Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-27 Minutes• A meeting of Monday July 27, Administration Arkansas. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Gerald Seiff, Farrish Stan Green, Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, Julie Nash and Frank Sue Madison and Fred Hanna Daryl Vines, Jim Cramer, Everett Balk, and others Rose Marie and Richard Peters, Skip Beaton, Johnnie Quinn, Dorothy Espy, Tessi Franzmeier PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-18 DARYL VINES - NORTH OF HWY 62 & WEST OF OLD FARMINGTON RD. The first item on the agenda was considertion of rezoning petition R87-18 submitted by Daryl Vines. Request is to rezone 4.67 acre tract of land located on the north side of Hwy 62 West • approximately 400 feet west of Old Farmington Rd., from A-1 (Agricultural) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare. Commercial) District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-2 District was recommended for the east half of the property and R -O District for the west half of the property for the following reasons: 1. The division of the property into the two zoning districts will approximately align the commercial and office zoning with the districts on the south side of Hwy 62 West; 2. The R -O District will establish a transition and help avoid stripping out Hwy 62 West with commercial development; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Larry Wood stated the small scale zoning map that was included in the agenda was incorrect. He said the property was located further east of what the map indicated. Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the request. • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Vines asked approximately how many feet of the property on the south side of Hwy 62 was zoned C-2. Larry Wood replied approximately 600 feet from Finger Road. Mr. Vines explained from the drawing he received from the Cobb & Westphal rezoning the approximate footage was 637 feet. He said he measured from Modern Fence to the end of his property and it measured 620 feet. He felt that the C-2 he was requesting would align with the C-2 on the south side of Hwy 62. Larry Wood stated because of the error on the small scale zoning map he would modify his recommendation to align Mr. Vines requested C-2 with the C-2 on the south side of Hwy 62 and pick up the transition on the next piece. Chairman Jacks asked Mr.Vines why his property line went across the Highway. Mr. Vines replied according to his abstract his line goes to the north line of the old railroad ROW which was on the south side of the Highway. Larry Lamas stated he lives on Sandra Street and his property abutted Mr. Vines property on the northeast corner. He said he really did not have any strong objections to the rezoning request, but was worried about what ,kind—of commercial thoroughfare business may move in. He said the most recent businesses that had moved in were Speed -E -Mart and a Liquor store on the east side of One Mile Road. He said most businesses out that way do not maintain their property very well at all. He asked if there could be some kind of a buffer between the residential property and the proposed commercial property. He would like to have a privacy fence errected to separate the two zones. Mr. Lamas added that there was minimal noise polution from Hwy 62 and he did not want that increased. Chairman Jacks stated the zoning ordinance would require screening of some type between the residential and commerial zones. Mr. Lamas then said there was not a privacy fence between Modern Fence and the R-1 property behind it. Jacks advised Modern Fence was in existance before the screening ordinance was inacted. Jacks noted if the property was rezoned C-2 anything eventually might be put there. Mr. Lamas said that was fine as long as he did not have to see or hear it. Farrish asked who owned the 20' strip in between Mr. Vines property and the R-1 district. Mr. Lamas said it was some type of utility easement. Farrish then said someone had to have ownership to that 20' strip. Mr. Lamas said there was a utility pole on his lot (9) and another on the far corner of lot 10. Mr. • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 3 Lamas said he was sure he did not own the strip because all of his property was fenced from a survey. Mr. Vines said his abstract had a less and except and was not sure if that was his property or not, but felt sure it was an easement for utilities. Farrish stated if that strip was not zoned R-1 then there would not be a requirement for screening. Jack noted the strip was more than likely zoned A-1. Seiff felt it would be a good idea to find out who owned the 20' strip. Farrish explained he really did not care who owned the property, but Mr. Lamas raised a question about making sure a fence was errected. Farrish felt fences between commercial property and single family residential should be required. Robertson asked if the Planning Commission were to recommend C-2 would it be appropriate to accept an offered Bill of Assurance for a fence in between the commercial and residential zones. Mr. Vines said the property was for sale and he would offer a Bill of Assurance for a fence between the proposed C-2 and Residential property. Seiff wanted to explore the R -O zone as opposed to straight commercial. He wanted to find out some other feelings on the Commission. Dow felt with the what the gave the that Larry Woods' idea of aligning the commercial up commercial on the south side of the Hwy was probably Planning Commission should do. Jacks felt at least it Commission a definite point. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak either in favor or against this petition. There being no other speakers the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. MOTION Farrish moved to recommend rezoning the property as requested from A-1 (Agricultural) to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial), with the acceptance of the Bill of Assurance for the construction of a fence between the residential and commercial property between the north property line, seconded by Green. The motion to recommend • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 4 as stated passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R87-19 ROSE MARIE & RICHARD PETERS - NW CORNER OF SHILOH DR. & PORTER The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-19 submitted by Rose Marie & Richard Peters. Request is to rezone a .42 acre tract of land located at the northwest corner of Shiloh Dr. and Porter Rd., from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to I-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood's recommendation was; I-1 District is not recommended, but R -O District was recommended for the following reasons: 1. A transition should be established between the anticipated industrial development to the south and the existing and anticipated residential development to the north; 2. The establishment of a transition at this location will allow the land use intensity to be reduced as future redevelopment approaches the sharp curve in Porter Rd./Mt. Comfort Rd. just north of this location; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Larry Wood stated his report indicated a single family home on the property under application and clarified that there was not a single family home on the property. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood if the piece of property as presented to the Planning Commission left a piece between this and the I-1 property. Larry Wood explained, apparently there was a gap between this property and the I-1 property. Dow asked if the General Plan showed the future use to be R-1. Larry Wood replied the General Plan (1970) showed the future land area to be R-1. Wood then added a special study was prepared about 5 years ago on this area, but was never adopted. Jacks asked what did that study show and Wood replied R -O for most of that corner with no Industrial at that corner. Mr. Peters presented a small plan of the proposed storage units to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peters stated basically they had not done anything with the property. He said right now the property was all grown up with weeds and lots of trash. He said they had decided to clear the land, clean it up and build storage units on the property. Mr. • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 5 Peters explained he took found there was a need was not large enough for would fit. a small census around Fayetteville and for storage units. He said the property anything else and that the storage units Dow asked if there was a conditional use for storage units in an R-1 zone. The clerk entered into record that storage units would be allowed in a C-2 zone on appeal to the Planning Commission or by right in I-1. Mrs. Peters stated she purchased the original piece of property in 1965 and lived there in their home. She then said she moved away from the property and rented it. Then the Highway Department came in and took over the majority of that piece of property. She said they had to sell the house and move it off the property. She said that was why they were left with a very small piece of land. She said a home could not be built on it, and they could not use it for a residential area because it simply was not large enough to meet all the City Regulations. Jacks stated the Planning Consultants recommendation was that it • be zoned Residential Office (R -O). Mrs. Peters asked what R -O meant. Jacks said it was simply another zone. which was setup for office use or dense residential use. Mrs. Peters then said R -O was inappropriate for that area. Seiff stated he spoke with Mr. Parker who resided in the home to the west. Seiff added Mr. Parker had no objections to the I-1 zone and would "go with the flow". Seiff said Mr. Parker had planned to sell his property and do the same thing. Seiff then said under those circumstances he did not see any reason not to recommend the I-1 as requested. • Mr. Peters added to the north was a trailer park and for some reason everything from the trailer park comes over the fence into their property. He said it was being used for a dump ground as it stood now. Seiff added Mr. parker complained about the trailer park as well. Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor or against this petition. There being no one to speak for or against this petition, Chairman Jacks closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Planning Commission. Farrish said he was sympathetic to the owners wanting to use this property, but felt the property would not accomodate the storage units. He said the property was less than 1/2 acre and was • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 6 irregularly shaped which would make it extremely difficult to do anything with. Mr. Peters assured Commissioner Farrish in that talking with contractors that the storage units would fit, but nothing was really concrete. Chairman Jacks tended to agree with Larry Wood in that some kind of a buffer between the Residential zone back up around the corner was needed and R -O sounded reasonable to him. Dow said she was torn on this and could see two sides to it. She said she did worry about the surrounding present use of R-1 and it concerned her to put I-1 at that location. She felt the future of that area would be limited and if it were to be zoned I-1 would feel better about storage units rather than something else. MOTION Green moved to recommend the rezoning as requested from R-1 (Low • Density Residential) District to I-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) District, seconded by Seiff andfollowed by discussion. Green felt the tone for that area had been set for the Industrial area to the south of the property in question. He said there may be R-1 zoning around this property, but did not appear to be used as R-1. The question was called and the motion to recommend as stated passed 5-2-0, Nash, Green, Seiff, Dow, Farrish voting "yes" and Robertson and Jacks voting "nay". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) SKIP BEATON - NORTH OF 06TH & WEST OF HILL STREET The third item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Skip Beaton. Property located North of 06th Street and West of Hill Street. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Jim Cramer of C&F Surveyors represented Mr. Beaton in this request. Mr. Cramer stated he had performed the survey on the requested lot split. He said Mr. Beaton would like to split off • the north 133.10' which contained a cement block shop that had been in existance for over 20 years. • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 7 MOTION Nash moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) JIM LINDSEY - LOT 8 - LEWIS ESTATES The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Jim Lindsey. Property located in Lewis Estates, lot 8. Property located outside the Fayetteville City Limits. Mr. Fugitt representing the Lindsey organization stated the piece of property in question was a 5 acre tract of land. The proposed buyers would like to split the tract into two 2-1/2 acre tracts to match the other tracts in the area. Dow commented this was one of the few lot split requests that had frontage on a paved road. MOTION Dow moved to approve the lot split as requested, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK - WEST The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a final plat for the Fayetteville Industrial Park - West. Property zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial. The final plat was submitted by McClellan Engineers and represented by Johnny Quinn. Jacks asked if proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office. Mr. Quinn submitted the proof of notification to the clerk. Jacks then asked if the boundary markers were in place and Mr. Quinn assured the Commission that the markers were installed as requested. Anne Kittrell, 2793 City Lake Road asked what was proposed for this site in particular. Mr. Quinn said he did not know exactly what the owners and developers had planned for this site. He said he did know of no immediate plans for building. • Mr. Quinn asked if the small triangle of A-1 adjacent from City Lake Road was actually A-1. The clerk entered into record that the zoning map as distributed was correct in showing that parcel 1�� Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 8 being I-2. MOTION Robertson moved to approve the final plat as submitted, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - BROOKHOLLOW SUBDIVISION ERC PROPERTIES - WEST OF OLD MISSOURI ROAD The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a preliminary plat approval for Brookhollow Subdivision. Submitted by ERC properties and represented by Everett Balk of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District, contains 16.3 acres and a total of 64 proposed lots. Farrish commented that it was a pleasure to receive a plat that contained all the revisions requested by Plat Reveiw Committee. Farrish advised all of the plat review requests were on the plat as submitted for tonights meeting. Farrish then said the Subdivision Committee moved to recommend the preliminary plat be approve as requested, with the exception of proof of notification, and with a request to the developer to consider installing the sidewalks at the property line. Farrish went on to say the Subdivision Committee made no recommendation for off- site improvements to Old Missouri Road and felt the full Planning Commission should make the recommendation for the off-site improvements. Everett Balk representing ERC Properties stated he had submitted proof of notification of all adjoining property owners with the exception of one to the Planning Office. Jacks expressed some disappointment in the smallness of the lots. Farrish noted the subdivision was zoned R-2, but being developed as R-1. Jacks questioned the 1,680 feet of dead-end street and asked if the Subdivision Committee had waived that requirement or was there a plan for the dead-end street to tie-up with something else back to the west. Mr. Balk said at some point in the future it would be extended to the west. Jacks asked what stand did the Commission take on Park Place. Farrish said there were no cul-de-sacs in the proposed subdivision. Farrish said at this time the developer did not own any of the surrounding property and would provide for the streets • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 9 to connect to other areas in the future. Farrish said Chairman Jacks was right in that this was very similar to Park Place. Jacks asked if the Commission was doing something here that they refused to do at Park Place. He said the Commission would not let the developer proceed with the full development of that land until another point of egress was made. Jacks pointed out the proposed subdivision was longer than Park Place. Green said the proposed subdivision only had 64 lots and Park Place was allowed a lot more units with only one way in and out. He said there were approximately 30 units in the R-2 near Mission and probably at least 50 or 60 lots in the subdivision and felt this proposed subdivision was not in excess of what the Commission did allow for Park Place. Farrish felt it would not be fair to stop the development of this piece of property because the developer in his view had met all of the regulations. Jacks said he had no complaint about the cul-de-sacs, but his concern was the maximum 500' for dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs. Jacks then said it was difficult for emergency vehicles to get in and out and it just becomes a real nightmare-.. Farrish stated at this point the Subdivision Committee did not address the maximum length of a dead-end street. Jacks then said there was no real indication of where other streets, or how the adjoining property would tie into the proposed subdivision. Dow added there had already been some other development that had occured on the north side of this property (Meadowridge Subdivision). Jacks then asked if the proposed streets were located where they could tie into Meadowridge Subdivision when it expanded and Mr. Balk replied "yes". Mr. Balk said there was a stub -out in Meadowridge to the west. He added the proposed subdivision streets were north/south and Meadowridge was an east/west situation. Jacks said he thought Mr. Balk was saying that Meadowridge Subdivision had streets stubbed out to align with Brookhollow Subdivision. Mr. Balk said he was not saying that, but pointed out Meadowridge had a cul-de- sac that dead -ended and could possibly align with Cambray Dr. Jacks asked if there were any assurances that that would take place and Mr. Balk said "no" there was no assurance of that taking place. • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 10 Seiff asked if the temporary turn-arounds as platted on the plat were on the developers property or some other property. Mr. Balk explained the T-turn-arounds would be on the developers property and it had been requested in Technical Review for the trash trucks to turn around in. Seiff asked if the swale at the end of the drive would interfere with the turn -a -rounds and Mr. Balk replied "no" there would be no interference. Jacks felt the off-site improvements was a fairly clouded issue at this point. Green stated there was a brief discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting on the off-site improvements. Green said at Plat Review the comment came up that the developer would be responsible for his proportionate share of off-site improvements to Old Missouri Road. Green said the developer had planned to widen his half of Old Missouri Road, but the Subdivision Committee felt that it would be better to wait because in the future it would all be torn out anyway for four-laning. Green felt the way to handle this was wait until the Planning Commission received some clarification on the issue, and that it would not be any greater than the cost to widen the asphalt, curb, and gutter where his property abuts Old Missouri Road. Farrish felt in order to receive some attention from the City Board the Planning Commission should start approving requests like this with no off-site improvements. Dow said she did not agree with that because she thought the City could not afford for the Commission to approve things without off-site improvements. She said for that reason just in principal she could not vote for that. Green said in the Boards defense there was no way they could fully understand everything the Commission saw until the Board of Directors reviewed them. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the preliminary plat as presented with the acknowledgment of a waiver of the maximum dead-end distance of 500 feet. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Green moved to determine that no off-site improvements should be required, seconded by Farrish. The motion to approve passed 6-1-0, Dow voting "nay". • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 11 REQUEST FOR THE CARE OF SENIOR CITIZENS DOROTHY ESPY - 1041 MONTGOMERY The seventh item on the agenda was a request Espy requesting permission to care for two (2) her home. Mrs. Espy resides at 1041 Montgomery Low Density Residential District. from Mrs. Dorothy elderly people in and is zoned R-1, This request is not permitted in R-1 zone, but allowed in R-3, use unit 10, on appeal to the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks asked Mrs. Espy to elaborate on her appeal. Mrs. Espy stated she was a widow and had a three bedroom home. She said Dr. Jim Patrick was her Physician and had told her there was a great need for this type of care. She said there were a lot of ambulatory patients in nursing homes that really do not need to be there, and would be better off if they were in a private home. She said she would furnish them three meals, do their laundry, supervise their medication, provide transportation to and from the Doctors office and give them a lot of love and care. Seiff stated the Planning Commission has had discussions in there Update committees and Special Sessions. He said one of the items they had considered was how to handle situations such as this one. Seiff specifically wanted to know if it was legal for Mrs. Espy to administer medicine and asked if she was a registered nurse or had any medical background. Mrs. Espy said as far as administering medication, Mrs. Espy said she would just tell the patients it was time for their medication. She said she had been taking care of Carter Short for approximately one year after Mrs. Short past away. She said Mr. Short required an insulin shot, and she was told by the Doctor how much insulin to give. She said at one time she was a licenced LPN, but her husband had developed cancer and she was never able to go into nursing or was able to keep her licence up to date. Mrs. Espy said she cared for her husband for 13 years and administered morphine and everything else to him and felt she was qualified. Dow asked what it would take to renew a licence. Mrs. Espy replied she was not real sure. Nash asked if the State Social Services would for private in home care. Mrs. Espy replied private home. Nash then said Mrs. Espy needed of some sort. Jacks then asked if the Planning issue a Conditional Use legally. require a licence "no" not for a a Conditional use Commission could \q\ • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 12 Mrs. Espy stated Bryce Davis had told her the Planning Commission could issue a Conditional Use for the service she would like to provide. Jacks said according to the City Zoning Ordinance this type of service could only take place in the denser residential zones. He said it was allowed by right under the R-3 zone which permitted Rooming/Boarding houses. Jacks said the Planning Commission recognized the problem as Commissioner Seiff had said. Jacks said Commissioner Hanna had a major interest in this type of service and had agreed to chair a committee to study what the Planning Commission should do along these lines. He said this was not something the Planning Commission had ignored, but it was coming very soon. However Mrs. Espy had an immediate problem and his question was can the Planning Commission solve it if they want to because the service was not allowed by zoning ordinance. Mrs. Espy stated the fence between her and 5 acres of land which the EPC plant had recently purchased and rezoned to commercial. Mrs. Espy said she was at the end of Montgomery and parking would not be a problem. Farrish asked how many people Mrs. Espy would like to take care of. Mrs. Espy replied she would like to take care of two for right now and later on if -'she could handle it possibly three. She said she did not want patients that needed a lot of medication or a lot of care. What she wanted was ambulatory patients that either have heart conditions or some type of condition that requires them not to live alone. Mrs. Espy said Mr. Short had fell a few months ago and she tried to get some sitters to come in and sit with him at night, because she just fixed his evening meal. She said the cost for an 8 -hour shift was going to be $40.00 and for seven days and three 8 -hour shifts the Commission could see how much the cost would be. Jacks felt the Planning Commission was sympathetic with her request and somewhat remiss for not getting a committee underway earlier, but had some other things they were trying to solve first. Mrs. Espy said she was not really sure what she was asking for and Jacks said he wondered if the Planning Commission could do anything legally. Jacks felt Mrs. Espy should be talking with the City Board rather than the Planning Commission. Mrs. Espy asked why she could go to the Social Services and apply for Foster Parenting. She said they would let her take in as many foster children as she had room for and the State would pay her to take care of them. She also said she could go to the University and furnish students room and board and the City would have no objection to that. But if she asked to took in senior citizens she has to either have a permit or be rezoned. Jacks replied boarders could not be taken in legally in an R-1 zone. X0\5 • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 13 Mrs. Espy said there was a lady who purchased a home on Wedington Drive and at that time it was not in the City Limits. She said she had four patients, then the City annexed her property in and they tried to move her out. Mrs. Espy said that lady had a terrible time trying to get permission for in home care. She said the City called her a private nursering home. Jacks felt the City Board could do what they want to along this line, a lot more than the Planning Commission. Jacks said without intending to "pass the buck" the Planning Commission would like to grant her permission, but felt they could do it legally. He thought the City Board could issue a permit legally. Mrs. Espy said she spoke with her neighbors and they have no objections at all. She said one of her neighbors was about 87 years old and confined to her home. Jacks said Mrs. Espys' questions about children which actually was not in an R-1 zone either, but the zoning ordinance did recognize the need for child care. He said the zoning ordinance, frankly was behind the time in that it did not recognize need on a similar basis for elderly care. He -__said: the .Planning Commission has very much in mind to do something about that, but had not got there yet. Nash also said non minors would also have traffic visiting them where as children are dropped off and picked up. Nash felt a temporary Conditional Use could be recommended to the Board for one year. Mrs. Espy said she had six months before she retired from Campbell Soup, but would like to have the permit so when Dr. Patrick came up with patients she could immediately take them in. Jacks felt the solution was to send a recommendation to the City Board since they have the legal power and the Planning Commission did not. MOTION Nash moved to recommend to the Ctiy Board that they issue a temporary Conditional use for one year for the care of 2 elderly people and until the Planning Commission could receive some findings from their committee, seconded by Robertson and followed by discussion. Green felt the Board of Directors could not issue such a permit • • • Planning Commission July 27, 1987 Page 14 if the use was not allowed in the zoning ordinance without changing the law. Green said the Planning Commission should send this to the City Board for their consideration because he hated to tell them to do specific things. He said he would rather vote to asked the Board to figure out someway handle this request while the Planning Commission was working on changing the ordinance. Seiff agreed with Commissioner Green and felt Nash and Green were talking about the same thing, but felt Green was asking the Board of Directors to figure out the way to do this, rather than tell them. Nash felt the Board of Directors need the Planning Commissions input. Green said the input was wrong in this case because the Board of Directors could not issue a Conditional Use permit. The question was called and the motion to recommend to the City Board that they issue a temporary Conditional Use for one year for the care of 2 elderly people and until the Planning Commission could receive some findings from their committee passed 5-2-0, Nash, Robertson, Dow, Farrish and Jacks voting "yes" and Green and Seiff voting "nay". APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 13, 1987 were approved as corrected. Page 9, paragraph 4, Change 7-0-0 to 7-2-0 There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.