Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 28, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: J.E. Springborn OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Elaine Cattaneo, and others illCONDITIONAL USE - PLANT NURSERY ED & CAROL DAGGETT - 2623 N GREGG The first item on the agenda was a Conditional Use request for a Plant Nursery submitted by Ed & Carol Daggett and located at 2623 North Gregg. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell stated that Ed & Carol Daggett wanted to establish a Landscape Nursery at their residence off of North Gregg Avenue. He stated that the Staff really doesn't see any problem with the approval of the Landscape Nursery there. In fact, the property backs up to a portion of the University of Arkansas experimental farm which is used for agricultural related purposes Therefore, staff recommends that this Conditional Use request be approved as submitted. Commissioner Hanna asked how large the property is. Mr. Daggett stated that it was 9.73 acres but only a portion of it will be used for the Plant Nursery. Commissioner Hanna stated that he was wondering if a rezoning might be more appropriate. John Merrell stated that he had briefly talked to Mr. Daggett about the idea of rezoning and Mr. Daggett explained that at least at the moment all he really wanted was a Conditional Use. Mr. Merrell advised that maybe later on the rezoning might be appropriate given the zoning to the South and the way that North Gregg has developed, so maybe they can take a look at this as they do the new zoning ordinance next year. 105 • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 2 Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition of this. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve this Conditional Use as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE - ROOMING/BOARDING HOUSE CLAUD PREWITT - 346 ROLLSTON The second item on the agenda was consideration of a Conditional Use request for a Rooming/Boarding House submitted by Claud Prewitt. Property located at 346 Rollston and zoned R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell stated that he was unable to contact Mr. Prewitt because he was out of town last week so the staff report is brief. He noted that one issue that is always involved in any request to convert a structure into a Rooming or a Boarding House invariably comes up and that is how many bedrooms are they going to have and how many people are going to be allowed to reside in the bedrooms. He understands from Mr. Prewitt that the house has been used as a two-family dwelling, basically a duplex The man and wife who propose to purchase this property have entered into a contractual situation whereby the purchase of the property is conditioned upon the granting of this Conditional Use. He added that Mr. Prewitt had stated that there are two bedrooms upstairs now. However, if the Planning Commission approves this request, the house will be renovated and there will be three or four bedrooms. There is one bedroom downstairs now and there will remain only one bedroom downstairs. Therefore, if the request is approved, it will be a four or five bedroom structure. Mr. Merrell stated that the Zoning Ordinance doesn't address the issue of how many people can be put in one bedroom. However, there is a section from the Building Code that addresses "Required Space in Sleeping Rooms" which states "In every dwelling unit of two or more rooms, every room occupied for sleeping purposes by one occupant shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor space and every room occupied for sleeping purposes by more than one occupant shall contain at least 50 square feet of floor space for each occupant thereof." In other words, for one person to reside in this bedroom, they have to have at least 70 square feet (7' x 10' bedroom). If they want to put two people in there, they have to have at least 50 square feet per person (at least a 100 square foot bedroom). That gives some kind of control over the density of people in there. Mr. Merrell advised that the map (See Attached) that had been handed out to each of them is the map that was presented to the Board of Directors at their last meeting. The shaded areas are the two proposed target areas for the 1989 Community Development (H.U.D.) Program. One of the areas is the Watson/Rollston street area in which this property is located in. What they are trying to do with this program, although they don't have approval from the Board of Directors • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 3 yet, is have a program of grant and low interest loans available to qualified home owners to restore these houses for owner -occupied housing. He stressed that they are trying to put together a program to emphasize owner -occupied housing in this area and he is bringing it up as a matter of information. He noted that they hope to get approval from the Board of Directors at the December 6th meeting of that program. Commissioner Hanna stated that he was surprised to see that this area is zoned R- 0, Residential -Office. He stated that he knows that at one time, those two bedrooms in that house were rented out. Since this is in an area where rooms have been rented out for many years, why would they even have put in a request for a Boarding House with the size of that house. Mr. Merrell noted that he was quite surprised that most of this area is zoned R- 0. There are some R-0 uses in there such as professional offices. He added that he thinks there is a case for saying maybe the area has been over zoned. He stated that he is quite sure there are other examples for Boarding Houses in there, legal or illegal. There is a lot of rental property but there is some owner -occupied property in that neighborhood. Chairman Jacks stated that he thinks this R-0 zoning goes back to obviously the 1970 zoning which looked a little bit too far ahead. It was originally laid out for a mixture of high density residential and offices. This part of the City hasn't grown into that yet. Mr. Merrell stated that this is a perfect example of one of the areas that they need to take a hard look at in the new zoning ordinance. Commissioner Klingaman asked how many off-street parking places would be required for five bedrooms. Mr. Merrell answered that the Zoning Ordinance addressed the amount of required parking for a multi -family dwelling and it also addresses the number of parking spaces that might be required if this were going to be a sorority or fraternity house. However, the Zoning Ordinance is silent on the required parking for a Rooming/Boarding House. Therefore, this puts the staff into the position of having to make an interpretation which in this case is that they would use the same guidelines as for a fraternity or a sorority house which is one space per occupant in the building. He noted that they do have room coming off the street at the rear of the house to put in some off-street parking and if the Planning Commission grants this Conditional Use, he would recommend that they stipulate that the parking be of a durable and dustless surface which is called for in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Prewitt stated that he has had this property listed for a number of years. It has been partly renovated and some good improvements have been made. Technically, there would be space for three bedrooms upstairs. One is a large room which has been used as a combined kitchen and living area which has an access through an exterior staircase. The inside staircase (which would be opened back up) is still intact but has been closed off at the top. Therefore, there would be less coming and going on the exterior of the house and be made back into one dwelling with a number of occupants. He noted that Mr. Coffelt, • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 4 the proposed purchaser, hopes to at some point in time take in the screened porch and perhaps extend that two stories in height to create another living space there. He noted that they would be able to meet the one parking space required per person, although this has often been waived in fraternity/sorority situation because of the proximity to campus and some people not having cars. In this case, Mr. Coffelt has a group of tenants in mind for this house that include members of the Track Program at the University of Arkansas and none of them have cars at this time. There is room for eight to ten off-street parking spaces. The house is a good quality house and in an area that is turning over and some real improvements have been made to the area. What he wants to do would enhance both the house and the neighborhood. Commissioner Nash asked if the rooms would be large enough for the required space. Mr. Prewitt stated that most of the rooms would be large enough. Commissioner Seiff asked how many residents do the Coffelts expect to have in the house. Bill Coffelt of Elkins stated that his plans for the house are to rehab it and restore it back to how it was when it was built in the 1800's and hopefully put it on the National Register. He noted that they could house at least six people. Commissioner Seiff asked if the ordinances require any special fire exits or escapes for a situation such as this. Mr. Merrell stated that if the Planning Commission approves this, the next step would be for Mr. Coffelt to come down and get a building permit and he would be required to meet all aspects of the Fire Code. Commissioner Hanna advised that the Fire Department would have to inspect it and they have a set of rules as to fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. Richard Kellogg who owns the property at 118 Boles Street which is at the rear of the property in question asked how many people could occupy this house under the regulations as stated. He added that it would seem to him that they need to know how big these bedrooms are before a decision is made on this. Also, he is concerned with the narrowness of Rollston, Thompson & Boles Streets. Thompson Street has no parking on either side of the street. Boles Street has parking on one side and there are a number of owner -occupied houses and children on that street. Rollston Street is also extremely narrow. Users down the line could create a tremendous amount of traffic on streets that are not adequate to handle it. Secondly, the plans on file show seven parking spaces so if three persons per bedroom are allowed in some of the rooms the number of tenants would be raised to nine or ten. Another point is that there are three full depth lots there adjacent to each other that go all the way from Rollston to Thompson. The adjacent properties are always full of trash at the rear including discarded furniture, etc. Mr. Kellogg stated that he is also concerned with the noise in that neighborhood. Families would not most probably be as noisy as unrelated students. Chairman Jacks advised that under a Conditional Use granting, the Planning • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 5 Commission can name safeguards in terms of maximum number of people. Commissioner Hanna noted that a Conditional Use is subject to review annually if there are complaints to the Planning Office. Therefore, if the noise and parking problems cause complaints from the neighbors, the Conditional Use could be reviewed. Mr. Kellogg added that the width of that property is 51.5' and the current requirement is 65' for a two-family residence. Mr. Merrell stated that would be the requirement for new construction. Mr. Kellogg stated that this property currently does violate the two-family width restriction, so if the major changes are made, then some recognition of that fact needs to be considered. Commissioner Allred stated that if this were left as it is, it is not unfeasible that there would be more than three people residing in one of those units. Therefore, by granting this Conditional Use, they could be governing the amount of residents in that particular building. If this proposal follows through, they will be cleaning up that area. Mr. Prewitt addressed the question made by Commissioner Hanna earlier as to why they have even asked for a Conditional Use for a Boarding House here. He explained that they are trying to get through the system as it should be. It is an existing duplex and they could have three unrelated people in each unit and if there were some that were related, you could have nine or ten people living there as it is without asking the Planning Commission or getting a building permit either. He added that although this lot is only 51.5' across, it does have 103' street frontage because it goes all the way to Thompson. He was convinced by the buyer that he would improve this, whether he can convince the Planning Commission is another matter. He added that they are only required to notify the people adjacent, but they notified Mr. Kellogg anyway even though he is across the street and others. Mr. Coffelt advised that there are four young men living in the downstairs part now which is called ane bedroom. He noted that they plan on putting another $35,000 to $40,000 into this house to bring it up to the point to go on the National Register. They don't intend to have a slum lord situation at all and they will be putting two stipulations on moving in there which are no alcohol and no women in there. Chairman Jacks asked if the Planning Commission should want to put a limit on the number of people there, what would be the maximum figure they would be looking for. Mr. Coffelt stated that eight would be the highest number that they would ever have in there. Don Cook stated that he owns the property at 350 Rollston and he has several reservations about this request. He noted that the description of Rooming/Boarding House states that sleeping space and meals are provided which would indicate that there would be other occupants in the house other than the boarders who would provide the meal service and take care of the house. Secondly, the intent sounds like they will only rent to students without cars. What happens over time when those people leave and others move in. Unless, you • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 6 are residing in a house, can you effectively control the behavior of the tenants. He stated that he agrees with the City's study and thinks the future for this whole area is in small family dwellings and professional offices to bring it back into the mainstream of Fayetteville. Rezoning or Conditional Use would be going exactly the opposite way. Parking is a problem with cars being on the street. This Conditional Use would limit the interest in future development in the area because to him this is a commercial enterprise. It has the potential for becoming a very nice residential area if the City will take the positive steps and help it along. Commissioner Allred stated that he felt that what Mr. Cook is doing by renting his property is also a commercial endeavor. He added that the area there is probably 80% rentals and 20% owner -occupied making that area a residential - commercial area. Mr. Cook stated that a Boarding House is more like a hotel activity than something that belongs in a residential area because there is a constant flow of people in and out with the character of the people being dictated by the needs of the rental space. John Stolz, owner of the house at 333 Rollston, stated that lately there has been more crowding on the street there with cars in the middle of the street especially on weekend nights. There has been a lot of noise and loud music coming from that house and people out in the street yelling which has been a nuisance to them. He noted that it wasn't as bad before the young men moved in there. He noted that there are people in and out all the time and they have a lot of company. Mr. Prewitt stated that unfortunately the way the house is now is attracting a lot of the wrong kind of tenants. Commissioner Klingaman asked Mr. neighborhood. He noted that the 60% rental. Stolz how he judged the makeup of the neighborhood is about 40% owner -occupied and Bonnie Cook asked the Planning Commission to look at what this street can become. She said that there is a lot of rental property and some of it is trashed but they need to think about what this area can become. She advised that they consider this before they allow a Boarding House there. Claud Prewitt stated that what they want to do will not detract from this being a single-family residence. It would allow them to rent the rooms, but in fact it would be taking an existing duplex and taking out the separation between them and turning it back into one house. In future years, it could be used for a large family. Jessie Kellogg mentioned that occupied by probably more than The owner subsequently asked house on Boles has called the complaints about students in a there was recently a complaint of a house that was the allowed number of people on Rollston Street. the tenants to vacate. Also, her tenant in her police three times in the month of October with house on Boles Street. • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 7 Mrs. Kellogg stated that a structure can not be altered from its original state to qualify for being on the National Register. She noted that they can not control the future occupants of the house. Also, the potential of the granting of grants to restore owner -occupied houses in this area would be a wonderful opportunity. She noted that she wants to ask the Planning Commission to deny this request for the various reasons that have been given and for the potential of the possibility of more owner -occupied residences. If this Conditional Use is granted here, there are two other houses that could come and ask for the same kind of uses. Commissioner Hanna stated that he agreed with the neighbors. What Mr. Coffelt proposes is a nice idea, but there is a 6' setback on the north side of that house. He noted that he is surprised that they even asked for a Conditional Use. Some of the property in that area is used for rooming house situations without permission. He stated that he is concerned about the small setbacks and the narrow streets in this area. He added that if the backyard was torn out and paved for parking, they would have a problem with drainage and it would look bad for the neighborhood. Commissioner Dow stated that she tends to agree with Commissioner Hanna and also the parking in the back would tend to make it more permanently a Boarding House and it might not sell as a single-family dwelling. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the area is transition and going toward single-family ownership and that is what they should be encouraging for this area. Commissioner Nash asked if the Board passes the Community Development Grant, when will they go into effect where citizens can take advantage of them. Mr. Merrell answered that theoretically, it would start January 1, 1989. He noted that once the Board takes final action on it, they will deliver the program to H.U.D. in Little Rock and they will review it. Hopefully, the 1989 Grant money (approximately $420,000) will be in hand by early March. He added that in the meantime, they will put together a publicity program and try to identify the owner -occupied housing in the area. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to deny the Conditional Use request, seconded by Klingaman. The motion to deny passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING PETITION R88-20 RUBY & RANDALL GARRISON - N OF WEDINGTON The third item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition #R88-20 submitted by Ruby & Randall Garrison. Property located north of Wedington, east and north of Northwest Acres Addition containing 47.86 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. 107 • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 8 John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property consists of almost 48 acres and it was annexed into the City by the Board of Directors last month. He noted that they looked at the utility and water & sewer situations and they are on the property or in close proximity. He stated that the Garrisons propose to develop a single-family subdivision on this property. The staff sees no major problem with the rezoning and recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval. Chairman Jacks advised that last June, there was a concept plat for Northwest Acres Estates which was a total of approximately 160 acres which was withdraw pending annexation. Mr. Merrell stated that they had originally planned for 800 to 900 lots. He noted that he understands that plan has been scraped and they are only going with a small scale annexation. Chairman Jacks asked if this was being looked at as Phase I. Mr. Merrell answered no not as he understands it. Dr. Robert Clack of 2144 Sunshine Road stated that he is in favor of this rezoning. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of this rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R88-23 RICHARD PALMER - 818 N POLLARD The fourth item on the agenda was a rezoning petition #R88-23 submitted by Richard Palmer and located at 818 North Pollard. Request was to rezone from R-0, Residential -Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks advised that this petition had been withdrawn. Mr. Merrell stated that he gathered from talking to the attorney involved, this may be a permanent withdrawal. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 111(88-24 J.E. & MAURICE MCCLELLAND - NW SIDE OF WALNUT AT ASH STREET The fifth item on the agenda was a rezoning petition iiR88 24 submitted by J.E. & Maurice McClelland and located on the northwest side of Walnut Avenue at Ash Street containing .74 of an acre. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that one thing Mr. McClelland had pointed out in his letter of application was an earlier action by the Planning Commission. In his letter dated November 7, 1988 he indicates that several years ago a tract of land in this area (between Walnut & N College) was up for a C-2 rezoning and the Commission denied that. However, there was some discussion about an R-2 rezoning and it was evidently either down -changed to R-1 or was never really changed to R-2. He added that Becky Schmidt, the Planning O8 • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 9 Clerk, has been doing a rather exhaustive research into this for the last several days and finally found an excerpt from the April 7, 1970 Minutes whereby Mr. McClelland was in attendance at that meeting. There was some discussion about the zoning of this general area whether it should be C-2, R-2 or R-1. He noted that they gathered that this was during the time when the Planning Commission was reviewing the zoning. They understand what Mr. McClelland is suggesting that perhaps an R-2 rezoning of this property could form a buffer zone between the C-2 Commercial development on North College and the R-1 zoned properties which are all right around this particular piece of property. Sometimes that is a good argument but in this case the other properties around this property basically have been developed as nice single-family homes. That throws the buffer zone out the window in this particular case. There isn't anything unique or unusual about this particular piece of property when it compared with the other properties in the immediate area that have been developed as single-family that would Justify the introduction of a higher density form of housing. Therefore, staff can't support the rezoning. Commissioner Dow asked if the 1970 Minutes he found was a denial of a rezoning. Mr. Merrell stated that they haven't been able to determine that fact. The Minutes do not indicate that a rezoning request to C-2 was ever really made. He read from the 1970 Minutes " Mr. McClelland asked about the property extending 150' to the West from the centerline of Walnut Street which is presently zoned R- 2. It is proposed as R-1 on the map and will permit duplexes. The balance of the property lying Westward from a point 150' from the centerline of Walnut Street to North College is presently zoned C-2. Not all of this property is shown as C-2 on the proposed map. Mr. Vizzier stated that this is an oversite and he would get the legal description of this property and correct the map. Chairman Jacks stated that it does sound like a discussion of the New Plan that they were studying because Jim Vizzier was the Planner they were working with at that time. Mr. Merrell stated that they are still looking into it. J.E. McClelland of 31 Greenbriar stated that his recollection of the circumstances surrounding the original request for rezoning to C-2. The purpose being to rezone so that warehouses could be built on the east side of the branch that runs down (north & south) through the property. This entire property was from Walnut Avenue to College Avenue and in one ownership from what is now the Chief Motel back to the south side of Harding Glass. That piece of property was divided equally between two daughters, his wife being one of those two daughters. They had need for warehouse facilities and they petitioned to have the area rezoned to C-2 because warehouses were allowed at that time in C-2. During that time, the undesirability of having C-2 on Walnut was mentioned and as a result of that and because of the R-1 use, a compromise was reached for R-2 on a strip along the west side of Walnut. There was definite mention about duplexes at that time. The unclear nature of the ordinance was supposed to be cleared up in lines with the C-2 and 150 from the centerline of Walnut was to be R-2. He noted that they have discussed over the years that they would like to put duplexes in there thinking that the map reflected R-2 and duplexes could be placed there. He noted that they want to clean up that property. He added that they plan two duplexes and they would be built with permanent materials and be architecturally designed and the tenants would be screened so that only desirable tenants would be given • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 10 access to the property. Chairman Jacks advised that duplexes were allowed in R-1 in 1970. That subsequently was changed because there a good sized public outcry about that at one point. Commissioner Hanna advised that the R-1.5 zoning would be appropriate for situations like this and it would protect the neighborhood. Two duplexes on a piece of property this size would fit. Mr. McClelland answered that he would agree to R-1.5 zoning. Chairman Jacks noted that you can actually still build duplexes in an R-1 zone and that is addressed in the staff report but they recommend against that also. Donna McNair stated that she travels on Ash Street many times a day. She is concerned about the additional traffic on Ash Street with this new project with the steep hill and the sharp curves. There is water flowing over the street a lot of the time at the site of those curves. The traffic on Ash is made up of people involved in the Presbyterian Church activities, community activities and school traffic because it is an east/west artery for school buses. She displayed maps showing the school districts that access by traveling Ash Street. She asked that this petition be denied and that there would be no chance in the future that there would be any additional complications to traffic flow on Ash Street. - W.B. Younkin of 1741 North Walnut stated that he is opposed to this petition. He stated that he and others spent time going around the neighborhood and they have a petition with 48 or 49 signatures on it and he didn't talk to anyone who even hesitated about signing the petition that they don't want duplexes or rental property of any kind there. He noted that he didn't see that duplexes in there would be any kind of a buffer zone. Lee Turner of 450 James Way stated that they chose to live in this neighborhood because it is a very beautiful and attractive area. She noted that she is opposed to this and is asking them to preserve the natural beauty of Fayetteville. He may wish to screen the tenants, but there are no guarantees that years from now what the tenants will be like. She is afraid that the same kind of development will take place on Ash Street that happened on East Township. There are several very ugly apartment complexes and townhouses. That curve is very dangerous. She noted that more duplexes aren't needed in Fayetteville according to the want ads in the newspaper. Margie Moldenhauer of 1717 North Walnut stated that she would like to reemphasize that it is a very dangerous hill and curves. She advised that she is a real estate broker and appraiser and she knows that income property lowers the value of residential property. She is opposed to the rezoning. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood what the classification of Ash Street. Mr. Wood stated that he believed it is a "local street" and not a "collector". Chairman Jacks stated that this is another case where a "local street" has been made into • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 11 a "collector" because there are so few east/west arteries. Ann Morris stated that she lives across the street from this. She noted that they were assured by Mr. McClelland about twenty-two years ago when they bought there lot from him that there wouldn't be any duplexes or apartments up that way. Catherine Lux of 354 East Sycamore stated that she is concerned about the increase in traffic on that street in the last few years especially since they have a stop light at the intersection of Sycamore and North College. She noted that there is one house on that street that is rented and it has caused a nuisance. Harry Shadden of 736 East Ash stated that he is concerned about the traffic and dangerous curves on that steep hillside on Ash Street. He added that he seconds all of the remarks made against development of that property with any sort of building. He stated that he is also concerned about siltation into that creek no matter how carefully development there was done which would add to their water purification problems. He noted that those trees there provide a visual buffer zone and possibly some sound barrier so he would not like to see them cut. He asked the Planning Commission to follow the recommendations of Mr. Merrell and specify that neither a rezoning or conditional use be approved for that piece of property either now or in the future. Mildred Younkin agreed with everyone about the traffic problem, but to her the basic point is that this is an R-1 owner -occupied neighborhood. Mr. McClelland stated that he sympathizes with the neighborhood. he believed that street is a "collector" street because many Master Street Plan, although he doesn't want to dispute Larry that there are very few east/west thoroughfares to carry traffic, this reason that Sycamore have been designated to carry traffic. He stated that reviews of the Wood. He noted so he feels for He stated that complaint about the traffic problem and the should be brought before the Public Works Department of the City of Fayetteville rather than the Planning Commission even though the Planning Commission is instrumental in designating arterial streets. It is hard for him to see that the addition of two duplexes in that area with a total of eight cars maximum would complicate the traffic problem any worst than it is today. References have been made to so many people in the area. Keep in mind they are only planning two -two bedroom duplexes. He advised that any qualification that the Planning Commission would like to impose upon this particular application would be suitable with him, whether it be a contractual arrangement where quality of buildings, grounds and tenants can be controlled. As far as the drainage, the units would be protected with a reinforced concrete retaining wall. He stated that they are fully aware of the hazards of the street and that problem will be addressed. As far as silting and adverse affects to the environment, he will look into that a little • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 12 further. Commissioner Allred stated that if this petition is granted as proposed, the Planning Commission would have no control it once it is granted. That area would accommodate 16 apartments in an R-2 zone which he would be totally opposed to. Mr. McClelland stated that he would not object to a R-1.5 rezoning and they have no intentions to saturate that land. He further stated that he would not object to any contractual arrangement in that regard. Chairman Jacks advised that legally they can't make a contractual agreement in relation to a rezoning. The only conditions that can enter into a rezoning is if the applicant offered a Bill of Assurance of something that he particularly wanted to do. The Planning Commission could accept or not accept it. Commissioner Hanna stated that he would feel more comfortable with considering a R-1.5 rezoning rather than R-2. Commissioner Robertson stated that it is his understanding after reading the staff recommendation that they could grant a Conditional Use to build the duplexes and not rezone. He added that he has trouble understanding why two duplexes there as opposed to one house is going to change the traffic that much. There might be another six cars added to the traffic. Chairman Jacks stated that the requirements for duplexes in an R-1 zone is a minimum of 12,000 square feet and this may not meet that. Dow stated that it must since the staff report stated that it would qualify. Commissioner Dow stated that she would have to disagree with Commissioner Robertson. It may only be six additional cars, but you have to look at where it is and that is probably one of the worst traffic hazards in town. She noted that she has to agree with the staff recommendation to leave it as it is. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant a Conditional Use for duplexes (the number that this property will allow) in an R-1 zone, seconded by Robertson. The motion to grant a Conditional Use failed 2-5-1 with Hanna & Robertson voting "yes", Seiff, Nash, Jacks, Allred & Dow voting "nay" and Blingaman "abstaining". NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential, seconded by Nash. The motion to recommend denial passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised that this can be appealed to the City Board of Directors. • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 13 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (IAT SPLIT) BARBARA WILLIAMS - SITE OF WHITE STARR TAVERN, AT CHERRY STREET & HWY 71-B The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Split) submitted by Barbara Williams and represented by Trevor Lavy. Property is located on the White Starr Tavern site at the corner of Cherry Street and Highway 71-5 containing .25 of an acre. Trevor Lavy of 1946 North Wheeler stated that he had talked to Don Bunn, the City Engineer, last week and Mr. Bunn's concern with this Lot Split is that the structure would be non -conforming. As he understood , Mr. Bunn was going to approve the Lot Split as being legal and that it would not add to the nonconformity of the structure. His concern was on a resale, there might be problems if someone was to tear down that building and build another one because of the 65' depth and the required 50' setback in C-2. The buyers have been informed of this situation and they have no other intentions or plans for this structure. Bill Mourney of 581 Village Drive stated that the people have ran the property for 18 years and they want to purchase it. He is in favor of the Lot Split. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant this Lot Splitassubmitted, seconded by Robertson. The motion to grant it passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (FIRST LOT SPLIT) ROBERT ALLBRITIAN - N OF HOWARD PORTER ROAD, E OF GULLEY RD The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (First Lot Split) submitted by Robert Allbritian and represented by Bill Wheeler. Property located outside the City limits on the north side of Howard Porter Road, east of Gulley Road with piece being split containing 1.38 acres. Chairman Jacks stated that according to the staff report, there doesn't seem to be any reservation on the part of the City Engineer. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the Lot Split, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks advised that they have a draft of a Resolution to send to the Board that was the subject of a motion made by Butch Robertson that was approved at the regular meeting of June 13th, 1988. He read from the draft which states • • • Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 14 "Commission requests the Board of Directors reconsider their policy of not including residents of the growth area as potential candidates for various appointed commissions and boards to serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors". Apparently, it is just now being written up in form to pass on to the City Board and it is placed before them to see if they approve of the wording, etc. Commissioner Robertson stated that what they just saw was a prime example of why there should be some representation. The Lot Split that was just discussed was in the growth area. Commissioner Nash stated that she feels that the first three paragraphs should be excluded from the resolution: 1) "Whereas many residents of the City of Fayetteville growth area are employed in businesses located within the City limits;" 2) "Whereas many of these residents.... pay sales tax;" and 3) "Whereas some residents of the growth area also own property within the City limits...;". She explained that a lot of people in Springdale and Winslow are employed in Fayetteville also but they don't need to be on the Planning Commission. She contributes a lot to Oklahoma sales tax when she goes to Tulsa but she doesn't need to be on their Planning Commission. Also, she owns some property in Lewisville, Arkansas but she doesn't want to be on their Planning Commission. She noted that she thinks that could be real nebulous. The meat of the matter is the last paragraph which Chairman Jacks read. earlier. Commissioner Robertson stated that it specifies residents of the "growth area" so that eliminates each one of Commissioner Nash's arguments on this. However, it doesn't make any difference to him if that part is excluded. NOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve the Resolution subject to the exclusion of the three above "whereas" that she addressed, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 1988 were approved as mailed. AS I asp. II 11 A RAWAY ST. ITAYLOR 0- 1 O MAPLE era 0 1 t z C Z s� 0 s FAIRVIEW • e. > „f Op' z z < O U 2 z < o c 1 1 1 t L5THI 6TH 7TH 4Th 1ST. 1 ST. 1 16 C=1 / 4 1.2 /ter