Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday May 26, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farish, Gerald Seiff, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: NONE Dan Coody, Larry Wood, Jerry Allred, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-14 DAN & DEBRA COODY - 215 N EAST AVENUE The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-14 submitted by Dan & Debra Coody. Request is to rezone part of Lot 5, Town Plat Subdivision (49' X 124') (6076 • sq. ft.) located on the west side of East Ave. approximately 140' north of Spring St., from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District to C-3, Central Commercial District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-3 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The property is already zoned C-2 District and C-3 District is a more restricted district; and 2. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Jacks asked Planning Consultant Wood what C-3 allow. Larry Wood replied there would and would actually be fewer uses allowed. uses were service related. Madison added C-3 allowed Governmental family uses. Jacks asked if this request was initiated problem. additional uses would be no additional uses He said most of the Facilities and multi - because of a setback • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 2 Carlisle explained Mr. Coody came to the Planning office for a building permit to reconstruct the front porch of said building. After researching the microfilm she found this piece of property had been rezoned from R -O to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance for used clothing and collectables only. Green said the Bill of Assurance was offered at a Planning Commission meeting a few years ago and they accepted it. He said there was alot of concern about that property being zoned C-2, and that it might not be appropriate, but that the use proposed was appropriate. Green asked if the property was still R -O would the Planning Consultant recommend C-3 zoning. Larry Wood replied "yes". Planning Consultant Wood said at one point he had recommended against Commercial zoning in that area on several different occasions. He said when the Planning Commission and Board saw fit to go ahead and zone Commercial in that area he saw no real problem with C-3. Carlisle read the Planning Consultants last recommendation for the property in question. "If the Planning. Commission felt the General Plan was still viable then the area should not be greater than C-3, but if they wanted to throw it out the window then C-2. Green said the property was not really zoned C-2, but it was zoned C-2 with a Bill of Assurance for a couple of very limited uses. He said it was not like they could put a gas station or restaurant at that location. Planning Consultant Wood said he would C-3 than he was with the current C-2. surrounding zoning outside of the R -O in be more comfortable with He said most of the that area was C-3. Jacks said if the Planning Commission recommended C-3 without any restrictions then it was possible for a gas station or restaurant at that location. Carlisle said the problem with the R -O zone was due to the antiquity of the area. She said none of the structures meet the required setbacks and no further renovations could be done to the property without lesser setbacks than are required in an R -O or even a C-2 District. Mr. Coody said his intent was to put in an Art Gallery/Office. • Jacks said he did not think anyone was worried about the C-3 zone, but what was being brought out was that the present • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 3 property was zoned C-2 with a Bill of Assurance restricting the possibility of a service station. He said the Planning Commission had to look further down the line as to the petitioner selling the property. Jacks asked Mr. Coody if he would be interested in offering a Bill of Assurance for the proposed C-3 District. Carlisle noted the property did not have the required frontage for a service station (minimum lot area 12000 sq. ft. with 120' of frontage). Dow asked what about a restaurant, and Carlisle replied there would be no restrictions for a restaurant. Jacks said he just happened to pick those two uses out of a list of possibilities. He said there were a lot of uses allowed in C-3 that the Commission would not particularly be interested in seeing in that particular area. Carlisle said she had recieved a phone call from a neighbor across the street, and that he was approving of the C-3 and was delighted to get rid of the C-2. Madison asked if there was any neighborhood opposition with the C-2 rezoning. Carlisle replied that rezoning took place in 1984 and she was not with the Planning Office at that time. Planning Consultant Wood said he did not remember any neighborhood opposition at the rezoning. Madison asked why was the C-2 zoning so restrictive at that time. Green said at that time Planning Consultant Wood did not recommend C-2 District because the area was not a good area for a gasoline station or fast food restaurant that C-2 would allow. He said the petitioners wanted to put in a used clothing shop with antiques and that the Planning Commission felt that use would be alright. He said the petitioners offered a Bill of Assurance to be limited to just that use. Nash asked Mr. Coody if he would be living in the house also, and Mr. Coody replied "yes". Madison asked how many apartments could this property hold if it were zoned C-3 with a use allowed of high density Use Unit 10. • Carlisle said it would be next to impossible to put much of anything on the property because it only had 49' of frontage. • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 4 • Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Mr. Coody said what he wanted to do was replace the siding and replace the old porch that was rotted and caving in. He said the porch would be replaced with a victorian style porch. Mr. Coody said the intended use of this property was for an Art Gallery and Office for the Gallery. He said he also had some antiques and would also like to be able to sell some of them. Jacks asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition of this rezoning petition. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Nash stated she would rather see the property Central Business Commercial than Thoroughfare Commercial. She felt the uses allowed in C-3 that bothered the Commission would be controlled because of setback requirements. • Madison added the Planning Commission did not do setbacks. • Nash still felt there was some control in that if a garage was going to be built there somewhere in the City Code they would run into problems with setbacks or lot size that would cause it to be reviewed at that time. Nash said she understood the Planning Commission could not ask for a Bill of Assurance and that it had to be offered by the petitioner, but she would rather see the land zoned C-3. Jacks asked Commissioner Nash if she would be comfortable with a restaurant. Nash replied she felt very few things could go in without some type of variance which the City would have control over. Green said the alternative to that would wanted to develop that lot, buy the one next and ask for it to be rezoned because the one C-3. be for someone who to it, and come back right next to it was Madison said the problem she was having was with the high density multi -family use. She said someone could take that old house and make a boarding house out of it. Green asked if the only reason for this petition was the fact that if the property was zoned R -O the petitioner would have a problem with the setbacks. Carlisle said they could not tear off • • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 5 the old porch. Green said it seemed to him this should go before the Board of Adjustment first to see if they would be willing to vary the setbacks rather than rezone the property for setbacks. Carlisle noted the Planning Consultant had said he was afraid once the C-2 zoning was in the whole neighborhood could very easily go C-2 because there was a foot hole there. She said if the zoning was less intense it would be more in with the Downtown complextion rather than Highway 71. Dow felt it would be more feasible if the Commission backed up to an R -O zone with the Board of Adjustment hearing an appeal for the setback variance. Green felt what the Commission had seen was that the Bill of Assurance had worked with the C-2 zone because of the restrictions. Jacks thought the area was a transitional area going from what had been an older residential area into some pretty nice commercial shop areas, and as long as the Commission could control them it would go quite well. Madison asked if the Commission moved to recommend R -O zoning would the petition have to be readvertised. Jacks replied no because it was less intense than what had been requested. MOTION Madison moved to recommend a rezoning to R -O, seconded by Seiff. Mr. Coody said he was out over his head and was not sure exactly what he needed to do. He said if it would help his cause to offer a Bill of Assurance that he would not put in a service station or fast food restaurant he would be willing. Nash asked if Mr. Coody could do what he wanted to do in R -O, and Mr. Coody replied he did not think so. He said he had been studying the C-3 zone and felt that was what he really needed. Farrish stated Mr. Coody did not want R -O and felt this Board should not rezone his property R -O if he did not want it. Jacks said it might be easier if Mr. Coody would offer a Bill of Assurance for specific uses only. Mr. Coody said he would offer a Bill of Assurance for an Art 131 • • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 6 Gallery/office space/antiques and residence. At this time Commissioner Madison withdrew her motion and Commissioner Seiff withdrew his second. MOTION Robertson moved to recommend approval of rezoning from C-2 to C-3 with a Bill of Assurance as offered, seconded by Nash. Madison commented that this kind of zoning does seem to muddy their waters. Mr. Coody added right next door to the house was a Bank and opposite the bank was the Northwest Arkansas Times. Jacks said the Commission was aware of that and that they were concerned about the things that could happen down the road if they rezone to C-3 without any kind of restrictions on the property. The question was called and the motion to recommend approval of the requested C-3 with the restricted Bill of Assurance passed 9-0-0. DISCUSSION OF GOALS AND POLICIES LAND USE PLAN Jacks asked the Commission if they would rather discuss the material that was handed out at the last meeting at a regular Planning Commission meeting or hold a special meeting. He said a document similar to the one handed out would have to be provided to the person or firm that would eventually do the new study. He felt the big idea was to give the Commission a chance to see what they were talking about, and to see how they might want to proceed from this point. Carlisle advised the RFP had been mailed out with proposals due back by the second or third week in June. Carlisle advised the Commission would need to go through the selection procedure to select the firm of their choice. Jacks asked if the City Board would be selecting or would the Planning Commission. Carlisle said she assumed the Planning Commission would select in this instance. Her suggestion was that perhaps the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Wood, Herself and possibly another member of the Planning Commission and a member from the Board of Directors form a committee to • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 7 review the proposals that they receive. Jacks asked for comment or discussion from the Planning Commission on how they should proceed. Farrish felt the discussion should be a part of the regular business of the Planning Commission. He said if the public was interested in having input in the update they would have the opportunity because the agendas were advertised. Hanna felt some of the items were somewhat idealistic, and maybe not practical for a town of this size. Madison felt if the Commission was going to discuss the issues at a regular Planning Commission meeting that they be last on the agenda. Seiff agreed with Commissioner was going to be so lengthy that regular meeting. He felt it • public would know and it should on perhaps an odd Monday. Robertson also felt it should public comment. • Farrish, but also felt the topic they should not attach it to a should be publicized so that the be a separate item all by itself be a seperate item offered for It was decided that the Planning Commission would meet on the off Monday at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the Goals and Policies. Dow asked Larry Wood if he could update some of the statistics so the Commission could compare how things were and as they are now. DISCUSSION OF REROUTING HIGHWAY 45 EAST Nash said she had went to a Board meeting for the Historical Society and her memory had been refreshed. She said this project had been discussed in April. She said what brought this about was the people in the Historical District understand those streets would be used for local traffic, and were not wanting them to close the streets. She said what the residents wanted was for the big trucks that were through traffic to be rerouted. Nash said her idea was to maybe post signs that would say "no through trucks allowed", and make sure there were roadmarkers on Hwy 265. Madison said she felt when that motion was made the next step would be for it to be heard at the Technical Advisory Committee, but that step had never taken place. \53 • • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 8 Larry Wood said the TAC had not met, but were due to meet next week, and he would take this to that committee. Jacks said the motion was "to recommend that Highway 45 designation of State Highway be removed west of Highway 265, traffic be rerouted with Technical Assistance" he said that motion passed april of last year. Mary Frances Newbern stated she lives at the northwest corner of Washington and Lafayette, and also owned the property at the southwest corner of that same intersection as well as 2 other pieces of property on Washington Ave. She said she had lived on Washington Avenue since 1944, and at her present location since 1963. She said all during these 43 years the property owners on Lafayette Street and those near by have desired strongly the removal of Highway 45/east from Lafayette Street. She said requiring the drivers of trucks and cars to contend with local traffic and traffic signal lights all the way into the very center of our City has probably been as aggravating to those traveling the highways as it had been to the residents of her area. She said in the past there had been no other choice, but now they have an alternative of the Plan that was suggested to this Commission recently. She said it mould reroute those approaching from the south by using Highway 16/east to Highway 265, to intersect with Highway 45/east. Those approaching from the north would use Joyce Street to Highway 265 to the Highway 45/east intersection. She said the residence of their Historic area are hopefull that the Commission would accept this plan if they have not already, and implement it, and thus relieve Lafayette and Mission Streets of the unnecessary burden that they now carry. Jacks asked if this was directed at through truck traffic period. Mrs. Newbern replied "yes". Jacks asked if there was any comment from the Planning Commission. He then said this would then go onto the TAC at the earliest opportunity. Nash asked for a report on the motion that was made from the TAC at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Larry Wood said a recommendation would come back to the Planning Commission from the TAC either by phone or mail. Madison asked if signs were put up for no through traffic or no through trucks would there be any enforcement or penalty. Carlisle replied the City could not put the signs up because Highway 45/east was a State Highway, and the City would have no • • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 9 jurisdiction over the State. Robertson said what he understood from Mrs. Newbern was to route the through truck traffic around Highway 45 or Lafayette and that she was not saying she was going to take Highway 45 business route off Lafayette. Seiff said there was one problem and that was Joyce Street itself by the Golf Course. He said going from the intersection of Old Missouri to Hwy 265 was an extremely narrow road, and felt there might have to be some discussion of widening that road. Carlisle advised Joyce Street was in the 5 -year plan to be 4- laned all the way from Old Missouri to Highway 265. Nash said Mrs. Newberns suggestion was a very good one, and there would probably be several more suggestions when the motion gets back from the TAC. She said all the Commission was sending the TAC was their approval of the motion that Highway 45 designation of State Highway be removed west of Highway 265, and that the traffic be rerouted with Technical Assistance. She said the Commission did not go as far as to plan alternate routes and widening of roads. Larry Wood asked if the Commission would have any objection of negotiating with the Highway Department on swapping. He said he was sure they look forward to getting rid of State Highways, but they can only add 10 miles per year per county. He suggested if they were going to get rid of Highway 45 west of 265, that they swap out with them and maybe get Joyce and 6th Street on the State system and approved by the Highway Department. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks advised the Commission of a letter from a concerned citizen regarding an article on Trees. Seiff commented the article was nice. Hanna felt this was an anonymous letter and personally he objected to discussing an anonymous letter, Jacks advised the next item under Other Business was a semi agenda of the Planning Commission Workshops sponsored by APA and the Arkansas Muncipal League in Hot Springs on June 23. Jacks advised items from the Update Committee on the suggested changes for the zoning ordinance. Jacks said he would like this to be an agenda item for the next regular Planning Commission. ,34 • • • Planning Commission May 26, 1987 Page 10 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - MAY 11, 1987 The minutes were approved as distributed There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 13�