Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYE TEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, June 27, 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, S.B. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Blingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Elaine Cattaneo, Mike Price, Lorie Wilcox, Wilson Kimbrough, members of the press and others INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR • Chairman Jacks introduced John Merrell, the new Director of Planning. • PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-10 FREDA WISE POORE - 4195 & 4245 The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R88-10 submitted by Freda Wise Poore and represented by Mike Price. Request was to rezone a 1.61 acre tract of land located on the south side of Hwy 62 West approximately 550 feet west of Hoot Owl Lane, from A-1 (Agricultural) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) District. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Planning Commission consider tabling the rezoning request and take some time to reevaluate the Hwy 62 future land use plan. He stated that he has put together a visual aid to show the Hwy 62 plan and the zoning along Hwy 62. He stated that he would like to review with the Planning Commission briefly the kind of chain of events that have taken place since 1970 and including 1970 and he gave the following report: In 1970, the General Plan for the City of Fayetteville was established and it included Highway 62 West. That plan showed two commercial locations on Highway 62. He referred to his map. At that time the bypass was not constructed and there wasn't much pressure on the City to do commercial • • • Planning Commission June.27,_1988 Page 2 zoning on Highway 62. When it was annexed into the City, there were a bunch of scattered commercial locations west of what is now the bypass. Most of those commercial locations are still there. He went on to say that after the bypass started construction and the interchange was started, the Planning Commission got a lot of pressure for commercial activity on Highway 62. In 1973, the General Plan was amended to indicate a commercial grouping from the bypass back to One Mile Road and then another commercial grouping from roughly Old Farmington Road back just past Dinsmore Trail and surrounding that commercial activity with multi -family zoning to buffer and trying to stay with the concept of not stripping out state highways to bleed into the city. He noted that was the first real pressure for stripping which got the Planning Commission thinking about Highway 16 East and West and Highway 45. This was the General Plan amendment at that point in 1973. He advised that 9 years later they begin to get more pressure around the west side of that intersection. The Planning Commission, in 1984, amended the Plan one more time to expand commercial north and south along the service roads there on the west side of that interchange. In 1983, Farmington adopted their Plan. The Plan was prepared for them by us and they recognized what the Fayetteville Plan was attempting to do. At this time, commercial was brought up to roughly the west edge of the Fayetteville City Limits and it was buffered with multi -family to discourage the strip activity along Highway 62. However, when Farmington adopted their zoning, they stripped Highway 62 on both sides in opposition of the Plan. They instructed us to show commercial on both sides of 62 from one end of the town to the other. C-1 is the only commercial zone Farmington has. Since that date, we have had several other activities. We had this large acreage that Dave Jorgensen brought in that wanted commercial all along the south face of Highway 62. We worked out a compromise with commercial at One Mile Road and commercial up against this west commercial grouping with a office zone in between, and multi -family buffering to the south and then single-family which was still maintaining the Land Use Plan. The portion that is under application today is pretty much to the western edge of the Fayetteville City Limits. From Hanshew Road there is basically at this point either vacate land or single-family development with maybe a trailer or two in there and then there is one non -conforming use (an auto transmission shop) which is on the north side of 62 just west of this application. The only other thing in there is the Ozark Smokehouse and that is zoned A-1 which, under Use Unit 6, allows smoking, curing and selling of poultry and meats is a use of right in the A-1 district. There was no zoning change to that; it is not a conditional use, it is a use of right in A-1 which is not correct because in essence what we have there is an industrial operation. Mr. Wood stated that basically, that is the situation out there and he • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 3 thought the Planning Commission might want to take some time to take a look at the Plan and the zoning, as well as, Farmington's Plan and zoning before they make a decision on this rezoning petition. Chairman Jacks noted that what he is telling them is if this goes this way, they won't have to look at the sign to know where the city limit line is. Commissioner Allred asked what the traffic count was on Highway 62. Larry Wood answered that they are running between 11,000 and 13,000 thousand vehicles per day. Commissioner Allred stated that when this General Plan was done, Highway 62 was a two-lane road which has been expanded to a five -lane. Mr. Wood stated that he would think the traffic has probably doubled since that time. Commissioner Allred stated that it is the understanding that the Highway 71 Bypass is the fastest growing interstate in the state of Arkansas. He stated that this particular area has changed a lot in the last 2 years. It has really grown because of the bypass situation. He asked would the Planning Commission not be wise to consider making more commercial along there because it is such a high traveled area Larry Wood stated that he thought that this intersection could stand more commercial zoning. But the problem is that at this intersection, they don't have a good place to put the commercial zoning. They would have to either start stretching up and down the service roads which are there to give access to these properties further north. The service roads were never intended as a commercial road. Chairman Jacks stated that they are on the record in principal on the Planning Commission to work toward commercial at intervals and not to strip. Commissioner Allred stated that his concern is if they have the traffic, what else are you going to do with it. He noted that they are silly if they think that is going to be residential up against Highway 62. Chairman Jacks stated that there are a lot of residences out there. Commissioner Allred noted that was true but there isn't any new construction because people don't want to live on a highway that has 13,000 cars running in front of it every day. Commissioner Springborn stated that on the other side of that argument, he can appreciate his point, but if you talk to highway constructors, state planners, and federal planners, they would not hesitate to assure us that putting a freeways through the middle of low-density housing is in no way an obstruction to them. He noted that much of that is being accomplished today in big cities. So to say that just because they have a high rate of travel on the highway isn't justification for commercial development. He stated that you could argue on both sides of that case. You could argue as an individual that you didn't want to live there, but if you argue from the standpoint of highway development in a big growing dynamic city, the arguments all seem to favor running those sorts of arterials right through low-density housing. • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 4 Commissioner Seiff noted that since Farmington only has one commercial zone, they can't have any use unit that Fayetteville could have in any of our commercial zones. In other words, Farmington can have the most industrial type of commercial use because they only have one kind of commercial zone. So that is what Chairman Jacks meant when he said you can tell where the city limit line will be. Chairman Jacks advised that Larry Wood's recommendation on this request for rezoning is that they table it and give him time to give it some more study. Commissioner Hanna asked Larry Wood if the mini -storage would fit in other zones besides C-2 such as the I-1 zone. Mr. Wood stated, yes, it would fit in I-1 as well as in either C-3 or C-4 but not C-1 or R-3. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone was appearing in favor of this request Mike Price of 3468 North College stated that on the application he had written that the Ozark Smokehouse was zoned C-2 and the reason for that was because he had one of the girls in the Planning Department pull the file on this and he had found where it had been approved and recommended by the Planning Commission but he didn't look any further to see that later it had been denied by the Board of Directors. They did later on come in and amend the ordinance on A-1 to allow the smoking and selling of meat and poultry. Mr. Price advised that the Smokehouse is using it as a retail outlet and he just assumed that it was a commercial zoning there. He stated that he was shocked to see that the plan for future use called for residential zoning. As Mr. Allred said, it doesn't make sense to him that anyone would want to live right on the highway with that kind of traffic. He personally didn't see that the property all through there should be anything but commercial. It seems to make sense that it would be the best use for it. Mr. Price noted that if there is any other zoning that would permit the mini - storage buildings, it wouldn't necessarily have to be commercial. He said that someone in the Planning Office told him that it had to be an industrial zoning, but it could be built with a conditional use in commercial. Commissioner Seiff asked Chairman Jacks to explain the term "strip zoning". Chairman Jacks stated that he supposed that it was a matter of degree. Certain strip commercial is one business after another on each side of the highway, each one competing for your attention with signs, etc. and in and out traffic. North Highway 71 is a perfect example. It is a matter of degree, a matter of how many businesses there are per stretch of highway. Commissioner Springborn stated that he has a feeling that perhaps this proposal represents another one of those gray areas that they have attempted to deal with in the past in his experience. The present promise of revising the ordinance and perhaps coming up with new zoning. He stated that it seems to him that Larry Wood's proposal makes a lot of sense. He said he would like to see what they are Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 5 going to have to work with in the future before they make a decision such as this. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor or opposition of this petition. He closed the public hearing and discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Dow agreed with what Commissioner Springborn had stated. She said that Larry Wood's proposal is a sound one. Tabling it for further consideration is a good plan. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood if he was prepared under that circumstance to be able to look into the situation in the relatively near future. Mr. Wood answered, yes, he would like the opportunity to get with the consultant that is updating the General Plan and discuss this and see what recommendations he planning on making on Highway 62. Chairman Jacks advised that 62 has been a real problem because it developed in a very hodgepodge fashion before any land use was going here in Fayetteville. Over the years they have been determined not to strip it out in spite of all the pressures that Larry Wood mentioned. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to table this rezoning petition, seconded by Springborn. The motion to table passed 9-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised that they have forty-five days to bring this back through. before it is considered a favorable recommendation. Mr. Price asked if he would need to submit another application. Chairman Jacks answered, no. CONDITIONAL USE (MINI -STORAGE BUILDING) 4195 & 4245 W. 6TH STREET - FREDA WISE POORE The second item of consideration was a Conditional Use for Mini -Storage Building located 4195 & 4245 West 6th Street provided a C-2 zoning is granted. Application submitted by Freda Wise Poore and represented by Mike Price. Chairman Jacks advised that this Conditional Use request should be tabled along with the rezoning petition. Commissioner Hanna asked if Mini -Storage Buildings were not a use by right in a C-2 zoning. Mike Price stated that he was told that it had to be an industrial zone to be permitted by right. NOTION Commissioner Dow moved to table the Conditional Use request, seconded by 52, • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 6 Springborn. The motion to table passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) STEPHEN & LORIS WILCOX - 3195 MOUNT COMFORT ROAD The third item of consideration on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Split -First Split) submitted by Stephen & Lorie Wilcox. Property located at 3195 Mount Comfort Road and zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Lorie Wilcox stated that they are wanting to purchase eight acres of land which is in a nine acre tract. They want to split off eight acres and built a single- family residence. Chairman Jacks asked Mrs. Wilcox if she was the owner. She answered, no, they have not closed on this property. Chairman Jacks stated that this request can only come from the owner of the property. Mrs. Wilcox stated that there are three owners that live in Little Rock and they are aware of the lot split request. Chairman Jacks stated that there was no reason that they can't continue with this and have a stipulation that the request needs to come from the owner. He advised that they can't legally approve it without the request ultimately coming from the owner. Mrs. Wilcox asked if it would just take an application signed by them. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. Commissioner Klingaman asked how the driveway between those two properties would be handled. Mrs. Wilcox stated that they have moved their easement from the location on the west side as shown an the map to the east side. It would border along the outside of the front one acre. It is a 25' easement coming off Mount Comfort Road for the utilities and the driveway. Chairman Jacks asked if it was a permanent easement,forever and ever. Mrs. Wilcox answered, yes, they are currently getting an amendment to the contract to state that the easement will be relocated on the East. Commissioner Klingaman asked Mrs. Wilcox what was to the East of this property. Mrs. Wilcox answered that there is probably 30' to 50' of pasture and then a rental house. There is a sewer line at the south end of the property that they can hook on to. Chairman Jacks advised the Planning Commission that the only reason for the Lot Split Ordinance is to prevent development by metes and bounds without proper improvements, etc. Chairman Jacks noted that the next item on the agenda is a Conditional Use for a Tandem Lot at this same location. He advised that the Tandem Lot Ordinance exists in cases of unusual terrain which is not only topographic but long narrow lots that are hard to penetrate otherwise. This one seems to fit in that category. 5-3 • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 7 Commissioner Hanna asked Mrs. Wilcox if the eight acre lot is the one they are proposing to buy and that there isn't a house on it now. Mrs. Wilcox answered, yes, it is vacate now. Wilson Kimbrough of Mount Comfort Road stated that he has lobbied for low-density residential along the Mount Comfort Road for thirty-two years. He decided that he would like to make an appearance in the spirit of this proposal being one which is certainly in keeping with what they have wished for along Mount Comfort Road. It makes no difference to him what side the easement is placed on. If he understands the proposal correctly, he hopes the land sale does go through. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve this Lot Split contingent on receiving an application in the Planning Office from the owners of the property, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT STEPHEN & LORIE WILCOX - 3195 MOUNT COMFORT ROAD The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use for a Tandem Lot submitted by Stephen & Lorie Wilcox. Property located at 3195 Mount Comfort Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Jacks noted that a 25' access easement has been provided which is the width called for in the Tandem Lot ordinance. He advised that the Tandem Lot ordinance talks about unusual terrain, etc. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the Conditional Use for the Tandem Lot as requested subject to a request from the owner, seconded by Commissioner Seiff. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0 and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna asked if the owner should change his mind and not request it, then the Planning Commission has approved this to the Wilcoxes but that approval wouldn't go on if they don't buy the lot. Chairman Jacks stated that the motion carried the request from the owner as a contingency to the Planning Commission's approval. Commissioner Nash stated that a Conditional Use goes with the individual. Commissioner Springborn asked for clarification that they have approved this for the Wilcoxes subject to the owner submitting. He stated that it seems to him that if the owner submits, he has the Planning Commission's approval to sell it to the Wilcoxes or anyone else. Chairman Jacks stated that if the Wilcoxes backed out of this deal the owner could sell it to someone else under these same conditions. 5� • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 8 Chairman Jacks advised that what they are approving is a Lot Split or a Tandem Lot. He stated that he doesn't think that it would be proper to make that contingent on a particular person. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Nash stated that she would like to discuss -.Landscape Ordinance. She stated that in the last few months, she has gotten lots of phone calls from people. Some of whom were opponents the last time we have tried to get an ordinance passed, who think that the situation has changed and that they would now be supporters. She advised that there are several recent examples that show what kind of visual impact can be made by clear -cutting. She stated that they also have a report from the consultant that the City hired to critique our ordinances which suggest that more might be done to protect the natural habitat which is one of the City of Fayetteville's drawing cards. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved that Chairman Jacks appoint a Landscape Ordinance Committee which will be charged with drafting and proposing a Landscape Ordinance for the vote of the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Directors, seconded by Dow and followed by discussion. Commissioner Dow stated that she agreed with what Commissioner Nash had said. She stated that she sees this as a very political issue that it thus far has been decided or nixed in an appointed body being the Planning Commission. She stated that it is high time that an issue like this be studied and taken from the appointed body and put in front of the political body. She noted that the citizens have expressed a concern and the City Board is accountable to those people so they should be able to review this study and act upon it. Secondly, Commissioner Dow stated that Fayetteville is not just Anytown, USA. It is a very unique town and its identity is very closely linked with its physical beauty. As Commissioner Nash pointed out, in the recent past there have been some very alarming changes. There is testimony from other towns and cities that shows that it is not just the aesthetic point of view that wins with an ordinance like this. It is also economically beneficial and good for business if it is done right. She stated that she thinks it is time that our citizens be more concerned and more aware of the fact that an ordinance such as this is not only an aesthetic investment but it is also a economic or business investment in our community. Commissioner Seiff stated that he would like to support the creation of the Committee also and his support includes aesthetics, but he also looks at it from an erosion standpoint. He noted that he has been concerned for some time now about grading standards, flood plain standards and greater recent activity in • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 9 removal of a lot of our trees in the area He stated that he was not on the Planning Commission when the last Tree Ordinance was discussed and that he thinks the time as come again to discuss it. He advised that he will wholeheartedly support the creation of this Committee. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning consultants were in town the other day and he talked to them. They are looking forward to having an all encompassing meeting sometime in early August with the Planning Commission Board and other people to get as much input as possible and with the idea of wrapping up that package pretty fast after that. Their report specifically talked about the drainage ordinances and it mentioned landscaping to some degree. Any input that would be appropriate at that August meeting would be well taken. Commissioner Allred stated that it is his understanding that the new revised plan deals with clear -cutting and drainage and soil. Is this in addition to what will be proposed by the Planning Consultant. He feels there is no point in getting both of them crossed. The areas that they want to look at need to be defined. If clear -cutting and drainage is covered, then they need to eliminate that from the discussion because it will be covered in the ordinance. He advised that they don't want to get two ordinances conflicting with each other. They need to find some perimeters as to what they are going to be looking at. If clear -cutting is one of them, then that has no need to be in the Landscape Ordinance or vise versa. They do need to be separate entities. Commissioner Seiff stated that would be something that the Committee could look into. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought all of this would come clear in the August meeting as to what they are talking about. He stated that he feels certain that they are going to talk about drainage, but doesn't know about clear - cutting. Commissioner Allred noted that it is included. Chairman Jacks advised that he is left with the feeling that the drainage will be covered simply because of the problems that they have run into recently along that line. He stated that he thinks if they do appoint a Committee that this Committee should be there mostly for input at that August meeting. Chairman Jacks stated that he talked to Al Raby and he said that the first of August for the meeting is what he is proposing and would hope for. Commissioner Robertson stated that he agrees with what Commissioner Dow said about this being a political issue and he thinks that the Planning Commission taking this undertaking of drafting an ordinance is out of their realm. He advised that he thinks this belongs at the City Board. They are the ones that should have to deal with it. He noted that the statement was made at one of their retreats after the Tree Ordinance controversy that they dumped a political hot potato in the Planning Commission's lap which is basically what he thinks happened. He further stated that it appears to him that this thing is starting at the wrong point. The Board will ultimately have to decide it and he thinks that they are the ones that ought to deal with it, not the Planning Commission. He is opposed to the motion. Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 10 Commissioner Springborn stated that he can appreciate Commission Robertson's point but he thinks that when you have an area such as Northwest Arkansas and a city such as Fayetteville which has great growth potential and is a very dynamic area, they need growth but they want growth with perspective. At this point in time, the contacts that he has had personally support the idea that Fayetteville has gotten to the point where they need control. He noted that he is not sure that the Planning Commission ought to take a position here as to who is the proper political body to look into to this and that in his short time here, he has seen an occasion or two where they have undertaken action that he thought properly did belong with the Board. He has seen times when they didn't take action that he thinks that the Board had almost affectively said that should have been our business. In order to get this thing off the ground, he stated that he strongly supports undertaken the motion as proposed. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he too would like to support this. He stated that this is certainly a Planning function and it is something that is in need of some consideration. There are too many examples where planning was not done, was put off and has never been included and they have persisted for too long. There are too many asphalt jungles around this community to really endure. He noted that this might be a first step in eliminating some of this and making the City of Fayetteville more habitable by the people who live here not just the cars traveling Highway 71. Commissioner Robertson advised that the Planning Commission might have misunderstood what he was saying. He clarified that he is not saying that he is opposed to the Landscape Ordinance. He is simply saying that he doesn't think it is the Planning Commission's function to draw this Landscape Ordinance. He thinks that it is a political issue and the City Board's responsibility and not the Planning Commission. He noted that he is not opposed to trees and shrubs. He stated that he loves Northwest Arkansas or he wouldn't live here and he wouldn't have volunteered to serve on the Planning Commission if he didn't like the town and like the people in it. Commissioner Hanna stated that he agrees with Commissioner Robertson. He stated that he thinks that it is the Planning Commission's job to facilitate the ordinances as they are established by the City Board, but he doesn't think that it is the Planning Commission's position to initiate the ordinances unless something comes up that is in a direct conflict with what the Planning Commission works with. He stated that there have been several things that he certainly doesn't like that have happened lately, particularly grading and clear -cutting. He stated that the City needs to address these things, but he doesn't think it is the Planning Commission's place to initiate the ordinance. He noted that his position is that he thinks they ought to see what is proposed in the new regulations and that this should be initiated by the City Board. Chairman Jacks advised that he thinks that it is the business of the Planning Commission to initiate ordinances from a Planning standpoint. He further stated that he feels that the Planning Commission is more able to determine those things better that the Board. • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1988 Page 11 Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't think the Planning Commission should do it at this time. Commissioner Seiff stated that perhaps Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Hanna are correct in there assumptions about who should be responsible for the ordinance. He noted that he looks at it from the standpoint that the Planning Commission should be the precipitants because if they wait for the City Board to initiate this, they could be waiting for quite a while. He stated that he felt that they should go ahead and appoint this committee and get the ball rolling. Commissioner Springborn advised that he would like to clarify his position relative to the appropriate activity within this Commission as opposed to action by the Board. He stated that it seems to him that the Planning Commission has on a number of occasions taken some action that the Board thought was properly theirs. In other instances, the Planning Commission has not taken action that the Board seemed to think was the Planning Commission's responsibility. In this particular instance, he stated that he is in favor of taking the action and if the Board does not like what they are doing, then the Planning Commission will be so advised. Chairman Jacks advised that they have a motion to establish a Landscape Ordinance Counittee. The motion to establish this committee passed 7-2-0, Robertson and Hanna voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that he had spoken in anticipation of this with several people about serving on this committee. He stated that he would like to ask Commissioner Nash to chair this committee and ask Commissioners Springborn, Klingaman, and Allred to serve on that committee. He advised them to keep in mind that August meeting and work toward whatever seems to be the best course of action by that time. MlN?FES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 1988 were approved as distributed. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned about 6:00 p.m.