Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-25 Minutes•. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 25, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Larry Wood, Donna Caudle, Beth McMillan, Andy Kitsinger, Claudia Smith, Bassett, members of the press and others • PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-6 DONNA CAUDLE - 3274 LEE AVE • J. E. Springborn, Gerald Seiff, and Crocker, Clarence Harry Gray, Mary The first item of consideration on the agenda was rezoning petition R88-6 submitted by Donna Caudle of 3274 Lee Ave. Request was to rezone Lots 28, 29, and 30 Maplecrest Add., (.72 acre), located at the northeast corner of Lee Ave. and Bertha St., from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to be allowed to keep 16 children and have a sign. Planning Consultant Larry Wood recommended that the Planning Commission not consider a change to a C-1 district and consider an R-2 or R-0 district in its place indicating that he felt: 1) a C-1 zone at that location would be an intrusion into a residential area and would set precedent for the conversion of other single-family houses to commercial uses; and 2) an R-2 or R-0 District would establish a transition from the commercial uses to the north and west to the single-family to the east and south. He noted that a child care facility is a use and the R-0 district under use unit 4, so the continue if she applied for a permanent use. on appeal in both the R-2 district current child care facility could Also, he researched and found that 3-1 • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 2 in 1980 an application was filed on the 3 lots west of this property for C-2 district and R-0 district. The applicant requested the application be tabled and has never asked for it to be removed from the table. Chairman Jacks asked if he was correct in the understanding that Lee Street doesn't exist from Bertha Street on to the shopping center as an official city street. Don Bunn answered it stays as a non -city street and apparently there is no interest in improving it. Chairman Jacks stated that on the map he has it shows Lee Street stopping and it doesn't indicate it going on to the shopping center. Mr. Wood stated that in plat book it shows it as a 20' right-of-way all the way to the north end of the property. Commissioner Allred asked if this child care facility was being operated now on a conditional use. Mrs. Caudle answered, yes. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Wood, if they were to deny this, what would her options be. Mr. Wood answered that she would be able to continue to operate with the 10 child restriction and no sign. Chairman Jacks clarified that the present conditional use has a 10 child restriction and she wants to be able to have 16. Mrs. Caudle asked if she could change to an R-0 district if she can't have the C- 1 district. Chairman Jacks answered that was one of the propositions held by the Planning Consultant. Mrs. Caudle stated that she would like to be able to put up a sign and be able to keep more children because she is having to pay minimum wage for one helper and with only 10 children it's hard to do and pay her bills. Commissioner Hanna stated that he assumed under this rezoning request that the neighbors have been advised and he was surprised that no one was here to object to it. He stated that, when the property to the west across the street from her had proposed for a rezoning, some of the neighbors had came to the meeting and said that there were some restrictive covenants in that subdivision. Mrs. Caudle noted that she had talked with her neighbors and none had any objection to it. Commissioner Robertson asked that if it were rezoned to R-0 or R-2 could she keep 16 kids there but couldn't have a sign. Don Bunn answered, yes, she could not have a free-standing sign. Commissioner Hanna stated that in R-0 she could have a 4 x 4 sign on her house. Commissioner Springborn asked as to the Planning Commission options, if they elect not to approve the request, can they at this time grant another zoning. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. Commissioner Seiff stated that what he is concerned about is the possibility if they grant a Commercial zone that she might close the business and move, then • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 3 someone else could put any commercial use there. Commissioner Dow stated that she was also concerned about approving a C-1 district because future owners could put something in there that would not be appropriate. She was in favor of the proposal to change it to R-0. She asked Mrs. Caudle if R-0 district would be appropriate for her uses. Mrs. Caudle answered that she really wanted to be allowed to have a free-standing sign. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant an R-0 zone. Commissioner Hanna noted that they would have to turn down the C-1 zoning first. Commissioner Allred then amended his motion and moved to deny the request as stated and grant a rezoning to R-0, seconded by Hanna. The motion to deny the rezoning request of C-1 and to grant an R-0 zoning passed 9-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-7 ROLLING HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH - 1400 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R88-7 submitted by Rolling Hills Baptist Church and represented by Beth Crocker. Request was to rezone a 6.79 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of Rolling Hills Drive and Elizabeth Ave., from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to P-1 (Institutional) District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood's recommendation was to grant the P-1 district for the following reasons: 1) P-1 District is the district established for large institutional uses and churches; and 2) there is a church already established on the property. Commissioner Dow asked , if it was zoned P-1, could the use change. Does it have to remain a church. Chairman Jacks stated that they could have anything allowable in P-1 zone if it was granted. Beth Crocker, representative for Rolling Hills Baptist Church, stated that they are primarily here because they are wanting to expand their church and add an auditorium. She stated that she had talked to Larry Wood and the Planning Department and they stated that the city has gradually changed in terms of moving towards obtaining the P-1 zone for churches that have been in an area for quite a period of time rather than offering the conditional use. Commissioner Klingaman asked Ms. Crocker how close the new auditorium is to construction. Ms. Crocker answered that they would like to start construction sometime this summer. • Clarence McMillan, of 1437 Eton, which is on the north side of the Rolling Hills Church property, was concerned about what the long-term plans are for the 33 • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 4 property. He stated that P-1 zoning lists considerable usage including riding stables which would not be appropriate for a single-family residential neighborhood. Their church playground noise is understandable. Sometimes there is more noise involved with kids playing basketball under the security light late at night. He advised that there are transients who come into the area and run dogs, play ball, etc. His plea to the Planning Commission was to keep it somewhat in the realm of single-family homes. Chairman Jacks explained that they are bound to allow any thing that is allowable in a P-1 zoning if they approve it. Chairman Jacks stated that use unit 4 is a hodgepodge of uses. He stated that he doesn't think they have the right to expect the church to prove to them what they are planning to do. What they need to decide is whether it is appropriate for P-1 uses. Ms. Crocker stated that their definition of being a good neighbor extends to more than just the adjoining property owners. The property is being utilized by kids playing and various groups are allowed to use the property on a scheduled basis and some people do use it on an informal basis. They have 6.79 acres and there isn't really a park in that particular area of the city. She stated that even if it isn't rezoned that type of activity will continue on the property. She stated further that it became very important, when they thought of expanding their facilities, for the members of the church to be able to allow that kind of activity to continue. As far as the long-range plans, the proposed auditorium will seat about 300 people. Since that church has been there for about 15 to 20 years and they are about at capacity right now, it is time to construct a new auditorium She advised there are no plans for any type of grammer school, high school or anything along those lines. Down the line they might consider a preschool or after school programs. Mr. McMillan asked if they need the rezoning to accomplish the construction that they are contemplating. Ms. Crocker stated that they could go back to the large scale development plan and do it that way , but in terms of making this apparently equivalent to other churches around it seems that the city has moved over the past few years to putting churches in the P-1 zoning rather than putting them in a conditional use. She stated that in terms of a large scale development, they did present a large scale development when the church first went in but those city records have been destroyed in the move to another building. The problem would be coming back before the planning commission for a large scale development plan. Chairman Jacks stated that as he understood, she would be allowed to operate under a conditional use in R-1 with the same uses as you do otherwise. Commissioner Hanna stated that he would assume they would do a large scale development plan no matter what zone when you have over an acre of land unless you draw it up in phases. He stated that the only difference is when it is zoned P-1 you don't have to come back and get a conditional use everytime you do more construction. Commissioner Hanna explained to Mr. McMillan that he would have a chance to voice his concerns when they file a large scale development such as setbacks, screening and what use they are going to put the property to. • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 5 Mr. McMillan asked if there is a way to A) keep the zoning the way it is with a certain limit and B) are there zoning or rules for unsupervised play areas Commissioner Seiff asked for clarification of whether it was necessary to have the zoning they are requesting in order to do what they want to do. Chairman Jacks answered, No, there are a number of churches operating in the city under the R-1 category. Traditionally a church will be in a residential area. Commissioner Seiff stated that he was concerned about changing the zoning because of future use. If they can accomplish what they are wanting to do let it be accomplished the way it is. Chairman Jacks stated that the point is made that the P-1 zone is designed for institutions including churches. My own view is that the P-1 ordinance is indeed designed that way but faulted by inclusion of our Use Unit 4. Chairman Jacks stated that Commissioner Hanna had chaired a committee of the Planning Commission to make recommended changes to the zoning ordinance and one of them was change Use Unit 4. Commissioner Dow asked if Use Unit 4 were changed, would it be retroactive. Chairman Jacks answered, No, if they rezoned this as P-1 they would go on by these rules. Commissioner Hanna stated that if it was changed where a zoo which is listed in Use Unit 4 wasn't allowed in a P-1 zone, they wouldn't be allowed one at a later date. Mr. McMillan asked if the church goes off into other areas, would he then be eligible to go the same way. Chairman Jacks answered that he would be eligible to request a rezoning of his property too. Andy Kitsinger of Fugitt & Associates, the architectural representative for the church, stated that they would be upgrading the property and bringing in court yard areas and a lot more areas for use for the church as far as congestion and the parking. He noted that there is one entrance to the parking lot for the driveway now and they would be adding another one just to the north of the existing drive on Elizabeth Drive which would take off some of the congestion out of that drive. They would be making all-around improvements on the property. Claudia Smith (joint owner with her mother, Sue Henson) of the property right next door to the front lot of the church, stated that she and her mother have no objection what -so ever to the church itself expanding or to the young people playing there on the property which does come right up to her mother's backyard. She is concerned about the possibility of sometime in the future the church being relocated and this property used for something else that is allowed in the P-1 zone right in the middle of a residential area. Chairman Jacks stated that at the present time the church exists in the R-1 area under a conditional use which undoubtedly specifies a church. He noted that Beth had indicated that the records of this may be lost. He advised that a conditional use is allowed for a specific use and the use that was granted in the past was for a "church". As he sees it, he doesn't know that they have to come back to the Planning Commission if they want to continue building a church. If • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 6 they chose to change it to a museum or something, then that conditional use would not function for this particular piece of property. Also, if it was zoned P-1, then they would have all the uses available under P-1 without asking for it. Commissioner Klingaman asked if it were rezoned P-1 and they were to come back with a plan to build a zoo would they have to get a large scale development approval. Chairman Jacks answered that they would have to get a large scale development approval in any event He advised that the function of a large scale development is to lay out roads and streets and this kind of thing to show the way they plan to accomplish their use. Commissioner Seiff asked Ms. Crocker what advantages would it be to her to have the P-1 zoning. Ms. Crocker answered that it was mainly at the instigation of the Planning Office and it seemed that their idea was that they were seeking to bring the actual use of the property in line with the zoning. Commissioner Seiff asked if they could accomplish what they want with it the way it is. Ms. Crocker stated that if they could accomplish what they want it would be fine, but the city is still looking at inconsistent uses in the zoning and in terms of long- range zoning plan. Commissioner Allred stated that he felt that the conditional use was a better alternative than spot zoning. If they have a conditional use now to expand on, they will be allowed to do what they want and the neighborhood would be protected. Ms. Crocker asked what the other churches are zoned on that street. Chairman Jacks stated that there is a hodgepodge of zones around the city in these cases. Ms. Crocker said she felt that they needed to be consistent. Commissioner Hanna stated that it is obvious in this case that they intend to use this as a church. He stated that he felt that the object of the P-1 zone is so that the church can ask for it and get it in the same manner that a commercial building asks for a commercial zone and he felt the P-1 zoning was a reasonable request and entirely appropriate. The questions have been answered to show that they don't intend to have a school or a football field, etc. The church will probably expand sometime down the line to include meeting halls for youth groups and that sort of thing. Commissioner Robertson stated that he didn't feel that it was necessary to rezone it P-1 because they have the ability to accomplish what they want to without causing the concern that something undesirable from Use Unit 4 could be put in there. He further stated that he didn't feel it should be rezoned P-1 until such time as the zoning ordinances in the P-1 district (Use Unit 4) straightened out. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to deny the rezoning request, seconded by Nash. Mr. McMillan commented that one concern that has been expressed in discussing this is that as the church expands there may be a time when they want to sell some the • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 7 property off to generate revenue for some new addition. This could cause somebody to have part of this property and the zoning that may not be appropriate for the area. The motion to deny the rezoning passed 7-2-0 with Blingaman and Hanna voting "no". Chairman Hanna advised Ms. Crocker that she can appeal this decision. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LAKE VIEW CONVALESCENT HONE E.H. SONNEMAN - DEAN SOLOMON ROAD The third item of consideration on the agenda was a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by E.H. Sonneman and represented by Harry Gray for Lake View Convalescent Home located on the west side of Dean Solomon Road. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, with an area of 2.73 acres Commissioner Dow stated that this Large Scale Development was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting subject to the Plat Review minutes, the private pump sewer station being worked out and a variance on the frontage of the public street being obtained (which is the next item on the agenda). Chairman Jacks asked Harry Gray if he understood all of that. Mr. Gray answered, Yes. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to the Plat Review minutes, the private pump sewer station being worked out, and a variance on the frontage of the public street being obtained, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve the Large Scale Development passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT - LAKE VIEW CONVALESCENT HONE E. H. SONNEMAN - DEAN SOLOMON ROAD The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was a request for a variance of frontage requirements of the public street in connection with the Lake View Convalescent Home submitted by E.H. Sonneman and represented by Harry Gray. Chairman Jacks asked Harry Gray if there was no public street access. Mr. Gray answered that there is paved access to the property and, as shown on the plat, there is the paved loop in the development. Chairman Jacks asked if the nearest public street was Mt. Comfort. Mr. Gray answered, No, Dean Solomon Road is a public street. The drive through Razorback Golf course is a private drive. There is adequate paved access for emergency vehicles & trash pick-up. He noted that there is a provision in the ordinance to allow for this variance. Commissioner Dow added that one of the questions she asked at the Subdivision Committee meeting was how the fire department and everyone felt about the present 3y., • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 8 access and Don Bunn answered that the feeling was that the present access was. adequate. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the request for the variance, seconded by Seiff. The motion to grant the variance passed 9-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ( LOT SPLIT) -FIRST SPLIT MARY BASSETT - WEST OF HWY 265 (CROSSOVER ROAD), ACROSS FROM INWOOD LANE. The fifth item of consideration on the agenda was a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Mary Bassett. Property located south of the Hwy 45 and Hwy 265 intersection on the West side of Hwy 265 across from Inwood Lane and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Request if for the first split with total acreage of 2.02. Chairman Jacks asked Mary Bassett where the access from the west side she had spoken about would be coming from. Ms. Bassett answered that it would be part of the Park Place Development. Chairman Jacks if they intended to have an access to Highway 265 for that lot. Ms. Bassett answered that there is property all around this property that would be part of Park Place Development and their access, if they do open up a road, would come through this lot on to Highway 265 on their already existing property. They will boundary this property by 3 sides. Don Bunn stated that the future Park Place Development would have an access from Highway 265. Commissioner Klingaman asked if this piece of property is part of the plan to get their access to Highway 265. Ms. Bassett answered that from what she understands, originally this was a tract of about 100 acres and this property was originally part of that tract. The two acres was left off when they sold everything else. The two acres has been intact as two acres for some time, but it is possible that they will include this into a street to come out to Highway 265. Commissioner Klingaman clarified that he was asking if they have to have that piece of property to gain access to Highway 265 or can they go around it. Ms. Bassett answered that she thought they could reroute the road to the complete south side of that property and come off there. She added that she believed the way they have it developed, it comes to the North and will take the edge of this property with the road coming out to the north side of this property. Commissioner Allred asked if this lot would be developed prior to the Park Place Development. Ms. Bassett answered, No, this two acres at one time was part of the whole development. She added further that this would actually be a boundary adjustment in a way because it would be going back into what it originally was. This will not be developed by itself, it will be included in the complete • • • • Planning Commission April 25, 1988 Page 9 development there. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion was passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 11th meeting were approved as mailed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.