Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 24, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: B.J. Dow, J.R. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Gerald Elingaman, and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: Butch Robertson, Julie Nash and Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Don Bunn, Jim Hatfield, Kim Fugitt, Jim Lindsey, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING R88-19 JIM HATFIELD -W OF LES AVE & E OF N COLLEGE The first item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning R88- 19 submitted by Jim Hatfield for a portion of Lot 1,Lots 2 & 3 of Maple Crest Addition along the west side of Lee Avenue containing approximately .81 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks advised that this item had been tabled at the last meeting. He noted that they have a new communication from the City staff. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that there had been a great deal of discussion on the real status of the portion of Lee Avenue between the intersection of Bertha and where it dead ends into the parking lot of Consumer's. He advised that after much research, it is the staff's opinion that although it is a gravel thoroughfare it is dedicated right-of-way as a street. He noted that it is of their opinion that the City would prefer not to accept a dedication of any type of connection there proposed by Mr. Hatfield between that portion of Lee Avenue and Consumer's parking lot. Normally, they would not want to accept any type of street connection that would go right into a parking lot. He noted that the ideal situation would be the actual construction of a new street off of North College coming down between the carwash and the Consumer's parking lot and then making the curve into Lee Avenue. However, the City has no plans to do that and ail • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 2 they typically don't recommend any sort of street connection in that manner. Another issue that came up in the Planning Commission meeting the last time was the curb line across the Consumer's parking lot, there is a curb line running down the south side of their parking lot over to a third point where there is an opening in the curb which is being used as a shortcut through the parking lot onto Lee Avenue. He stated that they know of no prohibition, should Consumer's decide to do it, to extend that curb all the way across thereby effectively prohibiting any sort of access because it is private property. Whether or not they would ever want to do that is a matter of speculation. He noted that there is also a drainage basin there at the curb line adjacent to lot 1 which the City would have some concerns about as far as putting any kind of street connection between the two points that are in question. He advised that basically, that is the staff's opinion on the issue. They feel like the commission has four options on this: 1) rezone the property to C-2 as requested, 2) recommend rezoning the property to a less intensive zone and recommend to the Board of Directors that a Bill of Assurance be required dedicating sufficient right-of-way for a street connection between the parking lot and Lee Avenue, 3) recommend rezoning to a less intensive zone such as R-0 which is the staff's recommendation with no Bill of Assurance, or 4) deny any rezoning. Chairman Jacks noted that he had originally understood that Lee was not a City street. He added that maybe the situation that developed:. during the construction of Consumer's was that the City didn't want to open it and the contractor opened and graveled it anyhow for access. Commissioner Dow clarified that Mr. Merrell was still recommending the less intensive zone, R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Merrell answered yes. Mr. Hatfield stated that the street may not be a street but it is a convenience for a lot of people in that neighborhood and he doesn't think it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to close it off in any way. As far as a Bill of Assurance and an easement across Lot 1, the street would be required to be straight, on the parking lot of Consumer's market because if a street went across the north end of Lot 1, it would require the demolition of the carwash. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Hatfield if he had started negotiating with Consumer's in any way. Mr. Hatfield answered, no, at this time they didn't have anything to negotiate. Commissioner Springborn stated in view of the extension of Lee Avenue to the parking lot, if that street were paved up to the parking lot, would it accomplish the street that he would need for his plans. Mr. Hatfield stated that his plans are not to face a business on Lee Avenue. Commissioner Allred asked Mr. Merrell if he didn't want a Bill of Assurance dedicating the right-of-way onto Lee Avenue on Lot 1. Mr. Merrell stated that they would not recommend one. Commissioner Allred asked if he was speaking of Just a right-of-way dedication or to improve that portion. Mr. Merrell answered • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 3 that he was speaking of both of those. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to remove this from the table, seconded by Springborn. The motion to remove from table passed 6-0-0. Commissioner Springborn stated that his concern is that going from R-1 to C-2 is going quite a ways for a change of zone and in the event, that the effort to negotiate for the street bending around at the north end of Lee doesn't turn out right and Mr. Hatfield decides to sell the property, they would have to look at the potential for development under C-2 with all of the uses permitted. He noted that the report from the staff shows that they are concerned about this also. He asked if the staff had considered recommending a C-1 zone. Mr. Merrell stated that had been considered but the recommendation was to recommend R-0. He added that C-1 would be a better alternative than C-2. He stated that he doesn't think there is any question that these lots are not suited for single-family construction because they back up to Thoroughfare Commercial businesses. On the other hand, they don't have good exposure directly to North College which would justify C-2 zoning. The Planning Commission has set a precedence for non- residential zoning in this area when they rezoned to R-0 the child care center directly across Lee Avenue, so this is a tough one. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to recommend rezoning to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, seconded by Klingaman. Commissioner Allred asked Mr. Hatfield if C-1 would be o.k. for what he wants to do. Mr. Hatfield answered that he didn't know. John Merrell commented that R-0 allows Use Units 1, 5, 8, 12 & 25 which are primarily residential uses, offices & studios and professional offices. The C-1 zoning allows other uses such as restaurants, neighborhood shopping, gasoline service stations, drive-in restaurants and professional offices. The C-2 is heavier commercial zoning that allows more intensive uses such as hotels & motels and commercial recreation. Mr. Hatfield asked if they allow for automotive repair. Chairman Jacks stated that he didn't think that C-1 allowed for automotive repair. Mr. Merrell stated that the C-1 zoning district allows by right Use Unit 18 which includes gasoline service stations, self-service auto carwashes in conjunction with gasoline service stations and drive-in restaurants and it allows such things as bookstores, different food operations, drug stores, hardware stores and other retail sales establishments in Use Unit 15. Commissioner Dow stated that she still has a problem even with C-1 because she is concerned about the increase of traffic through here. She noted that she doesn't want to loose sight of the fact that this is an R-1 area and she felt that R-0 here would be more appropriate in that it would be a lower intensive use with less traffic. • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 4 Chairman Jacks stated that he has some of the same concerns. The motion to recommend C-1 zoning failed 2-4-0 with Hlingaman & Springborn voting "yes" and Seiff, Jacks, Allred & Dow voting "no". NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend rezoning to R-0, Residential -Office, seconded by Allred. Commissioner Dow asked Mr. Hatfield if he would rather it be R-1 or R-0 if he had the choice of those two. Mr. Hatfield stated with just those two to choose from he would choose R-0 because he can't do anything with it as R-1. He noted that R-0 is not compatible with what he wanted to do there. The motion to recommend rezoning to R -O, Residential -Office, passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLITS 1, 2 & 3) GARY DECKERT - 827 TOWNSHIP ROAD The second item of consideration on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Splits 1, 2 & 3). Property located on the south side of Township Road (827 Township) and including a total of 1.48 acres with 3 tracts of .38 acres, .32 acres and .36 acres respectively proposed and the remaining tract with the existing house on it would include .42 acres. Chairman Jacks advised that Mr. Deckert is not here to speak to this. He noted that the driveway access shown would be a lot better than 3 or 4 drives. Commissioner Springborn stated that it didn't look to him like there was very much room between the street right-of-way and the existing house. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the City has asked Mr. Deckert to dedicate another 20' of right-of-way which would leave 8' to 10' from the edge of the right-of-way to the house. Commissioner Springborn noted that it seems that this would become a variance of some sort there because the required setback is 25'. Mr. Bunn stated that they would be creating a non -conforming structure. Chairman Jacks noted that if they granted this it simply would become non -conforming at that point because it would not meet the front property setback, but he wouldn't have to get a variance. Don Bunn stated that it would limit what he could do to his house on that side. Commissioner Springborn stated that as he understands it something like this can't be imposed on a property owner, the property owner has to request the variance in order to reduce the setback. Commissioner Allred stated that would be the situation if he were coming and asking for a variance, but in this case he is giving a dedication which creates the non -conforming use which is fine. Commissioner Springborn asked if Mr. Deckert is agreeable to the dedication. Mr. q5" • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 5 Bunn stated that Mr. Deckert had brought a lot split before the Planning Commission back in 1980 and he was not willing at that time to dedicate the additional right-of-way required. For that reason, the lot split was never done. Chairman Jacks stated that he understands that this portion of Township is not on the State Highway system. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, and that the only thing they are asking for here is a dedication of right-of-way for widening the street. Commissioner Dow asked if they could make approval contingent on the dedication. Chairman Jacks advised that they could. Commissioner Klingaman asked who would own the first lot with the 30' access on it; would Mr. Deckert own it or would the owners of the second & third lots joinly own it. Chairman Jacks stated that he didn't know what arrangements would be made about that. Commissioner Springborn stated that he does have concern about this dedication because they would be imposing something on the owner and he would like to have expression from the legal counsel before they undertake something like that. Chairman Jacks noted that he doesn't see a problem with it. He added that he thought if they granted it contingent on 20' dedication for the street right-of- way and this particular house became non -conforming, it wouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Allred stated as an example, there are a lot of non -conforming houses in the historical district that don't meet the setback requirements. Don Bunn stated that they would not recommend the lot split without the right-of-way dedication. Commissioner Dow stated that it looks like he is proposing that the tandem lots that he is requesting also be attached to the northwest lots which will access Township Road. Then will the northeast quandrant have a separate drive out on to Township. Chairman Jacks stated that is where the existing house is and it already does have an access there. Therefore, there would be two drives there with this proposal. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this and ask for a legal opinion regarding a variance with a dedication of right-of-way. The motion died for the lack of a second. NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant the lot splits as requested contingent on the 20' right-of-way dedication, seconded by Allred. Commissioner Dow asked if the motion includes the staff's recommendations which are the following: • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 6 1. A 20 foot right-of-way dedication be granted to the City off of the north side of Tract "B" and the remaining tract. 2. That an easement of sufficient width be dedicated off of Tract "B" and/or the remaining tract for the purpose of providing utilities to Tracts "C" and "D". 3. The Owner grant whatever easements are required by the Public Utilities to serve the back lots. Commissioner Seiff answered, yes, it would include all staff recommendations. Jane Saugus of 2344 Juneway stated that she lives directly west of this property on Juneway and she has a lot of concern about a) drainage and water problems there which might cause some interference with the natural flow of the water off the hill, b) the road being on the west side of his house and the problem with traffic coming from the East not being able to see someone pulling out there, and c) the distance that the road will be from her property line and where the utility easements will go. Commissioner Dow advised that since there are some questions unanswered here, would they not be wise to table this until they can..have Mr. Deckert here to answer some of these questions more specifically and also check into Commissioner Springborn's concerns. Chairman Jacks advised that a motion to table would take precedence over the motion that is on the table. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to table this item and the Tandem Lots Conditional Use pertaining to this which is the next item on the agenda, seconded by Springborn. The motion to table passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LAKESHORE APARTMENTS LINDSEY CONSTRUCTION - N OF JOYCE STREET, W OF OLD MISSOURI ROAD The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan for Lakeshore Apartments submitted by Lindsey Construction and represented by Kim Fugitt of Fugitt & Associates. Property is located north of Joyce Street, west of Old Missouri Road containing 19.29 acres and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this Large Scale Development Plan on Wednesday, October 19th and it was approved 2-0-1 with her abstaining. The contingencies on it were the notification of adjoining property owners, easements worked out with utility companies and Plat Review comments. G(a • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1988 Page 7 Kim Fugitt stated that all adjoining property owners have been notified. He noted that he has met with all the utility representatives and worked out the easement layouts with verbal approval on them. Chairman Jacks asked if the Planning Office had been notified of this. Mr. Fugitt answered that they hadn't submitted written approval to the Planning Office. Chairman Jacks noted that this could be approved with the stipulation that the utility companies check off on the easements with the Planning Office. Commissioner Dow noted that there was concern at Plat Review that there was only one access, but now they have two proposed. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to the Plat Review comments, easements being worked out with the utility companies and the Planning Office being informed of this, seconded by Springborn. Elaine Cattaneo, City Planning Secretary, commented that Rita Ferrell who is an adjoining property owner wanted to go on record as opposing this because she did not want an apartment complex there. Chairman Jacks asked where Ms. Ferrell's property was. .Jim.. Lindsey stated that. Ms. Ferrell owns a 10 -acre tract of land between Old Missouri Road and this property. Commissioner Dow asked if she had a residence there. Mr. Lindsey answered, no, that her land was vacant. Mr. Lindsey stated that he wanted to inform them that they may narrow that Lake some more or do some different things such as more landscaping. The motion to approve this Large Scale Development passed 5-0-1 with Dow abstaining. MINUTES The minutes of the October 10, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned around 6:00 p.m.