Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 25, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Frank Farrish, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, B.J. Dow and Gerald Seiff Butch Robertson and Stan Green Mr. Lewis, Ervan Wimberly, Lamar Pettus, Rock Reed, Mickey Jackson, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-1 LEWIS BROTHERS LEASING - WEST OF COLLEGE AND NORTH OF LONGVIEW The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R88-1 submitted by Lewis Brothers Leasing. Request was to rezone a .79 acre tract of land located on the north side of Longview St., approximately 335 feet west of Hwy 471, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; Over the last several years Longview Street has been the subject of C-2 District rezoning extending west from Hwy 471. In each case the commercial zoning is extending deeper into a residential area It is recommended that the west 95 feet of this application be rezoned to R-0 District and the remainder of the property be rezoned C-2 District. This will approximately align the C-2 District on the north and south sides of Longview St. and establish a transition against the residential property to the west. Larry Wood explained that the first lot east of the 20' access road was recommended R-0 and the remainder (approximately 110') was recommended C-2. Commissioner Nash asked if Larry Wood was suggesting that the neighborhood in question would eventually be commercial. Mr. Wood explained he was trying to retain as much of the residential character as he could with the R-0 being a buffer between the commercial and residential districts. Mr. Wood said although properties to the north and south were much deeper with existing C-2. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for the petition as presented. • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Lewis explained the lot that fronted on College was presently the used car facility. Mr. Lewis said Larry Wood's recommendation would be agreeable with him because he was acquiring a Chrysler franchise with the intention fo constructing a building in the area of the used car lot portion. He advised the recommended R-0 would be used as a parking lot. Mr. Lewis noted another house was owned by him directly west of the property that he was requesting a change on, so really they would be their own neighbor. Commissioner Hanna asked if the existing commercial for Lewis Ford and the proposed C-2 would align across Longview. Mr. Lewis replied "yes" with the remainder of the third lot being R-0 or a buffer from the residential district. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madison, Mr. Lewis replied his intention for the R-0 would be used for a parking area, which was permitted in an R-0 zone. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak against the petition as presented. Chairman Jacks advised that a petition had been presented to the Planning Commission with 13 signatures plus an additional 3 more people in opposition to the request. He noted all the signatures were from residences on Plainview and Longview Street. Scott Crook, 892 Longview stated he lived three houses west of the proposed rezoning change. He said he was concerned about the creeping attempt to change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Crook advised most of them moved into the area because of isolated through streets that did not connect with other residential areas, and by the zoning factor. He said gradually the neighborhood was seeing small bits and pieces being changed. He said the change started with Armstrongs request for a conditional use for an antique shop, which represented no great problem. After that Plants Plus requested a partial rezoning of one lot for the nursery and retail shop and again that was not significant because of the location being close to College. Mr. Crook said those who live there were beginning to see some sort of enchroachment right up to there homes. Mr. Crook added one of the lots in question had been used over the years for auto detailing and clean-up for the used car lot. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Crook if he was aware of the recommended R-0 for the west 95' of the lot and Mr. Crook replied "no" and asked why the adjoining neighbors did not receive a copy of the zoning report or the appropriate maps included in the agenda. Jacks explained the recommended zoning change and asked Mr. Crook if he had a position on that. Mr. Crook said personally he would like to see the recommended change moved one block east because some homes would have to be torn down, and parking lots made, which would bring things much closer to the residential areas. Mr. Crook said the neighborhood was used for Lewis Ford to test drive automobiles at very fast speeds. Carolyn Miller, 710 E. Longview said the neighborhood had never received any • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 3 information about the recommended R-0 zoning, but as far as she was concerned it was just away for Lewis Ford to get what they want without actually saying C-2 on paper. She felt the parking lot would ruin the character of her neighborhood. James Meek, 723 Longview stated the argument that R-0 constituted a buffer was not valid because R-1 presently did not constitute a buffer. Commissioner Hanna said the buffer (R-0), was between the R-1 and commercial and that R-1 itself was not a buffer. Rita Miller, 710 E. Longview, explained she was the very last house on the lane and was able to see the entire length of the road. Ms. Miller said she had lived there 22 years and was opposed to the petition because it was going to ruin the character of her neighborhood. Ms. Miller said she did not mind the business as it remained, but to come half way down the block was very much against her wishes. Albert Erback, 767 Longview stated if the proposed rezoning was passed he would see a parking lot out his front window. Mr. Erback felt if Mr. Lewis had all the land behind his business now why could he not make an egress and use some of the land to the back of his present business. Mr. Erback also advised Longview was a very narrow street and it was difficult for two full size cars to pass. He wanted to know how they could justify having more traffic on a narrow street. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Lewis if he intended to sell used cars from the proposed parking lot that was recommended for R-0 zoning. Mr. Lewis said he envisioned part of the proposed building extending into the requested commercial lot with the remaining R-0 lot being used for customer parking, storage parking and new vehicle storage. Mr. Lewis said the R-0 lot would not be used for sales activity. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Lewis if he would consider screening along the west and south portions of his property line. Carlisle advised the screening requirement would be addressed when the Large Scale Development plan was submitted. In answer to the question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Lewis said he would not be opposed to screening along his frontage of Longview. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madison, Mr. Lewis replied he was not sure the property to the west of Lewis Ford was zoned C-2. Mr. Lewis also advised the property to the west of Lewis Ford was not suitable for a sales lot. Commissioner Madison asked "why not" and Mr. Lewis asked Commissioner Madison would she drive around a building 600' to look at a used car and Madison said she did not see that mattered. Mr. Lewis said it was not feasible and it did matter when someone was in the retail business. Ms. Miller felt if the properties where identified in some way that it might make it understandable to her because she did not understand R-0, C-2, or R-1. There being no further discussion from the audience Chairman Jacks closed the • • • Planning Con'nission January 25, 1988 Page 4 public hearing and returned discussion to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hanna sympathized with the neighbors and their concerns for the change of character in their neighborhood. However the recommended C-2 across Longview would align with the C-2 on the south. He said the property to the west was recommended R-0 and west of the R-0 would remain R-1, and to the north was already zoned C-2. Hanna felt the Commission was put in an uncomfortable position because the City had forced automobile agencies and other businesses to move further out from the downtown area. Hanna said it appeared to him that Mr. Lewis had been very careful with his property by not expanding any further than he had. Hanna also added in view of the placement of the existing C-2 property, and the requested petition felt it was a very reasonable request MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend C-2 for the first 110' and R-0 for the remaining 95' as specified by the Planning report. The motion died for lack of a second and followed by discussion. Commissioner Nash felt the land from Lewis Ford to the bypass was already zoned C-2 therefore felt something could be worked out with the existing C-2 land. Another problem was the recommendation of R-0 for the western lot, she said once the land was paved it would be hard to reclaim later for building or offices. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to deny the request as submitted and as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Madison and followed by discussion. Commissioner Madison felt any value that a buffer zone of R-0 would have at that location was totally impractical if paved because it would only amount to a buffer on paper, and would not impress the neighbors as a buffer. Madison felt it was important to preserve some of the residential areas with convenience to commercial areas. She said just because they were close to a commercial area should not necessarily put them under a threat to be enchroached upon by that commercial area. She said the argument of C-2 on the south side of Longview was somewhat lessened to her because that property was a nursery with an existing home, trees and no major construction had taken place. Madison said for those reasons any rezoning of any of the parcels in that area was premature at best, and certainly unnecessary. Madison expressed shock that apparently the uses of the lots in question were in violation of R-1 zoning. Commissioner Farrish asked if two separate votes could be taken on the rezoning petition since the recommendation was for two different zoning classifications. Chairman Jacks advised that the petition was a package request, but noted there could be a motion to approve the request in some other fashion less than what was recommended. The question vas called and the motion to deny as stated aboved passed 5-2-0, • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 5 Seiff, Dow, Madison, Jacks and Nash voting "yes" and Hanna and Farrish voting "nay". MOTION Hanna moved to recommend rezoning from R-1 to C-2 for the first 110' with the remaining 95' to remain R-1, seconded by Farrish and followed by discussion. There was some confusion by the adjoining property owners as to the exactness of the plat map included in the agenda. Chairman Jacks asked Carlisle her feeling on the map. Carlisle said the C-2 zoning for the nursery was directly across the street from the request submitted by Mr. Lewis and in her opinion the map was correct. Commissioner Madison reminded the Commission that there was a potential that Mr. Lewis had not used all the existing C-2 he currently had and that this was a rezoning for convenience and she was still opposed to the request. Mr. Lewis explained that he applied for a Chrysler franchise, and that he had been told by Ford Motor Company, if he tried to move a Chrysler franchise on the Ford property, that Ford Motor Company would take away the Ford franchise, and that in no way could the two be associated. Chrysler, likewise said they would not associate and required a separate facility for a Chrysler franchise, with plans to be submitted for an adequate, separate, facility for the Chrysler franchise. Commissioner Farrish asked the petitioner if he would accept the motion as stated. Mr. Lewis said it would be terribly restrictive without the back 95', but if that was the best the Commission could do he would accept the motion for the 110' of C-2. Commissioner Dow said she would reluctantly favor the C-2, but only because of the alignment of the existing C-2. The question was called and the motion to recommend the first 110' west of the present Levis property to C-2 passed 6-1-0, Seiff, Hanna, Dow, Farrish, Jacks and Nash voting "yes" and Madison voting "nay". APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT - HUDCENS ADDITION H.H. HUDGENS - WEST OF HOOT OWL & SOUTH OF SMOKEHOUSE TRAIL The second item on the agenda was consideration of a final plat of Hudgens Addition submitted by H.H. Hudgens and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Property located south of Ozark Smokehouse and west of Hoot Owl Lane. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Wimberly advised the Bill of Assurance had been prepared, but signatures had not been obtained until approval of the final plat. 5 • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 6 MOTION Commissioner Nash moved approval of the final plat as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Madison. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. The third item of consideration was the Graue Addition. Carlisle advised this item had been temporarily withdrawn. Commissioner Madison requested copies of minutes from the Sun Valley Addition. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT LAMAR PETTUS - W OF SASSAFRASS & SOUTH OF CO. RD. 540 The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Lamar Pettus. Property located west of Sassafrass and south of County Road 540. The property is located outside the Fayetteville City Limits (unzoned) and the request was for the third split. Chairman Jacks asked Carlisle if she could obtain a map from Judge Charlie Johnson for the county areas. Commissioner Seiff requested a copy of the submitted application on lot splits to be included in the agenda. Carlisle advised the Planning Commission had taken a vote sometime back and it was agreed upon that the only application to be included in the agenda was the rezoning application. Seiff said it was very difficult for him to comprehend the request without the application. Mr. Pettus explained Sassafrass Road was 3 miles due east on Hwy 45 from Crossover Road or 1/2 mile from Sons Chapel. Mr. Pettus added Sassafrass Road was chip and seal, serviced with underground phone cable, overhead electric and a 6" water main across the east side of the property. Mr. Pettus noted the gas service was also on the east side of the property. He said the original property was a 25 acre tract, his first split was a 7 acre tract, second split a 10 acre tract leaving the house on Sassafrass Road and 8 acres. He said this request was to receive a third split for 4 acres which would leave the house and 4 acres remaining in one tract. MOTION Commissioner Madison moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT ROCK REED - NORTH OF STUBBLEFIEI.D & WEST OF OLD MISSOURI The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver Regulations (lot split) submitted by Rock Reed. Property Stubblefield and west of Old Missouri. Property zoned Residential District. Request was for the third split. of the Subdivision located north of R-1, Low Density • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 7 Mr. Reed said he really did not have anything to add to his request for the requested lot split. Commissioner Madison felt at some point a better plan was needed for Stubblefield in that it was all happening very piece -meal. She felt the split was close to what she considered a dangerous intersection (Stubblefield & Old Missouri). She also did not like the idea of anymore driveways onto Stubblefield. Madison said she felt badly about the last splits on Stubblefield, but at least they were located at a safer part of the street. Madison was not sure she could go along with the request as submitted. Commissioner Seiff was in agreement with Commissioner Madison and added he would not go along with any more splits until the City decided to do something with Stubblefield. Carlisle advised a memo was sent to Mr. Pennington showing what was required of Wade Bishop, Al Hughes/Ray Johnson (3 splits), Gordon Wilkins and assuming a bill of assurance would be given on this split. She noted the City was planning an engineering study on Stubblefield and wanted a cost breakdown with possible construction projected for 1989. Seiff said if that was the case he would not only change his mind, but at the appropriate time make a motion to grant the request as submitted. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion. Commissioner Dow asked if the motion would include a Bill of Assurance for the required improvements to the frontage on Stubblefield. Mr. Reed asked what his obligation would be for the Bill of Assurance. Carlisle advised the improvements would be required at the call of the City. Mr. Reed felt he should not be required to improve his portion of the street because of the major use from the subdivisions. Commissioner Seiff felt the Bill of Assurance would benefit Mr. Reed and his family. Commissioner Madison suggested a street improvement district be formed. Commissioner Seiff withdrew his motion and Nash withdrew her second. Commissioner Farrish advised the sale had not transpired as yet and felt the owner of the property would have to agree to the Bill of Assurance rather than Mr. Reed. Commissioner Madison asked if the owner of the property initiated the petition for the lot split. Carlisle replied she understood the owner had initiated the lot split. Chairman Jacks felt legally Mr. Reed could not make the lot split petition and that it had to come from the owner of the property. Commissioner Hanna pointed out that the developers passed the cost of the • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 8 improvements on to the buyers of lots and if Mr. Wilson agreed to a Bill of Assurance that cost would be passed down to Mr. Reed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot split with a Bill of Assurance for the required improvements, seconded by Commissioner Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Farrish thought an expiration date should be added to the motion. Carlisle advised the notice for the lot split would not be filed until a Bill of Assurance was received from the property owner. The question was called and the motion to grant the lot split with a Bill of Assurance passed 7-0-0. Mr. Reed reiterated that it was not fair for individuals to absorb the cost of improvements for personal usage of the land. Commissioner Hanna felt it was not fair either, but the Planning Commission had been asked by someone higher than them not to grant lot splits unless Assurances were required. DISCUSSION OF ELDERLY HOUSING Hanna advised there would not be a discussion from the Committee on Elderly Housing. DISCUSSION OF I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL CONCERNING CHEMICALS Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief advised the Planning Commission that there was no real concern for change in the I-1 zoning Ordinance. Jackson said the Fire Departments position was taken on the SARA Act (Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986). He said the Act had a lot of provisions for many areas and covered a lot of ground. He said the Fire Service was dealing with Title III of that Act (Community Right To Know Act) which required any industry or entity in the community to report harzardous chemicals to the local fire department. Jackson noted the name of that group was the Local Planning Committee for Harzardous Materials. He said every hazardous material that was used, stored, manufactured or handled had to be reported to the fire department. Jackson said the fire department had a list of extremely hazardous materials and those were the ones that the fire department was primarily concerned about. He said another list was toxic materials, and they were interesting to the fire department as well. He said the fire department was not concerned about the other lists because they were things dealt with everyday in society and the hazards were those other than related to making a fire start or making a fire spread faster. OTHER BUSINESS Carlisle advised the City Board had requested that the Planning Commission be polled on Mr. Pinnells request for rezoning on Rutledge Lane. She also noted Mr. Planning Commission January 25, 1988 Page 9 Pinnell gave a letter to the Board stating he would provide a water line and a fire hydrant at Oak Road and Rutledge Lane and that his property would access Velda Court "only" with the Velda Court ROW abutting Mr. Pinnells property on the east side. Commissioner Dow said that Mr. Norman Gabbard had opposition to the access as presented by Mr. Pinnell. PLANNING COMMISSION POLL - R87-29 The poll was taken and failed to pass 2-4-1, Seiff and Hanna voting "yes" and Dow, Madison, Jacks and Nash voting "nay" with Farrish abstaining. INVITATION TO THE MAYOR Chairman Jacks noted the comment in the newspaper about the Planning Commission being " policy implementers" and the "Board of Directors being policy makers". Jacks felt there had never been a misunderstanding about who was policy maker or who was policy implementers. Jacks said he would like to have some indication why those comments are printed in the paper. Jacks said the Planning Commission simply did not understand what the problem was and they would like the Board of Directors to send some type of explanation. Commissioner Seiff felt the Mayor should be in attendance at the February 8th Planning Commission meeting and possibly give a brief explanation of what the problem might be between the Board and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was in agreement that the Mayor attend the next regular Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES The mintues of the January 11, 1988 meeting were approved as corrected. Page 5, paragraph 4, change "restrict" to "contain" There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.