Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-27 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 27, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Hanna, Frank Farrish, Julie and B. J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson Stan Green, Fred Nash, Gerald Seiff Susan Webb, Roger and Tonette Garner, Ken Marvin, Larry Floyd, Ervan Wimberly, Wade Bishop, Jack Herd, Robert Whitfield, Sandra Carlisle, Kay Nash, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-11 845 LONGVIEW - PLANTS PLUS The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-11 submitted by Susan Webb d/b/a Plants Plus for property located at 845 Longview. Request- was to rezone the property from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-2 is recommended for the. following reasons: 1. A portion of the property is already zoned C-2 District and the remainder of the property is being used for a commercial use; 2. The property is adjacent on two sides to commercial uses; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Jacks questioned whether the request would take in property to the west which is not presently being commercial purposes. Woods answered the application include property to the west. any more used for does not Dow questioned where the line is drawn on the C-2 zoning, would the zoning request include the house? Woods estimated the line would be at the chain link fence on the west side of the used car lot which would bring it into the parking area just east of the house property. \O� Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 2 Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the requested petition. The petitioner Susan Webb, 845 Longview, stated the property is already being used for commercial purposes and has been for the past 5 years. She said the reason for the rezoning request is that she would like to rent a small portion of the property to a person who wants to put in some arts & crafts and this cannot be done under a conditional use permit. She noted that more than half of her property is already zoned commercial. Seiff questioned whether the furniture shop is solely for the purpose of selling furniture and not the manufacturing of furni- ture. Webb stated there will only be a few small items of furniture sold; basically it will be arts & crafts. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the petition. Jacks closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Commission. MOTION Nash moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to C-2, Madison seconded. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to C-2 passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-12 ROGER OR TONETPE GARNER - 1710 WOODLAND The second item on the agenda' was consideration of rezoning petition R87-12 submitted by Roger or Tonette Garner for property located at 1710 Woodland. Request is to rezone one lot from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. It is anticipated that the commercial zoning on the north side of Sycamore Street will seek the same limit as currently exists on the south side, which would bring commercial activity within one lot of the property under application; • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 3 2. The R-2 District will establish a transition between the R-1 District to the west and the commercial to the east; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Jacks asked whether Wood was suggesting that C-2 zoning will gradually creep back to the west from the restaurant on the corner. Wood answered "yes". Jacks questioned whether this request comes about because the petitioner wants not to do child care as a home occupation but as a commercial enterprise. Tonette Garner, the petitioner, stated it will be in-home with a maximum of 16 children. Jacks stated there is another provision for child care where there is a maximum of 10 children allowed. Carlisle stated this is covered under a home occupation in an R-1. Madison asked Wood whether, in view of the current uses around this property, did he think the request might be premature. Wood answered it was possibly premature but stated there are 3 houses on the east side of Woodland Avenue which he anticipates may be developed into some form of either duplexes or -multi -family use in the future. Hanna stated there are provisions in R-1.5 for child care. Carlisle read the provisions under R-1.5 and noted that Use Unit 4 allows a child care center. Nash noted that Use Unit 8 includes home occupations, Carlisle pointed out that under this provision they must take 10 children or less. Madison questioned whether there would be any bulk and area requirements. Carlisle stated there would be for land for a playground and square footage for the children. Carlisle noted that under R-2 the lot would have to contain a minimum area of 250 square feet per child, a minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child. Woods questioned whether the rules for a child care center would be the same as for in-home child care. Jacks stated he thought the two would be totally different. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the requested petition. The petitioner, Tonette Garner of 2808 Meadowlark addressed the Commission and stated they will be classified as an in-home daycare by the State and she and her husband, Roger Garner, will be running it together and they will not be keeping more than 16 children. She stated they will be • living in the upstairs portion of the home and the daycare will be in the downstairs portion. She further stated that all the requirements for the lot were met including the parking require- • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 4 ments. She stated they are in the process of possibly buying this home. She noted that they operate a pre-school presently at 2808 Meadowlark where they only keep 6 children. She further noted that they are on the USDA food program which does not allow them to keep more than 16 children. Jacks noted that since the Garners do not own the property they cannot rezone someone else's property and stated that the petition has to come from the owner of the property. In answer to a question from Jacks, the property owner, Ron Haley, stated he would be willing to submit a petition himself for the rezoning. Madison asked stating it is intention is property into if the building is a duplex. Garner answered no a two story home. Madison asked if the petitioner's to have a home occupation rather than make the a duplex. Garner concurred. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the petition. Mrs. Earl Gill, Rt. 4 Box 372, Bentonville, addressed the Commis- sion and stated they own the property just north of the petitioned property. Gill asked what area the petitioner was referring to as the parking area. The petitioner stated they are referring to the drive that is presently there for parking at this time and stated there is room in the front yard for use as future parking if it is needed. Gill stated that, as a property owner there, she and her husband would prefer that this property remain zoned residential. Garner stated that located next to the petitioned property are two residential houses, Richardson Center directly down the road and Woodland Junior High, neither of those being residential. Ron Haley, 410 Janet, Springdale, the owner of the petitioned property addressed the Commission and stated that he had installed a downstair's basement which he plumbed for a future apartment. He was under the impression when he bought the property that it was zoned duplex for multi -family he said. He noted that whether the Garners buy this property or not, he would like to be able to have an apartment downstairs if the new owners wish to have one. Jacks closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. Dow questioned whether there are any parking requirements by the Health Department. The petitioner answered that the Health Department requires one parking space per 1500 square feet and stated that under this requirement they must have two parking spaces for this particular piece of property. • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 5 Seiff questioned whether there will be any other employees at the child care facility besides the two petitioners. Garner answered there would only be the two employees. Seiff further questioned whether the need for parking would only be for the employees and for dropping off and picking up the children. Garner answered affirmatively. Hanna stated he feels that if this property is rezoned R-2, it may open the property east of the petitioned property on Sycamore for future development as apartments and voiced his concern that this neighborhood may not be ready for that. He said he feels that R- 1.5 would be a better use and would allow the petitioners to do what they want to do, further stating it would still allow for a duplex. Jacks stated he shared this concern and noted that there is a pocket of R-1 property in this area and noted that he hated for it to be rezoned anything other than R-1. Farrish noted that when the Commission does not automatically approve the concurred. considers this rezoning, it conditional use. Jacks Hanna noted that in an R-1 with a conditional use the petitioners could still keep 10 children. Jacks concurred.. MOTION Madison moved to deny the request for rezoning to R-2. Dow seconded. The motion to deny the request for rezoning from R-1 to R-2 was passed 8-0-0. Farrish made a motion to rezone the property from R-1 to R-1.5 if that was acceptable to the property owner. Farrish noted that R- 1.5 will allow the conditional use for child care and will allow for a duplex but prohibits apartments. Carlisle stated that R-1.5 allows single family, two-family and three-family dwellings but not multi -family dwellings. Haley, the property owner, verbally agreed to this rezoning. Green seconded the motion. Nash asked what the ages of the children to be cared for will be. Garner replied the ages will be 2 - 6 years. Green noted that it is not unusual for residential property of medium or high density to buffer commercial zones from R-1 and further noted R-1.5 zoning is as unobtrusive as possible in that neighborhood to accomplish what the petitioner wants to accom- plish. • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 6 Seiff questioned how the Commission can be assured that the owner agrees with the proposed R-1.5 rezoning. Jacks stated that the motion would be contingent on having a petition from the property owner. Farrish amended his motion to rezone the property from R-1 to R- 1.5, contingent on the property owner filing a petition for this rezoning. The motion passed 5-3-0 with Dow, Farrish, Green, Seiff and Hanna voting "yes" and Madison, Jacks and Nash voting "nay". CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST ROGER OR TONETTE GARNER - 1710 WOODLAND The third item on the agenda was a request by Roger or Tonette Garner for a conditional use for property located at 1710 Woodland for in-home child care with a maximum of 16 children. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. MOTION Nash moved to approve the conditional use, Seiff seconded. Madison stated she has a problem with the picking up and dropping off facility noting that the driveway will dictate backing out of a somewhat tricky location. She further noted that if the petitioner's vehicle is parked in the driveway as well, this may compound the hazard. Hanna questioned whether the neighbors were notified of this conditional use request. Carlisle stated that a conditional use sign has been posted on the property and notification of the adjacent property owners has been made by the Planning Office. Dow questioned whether, if there are objections to the conditional use, will it come back yearly for reapproval. Carlisle answered affirmatively. The motion to approve the conditional use passed 7-1-0 with Dow, Farrish, Jacks, Nash, Green, Seiff and Hanna voting "yes" and Madison voting "nay". WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations for a lot split for Ken Marvin and Larry • Floyd for property located on County Road 537. The property is located outside the city limits but is in the growth area. • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 7 Larry Floyd, 2413 Magnolia and Ken Marvin, 3042 Melinda, addressed the Commission and stated they were requesting to split Tracts A and B. Floyd stated he was planning to build a single family residence on Tract B and Marvin was planning to build a single family residence on Tract A and noted that Tract A has access to County Road. Jacks pointed out that Tract A is a tandem lot; Carlisle stated that the City has no control over a tandem lot in the growth area. Floyd said there is an existing home on Tract C. MOTION Green moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Hanna. Dow noted that County Road is an unimproved road. the City does not regulate county roads. The motion to approved passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE NORTHWEST ENGINEERS FOR LEN EDENS Green stated The fifth item on the agenda a request for large..scaledevelopment and conditional use submitted by Northwest Engineers for Len Edens to construct warehouses at the corner of Wedington and the Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Green stated that the Subdivision Committee approved the request subject to plat review, notification of adjacent property owners and the granting of a conditional use. Ervan Wimberly addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the conditional use. MOTION Madison moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Nash. Mary Bassett, representing property owner Mary Calabria who owns property directly to the west of this property, addressed the Commission and stated Calabria was concerned whether the looks of the warehouses would hurt the rest of the commercial property adjoining it. Wimberly showed Bassett and copy of the drawings. Bassett said she was sure Calabria would not object to the warehouses as long as they look good. Motion to grant the conditional use passed 8-0-0. \\5 • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 8 APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT - YORKTOWN SQUARE SUBDIVISION The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of final plat for Yorktown Square Subdivision submitted by Wade Bishop. The property is located north of Stubblefield Road and is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential. Wade Bishop addressed the Commission and stated the only objection voiced at the Plat Review was from the Fire and Police Depart- ments. He stated the Fire and Police Departments were concerned about a street on the north side of Stubblefield Road being named Hemingway Street. Jacks stated these two departments are suggest- ing that Loxley Street be extended across Stubblefield Road. Bishop objected to this suggestion. In answer to a question from Madison, Bishop stated that Hemingway would be 125' deep. Bishop stated their objection was because this parcel had been owned by the Hemingway family since 1910 up until the time he purchased it and the Hemingway family requested that a street be named in their honor. Bishop pointed out that there are no addresses on Hemingway which would cause any confusion to the Police and Fire Department's calls. Jacks questioned Bishop as to whether the person on the corner has the option of which way their house will face and what the address will be. Bishop stated there will be no houses facing Hemingway. Madison questioned whether there was another street Bishop could name Hemingway. Bishop stated they intend to landscape the median on this street to make it look nice to honor the Hemingway family. Madison asked Carlisle how strong the objection from the Police and Fire Department was. Carlisle stated that if Bishop gave a bill of assurance that nothing would front on Hemingway, there would be no objections from the Public Safety Department. Grant Smart, 1427 Stubblefield Road, asked the Commission for a definition of final plat pointing out that when this project was discussed a year ago there was a Phase II which included a second street. Jacks answered stating that each subdivision goes to a preliminary plat stage where details are worked out with the developer, after the preliminary plat is approved it is proper for the subdivision to go into final plat at any time the developer chooses. Jacks noted that when the preliminary plat was approved for this project there was the understanding that there was to be a Phase II and a second street. \\a • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 9 MOTION Seiff made a motion to approve the final plat for Yorktown Square with the name allowed as Hemingway subject to a Bill of Assurance. Dow seconded. The motion passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOT SPLIT The seventh item on the agenda was a request from Jack and Jean Herd for a lot split for property north of Highway 45 and East of Fat Gully Road. This property is outside the city limits but in the growth area. Jack Herd addressed the Commission in support of his request. Jacks questioned whether there is an existing gravel road access- ing this property. Herd answered no stating Highway 45 is on this property. Herd stated they wish to provide access to the two lots by creating a road on the east side of the property adjacent to an existing 15' easement. Herd noted there will be a fence dividing the two roads. Herd noted there is an existing gravel road easement which was provided many years ago and noted that the road is his east property line. Madison questioned whether Herd owns only the front and back lots and someone else owns the middle lot. Herd answered no stating he owns the whole property but is selling off half of the property. Dow noted that in the request for a lot split with the County, the County recommends deed restrictions prohibiting future lot splits. Herd stated he plans to make a deed restriction for three homes. Dow asked Carlisle whether it was standard procedure for the County to make a determination on a lot split. Carlisle stated that anything in the County must have County approval and noted that this property is in the growth area, not in the city limits, and the County must sign off on everything in the county. Carlisle further noted that this was their recommendation because the county only allows two lot splits outside the growth area where the City allows three. Carlisle stated that the county, in order to avoid further splits on the property, suggested a Bill of Assurance be issued to be picked up in the abstract. Mrs. Carlton Gulley a property owner to the west of the Herd property, addressed the Commission stating that her concern was that it was stated that water is available at Highway 45 and on • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 10 Fat Gulley Road and that line extensions may be necessary to provide access to all lots. Gulley stated she objects to right- of-way for utilities going across her property to access these lots. Mrs. Anita Jones a property owner to the east of the Herd property addressed the Commission and questioned whether the 15' right-of- way is included in the easement Herd is talking about. Carlisle stated that Mrs. Herd stated when she brought her application in that the right-of-way would be to the west of the 15' access to Mrs. Jones' property. Herd concurred. Farrish questioned deeded property. to the property in whether Jones's access was an easement or Jones stated it was perpetual easement granted 1950. Farrish questioned whether the Commission could grant a lot split without deeded access. Jacks answered affirmatively. Hanna questioned whether, by granting this lot split, it would give Herd permission to put a water line across the Gulley property. Jacks answered no stating the lot split has nothing to do with a water line. MOTION Nash moved to approve the lot split. Dow seconded with the stipulation that a Bill of Assurance be filed to be picked up by the abstract stating that this property will never be divided further. Jacks noted that the property owner has to offer a bill of assurance. Herd offered the bill of assurance. Nash amended her motion to state that, based on Mr. Herd's offer of a Bill of Assurance, she moved that the lot split be granted. Dow seconded. Curtis Ray, 3549 Sandpiper, addressed the Commission stating he was attempting to buy a piece of this property and asked if he would be allowed to do a lot split at a later time. Carlisle answered nobut said he could do a subdivision. The motion passed 8-0-0. \\O • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 11 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT GARLAND TERRACES The ninth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Garland Terraces, submitted by Robert Whitfield, at the northeast corner of Garland and Sycamore. Jacks asked whether this had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. Green stated the Subdivision Committee did review the request but did not approve it. He explained that Lots 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of this property could have access to Garland which is a State highway. The plan, he stated, is to build two units divided by a firewall and further stated that purchasers of the lots would have the option of a driveway that opens out onto Noelle Avenue, which is the street to built in the middle of the property, or the option of opening out on Garland. He noted that on Lot 17, the access to Garland already exists but Lots 13 and 20 will not have access to Garland in any event. Green stated that Mr. Whitfield said the Highway Department had granted him prelimi- nary approval to have access onto Garland for these lots if he chooses to do so. Green stated the major point the Subdivision Committee disagreed upon was that Dow felt Whitfield should access only Noelle Avenue and Green had no problem with the access onto Garland in view of the fact that the State Highway Department will have to approve the final curb cuts. Green said the second issue before the Subdivision Committee was the question of off-site improvements on Sycamore Street and further stated Mr. Whitfield is very cooperative and willing to do whatever needs to be done there. He pointed out that Mr. Whit- field had dedicated additional right-of-way over and above what would normally have been required to dedicate. Robert Whitfield addressed the Commission in support of his request. He stated that he would be willing to place a Bill of Assurance for his contribution for the improvements that will be required. Dow stated she would agree with that in view of the fact that Sycamore in the five year plan to become a four lane highway. Madison asked Whitfield whether his objection is just to constructing the improvements at this point and would like to delay that expense to save it from being ripped up when the four lane goes through. Whitfield stated that in this particular case, this being a collector street, he felt the City should bear the full burden of this expense but if he is required to place a cash Bill of Assurance for his contribution he will do that. He further stated it didn't seem like, in this particular case, that this is appropriate. Whitfield also noted to the Commission that he had contacted the Highway Department who sent out their Permitting Officer and Inspector who inspected the land and reviewed the plat. Whitfield stated that the Inspector said his \\A • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 12 recommendation to the District Manager would be to approve access for each of the 5 lots in addition to the street access. Whit- field said the Inspector called him back and stated he had presented it to the District Engineer who verbally approved it. Whitfield went on to say that the Highway Department had no objections to this request because of its consistence with what is happening all the way between the University Farm and Oak Plaza Shopping Center. Nash stated she feels that a Bill of Assurance isn't even neces- sary, further stating that if and when Sycamore is upgraded then the City Board of Directors can handle it at that time. Nash noted that she feels access onto Garland from these lots could be dangerous. Whitfield pointed out to the Commission that this is the first "Affordable Housing Project" in the community and noted that he is planning one more like it. He further stated that he would very much appreciate the plan being approved as is. Jacks asked whether this Affordable Housing Program is a govern- ment program. Whitfield answered it was a pilot program for the U.S. Department of HUD, there were no government funds involved and was basically a pilot program selecting certain builders who were willing to document ways to save money on subdivisions and housing for the public. Jacks further questioned who enforces the restrictions of this program. Whitfield stated the Architectural Committee consisting of himself and the two builders who will be building the project. Jacks asked whether there were any cash incentives from the government for doing this project. Whitfield answered no. Madison noted that if both units are accessed off of Noelle, there is a potential for the driveway to be blocked and questioned whether a joint driveway could be used between two lots. Whit- field answered no stating the cost would be higher and traffic would be higher. In answer to a question from Nash, Whitfield stated they could flip the lots to access Noelle. Dow reiterated that Garland will become a four lane State highway at some time and noted that if individuals buy these lots while Garland is still two lane, they may wish they had accessed off of Noelle when the four lane goes through. MOTION • Green moved to approve the plat as presented subject to proof of notification of property owners, plat review comments and with the , • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 13 determination that Whitfield has met his share of off-site improvements on Sycamore by the dedication of approximately twice the right-of-way along that street that he would be required to dedicate. Hanna seconded. Farrish asked if the sidewalks would have to be built within five years if the lot is vacant. Whitfield answered affirmatively. Dow asked if the off-site improvements on Sycamore are just right- of-way, no curb or sidewalk. Green answered yes. Dow stated she would vote against the plat because of the 5 extra exits and because she doesn't want to set a precedent on right-of-way. She further stated she would like input from the City Board on off- site improvements before the Commission moves ahead with this project. Gladys Crittendon, 1773 N Oakland, addressed the Commission stating her back yard adjoins part of the 5 acres and questioned what would be done about surface water. She stated she had spent money building up her yard and did not water dumping into her yard. Carlisle stated the City Engineer had requested the drainage plans be submitted to the Water &. .Sewer .Department for. their approval prior to construction. Madison asked if there were any recommendations from the staff on the driveways. Carlisle answered no. Madison requested that Whitfield consider putting the sidewalks back from the curb. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Dow and Madison voting "nay" and Farrish, Jacks, Nash, Green, Seiff and Hanna voting "yes". OTHER BUSINESS Jacks stated that the Update Committee met with the Board of Adjustment last week. The Board of Adjustment asked that the Commission provide a system of liaison between the two boards. Jacks appointed Commissioner Seiff to provide that liaison from the Planning Commission to the Board of Adjustment for a three month period to include May, June and July. A new liaison will be appointed in August. Jacks read a letter from City Manager Don Grimes stating his appreciation for the work the Commission has done for the com- munity. \\' • • • Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 14 Farrish asked if there was any way he could get a packet for the Subdivision Committee meeting without having to come and pick it up Carlisle answered the only way was by mail. Nash asked if the Subdivision Committee members' packets could be hand deliv- ered. Carlisle stated she didn't have anyone who could do that. Farrish asked Carlisle to start sending his Subdivision Committee packets to his office address. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 Page 3, line 5, after "where" insert "near". ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.