Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday April 13, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish and Gerald Seiff Julie Nash and B.J. Dow Lonnie Meadows, Kenneth Cockram, Carlisle, Tessi and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-8 ARLIS WAGES - 1039 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. Jerry Sweetser, Dave Jorgensen, City Manager Don Grimes, Sandra Franzmeier, members of the press The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-8 submitted by Arlis Wages and represented by Lonnie Meadows, for property located at 1039 E. Huntsville Road. request is to rezone the 1.34 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District to A-1, Agricultural. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; A-1 District was not recommended for the following reasons: 1. The requested zoning district is not consistent with the General Plan recommendation of medium density residential; and 2. The nature of the development in this area (apartments, commercial and single-family houses) does not indicate that agriculture would be an appropriate land use direction to encourage. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the requested petition. Lonnie Meadows speaking in behalf of Mr. Wages said the only alternative they had to keep the mobile home at its present location was to have the property rezoned to A-1. Mr. Meadows said his parents (Mr. Si Mrs. James Meadows) had lived at this location for 25 years in a mobile home which had been granfathered in. He said his father became ill with cancer, and his mother requested his sister and her husband to move their trailer in the back of her property to help in assisting with his father. Mr. Meadows said it had been a year now since his father passed away, and his sister would like to keep the mobile home at the present location to take care of her mother. Mr. Meadows added Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 2 there was an 1-1/2 of land which did not meet the A-1 requirements for a mobile home, but was prepared to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the setacks and the bulk and area regulations Mr. Wages said the property was bordered by 3 different property owners, who were present at this meeting, and had no objection to the mobile home. Hanna asked how long had the mobile home been at that location. Mr. Meadows replied 1 year today. Mr. Meadows said someone had turned a complaint into the City about 4 weeks ago, and at that time they were issued an eviction notice. Madison asked if there was no other alternative for a mobile home in R-1. Carlisle said she had spoke with the City Attorney and was advised that rezoning to A-1, and a possible variance from the Board of Adjustment on the Bulk and area and setback requirements would be in order. She said the ordinance allowed mobile homes in A-1 with 3 acres of land, and setback requirements of 100' from all property lines. Earl Wayne Counts, 1117 Huntsville Road, stated the wages were good neighbors and he had no objection to the mobile home at that location. Mrs. Wages owner of the mobile home said her mother had a nervous condition, and had to have care. She said her mother had already grieved herself half to death after the loss of her husband. Mrs. Wages said if she moved out her mother would be all alone. Mrs. Wages said the only way she could move her trailer was to go across her neighbors yard, and they had already put a fence up. Mrs. Wages said she wanted to know who turned them in and why. She said it seemed to her she should have the opportunity to get to know who turned them in. Jacks asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition of this petition. There being no opposition present Hanna felt if rezoning was the against the petition. MOTION the public hearing was closed. only alternative, he would not vote Hanna moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to A-1, seconded by Seiff, and followed by discussion. Seiff said he had visited the property and agreed the property had been kept very fine, and would not be a disgrace to any neighborhood. He said he realized the law was the law, but would hope since he seconded (40 • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 3 the motion that the Board of Adjustement could see fit in this case as well. Madison said she hated to vote against Larry Woods recommendation, but wondered if the General Plan was just to far down the road on this petition. She said the neighborhood appeared to be no where ready for Medium Density Residential. The question vas called and the motion to recommend A-1 passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-9 JERRY D. SWEETSER - 1710 N. LEVERETT The second item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-9 submitted by Jerry D. Sweetser for property located at 1710 N. Leverett. Request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-1 District was not recommended for the following reasons• 1. C-1 District is not in agreement with the General Plan recommenda- tions; 2. The intersection of Leverett and Sycamore is considered an interior neighborhood location which does not meet the adopted Plan standard for locating commercial uses; 3. Establishing commercial uses at interior locations away from arterial streets could have a significant effect on commercial development in the remainder of the City; and 4. The establishment of the industrial area between Skull Creek and the railroad tracks was not intended to indicate that this area should commercialize and nonresidential uses should be contained between the creek and tracks. Madison asked if a collector status would be appropriate for Sycamore when the widening was finished. Madison said it seemed to be more of a minor aterial to her because of very few east/west streets. Larry Wood said that was a tough question in that the answer was yes and no. He said Sycamore should not have been four-laned to begin with in his opinion, but it had been four-laned under a collector designation. He said the logical thing would be to up grade Sycamore to a minor arterial after the four-laning was completed. Jerry Sweetser explained this was a present had a welfare house on the opinion an automatic teller machine was use. Mr. Sweetser went on record to an automatic bank teller. small peice of property and at lots. Mr. Sweetser said in his not really considered a commercial say this would strictly be for O'p • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 4 Mr. Sweetser said this was something that would be very desirable in neighborhoods, and that other Cities were doing this in residential areas. Ken Shireman, architect for the project stated the primary problem they were faced with was it was a very small peace of property (100' X 103'). He said there would be extensive landscaping on the property, and the building itself would be approximately 12'X12'. Mr. Shireman said they would also like to have a canopy above the building to protect the cars from the weather. He said the effect of this would be more like a pavilion type look with quite a lot of landscaping. Mr. Shireman presented to the Planning Commission a drawing of the proposed design of the bank teller machine. Jacks said it looked like they had done as well as they could holding the traffic away from the corner. Richard Mayes spoke in favor of the rezoning petition, and said he had property close by. He said the bank teller machine would be an improvement over what existed there now. There was no opposition to this rezoning request. Jacks closed the public hearing and turned discussion over to the Planning Commission. Hanna said the bank teller machine would be a big improvement to that piece of property. He said the house that was existing on the lot would obviously sit there until it fell completely down. Hanna said he really hated to go against Larry Woods recommendation, but felt with the bill of assurance that Mr. Sweetser offered that it would certainly improve the property. NOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-2 to C-1 with a Bill of Assurance stipulating the property be used for an automatic bank teller, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Madison asked what use unit was a drive in bank under. Carlisle replied use unit 12 allowed financial institutions which was allowed in a C-1 District. Carlisle clarified this was not a drive in bank, it was an automatic teller machine. • Farrish stated there was a considerable amount of difference in the traffic between a drive in bank, and an automatic teller machine. okrA • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 5 The question was called and the motion to recommend passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-10 ROBERT B. WESTPHAL & B.S. COBB SOUTH SIDE OF HWY 62 AND WEST OF FINGER RD. The third item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-10 submitted by Robert B. Westphal & B.E. Cobb and represented by Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen and Associates. Property located on the south side of Hwy 62 and west of Finger Road Request is to rezone the 83.49 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R-2, Medium Density Residential and R-1, Low Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; The C-2 District portion of the application is recommended as requested. The C-1 District portion of the application is recommended as R-0 District. The R-2 District and the R-1 District portion of the application is recommended as requested for the following reasons: 1. The request is basically consistent with General Plan recommenda- tions, except for the amount of commercial frontage along Hwy 62. 2. The substitution of R-0 District for the C-1 District will establish a transition from the 2 commercial corners and help contain the north side of Hwy 62 from stripping out as commercial. 3. The public facilities and services are available to support the development. Dave Jorgensen stated after the last meeting he felt the need to revise the request to be more in line with the General Plan as well as the people in the area. Jorgensen said the east and west corners of the proposed location had been recommended C-2 at the last meeting, and basically they were too small to do anything with. Mr. Jorgensen said Rob Leftar requested the proposed strip of R-2 that was approximately 340' wide to the north of Leflar's property be R-1, rather than R-2. Mr. Jorgensen added Mr. Leflar did not want to agree to a road being patched through his strip of property onto Finger Road, and Mr. Jorgensen said he would not have a problem with that. Mr. Jorgensen said the recommendation for the C-1 to be R-0 was fine with him. Farrish asked what type of access would the developer be looking at • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 6 for the recommended R-0 from Hwy 62. Jorgensen said the solution for the accesses would balance on the drainage problem, and he had not really given that much thought. Jacks asked Mr. Jorgensen how he would feel about tabling this item until he could get the plan in order. Hanna suggested that the strip of the proposed R-2 in between the recommended R-0 District be R-0 as well. Jimmy Terry, Manager of the Common Wealth 62 drive-in theaters asked if the developer had given any thought to lighting up the proposed area. He said they were not opposed to the project, but on the other hand was wondering if there might be to much light on the grounds to continue business. Robert Leflar, 1495 Finger Road said the developers were getting to the point where they may have a good plan. He said this was the third time he had been to the Planning Commission on this item, and asked if the Planning Commission could decide on part of this proposal so he would not have to come back again. He said he would summarized the negotiations that were made between him and the developer. Mr. Leflar said the C-2 area on Hwy 62 area and Finger Road would extend down 500' to the south and straight across to the west from that point. He said the R-1 area would extend from the south line to his property at a depth of 300' from Finger Road. He said if he understood Mr. Jorgensen correctly they would not put the road all the way through to Finger Road, but would have a cul-de-sac further back to the west of Finger Road. Madison said she was surprised that Mr. Leftlar was willing to accept the C-2 on the corner. Mr. Leflar said the Planning Commission had voted 5-3 at the last meeting for a recommendation of C-2 on those corners. Mr. Leflar said the recommendation for the C-2 had not been approved by the Board of Directors yet. Joanne Whitlatch, 1630 Finger Lane said her one concern was the road opening onto Finger Lane. She felt the location where the road would be entering would be very dangerous, but from what she had just heard the developer was considering to not open the road onto Finger Lane, but to add a cul-de-sac further out. She said she had no particular objection with that, and agreed to the change from C-1 to R-0. She said she also liked the modification of allowing the developer to have an extra 200' on the C-2, but not the 275'. • Jacks closed the public hearing and turned discussion over to the Planning Commission. • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 7 MOTION Hanna moved to recommend the rezoning as requested with these exceptions. 1) C-2 District on Finger Road be .limited to 500' in depth; 2) the portion behind the C-2 be zoned R-1 rather than R-2 for 300' in depth off Finger Road; 3) C-2 be allowed on the west side as requested; 4) the portion on Hwy 62 between the two C-2 zones all be zoned R-0 rather than C-1 and R-2; 5) the portion shown as R-2 behind that be rezoned R-2, with the remainder R-1, seconded by Green, and followed by discussion. Robertson said this whole thing had been presented to the Planning Commission prematurely without enough time, study and negotiations ,done. He said it appeared most of the negotiating had been done at this meeting, and he was not willing to vote on this request in this manner. MOTION Robertson moved to table the motion, seconded by Madison, and followed by discussion. Green felt it was ashame for everybody to keep coming back time after time, and said it seemed to him it was pretty straight forward now. He said it would have been nice to have a drawing, but did not see that looking at another drawing would help clarify the situation. Madison said she was slightly concerned that all of the dealing that had gone on had been between Mr. Jorgensen and at most•two sets of neighbors. She said they had ended up calling all the shots, and she was not sure that was an appropriate way for the Planning Commission to plan a major piece of property. Jacks added he also agreed with Commissioner Robertsons motion. The question was called and the motion to table passed 4-3-0, Robertson, Farrish, Madison and Jacks voting "yes", and Seiff, Hanna and Green voting "nay". Madison added for the record she would have no problem with the road coming through to Finger, if it would help access the back and reduce driveways on Hwy 62. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LIQUOR STORE HIGHWAY 112 NORTH - KENNETH COCKRAM The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Develop- ment plan submitted by Kenneth Cockram for a liquor store on Highway 112 North. property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. \tP • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 8 Jacks advised the Subdivision meeting was not held because of absent members. Jacks said the plat review comments showed easements requested by Arkansas Western Gas, a sidewalk to be installed on Hwy 112, proof of notification, and a highway cut permit. Jacks said the plat did not reflect a lot split for the liquor store. Carlisle stated that proof of notification had been submitted, and the revised plat reflected all of the plat review comments. Madison asked if the LSD hinged upon the lot split. Carlisle replied "yes". Carlisle explained after plat review she had discovered the lot had been split without prior approval. Mr. Cockram stated he thought the lot had already been taken care of as far as the lot split went. He said he assumed all of the legalities had been taken care of, but this time he had been fooled. He said he was not the original owner of this property. Mr. Cockram said the liquor store would go on tract A. Hanna asked if there would be an entrance off Drake and Hwy 112. Cockram said there would be one entrance off Hwy 112. Farrish asked when this property had been sold, and Mr. Cockram said he could not answer that, and that he had been involved with it for about six months. Farrish then asked if Mr. Cockram new when the deed had been recorded, and Mr. Cockram said he had no idea. Jacks asked Mr. Cockram if he was aware of the plat review minutes. Mr. Cockram said he was aware of the minutes, and had submitted a revised drawing showing all the required easements. Madison asked if there would be any hope to share access from tract B with tract A, so there would be just one driveway at that location. Mr. Cockram said he could not say, and did not know the future plans of tract B. MOTION Robertson moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to the plat review minutes, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS KENNETH CORAM — HWY 112 NORTH (LIQUOR STORE) �0\ Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 9 The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for a lot split submitted by Kenneth Cockram, for property located on Highway 112 North. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial MOTION Robertson moved to grant the lot split as requested (tract A from tract 8), seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - PARK PLACE PHASE 5 DENNIS MDLLENS - HIGHWAY 45 EAST S CAMBRIDGE The sixth item on the agenda was a request for preliminary plat approval for Park Place Phase 5. Submitted by Dennis Mullens, and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, containing 10.99 acres, and 24 proposed lots. Jacks advised this item was not heard by the Subdivision Committee because of absent members. He said plat review minutes reflected, green space, sidewalk on one side of the unnamed street, contract for the temporary road to Hwy 265, proof of notification, the street to be named, street lighting revised to reflect the minimum distance of 300" and a new copy of the covenants. Madison said as she understood the east peice of Victoria would have a sidewalk on one side. Mr. Jorgensen said there was some confusion on what had transpired earlier on the other phases. He said a sidewalk was requested on both sides of Cambridge Drive, and was not quite sure of the reason behind that. Mr. Jorgensen he would like to receive a recommendation or some comment from the Planning Commission on that matter. Madison said her understanding was that the streets that were cul-de-sacs were to have no sidewalk on either side, and in exchange Cambridge would have sidewalks on both sides. She said the east peice of Victoria was not a cul-de-sac and would be a major street. Mr. Jorgensen said the developer would like to be consistent with what had already been done in Park Place up to this point. He said part of Cambridge has sidewalks on both side and other parts do not. Mr. Jorgensen said Phase 3 did not have sidewalks on Cambridge. Madison asked if the developer wanted sidewalks on one side or both sides of Victoria. Mr. Jorgensen explained that on the plat he has shown the sidewalk on both sides of Cambridge, and asked if they needed a sidewalk on • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 10 on the east side of Victoria. Madison replied "yes" they would need the sidewalk on the east side of Victoria. Green said the off set to that was they were not required to put the sidewalk on both sides of Cambridge. He said as he remembered the agreement was for sidewalks on both sides of Cambridge in lieu of one side of Cambridge, and every other street. Green said he did not remember that agreement being limited to streets that ended in cul de sacs, and was not sure that agreement would even apply automati- cally. Madison then said the Planning Commission could take the sidewalk off one side of Cambridge as Commissioner Green was suggesting. Green said he was suggesting to leave it like they have it because it made the most sense. Madison asked what would the Planning Commission do with the rest of Victoria as it goes on out. Green said he felt there would not be a tremendous demand for people to walk all the way from Cambridge to Hwy 265. He felt the people would be more likely to use the sidewalk on the two sides of Cambridge as shown on the plat. Green asked Mr. Jorgensen if Phases 3 & 4 had sidewalks shown on both sides of Cambridge on the plat. Mr. Jorgensen replied "yes". Madison clarified that the plat showed sidewalks on both sides of Cambridge to Hwy 45 to Victoria. Madison asked Sandra Carlisle if the Planning Commission did not require a sidewalk on the east side Victoria, would that require City Board action. Carlisle said the code did not specifically say a sidewalk would be required. Madison asked if local streets were required to have sidewalks on one side. Carlisle said that was correct, and her feeling was the developer would probably have to asked for some type of a waiver. Green said a waiver had been done for the earlier phases, and Madison said they had traded a little bit. Green then said they would be trading a little bit here to. Seiff asked Mr. Jorgensen his feeling on Victoria, and Mr. Jorgensen said it would possibly be a good idea to have sidewalks along Victoria, however he did not know if the developer would agree with that. • Madison asked if the street lighting had been corrected, and Mr. Jorgensen replied "yes". \Orb • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 11 MOTION Madison moved to approved the preliminary plat, Phase 5 of Park Place subject to: 1) plat review comments; 2) sidewalk on one side of the eastern portion of Victoria, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Green asked Madison if she wanted sidewalks on both sides of Cambridge, and along the north or south side of the east part of Victoria. Madison replied "yes". Farrish said if the developer had to put a sidewalk on the east side then he may want to withdraw from putting the sidewalk along both sides of Cambridge. Madison then said if the developer only wanted to put a sidewalk on one side of Cambridge then the Planning Commission could just stick with the ordinance and require sidewalks throughout Victoria, one end to the other. Madison said she would add that as an option if they liked. Farrish asked if they were going to have options to vote on. Madison said she would be willing to leave that up to Mr. Jorgensen and the developers discretion. Madison said the second choice was one side of Cambridge to have sidewalks and one side of Victoria throughout its length to have sidewalks. The question was called and the motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the motion and option failed to pass 4-3-0. MOTION Green moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1) plat review comments and; 2) sidewalk to be as shown on the plat, seconded by Robertson, and followed by discussion. Madison requested an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not the City Board has to look at this. Hanna said he did not understand the logic to having a sidewalk on Cambridge and no sidewalk on Victoria. Jacks said the plat review comments reflected two sidewalks on Cambridge for its length and none on the culs. He said Commissioner Greens motion just continued that process. Hanna asked how long ago was the first phase of Park Place approved. Jacks said somethime in 1980. Madison then said this was the first time in any of the phases in Park Place that one of the east/west \0a • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 12 roads had gone anywhere. Seiff felt a sidewalk on Victoria would make about a 100 yard or more walk and would be very pleasant. He said Victoria should have a sidewalk. The question was called and the motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1) plat review comments and; 2) sidewalk to be as shown on the plat; passed 4-3-0, Robertson, Farrish, Jacks and Green voting "yes", and Seiff, Hanna and Madison voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF TBE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS & CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A TANDEM LOT - PHILIP WARFORD 5277 E. HUNTSVILLE RD The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a lot split with a condition use request for a tandem lot. Jacks advised the petitioner requested this item be tabled from tonights agenda. MOTION • Madison moved to table this item as requested, seconded by Robertson. The motion to table passed 7-0-0. • OTHER BUSINESS Madison asked if the Planning Office would ever revert back to the procedure of receiving their minutes ahead of their packets. Carlisle replied "no", and that the minutes that reflected Board material were sent ahead for the Board agenda. MINUTES The minutes of the March 23, 1987 meeting were approved with the following correction. Page 7, line 4 change too to to Sandra Carlisle said some of the Board of Adjustment members were interested in attending the Up -Date Committee on April 21, 1987 at 4:00 p.m. Carlisle added that striping for parking lots was not in the City Ordinances and that the Prosecuting Attorney would not back the City on those types of violations. Farrish asked if it became impossible to get a quorum for the Subdi- \�) • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1987 Page 13 vision Committee would it be better to re -schedule than have the full Planning Commission to hear. Jacks said his feeling was if it was 1 or 2 items Commission could probably hear them, but if more than then the Subdivision Committee should be re -scheduled There being no further business the meeting adjourned for friday rather the full Planning 2 or controversial at 6:40p.m. \60