Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-23 Minutes• MINU1TS OF A MEETING OF THE FAYE TEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, November 23, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Frank Farrish, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Madison, Julie Nash and B.J. Dow OTHERS PRESENT: George Faucette Jr., Eldon Jenkins, Dennis Becker, Mark A. Davis, Dave Jorgensen, Kendyll Campbell, Christy Kitchen, Dale Woolsey, Mark Young, Sandra Carlisle and Tessi Franzmeier PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-23 WILLIAM H. BASSETT - NORTH OF ROCK & WEST OF WASHINGTON The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning R87-23 submitted by William H. Bassett and represented by George Faucette Jr. Request was to rezone a part of lots 2 and 3 , block 1, Hicks's Addition and a tract of land north of Block 1, Hick's Addition all containing 23,463.6 sq. ft., located on the north side of Rock St. west of Washington Ave. and on the west side of Washignton Ave. 107 feet north of Rock St., from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District to R-0 (Residential Office) District. Chairman Jacks advised this rezoning petition was back before the Planning Commission because according to the By-laws a 4-4-0 vote did not go on to the City Board, but that it had to be resolved within 45 days or the petition would be deemed favorable. Jacks advised a memo had been received from Mr. Basset to the Planning Commission offering voluntarily a Bill of Assurance to conform to the requirements of the City Engineer, regarding control of the drainage of the site and surface water, and that he would stabilize the slope with grass and pine seedlings. Mr. Bassett also said he would install bumper stops for the spaces and in addition he would install on site guard rails. Mr. Faucette stated if desired by the Planning Commission Mr. Bassett would also be willing to add a fourth item to the Bill of Assurance in that no more fill would be brought into the site whatsoever. Mr. Faucette gave a little history of the site saying that the portion of the property which was the little tail was originally filled with construction rubble, concrete and pieces of asphalts, etc. approximately 15 years ago when the Federal Building was being constructed. He added about 8 years ago the First National Bank construction did much of the same thing and then there were some miscellaneous filling that was added over the years. He said basically the last fill was added by virtue of the County Jail • • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 2 construction. Mr. Faucette said the point of bringing the fill up was that he had been told that construction rubble actually had more stability to it than Just soil per se. Chairman Jacks advised the question was back before the Planning Commission and felt the Commission did not need to go through a rehearing vote and that it was pretty much automatic. Commissioner Green said it took 5 votes to recommend a rezoning to the City Board and said if they vote tonight and there were not 5 votes which was likely since there were only 6 Commissioners present asked what would happen then. Carlisle replied the petitioner had 15 days to appeal this petition to the Board of Directors if the petition was denied. Commissioner Green said then the fact that the Commission tied 4-4-0 at the last meeting was a possitive vote after 45 days. Commissioner Green added all the Planning Commission would be saying to the City Board was "by virtue of the fact that it was 4-4 vote the petition would get a possitive recommendation" and added, to him that really did not mean anything. Ann Starr, 139 S. Washington said a piece of the rubble had almost hit her roomates new car. She said she was really surprised that the situation had been allowed to remain. Her main concern was about the safety hazard and the damage it could do to their cars, much less to animals or children who play in the area and she was really surprised the safety factor had not -been addressed. Chairman Jacks advised Ms. Starr the safety factor had been addressed at some length and the problem was that the City had no grading ordinance. Commissioner Seiff said he had a question with respect to the Bill of Assurance that had been presented and asked when would the Bill of Assurance go into affect. Mr. Faucette advised that Mr. Bassett would be willing to have all work completed in a 60 day time period with the exception of the trees. He said the reason for the trees was that they could not be planted until early March or late February. NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend the rezoning from R-2 to R-0 with the offered Bill of Assurance and the stipulation of the 60 -day period for completion and no additional fill on the slope, seconded by Commissioner Robertson. The motion to recommend the petition passed 5-1-0, Jacks, Green, Seiff, Hanna and Robertson voting "yes" and Farrish voting "nay". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-28 ELDON W. JENKINS - 2235 S. SCHOOL The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-28 submitted by Eldon W. Jenkins. Request was to rezone a .58 acre tract of land located on the west side of Hwy 471, approximately 300 feet south of Cato Springs Rd., from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) 5 • • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 3 District. Planning Consultant Woods' recommendation was; C-2 District was recommended for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends commercial as the land use for this property; 2. There exists C-2 District zoning on three sides of the property; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve commercial uses. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for or against the petition as requested. There was no public opposition. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to recommend the rezoning petition from R-1 to C-2, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to recommend passed 6-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AIRWAYS FREIGHT EDD CAUDLE - REDINGTON DRIVE The third item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Edd Caudle and represented by Dennis Becker. Property zoned R-0, Residential Office, the intended use of the property is;,for..offices. Chairman Jacks advised this Large Scale Development Plan was tabled at the last regular Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Green advised this was heard at the Subdivision Committee on November 5, 1987. He said there was an apparent misunderstanding about what the new Ordinance requires in the 7 day notification period of the adjoining property owner and what it applied to. He said the conclusion at the Subdivision Committee or Sandra Carlisles' understanding at that time was that the 7 day notification only applied to the newspaper notification, so the LSD was heard even though the developer had not complied with the 7 day notice period, but one of the conditions of the Subdivision Committee's approval was that he had proof of notification before the Planning Commission meeting two weeks ago. Commissioner Green said after the meeting, Jim McCord rendered the opinion as he understood it that the 7 days applied to all types of notices, therefore at the last Planning Commission meeting it was refered back to the Subdivision Committee. Green then added the Subdivision Committee, in an informal poll by the Planning Office refered it back to the Planning Commission because the Subdivision Committee had already heard the LSD. Commissioner Green said the pertinent question was "did Mr. Becker have the proper proof of notification". Carlisle advised that proof of notification had been turned into the Planning Office and was on file. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to plat • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 4 review comments, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) & CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT - MARK A. DAVIS - 1709 MISSION BLVD. The fourth and fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a lot split and a conditional use for a tandem lot submitted by Mark A. Davis. Property located at 1709 Mission Blvd and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Davis said he owned a lot that was twice as long as it was wide and there was an existing house on the front half of the lot. Mr. Davis said he wished to split the lot in half and build a new home on the back half for himself and sell off the existing house. Commissioner Seiff commented that Mr. Davis did a very good job on presenting his request. MOTION Commissioner Farrish moved to grant the lot split and conditional use for tandem lot as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT - HILLSIDE SUBDIVISION SAN MATHIAS - EAST OF OLDWIRE The sixth item on the agenda for consideration was approval of a final plat for Hillside subdivision submitted by Sam Mathias and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, contains 5.77 acres and a total of 14 proposed lots. Property located east of Oldwire and south of Steward. Commissioner Seiff said he noticed a for sale sign on the corner of the property and asked what was happening. Mr. Jorgenen said none of the lots were sold as yet and that the owner was just showing the lots. Commissioner Green asked if proof of notification had been submitted. Carlisle replied the proof of notification was submitted under the preliminary plat approval. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to approve the final plat of Hillside subdivision subject to: 1) park fee compliance; and 2) completion of all required improvements, seconded by Commissioner Seiff. The motion to approve passed 6-0- 0. (0 • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A DUPLEX IN AN R-1 ZONE LAWRENCE ICENOGLE & KENDYLL CAMPBELL - NW CORNER OF JERRY & HELEN The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of a conditional use for a duplex in an R-1 zone submitted by Lawrence Icenogle & Kendyll Campbell. Property located at the northwest corner of Jerry & Helen and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Campbell, 2197 Lee was present for the request. Commissioner Seiff asked if the property across from Helen Street was zoned R-1. Carlisle advised all that area was zoned R-1 and that it was an older subdivision prior to 1970 and the existing duplexes were grandfather in. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR CHILD CARE IN AN R-1 ZONE • CHRISTY KITCHEN - 1022 RODGERS DRIVE • The eighth item on the agenda was consideration of a conditional use for child care in an R-1 zone submitted by Christy Kitchen. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ms. Kitchen advised she was already doing day care for four children and added under the law she did not have to be licensed, but need a conditional use for child care to receive State approval for the Food Care Program. Commissioner Hanna asked if the log house was the property in question and Ms. Kitchen replied "yes". Commissioner Farrish asked on lot one the plat showed a future cul-de-sac and asked if that was something that had already been platted or was that something the property owners planned on doing. Ms. Kitchen replied the platted cul-de-sac was something the City of Fayetteville had platted. She said sometime ago the property owners on Lighton Trail wanted that road paved and the City told them there would never be a cul-de-sac there. Commissioner Seiff said he was concerned about proper proof of notification and the placement of the sign. He said the sign was placed on Lighton Trail and he did not see how any of the neighbors on Rodgers Drive could have seen the sign because it was hidden. Carlisle advised all surrounding property owners were mailed an agenda of tonights meeting and that the conditional use request was advertised in the local newspaper on November 5, 1987. Betty Martin, 37 Trenton Blvd. in Fayetteville said she presently owned lots 2 • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 6 and 3 which were next to the Kitchens. She said she did not have a house up there at this time, but had plans to build a 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. home next to the Kitchens. She advised when her property was bought in the Southern Heights Subdivsion she assumed it would be a fairly exclusive area. She said now she finds out about a limited day care facility on the adjoining property which disturbs her very much. She added to build a home in an exclusive area and to have a day care center next to them it was a little bit discouraging. She said it would depreciate the property value of her property as well as the neighbors. She said she just found out about the request at noon today and since then she had received 5 letters from neighbors in the immediate area opposing the request for a day care center. Mrs. Martin said everyone she talked to was greatly disturbed about the day care center on the property in question. Mrs. Martin said the request did not totally violate the covenants of the Subdivision, but to her it did because item number 3 stated "no offensive or noxious trade or business may be carried out on or upon any of the lots in the said subdivision, if any trade or business is carried out on said subdivision it shall be such of a type that can be carried on within a residential dwelling without altering the character of the said subdivision. No advertising signs, displays or other media shall be permitted upon any lot of said subdivision". Mrs. Martin said that statement was not really clear cut as far as noxtious or offensive may not be to another person. Carlisle pointed out that the request was not for a day care center, but merely a home occupation for babysitting in the womans home. Mrs. Martin said already the Kitchens have 5 children of their own and now this would be adding 4 more and to her that was quite a lot of children running around in the neighborhood of that sort. Commissioner Green asked how the notification was handled. Carlisle said a list of addresses was provided by the petitioner and the Planning Clerk mails each and every person on the list an agenda of tonights meeting. She also said the petition was required to run an ad in the local newspaper, which she did and proof had been submitted to the Planning Office. Ms. Kitchen said that Beverly from the Planning Office had called her on Monday morning and told her that one of the agendas had been mailed to a wrong person and that she should notify the correct person by telephone before the meeting tonight. Ms. Kitchen said she took the addresses off the Court records and really had no way of knowing if ownership had changed. Bill Carter, 1221 Rodgers Drive said he wanted to withdraw his letter in opposition to the request. He said he knew the Kitchens a little bit and new they would run an orderly child care and that they handle their children quite well. He said the Society needed additional child care. Chairman Jacks advised there were now 4 letters in opposition. • In answer to a question from Commissioner Farrish, Carlisle advised in an R-1 District there could be no more than 10 children for a conditional use request. • • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 7 Farrish asked if Ms. Kitchen would be willing to offer a Bill of Assurance to keep the number of children at 6 and Ms. Kitchen replied "yes". MOTION Commissioner Farrish moved to grant the conditional use with the stipulation that the additional non -family children be limited to a total of 6, seconded by Commissioner Robertson and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna said he had a problem voting for the conditional use with as many neighbors who were in opposition. He personally would be in favor of either tableling the request or denying the request. Chairman Jacks agreed with Commissioner Hanna with as much opposition that was on the record. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to table the request to give the petitioner an opportunity to speak with the people who had submitted letters in opposition, seconded by Commissioner Seiff. The motion to table passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWER. CONTEL CELLULAR, INC. - SANG AVE. AT HOTZ DRIVE The ninth item on the agenda was consideration of a conditional use request for a communications antenna tower submitted by Contel Cellular, Inc. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District and located at Sang Ave and Hotz Drive. Dale Woolsey, Manager of Construction for Contel Cellular, Atlanta Georgia stated that Contel Cellular was a Fayetteville MSA (Metropolitan Serving Area) limited partnership and was pleased to have been one of the two cellular companies chosen by the FCC to serve Fayetteville with the latest in mobile telephone communications. Mr. Woolsey advised Contel was asking for a conditional use permit that would allow them to construct a cell site in the Markham Hills area. He said cellular technology required several cells strategically located throughout a community in order to provide the serving area with quality mobile communications. For this reason Contel chose the Markham Hills location for one of its cell sites. He said the unmanned cell site consisted of a mono pole, 125' in height and the mono pole would not have to be painted nor lit. Mr. Woolsey said also located on the site would be a 12 X 28 concrete communications shelter that would house the electronics and a stand-by generator that would have a special residential housing and a muffler that would silent the running of the generator so that it could not be heard by any of the adjoining neighbors. He said the structures would be protected by an 8' high security fence with 3 -strand barb facing inward. Commissioner Hanna asked what the elevation of the tower would be when constructed. Mr. Woolsey stated the elevation would be approximately 1,606' • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 8 AMSL. Chairman Jacks asked if the approach had been checked out with the FAA and Mr. Woolsey said "yes" the approach had been checked out with the FAA. Mr. Woolsey added the power requirements would either be a single or three phase and would be a 400 amp service. Jacks asked if the power was presently there or would it have to be supplied. Mr. Woolsey replied there was sufficient power at the location in question and all they would have to do is add transformers to the location. Jacks asked if there would be traffic to the site. Mr. Woolsey said the tower would be unmanned and once service was on and tested there would problably be a person visit the site once or twice a week to check the electronics. Mr. Woolsey added there would eventually be sites located in Springdale and Rogers and that would give Contel the basic foot print for their cellular service. Sandra Carlisle advised she received a call from the Airport Manager and to his knowlege there had been no FAA approval. Mr. Woolsey said Mr. John Allen was an FAA consultant and they used him throughout the United States. Carlisle added Mr. Fredericks was concerned that the antenna was in the flight path and he was concerned if this did pass that it be contingent upon FAA approval. Mr. Woolsey said Contel could not build anything without the approval of the FAA and before they could even pull a building permit from the City-Contel would have to show proof of the FAA approval. Mrs. Betty Siegel, 16 N. Sang stated she called the Airport this afternoon and she had been assured that they knew nothing about the request and that it was in the flight path. Mr. Siegel said she knew the antenna was in the flight path because planes fly over her home all the time. Mrs. Siegel asked what additional lines would be brought into the area. Mr. Woolsey assured Mrs. Siegel that the power was already at the location and no additional lines would be brought in. Mrs. Siegel said she had interference from something now on her radio and people speaking on her television. Mr. Woolsey said Cellular was serving the top 100 cities throughout the United States and if Cellular were to interfer with television or radio or whatever the matter may be they would not be in existance, and that the FCC would pull their license. Mrs. Siegel asked where could she go to see one of these antennas. Mr. Woolsey replied St. Louis would probably be the closest location. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Commissioner Farrish. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS • Chairman Jacks advised of an item under other business. He said there was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations (lot split). • • • Planning Commission November 23, 1987 Page 9 Chairman Jacks said the request was from EPC located on Hwy 471 south. He noted the request would be represented by Mr. Mark Young of Crafton, Tull, Spann and yoe. Mark Young explained why Elkhart Products wished to request a lot split. He said this had to do with the financing of an addition to the Elkhart Products Plant as he understood the addition was virtually completed if not 100% complete. He said the addition was being financed through a bond issue of some type, and as a part of that was why it was necessary for this addition property to be owned by Elkharts parent Company which was AmCast, Inc. Mr. Young said there would be no change in the way business was conducted upon the property and it was merely a change in title. He advised that an access easement had been provided as a part of the lot split request. He was also under the impression that the attorneys would be filing utility easements and cross access agreements and things of that type because the utility service for the addition comes from the main building. MOTION Commissioner Farrish moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. MINIMS Page 5, paragraph 10, line 2, change "Robertson voting "yes" to Farrish voting "yes" Page 6, paragraph 6, line 3, change "4-0-0 to 4-4-0 Page 9, paragraph 6, Commissioner Green said the minutes missed the point of what he had said and felt it needed to be clarified. Commissioner Green said the point that he was trying to make was "that if Mr. McCord is rendering a different opinion from the one that the Subdivision Committee had at the time they acted that was fine and needed to be considered, but the minutes needed to reflect exactly what happen at the meeting". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at about 6:15 p.m. 9,