Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETPEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 14, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: B.J. Dow, Gerald Klingaman and Fred Hanna (t Sega lAszid OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Phyllis Johnson, John King, Gary Heckert, Lyman Smith, Albert Skiles, Don Dees, Dave Jorgensen, John Mahaffey, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press:and others CONDITIONAL USE (HOME OCCUPATION) LAWN CARE BUSINESS JOHN KING - 204 MILLER STREET The first item on the agenda was consideration of a Conditional Use (Home Occupation) request for a Lawn Care Business submitted by John King and represented by Phyllis Johnson, Attorney. Property located at 204 Miller Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that the way this basically came about was that they received a complaint from an adjoining property owner who alleged that a business was being operated on Mr. King's property at 204 Miller Street. He noted that the City Planning staff went out and did the initial investigation and got in touch with Mr. King who acknowledged that he was operating his business there. He was advised that he would need to either voluntarily discontinue the business or file for a conditional use application. Mr. Merrell noted that it is the staff's policy to offer a person in violation an opportunity to apply for a conditional use or a rezoning to give them a chance to correct the violation in that manner. He added that they have attempted to study the situation with Mr. King's property and are recommending that his request for a conditional use be denied because it doesn't meet the intent or the spirit of the Home Occupation regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that this decision was based on the number of q7 • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 2 employees outside of the immediate family and the exterior storage of business related materials on the lot that is visible from the street. He advised that Mr. King's attorney has been very cooperative in providing them with information on the business which is contained in page 2 of the staff report which is attached to the agenda. Mr. Merrell stated that, based on his experience in other cities, Fayetteville's Home Occupation regulations are not very well written and a little unclear. He noted that at the end of the staff report, he attempted to address the things that were unclear in the Home Occupation regulations: 1) "no exterior alterations of the structure may be made which are of a non-residential nature". This sentence addresses "alterations" and not "use characteristics", however, the spirit of the drafters of this ordinance was probably the use along with the operation. 2) there are three accessory buildings on the property for business purposes, but staff is unable to determine if those buildings have been structurally altered or modified for the business. Just moving in business materials to those buildings is not a structure alteration in the staff's opinion. He noted that "the structure" has been interpreted to approve and encompass accessory buildings although it is vague. He advised that they are going to make it quite clear to Mr. Raby, the Planning Consultant, in the drafting of the new zoning ordinance that they need to clear up questions like this. Chairman Jacks stated that they have a petition in the agenda packet bearing one hundred nine signatures in opposition to this and a letter from the next door neighbors, Drs. Martin & Hassel, speaking in favor of this request. Phyllis Johnson, representing John King, stated that Dr. King is an agronomist at the University of Arkansas and he is one of the people who has attempted to help the City in its herbicide program. She clarified that the location is particularly important which is on Miller Street two houses down from Gregg Avenue, Woolsey is further to the east. She noted that it relates to the houses on Miller and the apartment complex that backs up to it and the complexes along Gregg which includes the immediate neighborhood. She stated that Dr. King's business is a lawn -care business which consists of weed -control, fertilization, seeding and liming of lawns, etc. She added that in terms of the buildings on the premises, there are three buildings in addition to his residence. The larger one, which is an old garage, has been repaired but not expanded and it is now used as a shop. The two sheds in the back are shielded from visibility by the house. The smaller shed is used for storing herbicides and the other shed is used for his own personal equipment for his own lawn care. Ms. Johnson stated that the staff was concerned about what was stored outside the shop (fertilizer) being seen from the street. She noted that it shouldn't be seen from the street because it is behind that shop. In addition, Dr. King proposes to build privacy fences along his property line there adjoining Dr. Martin -Dr. Hassel property. Ms. Johnson advised that the fertilizer can't be • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 3 seen by anybody unless property that differs shed. they walk in there. Actually, the building on this from the typical residential property is that insulated She also addressed the issue of the employees of this business. She clarified that there are two full-time employees who are only on the premises a couple hours a day on the average. She noted that the activity that they would generate would be about comparable to the activity that you would see in the home of a couple with one or two children in terms of coming and going. She advised that no customers come to the location and there are no signs. The advertising in the Yellow Pages gives the phone number and business name only so there is no commercial traffic at all. Ms. Johnson stated that the renters next door didn't even realize there was a business there. She noted that this business and its predecessor had been there for about 8 years. She noted that a key point is that this little street (Miller) relates to Gregg Street and to the railroad tracks. This neighborhood is going to be changed and to become more nearly commercial in the very near future. She advised that this issue probably came up as a result of Dr. King's trying to assist the City in its herbicide program. Ms. Johnson stated that the petition that was signed states simply that they would rather not have any home business in their neighborhood. She advised that she suspects everyone present would sign that. Dr. King isn't doing anything that is particularly troublesome other than having a home business. She advised that there is no mention in the staff report of the concern about safety. She noted that she is glad to address that if it is of any concern to anybody. No herbicides are disposed of or discarded there at all. What happens with herbicides is when the containers are emptied they are rinsed with triple rinse and all the rinse is used for the next batch of herbicide. Commissioner Nash asked for clarification about the petitions that were signed by all the people around the area She asked what they consider a neighborhood in this case. Ms. Johnson stated that when Dr. King was first approached by the City and told that he needed to submit an application, he was told that he had to contact the adjacent property owners. Which he did and only one of them signed this petition. Then, apparently the word came back to him that he should contact everybody within 500' even though that is not what they had been requiring, but that is what they should do. She submitted a map to the Commission showing all the people's names who were notified and their locations in relation to where Mr. King lives. Chairman Jacks asked stated that it was a where provision was some confusion because address that 500' requirement. the 500' requirement had come from. Mr. Merrell in the zoning ordinance. He advised that there the actual conditional use application does not He noted that he had talked to Jim McCord, City Attorney, about that and he stated that they would have to enforce it. Commissioner Nash stated that it appeared to her in looking at this map that a lot of the signatures on the petition are not people within the 500'. Ms. Johnson stated that many of the signatures are not within this area. • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 4 Chairman Jacks stated that the point is then that a number of signatures are not within this 500' radius. Commissioner Seiff asked Ms. Johnson if there are two persons on the payroll that do not reside in the residence. Ms. Johnson answered that there are two full- time employees and one occasional person who do not reside on the premises. Commissioner Springborn asked if Ms. Johnson had spoke about the use of insecticides. Ms. Johnson stated that she spoke of herbicides not insecticides. Commissioner Springborn asked to what extent are they stored and what volumes would they be present on a regular basis on the premises. Mr. King stated that as of now he has about 20 gallons of one type of herbicide and 100 lbs or so of another herbicide at any given time. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this request. Sabra Hassel -Martin of 1391 Edgehill Drive stated that she would like to reiterate that when she interviewed the tenants of the house they own next door to Mr. King, they had no idea that the business was even over there. She noted that they keep close watch on the property by driving by frequently and they have never noticed any problem with Dr. King's property not being well cared for. The trucks are parked out of sight. She added that for years they tried to get a home business stopped on Cleburn which was a true eyesore and they couldn't get anything done and this situation is much less a problem. Chairman Jacks asked who would like to speak in opposition of this. Betsy Murrell of 1831 Greenvalley stated that she takes great exception to the statement from Ms. Johnson that Miller didn't have a connection to her neighborhood. She noted that it very much infringes on their R-1, Low Density Residential, neighborhood. She added that Mr. King has an ad in the Yellow Pages that promises insect and disease control which couldn't be done with herbicides. Pesticides are bound to be involved in his business. They very much object to any commercial enterprise coming into their R-1 neighborhood. Mrs. Taylor stated that she owns property that borders Mr. King's property to the East at 1903 Yates. She noted that all she can see when she looks out toward Mr. King's property is two big piles of chemicals or whatever that are covered up with tarps. The trucks run in and out and it is an eyesore. She doesn't wanted any commercial businesses in their neighborhood. Mrs. Don Mills of 1925 Yates stated that her concern is the encroachment of commercial businesses into their neighborhood. She noted that they have always felt that their neighborhood ran from Gregg over to Woodland Jr. High, from North to Poplar. She noted that their perimeters are very fragile because they do have apartment complexes that are supposed to be the buffer between them and commercial businesses across Gregg Avenue. Once one business is allowed in the neighborhood, then you leave yourself open for other businesses that may come in. • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 5 She noted that she has no objection to Mr. King but just the business. Ms. Johnson added that the only thing that is stored outside is the fertilizer behind the shed. Dr. King's proposing to put a privacy fence there which will totally protect the neighbor's view. As far as opening the door for other businesses, she noted that she understood that a home occupation is a one time unique situation and Dr. King doesn't want this to become commercial property either. Rachel Skoney stated that her father lives at 133 Miller and she is very concerned about the idea that a business with pesticides and herbicides would be in a residential area with children around. Also, the devaluation of the property is a concern if more businesses come in to the neighborhood. Commissioner Seiff asked Ms. Johnson what Dr. King is doing to prevent "leaching" of these chemicals into the earth and the water supply. Ms. Johnson stated that the herbicides are purchased in plastic containers that are totally impervious with no leakage. Those are contained in the insulated storage building. Commissioner Seiff asked if that building has a concrete floor. Mr. King stated that there is a wooden floor but nothing would ever be poured so nothing will be spilled. He noted also that he uses pesticides with less than 1% of his customers. Ms. Johnson stated there is no leaching at all, they are poured into a large container and there is a triple rinse and the containers are disposed of off of the premises. She noted that he has a drainage system that he keeps an eye on in case anything ever spills. In terms of danger to others, there is potentially none. Al Vick of 213 S. Block asked what the drainage ditch drains into. Ms. Johnson stated that the drainage (surface water not drainage from the herbicides) from the area goes under Dr. King's oak tree and then into a nearby ditch and the weeds grow very well there. Jack Lejeune of 1833 Woodland asked what will happen if later on they start using more pesticides. Commissioner Nash stated that obviously anyone who is here has a right to address the Commission, but she would like to remind them that they are not here to fight the herbicide issue. What they have to do is decide if this neighborhood warrants a conditional use. Edward Moran of 7 West Ash stated that this sounds like an encroachment to him into a residential section. He reminded them that it is an R-1 zone. Commissioner Seiff stated that this is obviously a clear violation of the residential zoning of R-1. There is no doubt that Dr. King does have expertise and as Commissioner Nash stated, we are not here to decide the herbicide issue. He added that the staff has pointed out very simply that there is a violation of a conditional use as a home occupation. Therefore, he personally would have to vote to deny the petition. • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 6 MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to deny the Conditional Use request, seconded by Seiff followed by a comment from Commissioner Nash. She noted that there are two reasons that she will vote against the motion: 1) The fact that there has been a lawn business there since 1980 in some form leaves her to wonder why suddenly there is concern among the neighborhood. 2) She agrees with the staff's recommendation and also what Mr. Merrell said about the ordinance being vague in this area and it does need clarification on that point; this is the first time the 500' margin was used to decide what a neighborhood is. Commissioner Robertson stated that he feels like this is an encroachment on the neighborhood and what the design was of the people who made the petition is irrelevant. To him, it is a residential neighborhood and they have to have a conditional use to operate a business there. He noted that he would assume that Dr. King knew this previously. He added that it is the Planning Commission's job to see that commercial type businesses aren't put into residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Nash stated that they do have allowances for home occupations in R- 1, so there must be some reason why they do allow some occupations in the home in order to preserve the R-1 zone and not rezone the property. Commissioner Seiff stated that they do have these -allowances but under the present circumstances, three persons who are not in the immediate family and are employed by Dr. King and whether they are on the premises or not is insignificant. That residence is there place of business. This clearly does not meet the home occupation standards. Commissioner Springborn agreed with Commissioner Seiff and stated that having read the ordinance and recommendation from staff, he can come to no conclusion but that this is in direct violation with any interpretation of the ordinance. The motion to deny passed 4-1-0 with Robertson, Springborn, Jacks & Seiff voting "yes" and Nash voting "no" Chairman Jacks advised that it takes 5 votes to carry a Conditional Use. Robertson asked if it would be legal technically for him to make a motion to approve this. Chairman Jacks stated that they would follow their bylaws if they had a motion to approve. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the Conditional Use as requested, seconded by Springborn. The motion to approve failed 1-4-0 with Nash voting "yes" and Robertson, Springborn, Jacks and Seiff voting "no". Chairman Jacks stated that the petition for the Conditional Use is denied. Commissioner Seiff stated that he is confused and he is a member of the Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 7 Commission. He asked Chairman Jacks to explain what just happened to the audience for those who are confused. Chairman Jacks advised that the bylaws require that a Conditional Use must have 5 votes or the majority of the Planning Commission to pass. The initial motion was to deny rather than pass so he wanted to get a motion on record to approve it which was then turned down. So it is legally denied. Commissioner Nash asked if there was an appeal to a Conditional Use. Mr. Merrell stated that he didn't believe that there was an appeal to the Board of Directors, it would have to go to the circuit court. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (IAT SPLITS 1, 2 & 3) GARY DECKERT - S OF TOWNSHIP RD, E OF JUNEWAY TERRACE The second item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Splits 1, 2 & 3) submitted by Gary Deckert. Property located south of Township Road and east of Juneway Terrace and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The parent tract contains 1.5 acres more or less, and the new lots created by the splits will range from 0.32 acres to 0.42 acres. Chairman Jacks stated that this item was tabled at the last meeting because Mr. Deckert was not present to answer questions. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to remove this from the table, seconded by Springborn. The motion to remove this from the table passed 5-0-0. Gary Deckert apologized for not being present at the last meeting; he noted that he wasn't aware that he had to be present. He noted that he would like to obtain the lot splits indicated. Chairman Jacks stated that they wanted to make sure Mr. Deckert understood that if this happens, the existing house would then be non -conforming because he would be required to grant a certain right-of-way easement for the future widening of Township. Mr. Deckert stated that he has some comments to make but they probably pertain to the tandem lot conditional use which is the next item on the agenda. He noted that there are two separate tracts of land here and they have been recorded as such. Commissioner Springborn asked if there were two or three splits. Mr. Deckert stated that there are two tracts of land but he would be creating three new lots. Mr. Merrell stated that the past policy of the engineering staff who did prepare this report is that it doesn't really matter how many lines you draw on the map, it is how many additional pieces of property you end up with. Commissioner Robertson stated that if anyone is concerned about access, that might have a bearing on the Lot Splits. qB Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 8 Jane Baugus of 2344 Juneway Terrace stated that she is concerned about the access road that is planned out to Township is right under the crest of the hill which will make westbound traffic quite hazardous coming over the hill. The other concern is that she would like some assurance that in disrupting this land on the top of the hill, the water drainage does not affect those who live below the hill. She noted that they have spent a lot of money on trying to alleviate the drainage problem. Also, she is concerned about where the utilities will run and how close the road will come to her property line. Chairman Jacks stated that as far as the drainage issue, there really are no City ordinances having to do with this. However, it is incumbant on Mr. Deckert to be very careful along that line because it will be very easy to prove in court that he has diverted water onto their property. Mr. Deckert stated that Mrs. Baugus property is in the area closest to the heaviest runoff from the top of Township. He noted that the drainage as of this point is an natural occurance that he has had no control over. The only thing that he could assure her would be that there would be no increase in the amount of that runoff and he will make every effort to avoid any drainage problems. He noted that there is a utility easement all the way around his property that has been in existence for some 20 years. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to grant these lot splits subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. Gary Deckert stated that he is aware that he could do this one tract at a time and wouldn't have to be considered as a subdivision because it would be less than one acre and probably avoid the right-of-way dedication all together. He advised that if they take the full 20' for right-of-way off of the front of his property, his home will be ruined because his front door will be 9.5' from the road. He asked them to consider a dedication of 10' because there are four more structures along there that will be hurt by taking the full 20' off of that side. Chairman Jacks stated that he wanted to clarify that a Large Scale Development does have a one acre stipulation, but as far as subdivisions where they are called upon to get these dedications there is no minimum at all. Mr. Merrell agreed. Chairman Jacks stated that normally the right-of-way dedication is taken equally off of both sides of the road, but he doesn't know what the circumstance here is. He advised that they only have a letter from the City Engineer, Don Bunn, saying that the staff recommendation is that the splits be approved with some conditions including: 1) a 20' right-of-way granted to the City off the north side of Tract B and the remaining tract. Mr. Merrell stated that he isn't sure why Mr. Bunn recommended the entire 20' from the south side of the road Chairman Jacks stated that the existing right- of-way is 40'. Larry Wood stated that he believed that this portion of Township is a "minor arterial" which would require an 80' right-of-way which would require a dedication of 20' off of both sides. • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Deckert stated that he is just asking the Commission to consider the fact that 20' off of his property would put his house so close to the road. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't even think that they have an option in this situation because the ordinances require dedications of needed right-of-way for that street as the subdivision occurs. Commissioner Nash noted that in the past they have just either approved or denied lot splits so why is the City Engineer requiring these conditions at this stage. Chairman Jacks stated that they have always required these right-of-way dedications with lot splits. Anytime there is a subdivision of property it is required according to the ordinance. Commissioner Robertson explained that the right-of-way dedication had more than likely already been done on the properties that the earliert lot splits had been requested on so it wasn't required, but the right-of-way has not been dedicated in this case so it is part of the package. Commissioner Seiff asked if there is anything later on that the Board of Adjustment can do. Chairman Jacks stated that the Board of Directors might be able to do something but probably not the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Robertson asked if they are certain that this is an 80' right-of- way. Chairman Jacks stated that they aren't absolutely certain at this point because there is not a Master Street Plan available at this meeting. AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Robertson amended his motion to approve as submitted subject to staff comments with the exception that the minimum right-of-way dedication be required instead of the specific 20' dedication, seconded by Springborn. Chairman Jacks advised that if the require, 20' right-of-way dedication off there should be a total of 60' of dedication required off of both sides of street is a "minor arterial", they would both sides but if it is a "collector" right-of-way so there may only be a 10' Township. Mr. Deckert stated that after doing research on this, it looks like the only dedications of right-of-way that have been given on Township have been given off of the south side. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that there is one option that could be considered in cases where there are existing structures which is to accept a roadway and utility easement which would retain the property in his ownership. Mr. Merrell stated that he agrees in principal with what Mr. Wood has stated but Commissioner Robertson's motion will give the staff time to go back into the office and check it out this week. The motion to approve passed 5-0-0. • CONDITIONAL USE - 2 TANDEM LOTS GARY DECKERT - S OF TOWNSHIP RD, E OF JUNEWAY TERRACE • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 10 The third item on the agenda was consideration of a request for two tandem lots submitted by Gary Deckert. Property located south of Township Road, east of Juneway Terrace. Chairman Jacks stated that Mr. Deckert is proposing to devote one lot solely for access to the other lots. He asked if there would need to be a variance to allow one drive to serve two lots. Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Mr. Deckert stated that he plans to dedicate that little spot and have it remain as a park like area and the houses would be off the road and kind of hidden. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the conditional use for the two tandem lots as submitted, seconded by Springborn. The motion to approve passed 5-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING- REZONING R88-21 SHARON SMITH - 3548 E HUNTSVILLE RD The fourth item on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning #R88-21 submitted by Sharon Smith. Property contains approximately 1/2 acre. The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks stated that he understands from the City Attorney through the Staff that they need to table this because the advertisement for this petition had the wrong legal description. Mr. Merrell commented that he regrets the inconvenience of everyone concerned, but the legal description that was furnished to the City by Ms. Smith did contain some errors. He advised that they are not pointing a finger at her personally, these legal descriptions are hard for most people to understand. However, once the mistake was discovered, Jim McCord, the City Attorney, stated that in his opinion the rezoning was incorrectly advertised his recommendation would be for the Commission to table it. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to table this petition, seconded by Springborn. The motion to table passed 5-0-0. Mr. Merrell advised that this would have to be readvertised 15 days ahead so it wouldn't be back to the Planning Commission until the first meeting in December. He noted that they have to run the ad no later than November 23rd which means it has to be delivered around the 21st of November. He added that he had also spoken to the City Attorney about the requirement and even the desirability that they advertise a rezoning using a legal description and just for future reference for the benefit of the Planning Commission, he could find no requirement either 100 • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 11 in the State law or the City Code that says they have to run a full legal description in their ads. That is an administrative policy that they are going to look very seriously at changing because the average person is not able to follow a legal description. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R88-22 DEWEY SMITH - 5465 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition #R88-22 submitted by Dewey Smith. Property located at 5465 Huntsville Road. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's understanding is that the Smiths hope to open a gift shop on the property which is an allowable permitted use in the C-1 zone. He noted that they have done a study of property and of the area and feel like the rezoning has some validity. The City's Land Use Plan for the property designates a certain stretch of 16 E out there as Commercial and this property is within those boundaries. He noted that the area that is designated for Commercial runs just west of the Smith property easterly along the south side of the road over to the intersection where the Hot Wheels convenience store is. He advised that they were contacted by a neighboring property owner early last week who expressed some concern over a fence that the Smith's are erecting in their rear yard. This individual advised the staff that aparently Mr. Smith is operating a wrecker service out of that house which may or may not be a violation of the zoning ordinance. It could conceivably qualify as a Home Occupation. However, it is alleged that Mr. Smith proposes to impound vehicles in the rear yard. He noted that they tried to get in touch with the Smiths several times late last week and were unable to reach them. He advised that it is his opinion that if they propose to impound vehicles in there rear yard, they will need a C-2 zoning. Lyman Smith, son of Dewey Smith, stated that he is representing his father who is in California at this time. He commented that they no longer have there towing and recovery equipment. They took it to California to be sold and they have not intended to use that property for that. He advised that they have petitioned for a gift shop and that is what they want to put in there. They are putting up a fence to contain a dog. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone wants to speak in favor or in opposition of this rezoning petition. Edna Salsbury of 1620 Ed Edwards Rd stated that she owns the property next door. She referred to a statement from Mr. Merrell that the property just east of Mr. Smith's was zoned commercial. She advised that she does operate a Beauty Shop but it was there when the City came to her at which time she asked the City to zone the property commercial but was denied. Her property where the Beauty Shop sits is still residential and when she no longer operates the Shop it will revert back to residential. She noted that there is an ad in the telephone book advertising "Circle D Wrecker Service" at 5475 Huntsville Road and she thinks 101 • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 12 the intensions were to put a wrecker service there. Chairman Jacks clarified that Mrs. Salsbury's property is on the east side of the property in question. He added that the drawing he has shows C-1 there. Mrs. Salsbury stated that John McQuire zoned the property between the church and the beauty shop commercial for a Hot Wheels store. Chairman Jacks stated that the map with the agenda indicates that her property is commercial but apparently it is not. Mrs. Salsbury stated that she would like this property to remain residential. Elvie Heiney of 5688 E Huntsville Rd stated that he is not personally adverse to C-1 zoning in that area except it appears to him that it would be spot zoning. Also, he understood that the policy was that commercial zoning should be at intersections. He asked if they are going to be judged today on a proposed map that Mr. Merrell referred to which might be changed before it is actually used or are they going to go by the zoning maps that are in existence today. Mr. Merrell clarified that he had commented on the City's present Land Use Plan which is on the books now. He noted that the Land Use Plan is a different instrument from the zoning ordinance which designates an area there as future commercial. The Land Use Plan is essentially saying in so many words that the City thinks this land should go commercial therefore when rezoning requests come in, there is grounds to approve them. Chairman Jacks advised that the Land Use map is a future projection of what they plan for the zoning. Frances Hafer of 1109 Oaks Manor Drive stated that she immediate west of this property and they have just built they have listed. She commented that over the weekend house and they do not want the property to the east to she would like to go on record as opposing it. owns the property to the a new home there which she got an offer on this be rezoned commercial and Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Merrell to clarify the zoning along here. Mr. Merrell advised that he had evidently made an error in his staff report when he stated in the background and analysis that the subject property is located adjacent to the Baldwin Beauty Shop to the east which is zoned C-1, Neighborhood. He noted that was his interpretation of the zoning map but apparently there is a strip just east of the subject property where the Beauty Shop is located that is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. He noted that he can conclusively say that all property to the West on the south side of the road is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman zoning be over the preferred developed very hard Jacks stated that speaking to Mr. Heiney's comment that commercial placed at intersections, the Planning Commission has struggled mightily years to hold commercial development to intersections which is the situation. However, Highway 16 East as well as Highway 62 West was in a very hodge-podge manner when the Planners got here, so it has been to make this work. • Mr. Heiney volunteered to make a sketch on the drawing board to be used as a visual aid to clarify the current zoning along that stretch of Highway 16 East. Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 13 Chairman Jacks advised that the visual aid reflects what the zoning map says. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Merrell if after discovering that the property next door is R-1 and not C-1 does his recommendation change. Mr. Merrell answered, no, because the staff's recommendation was based more on the fact that the property across the street was zoned C-1 and the fact that even though the Beauty Shop may not be zoned C-1, it is a business use and has been for quite some time. Also, the Land Use Plan of the City designates that area as commercial. Commissioner Springborn asked Mr. Merrell how far south of Highway 16 East does the Land Use Plan show the C-1 zoning to extend. Mr. Merrell answered that his interpretation would be maybe 200' south. Mrs. Salsbury asked if the C-1 zoning was approved for a "gift shop" and then they should decide to put in a "wrecker service", would it be allowed. Chairman Jacks explained that if a piece of property is rezoned, then it is eligible to be used for anything included in that zone. He noted that according to Mr. Merrell, a C-2 zoning would be needed for a "wrecker service". Mr. Merrell agreed and stated particularly if they had an impounding yard He explained that if it was discovered that a wrecker service and impounding yard was in operation, the Smiths would be notified that they were in violatoin of the zoning ordinance. They then would have an opportunity either to apply for a C-2 rezoning or voluntarily dicontinue that business. If worst came to worst, they would involve the City Attorney and go to Court. Chairman Jacks stated that the question the Planning Commissioners have to ask themselves is whether or not they are at the point when they should change the zoning to conform to what is shown on the Land Use Map. He explained that the Land Use Map is an indication of what they expect to be the case some years hence. He added that when a rezoning petition comes up, there is always the question of whether this is the time to change. Commissioner Robertson stated that he is not comfortable with strip zoning in this area at this time. NOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to recommend denial of the request, Springborn seconded. The motion to deny passed 3-2-0 with Robertson, Springborn & Jacks voting "yes" and Nash & Seiff voting "nay". Chairman Jacks advised that he isn't sure this motion is sufficient to deny the petition; it takes 5 votes to pass a rezoning so maybe they should vote on a motion to approve. • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 14 NOTION Commissioner Nash moved to recommend approval of the request, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve failed 2-3-0 with Nash & Seiff voting "yes" and Robertson, Springborn & Jacks voting "nay". Chairman Jacks advised that they recommend denial of the request. APPROVAL OF THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OZARK COOPERATIVE WAREHOUSE NICK MASULLO - N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD, W OF SHILOH DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Development Plan of Ozark Cooperative Warehouse submitted by Nick Masullo and represented by Albert Skiles, Architect. Property located north of Old Farmington Road and west of Shiloh Drive and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Commissioner Robertson stated that this went before the Subdivision Committee on November 9th and was approved subject to the dedication of an additional 5' of right-of-way along their frontage of Old Farmington Road, a legal description on the plat for just the 12 acres and not the full 40 acre original tract, a Bill of Assurance for half the street along the full frontage of Old Farmington brought up to City standards, and approval by the Highway Department of the culverts on Shiloh Drive. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Masullo and of what was required and was it all in Skiles answered, yes. MOTION Mr. Skiles if that was their understanding order as far as they were concerned. Mr. Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review Comments, to dedication of an additional 5' of right-of-way along their frontage of Old Farmington Road, a legal description on the plat of only the 12 acres and not the 40 acre tract, a Bill of Assurance for half of the street along the full frontage of Old Farmington Road brought up to City standards, and approval by the Highway Department of the culverts on Shiloh Drive, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CUMMINGS-STARR APARTMENTS STEVE CUMMINGS - W OF GREGG AVE, ACROSS FROM & SOUTH OF LAWSON The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Development Plan for Cummings -Starr Apartments submitted by Steve Cummings and represented by Don Dees. Property located west of Gregg Avenue, across from and south of Lawson Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, with 24 proposed units. Commissioner Robertson stated that this was reviewed at the Subdivision Committee Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 15 meeting on November 9th and Mr. Dees was to submit another plat showing some changes which has been submitted to the Planning Commissioners tonight. He noted that they were concerned because of the 18' width shown on the earlier plat between parking space rows. Mr. Dees stated that the signicance of the revised plat was to show an existing sidewalk, the exact dimensions of the parking lot to allow for fire or trash trucks to access, and the requirement of the 24' minumin between parking rows. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review comments and staff comments, seconded by Seiff. Jim Selvey of 3348 East Salem Road stated that he is a member of the Central Baptist Church and a member of the Building Committee there. He advised that the church does not oppose the construction of the apartments, the only concern they have is that the church's parking lot not be used as overflow parking. He noted that this probably won't be a problem because of the distance from the church's parking lot to this project, but they do have that concern. The motion to approve passed 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF TOWNSHIP SUBDIVISION BILL LAZENBY - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OLD WIRE RD & TOWNSHIP The eighth item on the agenda was consideration of the Final plat of the Township Subdivision submitted by Bill Lazenby and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property is located on the southwest corner of Old Wire Road & Township and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Jacks stated that he did want to ask Don Bunn, the City Engineer, if the dedications were o.k., but since he is not present. Commissioner Robertson stated that there had been no significant changes and all the comments have been taken care of. NOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve this Final plat, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve was passed 5-0-0. 103 • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 16 APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION G TOMLINSON & B BROOKS - W SIDE OF PORTER RD The ninth item on the agenda was consideration of the Final plat of Quail Ridge Subdivision submitted by Gerald Tomlinson & Bill Brooks and represented by John Mahaffey of Mahaffey & Associates. Property located west of Porter Road with 30 proposed lots and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Commissioner Robertson stated that all the Plat Review comments have been met and there was nothing significantly changed. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the Final plat of Quail Ridge Subdivision, seconded by Seiff. The Final plat was approved 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE FOSTER ADDITION (P.U.D.) MARK FOSTER - W END OF MANOR DR & E END OF ROCKWOOD TR The tenth item on the agenda was consideration of the Preliminary plat of the Foster Addition (P.U.D.) submitted by Mark Foster. and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located at the west end of Manor Drive & the east end of Rockwood Trail with 15 proposed lots and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Commissioner Robertson stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this preliminary plat on November 9th and there were several items discussed in addition to Plat Review comments. He asked if they had taken care of proper notification to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Jorgensen answered, yes. Commissioner Robertson stated that a Bill of Assurance was offered that no through street be allowed through Lot 6. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he is aware of the fact that they do need to have a Bill of Assurance that they have no through street and also that there be no lot splits. He noted that the Bill of Assurance has not been signed as of yet. Commissioner Robertson noted that this also needs to be put in the Subdivision Covenants that there be no through street. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he understood the requirements and they had no problem with them. Anthony De Palma of 220 South School stated that he owns property just south of this Planned Unit Development and he is particularly concerned about the drainage. He noted that he thought the drainage ought to be emphasized so that there isn't going to be water cascading down that mountain and onto his property. He advised that he already has that problem on Ruth Street and the City has not to this date solved that problem. °Li • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 17 Chairman Jacks stated that if anything like that to sue. Mr. De Palma stated that he didn't negotiating but they'll try once again with this MOTION occurs, he would have the right believe in suing, he believes in new regime. Commissioner Robertson moved to approve this Preliminary plat as submitted subject to Plat Review comments, a Bill of Assurance that no through street or connecting street be allowed through Lot 6, the filing of Subdivision Covenants showing that their intent is to restrict a through street there and restricting the lot size to the 15 lots that are proposed, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve this Preliminary plat passed 5-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks stated that they are proceeding a pace with this Master Streets business and he was hoping that Mr. Merrell would have been able to make it to the last meeting but he understands that the Budget meetings kept him from it. He advised that the State Highway people were there again and they are interested in working out a Master Street Plan having to do with Fayetteville/Springdale and outlying other communities such as Farmington, Greenland and Johnson. He noted that they are getting close to having something set up in terms of major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, etc. so the cities can be tied together. Out of that will come the major framework for a Master Street Plan which Northwest Regional Planning will be doing for the City in this great rehash of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, and John Merrell, Planning Director, if that was what their understanding was. They agreed. Chairman Jacks noted that in that process, the question came up as to happening with the Comprehensive Plan. What is the time table? John stated that he had spoke with Al Raby and the City is still expecting from Mr. Raby's firm toward the end of December. He added that Mr. Raby in town the Tuesday & Wednesday of the week after Thanksgiving and will preliminary sketch map to show and review with them. Mr. Merrell advised soon as he has talked to Mr. Raby, they need to be thinking about setting Planning Commission review meetings probably early in January. He stated expects the Planning Commission to be very heavily involved in the review of the General Plan and the new Zoning Ordinances and the other regulatory ordinances such as the Tree Ordinance, the Landscaping Ordinance, etc. what is Merrell a draft will be bring a that as up some that he Chairman Jacks noted that they are in the process of making some decisions and the question has came up what if they get something totally different recommended by the Planning Firm (Raby's) which causes some concern. He noted that the State seems to be really pushing this thing and they don't want to slow down at all. He asked Larry Wood if there was a reason for this. Larry Wood stated that the Transportation Plan was last approved in 1973 so it is their opinion that it needs to be updated. He added that the outcome of the development of this Transportation Plan is most likely an amended Master Street Plan for Fayetteville • • • Planning Commission November 14, 1988 Page 18 and Springdale. John Merrell stated that he and Mike Batie, the Public Works Director, had that meeting on their calendars and the budget sessions interrupted it unfortunately. Commissioner Seiff asked if the review of the plans submitted by Al Raby would be done by the Planning Commission or by Committee. Chairman Jacks advised that he went through this before in 1970 and it involved five or six public hearings at various places around the City and the Planning Commission was heavily involved in that activity and they made recommendations to the Board of Directors. Chairman Jacks noted that the Planning Commission did the Subdivision Regulations which was put on the computer which is in staff process now he assumes. Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Chairman Jacks stated that he understands that Larry Wood and Northwest Regional Planning will do the Master Street Plan as a component of that. He asked John Merrell if the Zoning Ordinance had been added to the contract with the Planning Firm (Raby's) along with the Zoning Map and the Land Use Map. Mr. Merrell answered that the Zoning Ordinance is in the contract with Mr. Raby. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of October 24, 1988 were approved as mailed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.