Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-22 Minutes• • • • MINUTES OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 22, 1987 A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 22, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. at 113 W Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Commissioners Jacks, Nash, Green, Seiff, Hanna, Robert- son, Dow, Farrish, and Madison; Director of Planning Sandra Carlisle; Planning Consultant Larry Wood; Jerry Allred, Liaison from Board of Adjustment; Kay Nash; Members of the press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) - JIM LINDSEY The first item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split) for Jim Lindsey for property located at the NW corner of Highway 45 and 265. This property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Kim Fugitt, 3900 Front Street, was present representing Mr. Lindsey in this matter. Fugitt stated thepurpose. .of the. request is to put in a Lindsey Mercantile on the property. Madison asked whether the City had all the highway right-of-way needed for that intersection. Carlisle answered affirmatively. Hanna made a motion that the lot split be approved as requested. Farrish seconded. The motion passed 8-0-1 with Commissioner Robertson abstaining. WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY CUT - CHARLES AGEE The second item on the agenda was a request for waiver of the minimum driveway cut for Charles Agee for IGA located at 380 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commer- cial. Jacks questioned why the request was for a waiver of the "minimum" driveway cut. Charles Agee was present to speak in favor of the request. Agee stated that the present driveway creates a traffic hazard for pedestrians and vehicular traffic on Lafayette Street. Agee said they are requesting a 4 foot variance from the 12 foot off -set for street openings. h • • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 2 Jacks stated it seemed like a good idea but questioned whether IGA would be losing any parking spaces in the process. Agee answered they would lose about 4 parking spaces. Jacks questioned whether this would change their parking legality. Carlisle stated she hadn't checked. Agee stated that with parking spaces in the back for employees to park, he felt they would have ample parking. Madison questioned whether the notified of this request. owner of the abutting property, abutting property owner had been Agee stated that Mrs. Newburn, the had no objection to the request. Hanna stated he felt traffic safety was the overriding factor even if they were going to lose four parking spaces. Hanna made a motion that the waiver be seconded. Dow asked how the be marked with a only lane. The motion passed granted as requested. Dow driveway would be marked. Agee stated it would right turn lane, left turn lane, and an entrance 9-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HARDEES The third item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Hardees. The property is located at 2190 W Sixth and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Jacks noted that this was approved previously but Hardees has requested a minor change which went back to the Plat Review Committee and questioned why it had to come back to the Planning Commission. Carlisle stated it is being treated as a final plat because change in the drainage ditch was more than could be done administratively. Tim Mossbacher, 2424 Springer Drive, Norman, Oklahoma, was present to represent Hardees. He noted that this large scale development had been approved a couple of years ago but due to some problems, the project was put on hold. Dow asked whether there was any comment on the proposed change to the drainage ditch from the City Engineer at the Plat Review meeting. Carlisle stated the City Engineer met with the Plat Review Committee and individually with Mr. Mossbacher and his builder and they have agreed on what is to be done. /"9 • • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 3 Madison asked what the date of the previous approval was. Mossbacher stated he believed it was December, 1984. Madison further asked whether that approval had expired. Carlisle answered affirmatively and stated Hardees is seeking a renewed approval. Madison questioned whether the change in the drainage ditch was the only change being made from the original plan. Mossbacher answered affirmatively. Madison made a motion to approve the large scale development plan based on all previous requirements with the change for the drainage ditch. Hanna seconded. The motion passed 9-0-0. UPDATE COMMITTEE The fourth item on the agenda was comments from the Update Committee on items on the Update Committee Discussions list. Item No. 10 was consideration of a zone for Office Use only. Robertson stated he thought this type zoning .wouldbe a little too restrictive. Farrish questioned whether this would be like an R -O zone with the R taken out. Jacks answered this was essentially the case. Farrish noted that in the R -O zone, the office part of the zone is not restricted to office use only, that there are a lot of other uses allowable. Farrish further questioned whether, if the residential is taken out, would the office zone not fit into one of the commercial zones already established. Carlisle explained that the commercial zones are more broad than the R -O zone because you can have things like restaurants, grocery stores, etc., not just offices. Jacks stated he felt there is a need for an office zone which does not have high density residential in it. Seiff stated he felt that the construction restrictions should be stipulated somewhere because he would not want there to be an offices only zone if it were going to mean high rises. Jacks stated he didn't think that type of restriction was on many of the zones already in place. Seiff questioned whether the Planning Commission can impose this type of restriction. Carlisle sug- gested removing the Conditional Use allowing Use Units 9 and 10 in the R-0 zone rather than creating a new zone. Madison questioned whether it was not a natural transition that when a neighborhood ages and its traffic patterns change that it goes from being single family residential to having sprinklings of offices. Consultant Wood answered affirmatively. Hanna stated he didn't think it was a good idea to remove Use Units 9 and 10 in an R-0 because in an instance where there is high density residential, they are allowed to have a beauty shop or small pharmacy, etc., to • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 4 serve the neighbors without having a commercial district. He further stated that the purpose of the R-0 is to allow people who live in these areas to make changes to their residences without having to get permission from the Planning Commission; whereas, if their residence was in an office only zone and they were under a conditional use, they wouldn't be allowed to make changes to their residence without coming before the Planning Commission. Item No. 11 was the discussion of Planning Commission support to the Planning Office. Item No. 12 was consideration of a 150' minimum width for 1 1/2 acre non -sewer lots with waiver possible for extenuating cir- cumstances. Hanna said the purpose of this waiver is that people split off lots or try to build on lots that are too narrow to install a septic system and maintain the proper frontage, etc. A minimum 150' width is suggested for non -sewer lots. Jacks said the trouble is that when you have long narrow lots, they are not capable of handling a septic system. Hanna noted that this waiver is for lots that are not on the regular sewer system. Farrish stated he would feel better if the wording were changed to read "minimum average" to accommodate lots that haveirregular shapes. Hanna suggested that it be changed to read "an average of 150' or more" and the rest of the Commissioners concurred. Item No. 13 was consideration of the possibility of putting Use Unit 25 in C-2 which is for professional offices. Jacks stated that professional offices are not listed as a use in C-2 zoning presently. Jacks questioned the difference between the offices in Use Unit 25 and Use Unit 12. Carlisle answered Use Unit 12 allows more services than Use Unit 25. The Commissioners agreed that this change should be made. Part two of Item No. 13 was consideration of whether Use Unit 12 should be put in R-2 and R-3 zones, Use Unit 12 being offices, studios and related services. Dow said she agreed with adding some of those uses to R-2 and R-3 but not others, i.e. financial institutions, parking garages. Madison stated she would rather see Use Unit 25 added if offices are going to be allowed in these zones. Carlisle pointed out that Use Unit 25 is already allowed in both zones. Jacks stated he wouldn't mind having Use Unit 12 as a conditional use in these zones but would want to try to control it. The Commissioners agreed that the changes should be made allowing offices as a conditional use. Item No. 14 was consideration of developing a closer relationship with the Board of Adjustment. Jacks noted that this item has already been addressed and is working out well. 1� • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 5 Item No. 15 was consideration of creating a high-tech industrial zone. Hanna pointed out that a lot of the high-tech industries like to have visibility. Seiff stated he would recommend that property around the University of Arkansas Experiment Station have this zoning. Hanna noted that this zoning should be restricted to high-tech uses rather than allowing the uses the other industrial zones allow. In answer to a question from Jacks, Larry Wood stated that other cities have created high-tech zones. The Commission agreed this new zone should be created. Farrish questioned whether any of these items can be addressed by the Planning Consultant. Jacks answered negatively stating the RFP was written primarily for mapping and establishment of uses and that updating of the zoning ordinance was not part of that agreement. Consultant Wood added that some negotiation could take place during the interview process. Carlisle questioned whether the Update Committee did anything with the Use Unit 4. Jacks said cleanup of Use Unit 4 should be added as a 16th item on the Update Committee Discussions list. Seiff and Hanna pointed out that they do not have Use Unit 4 in their code books and requested that they be sent copies of it with the next agenda. SELECTION COM IITTEE The Selection Committee for the General Plan will consist of Don Bunn, Ernie Jacks, Bill Martin and Sandra Carlisle. OTHER BUSINESS The first item under other business was a letter from Mrs. Wycoff in regard to taking Highway 45 off of Lafayette Street. Carlisle stated this item would be addressed on the next agenda. The second item was a letter from Stephen E. Adams of Ball, Mourton & Adams suggesting that the City take steps to enforce covenants requiring developers to build the amenities that are promised while marketing new subdivisions, etc. In effect, that would mean the City would enforce Protective Covenants. Robertson made a motion to deny this request. The motion passed 9-0-0. Jacks requested that Carlisle write a letter of the Planning Commission's decision. Madison seconded. to Adams advising him 15 • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 6 The third item was discussion of the United States Supreme Court ruling on cities denying individuals use of private property. The fourth item was the appointment of a liaison with the Board of Adjustment. Hanna made a motion to let Seiff continue and serve a full quarter. Robertson seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 4- 4-0. Madison left the meeting before this vote was taken. Seiff made a motion to use alphabetical order in determining the order Commissioners will serve as liaison to the Board of Adjust- ment for a period of three months, starting with the quarter and serve on a quarterly basis. Hanna seconded. Green said he didn't feel alphabetical appointment is fair because some of the Commissioners already do other things, such as Subdivision Committee, which could cause some to have to attend as many as 4 or 5 meetings while others on the Planning Commission aren't doing anything else. He further stated he feels it should be left to the Chairman's discretion to appoint the liaison. Far- rish stated he agreed with Green. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Green and Farrish voting nay. Dow is the next appointed liaison to the Board of Adjustment. The fifth item introduced by Jacks was his feeling that going on with the goals and policies meetings in the absence of City Board participation is a lost cause in light of the reversals the Board has handed down. Nash questioned whether, if a Board member were present at the meeting, could he or she speak for the whole Board. Robertson suggested that the Commission ask for input from the Board. Seiff questioned whether the Board gets a copy of the Commission minutes in time for the regular Board meetings. Carlisle stated that minutes of the Commission meeting on Monday night has to go to the Board the following week. The Board receives a memo on Tuesday morning following the Commission meeting with the minutes covering only those items which go to the Board for further action. The Board then receives a copy of the full minutes a few days later. Jacks suggested that Carlisle write a memo to the Board requesting their participation in the goals and policies discussions. Green said he thought there were some practical difficulties in that suggestion as he didn't see how one or two people could represent the entire City Board in a meeting. Farrish stated he thought some sort of communication with the Board to discuss the areas where there is potential for disagreement would be appropriate. Hanna said he thought there • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 7 was an appeal process the Board went through and didn't feel they were supposed to agree with the Commission every time. Jacks stated he felt there was no sense in building goals and policies into the plan if the Board doesn't agree with them. Green stated his preference would be to write a memo to the Board informing them of the planning and goals sessions and requesting their input if they wish to give it. Jacks pointed out that there is a pretty strict schedule to try and have the plan ready for the consultant who should be under contract by the end of July. Seiff stated he could only think of about 4 or 5 times the Board has reversed a Commission decision since last Fall. No formal action was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the June 8, 1987 meeting were approved as presen- ted. INFORMATIONAL ITEM Farrish stated members of the Washington -Willow Historic District would like to impose restrictions in that area for protection of historical structures. He said that the Historic District had not requested this formally but would like the Planning Commission to assist them in drafting an ordinance imposing these restrictions and hold a public hearing so that they may attend and speak for the restriction. Nash stated this was brought up at the last Board meeting and a group of people had formed a committee to make up a list of the restrictions they want. Jacks questioned whether there should be an Historic District zone with special regulations for that zone. Dow stated she wanted more information but would keep an open mind on it. Farrish stated the Historic District is looking to the Planning Commission to propose such an ordinance. Nash questioned whether there was some type of City historic commission. Hanna stated he felt it was the Washington -Willow Historic District's place to initiate such an ordinance rather than the Planning Commission's. Robertson made a motion that Chairman Jacks write a letter to the Washington -Willow Historic District and advise them that the Commission will not draw up an ordinance but will be glad to assist them in their endeavors. Seiff asked Robertson to spell out what he meant by "assist them in their endeavors." Robertson explained he meant to help them in drawing up an ordinance but the Commission would not instigate drawing up an ordinance. Hanna stated he thought sending them such a letter would instigate the process. Robertson withdrew his motion. Green stated that if the • • • Planning Commission June 22, 1987 Page 8 Historic District approaches the Commission he would like to see something like a petition signed by everyone in this District to indicate who is for and who is against it. Robertson reinstituted his motion. Seiff seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:40 p.m. •