OAKS EAST OF OLD MISSOURI ROAD AND SOUTH OF SWEETBRIAR - JAMES LINDSEY The eighth item on the agenda was a request for approval of the preliminary plat of Glen Oaks Subdivision submitted by James Lindsey. The 24.45 aeres is loeated East of Old Missouri Road and South of Sweetbriar Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 9 and is zoned R-1, Low Density.Residential Distriet. Jaeks stated this was heard at the Subdivision Committee today at 3:00 p.m., and there were a few items still in question that should be worked out at this meeting. Jacks stated there was eoneern for the diseontinuity of Errol Street from the City Manager and the City Board. Jaeks then stated Gary Carnahan was advised to speak with the City Manager about this subdivision before the Planning Commission tonight. Carnahan stated he could clarify a lot by passing out a master plan of this pieee of property and explained one reason they had not passed the master plan out to a lot of people is that Jim Lindsey does not yet own all this property, he has an option with Mr. Stubblefield to purehase the property if in fact the plan is approved for this subdivision. Carnahan stated there are three ooneerns about the street; 1. there are two streets named Errol Street that do not connect together, the Fire Department is eoneerned as to eonfusion with a emergeney eall that would some in. Carnahan proposed to rename that part of Errol Street that is on the Eastern side of the subdivision that ties into Katherine Street, Glenwood Street and the only Errol Street left on the plat would be the Western part of Errol; 2. the sight distance at Glen Oaks Drive and Old Missouri Road, Carnahan stated looking at the distance in the field there is a break in the terrain where Glen Oaks intersects with Old Missouri Road you can see to the left 400 to 500 feet and to the right you can see past Stubblefield Road intersection down to the curb opposed to Errol Street you can see to the left but to the right there is approximately 50 feet of sight distance beeause of the tree's in Mr. Stubblefields yard, Carnahan then said the sight distanee at the Glen Oaks intersection is just as good or better than it would be at the Errol Street intersection. Carnahan pointed out there is adequate separation to meet the subdivision ordinanee between Glen Oaks Drive and Stubblefield; 3. Carnahan stated the largest eoneern the City Board felt was that we had ignored the planning in the past for access for traffic in Huntingdon Subdivision to get over to Old Missouri Road. Carnahan noted on the master plan Errol Street on the west and extending East he then added the Planning Commission had required the developer of Huntingdon Subdivision to provide a short section of Errol Street on the West with the intention that one day they would be connected and relieve the traffie in Huntingdon Subdivision. Carnahan stated they did not intentionally subvert or go around on someone's plan to do. Carnahan stated in looking at the master plan we have provided three ways to get from Huntingdon to Old Missouri as we develop this property there would be another exit out at Rolling Hills Drive and one at South Street. Carnahan noted the Street does weave but they did this on purpose to slow the traffie down through this residential area. Jaeks asked Don Grimes if the overall master plan helped the situation and Grimes stated reviewing the overall master plan with Carnahan /5, • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 10 had softened his feelings. Grimes stated we had worked through the years trying to get East-West access in the City and spent a lot of dollars and after reviewing the overall plan if they follow through with this plan, it would helped a lot in his opinion and possibly the Board of Directors. Jaeks asked if the sewer situation had been clarified and Carlisle stated she spoke with Don Bunn and everything had been worked out. Madison asked Mr. Grimes about the Boards concern over the entrance at Glen Oaks Drive and Mr. Grimes stated the Glen Oaks Drive entrance comes in a short distance South of Stubblefield intersection and there are curves, hills and valley with Stubblefield coming in on the other side. Madison then asked if the real problem was Stubblefield and not Glen Oaks and Carnahan stated Stubblefield is difficult because you have to go all the way to the edge of Old Missouri before you can see. Madison stated we can't stop this because of Stubblefield. Jaeks asked if there were any plans to upgrade Old Missouri from Rolling Hills to Joyce and Grimes stated the only upgrade is Mud Creek Bridge. Jaeks noted the Subdivision had agreed upon temporary turn -a -rounds so people would not get the idea this is a permanent cul -de -sae situation. Jacks also stated proof of notification of Mesquite Tree Nursing Center as opposed to Apple Tree Inn. Jaeks asked if anyone was in favor or against this Subdivision. Phyllis Coates, 3195 Katherine was concerned about any additional safety hazards this subdivision might bring into this area by the increase amount of traffic. Also she was concerned about the tree's behind their homes, would they maintain there natural beauty she then said that was one of the reasons they purchased a home in the Huntingdon Subdivision. Grimes reassured the ladies that Mr. Lindsey is a quality developer and if anyone would maintain the tree's Mr. Lindsey would be way up on the plus side. Jacks stated there were three issues; 1. Errol Street discontinuity; 2. temporary turn -a -rounds and; 3. proof of notification from Mesquite. Madison stated she voted against this recommendation at Subdivision Committee because of concern about Mr. Grimes objections and the objections of the City Board members until she could better understand there objections and she felt there objections have been diluted a little and she felt an entrance onto Old Missouri may not be ideal but she does not see one that would be any better. MOTION a • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1986 Page 11 Madison moved approval of this preliminary plat subject to: 1. the Eastern piece of Errol Street be renamed that only the Western piece onto Old Missouri will remain Errol Street; 2. temporary eul-de- saes; 3. proof of notification of Mesquite Tree. Green seconded, followed by further discussion. Farrish stated Errol Street is already a City Street and is named, his question is how do they go about renaming Errol Street. Jacks stated he did not know what the process would be. The question was called and the motion to approve passed 6-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH LAVON SMITH - 1707 CROSSOVER ROAD. The ninth item on the agenda was an addition of a small school for the Seventh Day Adventist Church located at 1707 Crossover Road. This property is zoned P-1, Institutional. Jacks advised the Subdivision Committee approved the LSD plan for the Seventh Day Adventist Church for an addition of a small school. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks noted in the agenda there was a revised copy of the Structural sheet and there would be a consideration of the Subdivision Regulations item on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.