Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 14, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Julie Nash, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, B.J. Dow and Butch Robertson Frank Farrish Larry Wood, Pat Pinnell, Wade Bishop, Dave Jorgensen, Al Hughes, Sandra Carlisle and Tessi Franzmeier MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-29 PAT PINNELL - LOT 13 RUTLEDGE SUBDIVISION The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-29 submitted by Pat Pinnell. Request was to rezone Lot 13 Rutledge Subdivision, located on the southside of the west end of Rutledge Lane, From R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R-2 District was not recommended for the following reasons: 1. The area is basically single-family development and R-2 District would be an intrusion into the area; 2. R-2 District would tend to commit the remaining vacant land to multi -family development which could devalue the single-family development and 3. Fire protection on Rutledge Lane is inadequate to introduce a higher density development at this time. If the water supply into the area was improved the R-1.5 District could be considered. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Mr. Wood said the General recommended the R-2 District for most of the area with the exception of the of Old Farmington Road. Wood also said the rational was at some point in that area would probably be redeveloped into multi -family, but he did not into account the single family subdivision which existed in there now. Plan face time take Commissioner Hanna noted that commercial property butted up to lot 15 and the way he saw it the lot in question was less than an acre and he had a hard time seeing where the fire protection for a four-plex would be much less than if it were a single unit. Larry Wood said the problem he had was that the nearest fire plug was located at Hwy 62 and Oak. • • • Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 2 Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for the petition as requested. Pat Pinnell stated the lot in question was on the end of the Rutledge Subdivision and on the block where the lot was located there were no houses in the Subdivision at this time. He said there were only 2 other lots in that block in the Subdivision (lots 9 & 11) and lot 11 was for sale at this time and was owned by a contractor in Fort Smith. Mr. Pinnell said he did not intend to build on the lot in question for the next 2 or 3 years, but would like to get the lot rezoned because his intention was to build a four-plex on the lot. He said the lot abuts the Velda Court project with some real low rent housing, one bedroom block structures. Mr. Pinnell said the entrance to his lot could be off of Velda Court and that was the area that he intended to bring the entrance into the lot. Chairman Jacks asked if Velda Court could be extended because it looked as though there were a gap between the dedicated road and Mr. Pinnell's property. Mr. Pinnell said there was about 10-12 feet between his property and Velda Court and was unclear if that was a ROW or not. Sandra Carlisle advised Velda Court was dedicated to the City with a cul-de-sac at the end and she did not know if the cul-de-sac came to the western edge of lot 13. Mr. Pinnell felt that the gap could be certainly negotiated since the person who owned the property would have no use for it. Mr. Pinnell said for the water situation there was one house on the north side of Rutledge Lane owned by Lois Hawkins and he owned the end lot which was lot 16. Mr. Pinnell said he had a plan to build a house on lot 16, but he did not know if he would build it in the next year or two. Chairman Jacks asked who owned lot 15 and added there was no access to it. Mr. Pinnell advised lot 15 was part of the commercial property which joined Hwy 62 and at this time there was a gambrel type roof building built on lot 15 which housed part of the Owls Nest Antiques and the access to that lot was from Hwy 62. Commissioner Madison asked what was the current use of lot 16 and Mr. Pinnell replied that he had built a garage type building on the back of the lot and he stored his equipment on the property. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Mr. Norman Gabbard stated he owned the property on Velda Court and was opposed to a four-plex going in next to his little cheap houses. Commissioner Dow asked if his rental property was single family and Mr. Gabbard replied "yes" and that he had 8 single family rent houses. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Gabbard if he lived on Velda Court and Mr. Gabbard replied "no" and that he rented to mostly older people. Mr. Gabbard felt the higher density rental would hurt his income from his rental property. Commissioner Robertson asked if it was standard procedure for a cul-de-sac to leave a gap between two pieces of property. Carlisle noted Mr. Gabbard's • Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 3 property exented from the western edge of lot 13. Robertson then noted that there was not really a gap between the cul-de-sac and the lot in question. Maryann Westfall stated she owned the property at 3017 Old Farmington which was at the corner of Old Farmington and One Mile Road. She simply wanted to reiterate what Mr. Wood had recommended in his report. She said she purchased a duplex in that subddivision and wanted the single family low density to remain. Commissioner Hanna asked Ms. Westfall if she lived in the duplex and Ms. Westfall replied "no" she just rented the duplex. Chairman Jacks closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that Mr. Pinnell was not going to build on the property for 3 or 4 years and she saw no reason to rezone the property now, especially in light of the fire protection situation. Commissioner Dow said she would have to go along with the zoning report from Larry Wood. • MOTION • Commissioner Madison moved to deny rezoning petition R87-29, seconded by Commissioner Dow and followed by discussion. Commissioner Green asked Larry Wood if the General Plan called for the property in question to be R-2 over the long term and also asked what was the basis for that. Mr. Wood said at that time his general thinking was that because of the nature of the area, Rutledge Subdivision basically being the only subdivided residential property in the area and the remaining land being more commercially oriented. Also south of Old Farmington Road would probably end up being some form of multi -family and that he retained the face of Old Farmington Road as single family. The question was called and the motion to deny the petition as requested passed 5-3-0, Nash, Seiff, Dow, Madison and Jacks voting "yes" and Green, Hanna and Robertson voting "nay". MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend rezoning petition R87-29 from R-1 to R-1.5, seconded by Commissioner Robertson and followed by discussion. Commissioner Dow asked Larry Wood if he would recommend the R-1.5 at this time and Larry Wood replied "no" he would prefer to wait, in that he doubted that any of the developments would stand the cost of extending the 6" line into the subdivision. ckS • • • Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 4 Commissioner Madison asked if the Commission recommended R-1.5 would Mr. Pinnell be required to run the fire line. Larry Wood replied "no" because the development was less than an acre. Commissioner Hanna felt that R-1.5 zoning was a fair use and said there was rental property butting up against on the west side, commercial property on the south side and that lot 16 was larger than most of the lots in the subdivision. Hanna felt that the R-1.5 would be some type of a relief for the lot in question and to him if he were going to build a single family house he would not pick that lot. Commissioner Green felt the Commission was putting a hard place in that he was surrounded by property. He said he did not know what would get the property sat vacant. Mr. Pinnell between a rock and rental property and commercial the fire protection there if The question was called and the motion to recommend R-1.5 failed to pass 5-3-0, with Nash, Seiff, Dow, Madison and Jacks voting "nay" and Green, Hanna and Robertson voting "yes". Chairman Jacks advised Mr. Pinnell that he could appeal the motions to the City Board. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT - QUAIL CREEK, PHASE I WADE BISHOP - 1/4 MILE EAST OF HWY 180 ON APPLEBY ROAD The second item on the agenda was consideration of Quail Creek Subdivision Phase I, submitted by Wade Moderate Density Residential District and contains will have 2 points of ingress/egress, Appleby Road Mr. Bishop advised everything had been done Planning Commission. MOTION approval of the final plat for Bishop. Property zoned R-1.5, 36.7 acres. This subdivision and the future Drake Street. that had been requested by the Commissioner Nash moved to approve the final plat seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Madison wanted to point out her preliminary plat of the subdivision in question. of Quail Creek Phase I, continued opposition to the The question was called and the motion to approve the final plat of Quail Creek passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 5 RAY JOHNSON - EAST OF LOXLEY AND SOUTH OF STUBBLEFIELD c'dqict The third item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the subdivision regulations (lot split) submitted by Ray Johnson and represented by Al Hughes. Property located east of Loxley and south of Stubblefield and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This will be the second and third split on the property in question. Mr. Hughes said he could not think of anything to add to his request that was not already included in the agenda. Mr. Hughes said his client wished to build three homes along Stubblefield Road and that all the requirements from the City had been met. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this request. There being no opposition discussion was returned to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seiff said he was very concerned about Stubblefield Road and he happened to live close by and was very familiar with Stubblefield Road. Seiff said he saw three more families exiting out onto Stubblefield road and to him every family meant more traffic. He was also concerned about the improvements of Stubblefield Road and said the only way to improve the road was with an improvement district. Carlisle advised Commissioner Seiff that off-site improvements could be imposed on lot splits by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seiff said he just wanted to voice his concern and did not want to put an undue burden on the gentlemen, but felt this would create a future difficulty if the road improvements were not addressed. Commissioner Madison asked if additional ROW would be needed on Stubblefield for the lot splits in question. Carlisle advised an additional 5' would be required, 2-1/2 feet on each side of Stubblefield. Madison felt that was an unadequate amount of ROW for Stubblefield. Madison said as she remembered Mr. Bishop was required to make some contribution to the improvements of Stubblefield along his frontage of Yorktown Square. She also believed that Mr. Wilkins subdivision to the east was required to improve Stubblefield and possibly a bridge for his frontage. Madison asked if the Planning Commission was suppose to determine a dollar amount for the improvements for the 2 additional lot splits onto Stubblefield. Carlisle advised "yes". Mr. Bishop noted that he would build his half of the street when he started his subdivision or later when all the improvements could be done to Stubblefield Mr. Bishop said he had asked the City repeatedly if they wanted him to build his half of the street now or did they want him to do it later. Mr. Bishop said so far he has never received an answer from the City fathers. Nash asked if a motion stated that the necessary off-site improvements would be provided at the appropriate time and that the required improvements would be enforced by the Planning Office was a suitable motion. Carlisle advised that the Planning Commission could require a Bill of Assurance for the improvements and • • • Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 6 that the Planning Office could enforce the Bill of Assurance from that point. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve the lot splits with the understanding that the developer would provide the necessary off-site improvements as required by ordinance, seconded by Commissioner Dow and followed by discussion. Carlisle advised the Master Sidewalk plan required the sidewalk to be on the southside of Stubblefield and that Stubblefield was a local street and not a collector. Commissioner Green thought, the Planning Commission decided on, Mr. Bishop's subdivision that primarly because he volunteered to go ahead and assess off-site improvements and that Mr. Bishop's responsibility was to improve the north side of Stubblefield where it abutted his property with curb, gutter and the widening of pavement. Then essentially the same thing was done on Gordon Wilkins subdivision with the exception of the bridges being excluded from that requirement. Green said the question Mr. Bishop was having from what he remembered at a Subdivision Committee meeting was "when does he install the improvements" not "do you want him to install the improvements". Green said he did not have a problem with the lots in question being assessed some portion for off-site improvements because the other people that have developed their property along Stubblefield have had to pay additional money because of the conditions. Green said his problem was leaving the motion vague and open ended. Green said what would be fair would be to have the City Engineer estimate what he thought Mr. Bishops cost per acre, of property developed of off-site improvements was and do the same thing for Gordon Wilkins and just take the average of those two and then assess that cost per acre developed to these three lot splits. He felt that would be less than improving the street to current City standards with asphalt, curb and gutter and that would be comparable to what had been assessed to other people who had developed property and for that reason he would vote against the motion. Commissioner Nash said as Mr. Bishop and Sandra Carlisle pointed out earlier, Mr. Bishop had been trying to settle on what was fair for him for how many months now and he was still in limbo on what to provide. Nash said there was no way the Planning Commission could tell this gentleman what to provide. Commissioner Green then said that was where he had a different rememberance than Sandra Carlisle. Green went on to say that Mr. Bishop had settled and if the someone went back and read the minutes they would reflect what Mr. Bishop had to do. AMENDED MOTION Commission Nash moved to approve the lot splits with a Bill of Assurance for off- site improvements with the determination at a later date, but not to exceed improving the frontage along their property, seconded by Commissioner Dow. The motion to approve the second and third split as stated passed 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 7 APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - GATOR GOLF TOMMY CROUCH - 2692 N. COLLEGE The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Tommy Crouch and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located at 2692 N. College and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Commissioner Green advised the Subdivision Committee did not meet for this item because it was so simple and that it would be heard by the full Planning Commission anyway. Commissioner Dow asked how the edges of the excavation would be braced. Mr. Jorgensen advised the developer had changed the slope of the grade. Commissioner Madison said that Perry Franklin noted if the parking lot remained as shown some of the cars would have to back out or negotiate at the end of the lot. Jorgensen said Mr. Franklin had called him and the developer was willing to pave turn -a -rounds or possibly take 2 of the spaces in the middle out. Commissioner Green asked if proof of notification had been submitted and Carlisle advised she received appropriate proof of notification. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan as presented, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION OF USES IN I-1 CONCERNING CHEMICALS The fifth item on the agenda was tabled until the next regular Planning Commission meeting. A representative from the Fire Department would be present at that meeting for a presentation on the uses in an I-1 zone concerning chemicals. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to table item 5 until the next regular meeting, seconded by Commissioner Dow. The motion to table passed 8-0-0 OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Nash wanted on record that today was Chairman Jacks' "39th" Birthday again. Commissioner Hanna requested an item on the January 11, 1988 agenda for a discussion from the Elderly Housing Committee. 4 Planning Commission December 14, 1987 Page 8 MINUTES The minutes of the November 23, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m.