Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-08 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday June 8, 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, Gerald Seiff, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Farrish OTHERS PRESENT: Evan Wimberly, Gary Atha, Eric Lloyd, Bud Tomlinson, David A. Cowden, Donna Weldon, Sandra Carlisle, Larry Wood, Tessi Franzmeier, Jerry Allred, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-15 J.W. EOFF - OLD FARMINGTON RD & BYPASS The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning • petition R87-15 submitted by J.W. Eoff and represented by Ervan Wimberly and Rick Osborne. Request is to rezone an 8.3 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of. Old. Farmington Rd. and U.S. Hwy 71, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-2 District is not recommended but R -O District or R -O District and R-2 District are recommended for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends that commercial activity be limited to the area south of Old Farmington Rd; 2. Expanding commercial activity north of Old Farmington Rd. could establish a precedent for commercial activity along the face of the Bypass; and 3. R -O District or R-2 District would establish a transition between the commercial to the south and the residential to the north. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Wood said the General Plan for the Bypass was done in 1972 or 1973. He said that was part of the first Hwy 62 west Plan with the adjustment of the commercial around that intersection. • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 2 Jacks said the Plan was revised statistically with the Bypass in mind. Nash said if Planning Consultant Wood felt it should not be rezoned C-2, then she did not see any reason to rezone the property at all. Nash asked Planning Consultant Wood if he saw any reason for the need of R-2 or R -O zoning. Planning Consultant Wood said opposed to R-1 "yes" in that they were looking into the back of Walmart, Employment Security Office, and Sines Body Shop across the street. He said there was commercial activity and office activity along with Fayetteville West Campus next to the property. He said the land use would fit better if it were a multi -family or an office use. Madison asked if the C-2 on the west side of the Bypass was the most recent rezoning. Planning Consultant Wood stated the most recent C-2 rezoning was on the west side, abutting the bypass. Clarification was made that the zoning map was incorrect showing a piece of R -o on the south side of Old Farmington Rd. which in fact should be C-2. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Planning Consultant Wood said the building that abuts the property was a shop for West Campus. Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this rezoning petition. Ervan Wimberly, representing the petition, presented a colored zoning map to the Planning Commission. Wimberly pointed out that there had always been the idea that commercial zoning would be around the intersections of the major interchanges. He said there was a lot of existing commercial zoning in the proposed area. Wimberly also said there were no large tracts of land left in the immediate vicinity of the intersection large enough for another motel complex. Wimberly said the immediate use of the 8.3 acres was for a motel and restaurant site. Wimberly added there was a strip approximately 1/4 mile north of Old Farmington Rd. that was relatively flat and easy to develop, but north of that point there would be a physical stopping point. Wimberly handed out to the Planning Commission a 1969 Highway • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 3 Department Traffic Count. He said that intersection was the second busiest intersection of Hwy 71. He said the data on the traffic count he passed out was much higher now. He said in 1979 the traffic count on Hwy 62 at the intersection was 11,200 east/west and 14,700 north/south, Hwy 16 was 5,700 and Hwy 112 with 3,600. Wimberly said in looking at the zoning map of the City that 90% of the C-2 zoning was in the north half (north of Hwy 16) with very little out Hwy 62 west. Wimberly felt Old Farmington Rd. was just as much of the intersection as Hwy 62 was, and that it was a major part of that intersection. Wimberly said a large part of the land south of Food for Less was in the Flood Plain. Wimberly felt that the Frontage Road was a good access and again personally it was better to pull off a two-lane road than it was to try and cross a five -lane road. Rick Osburne said he did not believe there was another piece of C-2 property in that area big enough to accomodate a motel. III Jacks said, although there may be no other property at the Hwy 62 bypass for a motel, there was quite a bit at Hwy 16. Wimberly said Hwy 16 had half the traffic count. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Hanna stated he agreed with Planning Consultant Wood on the need for a buffer, but could not see the property ever being used for residential. He said as far as offices were concerned there probably would not be much of a demand for them at all in Fayetteville. Hanna said the triangle at Old Farmington Road was an easy access coming from the east. Hanna said it may be premature to consider the C-2 zone, but it looked like the logical buffer zone for the property further north of this location. Hanna said he would personally be in favor of granting this rezoning. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-1 to • C-2, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Nash said she would vote against the motion for two reasons. She • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 4 said that was one of the most highly poplulated intersections and felt the developer could come up with a different intersection that would be preferable to adding more cars. Also she would not really care to see a hotel across the street from the school with all the traffic. Dow said her main hang-up was it being next to the school, and that the buffer zone might be more appropriate. Madison said she was very much concerned that commercial would extend on up to the physical stopping point that Ery mentioned. She said she would vote against the motion as well. Wimberly asked if a portion of the property on the east and north side of the strip was left for a buffer. He said then the buffer would be on this tract of land. Jacks stated there was a motion on the floor. Green said the reason he seconded the motion was because one of the- Planning Commissions guidelines was to put commercial at major intersections. He said if this was not a major intersection then there was not one in Northwest Arkansas. He felt it was consistent with the Plan to him and as Ervan pointed out, for this particular intersection, virtually all the commercial property was occupied with some activity or another. He said the next commercial that he recalled was on down the road quite aways at least a mile. Green felt this was a perfect place for commercial property to him. Hanna added that developers had tried to develop the intersections with the bypass and that the 62 intersection seemed to be the only that has taken hold. Jacks said his feelings were they were right and by policy they were restricting commercial property to the intersections. He said the question gets to be "where is the intersection and when does it stop". Jacks felt that was the basis for Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation which he thought was right on the mark. The question was called and the motion to recommend rezoning from R-1 to C-2 failed to pass 5-3-0, Madison, Jacks, Nash, Seiff and Dow voting "no" and Green, Hanna and Robertson voting "yes". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-16 • GARY & TERESA ATHA - 1940 N. CROSSOVER RD. The second item on the adenda was consideration of rezoning • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 5 petition R87-16 submitted by Gary & Teresa Atha. Request is to rezone a 4.81 acre tract of land located just north of the northeast corner of Hwy 265 and Hwy 45, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; The south half of the property is recommended for C-1 District and the north half of the property is recommended for R -O District for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends a combination of commercial, office and multi -family for the east side of Hwy 265 north of Hwy 45; 2. Zoning the property as recommended will align the commercial and office zoning on the east and west sides of Hwy 265; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Jacks then advised Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was to align the property equally with C-1 and R -O. • Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the request. • Petitioner Gary Atha stated he was the owner/operator of the Home Supply Company for the past six years. He said the Hwy 45 intersection had grown and fortunately his business had grown along with the intersection and area. His reason for this request was an immediate need for a larger building for his business. Mr. Atha said he had no qualms with the combination of rezoning, but thought in the future he might run into the next lot that would have to be rezoned once more. Jacks asked Mr. Atha what he thought of the Planning Consultants recommendation. Mr. Atha said it was fine and had no complaints about the combination as long as it goes out at least 600' to align with the commercial on the west. Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Dow felt the Planning Consultants recommendation was a very good one. She said it would set a precedent on Hwy 265 to avoid some strip zoning. She said it would also align the commercial as �a3 • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 6 well as allow commercial at the intersection and provide a buffer against the R-1. MOTION Dow moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to C-1 and R -O and that the two be in alignment with the commercial and R -O on the west side of Hwy 265, seconded by Madison. The motion to recommend passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-17 ERIC & CHARLENE LLOYD - 492 W. LAFAYETTE The third item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-17 submitted by Eric and Charlene Lloyd. Request is to rezone a part of Lot 2, B1 5A, County Court Add. (16,591 sq. ft.) located at the northeast corner of Lafayette St. and West Ave., from R-3 (High Density Residential) District to R -O (Residential Office) District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R -O District is recommended for the following reasons: • 1. The property is across the street from C-3 and I-1 Districts; 2. North of Lafayette St. there is not much land left that is not owned by University Baptist Church or the University of Arkansas; 3. R -O District will serve to buffer the commercial/industrial activities on the south side of Lafayette St. from the remaining residential activities to the north; and 4. Public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the request. Eric Lloyd stated he owned a couple of business at the location in question for the past 13 years (Bike Shop & Beauty Shop) and would like to add to the existing beauty shop. Jacks asked if the property to the east and north would all be expansion area for the business. Mr. Lloyd explained all three pieces had to be rezoned in order to conform. He said at present the gas station was a non- conforming use and in order to add to the existing shop it had to be conforming. • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 7 Jacks asked how deep the hole was in the back of the beauty shop. Mr. Lloyd explained the hole was to be used for a basement for the washers/dryers and a lounge for the operators. Madison asked if R -O would make Mr. Lloyds shop conforming, and Carlisle replied "yes". Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the petition. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. MOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-3 to R -O, seconded by Seiff. The motion to recommend passed 7-0-1, with Hanna abstaining. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT - VALLEY SUBDIVISION • SAM MATHIAS - OLD WIRE ROAD • The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a final plat for the Valley Subdivision submitted by Sam Mathias and represented by Bud Tomlinson. The 8.75 acre tract is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Tomlinson stated the certification had been left off of the final plat that the Commission had received. He said this had been corrected and presented a revised final plat with the required certification. Jacks asked if there were any comments from plat review that the Planning Commission should be aware of. Carlisle stated the only comment from plat review was that she had requested a contract in lieu of the remaining improvements. She said the contract had been executed and filed with the document on file in the Planning Office. MOTION Dow moved to approve the final plat as presented, seconded by Madison. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. 14 • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 8 REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - TANDEM LOT DAVID A. COWDEN - 2035 SMOKEHOUSE TRAIL The fifth item on submitted by David A. District and contains the agenda was a request for a lot split Cowden. Property is zoned A-1,Agricultural 2 acres. Mr. Cowden said the reason for the lot split request was he needed to build a home for his Mother in Law. Madison asked exactly where this property was in relation to the mail box. Mr. Cowden said it was approximately 100' to the south of the mail boxes. MOTION Green moved to grant the lot split and conditional use as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 7-1-0, with Madison voting "nay". CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CHILD CARE DONNA WELDON - 559 S. RAY The sixth item on the agenda was a request for conditional use for child care submitted by Donna Weldon. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Dow asked Mrs. Weldon if she was going to be putting a fence up. Mrs. Weldon replied a fence would go up sometime next week. Jacks asked how many children she would be watching. Mrs. Weldon replied 10 children. Dow questioned the drop off point as to how would the parents access the property. Mrs. Weldon stated she was only going to be watching Kindergarten children and they would walk to her home after school. Seiff said he was concerned said the driveway was one fact there was only tandem concern was the danger of a there. about the way the driveway was. He car wide and was concerned about the type parking. He said his biggest child behind one car when another was Mrs. Weldon stated the driveway was going to be widened to two • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 9 lanes. Madison said this was a conditional use and it could be denied in one year if any complaints come through the Planning Office. MOTION Madison moved to grant the conditional use as submitted, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. REPORT FROM THE UPDATE COMMITTEE The seventh item on the agenda was a report from the Update Committee presented by Commissioner Hanna. 1. Remove requirements from definitions as a separate committee item Jacks said the update committee was a policy committee and the real work would come from some other source and they were not quite sure who would be appointed to do that. 2. New Code Books to be furnished to,..Sommissioners_.from Planning Office Hanna advised that Sandra Carlisle was working on new code books for the Planning Commissioners. Jacks asked Carlisle if the Planning Office had progressed at all on the new books. Carlisle replied she could not figure out how to run the books in a more feasible form. Jacks said he would lend the Planning Office his copy to review. Green asked how much the Ordinance Books were and Carlisle replied approximately $400.00. 3. Combine Plat Review and Subdivision Committee to save time. Hanna pointed out this did not mean to actually combine the committees. He thought they could try to schedule the meetings concurrently or one after another. Hanna said this was brought about to save time to a developer trying to bring a development through the process. • Green asked if that was practical because in plat review the developer receives comments, then the developer goes back and • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 10 revises the plat in which the Subdivision Committee receives. He said if the meetings were back to back the developer would not have time to think about the comments they had received at plat review. Also the Planning Office would not have time to organize what had happened if there were one meeting after another. Jacks said right now a developer has at least 3 trips, Plat Review, Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission. Nash asked if it was that important for the Subdivision Committee to see the revised plat. Dow said the revised plat was very helpful and Commissioner Green added if there were an error the developer may not know how to fix it with possibly only 1/2 hour between meetings. He said many times a developer needs to go back and think about what they have been told and the best way to solve the problem. Jacks said the thought on this was that the percentages would be such that if the plat had everything right the developer would not have to make the trips or changes. Jacks said there would be some with snarls and the guy would have to come back through the process again. Green wondered if there would be some way to group them into simple ones and more complex ones. He said some of the LSD were merely rituals with everything in order. He said there were others were it was real important for the developer to have time to work it out. Jacks said it would be a judgement call on the part of those committees to say this one could go on and this one would have to come back next week. Nash asked if Plat Review could send the simple ones onto the Planning Commission. Jacks said he did not think Plat Review had that judgement capability. Carlisle stated the ordinance required a developer to go through Plat Review, Subdivision and then to Planning Commission. She said with the exception of a final plat which goes to Plat Review and then to Planning Commission. Carlisle agreed with Commissioner Green and felt the Plat Review Committee was more a more technical committee. Jacks said he would like to try the back to back meetings for 2 Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 11 or 3 meetings to see if it would really make a substancial difference. Nash suggested changing the ordinance by holding a public hearing. She then said Plat Review could decide if the developer could go straight to the Planning Commission or straight to the Subdivision Committee. Jacks asked if the ordinance was changed, was the Plat Review Committee capable of making that determination. Jacks felt Sanda Carlisle would be more capable of making that decision herself rather than the utilities, but the ordinance would have to be changed in order to do that. Dow said she would be willing to do the judgement call on the easy ones, but would sure hate for the full Planning Commission to sit through the hard ones. Green also said proof of notification would have to be supplied at Plat Review rather than Subdivision Committee. 4. Manual for developers. Hanna advised the Planning Office was working on the manual for the developers. Hanna said the update committee had discussed that when a developers comes to the City and wanted to do something one time, he was completely lost. He said it begins to become overwhelming when the third or fourth thing had been done and finds out there was still something else to do. Jacks said that essentially was the comment from the Chamber people. Jacks said the Chambers main complaint rather than to much restriction and to many ordinances seemed to be the fact that people who did not know there way around would come and find out they still had more to do. 5. Cross reference for conditional uses in existing ordinances Hanna said what the Update Committee had in mind was a matrix. Hanna said they all agreed it was a good idea, but could not agree on how it would get done. Jacks said obviously there was a big chore here trying to figure out how to get a lot of these done. 6. Eliminate unused and unenforced regulations Madison asked for an example of an unused or unenforced • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 12 regulation. She then wanted to know if it was a matter of they were to hard to enforce and we just don't do it or are they archaic and unnessary. Hanna said some of the regulations situations. were passed for one time Jacks gave an example of what they had already done something about. He said the matter of driveway separations in R-1. Everybody seemed to be finally of the opinion that really that ordinance was not needed because the Planning Commission invariably waived it. He said there were some other regulations in the book like that. 7. Designation for Historic District (passed on discussion) Jacks asked what did passed on mean. Hanna said the committee did not do anything and that it died. Jacks then asked if the committee thought the Historical District needed a special zone or something. Hanna replied that was what they could not decide on. Hanna added there already was a Historical District, although it was not zoned. -for a Historical District. Hanna said evidently there was a Historic structure in just about every zone, for instance there was a rail road station in and Industrial zone. Jacks said the in his District defined on the zone). He added with having to do with older mind the discussion was should there be a zoning map for Historic District (H-1 that District there would be regulations stuctures. Hanna said it might be that the Planning Commission should get together with the Historical Society and allow some permissable uses in the Historic District. Jacks asked how did any special regulations other than the R-1 regulations come into play. Hanna replied the District was designated a Historic District, but does not have anything to do with City zoning. He said if someone wanted to add a sunroom on the side of a house in the Historic District all they had to do was meet the setback requirements. • Jacks asked if there were no restrictions there by virtue of the District being a Historic District. • • • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 13 Hanna felt the Historical situation should be left alone as it existed. Phyllis Rice, Northwest Arkansas Times added the Springdale Board of Directors had an ordinance (Shiloh Historic District) established for their Historical District. Hanna said he was against a zoning District with certain restrictions. Stan Green asked if the Historic District designation was put there by the City. Carlisle thought the designation was put there at the request of the Historical Society. Green said the Historic District in Fayetteville was not the same as being on the National Register of Historic Places and there were no Federal guidelines that prohibit certain things. Larry Wood thought there were some restrictions in the Fayetteville Historic District. Wood said the. Washington Willow Historic District was a City designation with boundarys and without any real restrictions. Jacks advised that the question before the Planning Commission was should they leave the District alone or take steps to develop a Historic District. Dow said before she voted against it she would be curious to know what kinds of things they were talking about. She asked for some examples of what Springdale had done. Madison said if the District did not mean anything the Planning Commission may as well get ride of it because it was just extra clutter in the book. Hanna said if somebody was interested in trying to do something about the Historic District in Fayetteville they should take the material to the City Board. He said he really did not see this as the Planning Commissions job. In answer to a question from Commission Madison, Jacks said they would end up with a lot of PR. He said the Old Post Office was a perfect example of what preservation had done. He said not every structure has the benefits that the Old P.O. had. Dow said she would like to leave the discussion open rather than • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 14 eliminating it. She said maybe someone from the Historical Society would take some in interest and proposed somethings. Carlisle stated she would get a copy of the Springdale Ordinance for the Historical Society for the next meeting. Larry Wood stated he also would send some material to the Planning Commission on how to incorporate Historical Districts into zoning. Jacks added the Commission would not take action until the material was received and discussed. 8. USE UNITS DEFINITIONS NEED REFINING 9. LOOK AT DOWNTOWN PARKING Hanna said the Committee felt like it would be better to leave this one alone. He said it had been pointed out to the Committee that there was sufficient parking downtown right now. • Jacks asked Hanna if he was suggesting to strike item 9 from the list and Hanna replied "yes". • 10. ZONE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Jacks said after the 1970 zoning that R -O District was developed with the thought of properties on the fringe of downtown. He said R -O was simply going to be a rather dense living and office area which happens in big Cities. He said it had not worked that way and wound up being zoned to where guys could put Doctor offices out in suberia and had just been a mess all the way around. Jacks felt an office zone was in order. Madison asked Jacks to define an office. Jacks said it would be specifically for offices without any reference to residential property involved with office zones. Hanna said beauty shops were allowed in R -O that were not residential nor office. Dow felt it was a good concept, but what would they do with the existing R -O. Jacks said they were talking about a revamping of the zoning map. Dow asked if the uses in R -O could be restricted. Jacks said the uses would have to be looked at individually, but the idea would be R -O zone would be mainly for offices. • Planning Commission June 8, 1987 Page 15 Green pointed out most of East Oaks was zoned R -O which was almost deceitful to the people around it. He said none of it had developed as offices and probably never would. Hanna suggested cutting the discussion off at this point and continueing at the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seiff felt the item on "office use only" should be decided one way or the other and not just left in the air. Hanna said the Planning Commission could think about this item for two weeks and at the next meeting the discussion would continue with item number 10 (Zone for Office Use Only). APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 26, 1987 The minutes were approved as distributed. Commissioner Seiff wanted to recognize in the minutes the attendance of the representative from the Board of Adjustment, • Mr. Jerry Allred. Seiff added the Board of Adjustment invited him to sit with them. He said he does notcpa-rticipate but he does sit and listen. • There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:30 �y�