Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-23 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 23, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Doug Hemingway, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others Chairman Jacks welcomed their two new members, Jack Cleghorn and J. David Ozment. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT (1ST SPLIT) JIM LINDSEY - DAVIS LANE, W OF COUNTY RD 345 & S OF COUNTY RD 539 The first item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split (1st split) submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Doug Hemingway. Property located in the growth area on Davis Lane, west of County Road 345 and south of County Road 539 containing approximately 2.5 acres. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that this is a very routine lot split. They are going to split the property almost evenly and the staff sees no major problem with this split. There is water service available in Davis Lane. Sewer is not available but as long as the septic tank that might ultimately be installed there meets the Health Department specifications there is no problem. Commissioner Hanna asked if there is a county regulation as to the size lot you have to have before you install a septic tank. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Division if it is the whole planning area or just contiguous properties that have to tie on to public sewer. Mr. Wood stated that contiguous properties tie on to the public sewer. He noted that there used to be an acre and a half of land required for a private sewer system , but he believes the Health Department has changed the requirement to whatever it takes to perc. Chairman Jacks stated that his impression was that the City still had the requirement of 1 1/2 acres in the area that is under the City's jurisdiction. He advised that this is something that they should look into because it is a little unclear. Doug Hemingway stated that he is the surveyor and he is at the meeting on behalf of Jim Lindsey. He noted that he performed the survey and located the easements as shown. He added that there is presently three houses that are utilizing Davis • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 2 Lane and Mr. Lindsey has stated that the driveway from the house to be built on tract 1 will be facing out to the County Road. Therefore, only tract 2 would have the use of Davis Lane. Mr. Hemingway advised that he had talked to Will Hastings at the last County meeting and he stated that the 1 1/2 acres is no longer a requirement. He added that the Meadows Acres Subdivision near here was excellent percs, so he doesn't see any problem with this property. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the lot split, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 8R89-1 SHARON SMITH - 3548 E HUNTSVILLE RD The last item on the agenda was a rezoning petition UR89-1 submitted by Sharon Smith for property located at 3548 East Huntsville Road containing .51 acres of land. Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that staff really didn't have anything to add to the reports that have been given to the Commissioners. He noted that basically it is the staff's understanding that the applicant proposed to convert the old Duncan's Liquor Store into a cafe. The house on the property would continue to be used as a house and the garage apartment would be used for an arts and crafts studio. He advised that one problem here is the matter of off-street parking. The highway right-of-way along Huntsville Road is 40' wide on either side of the center line. The rather large paved area from the highway to the front of the building is a somewhat deceptive impression that there is a lot of parking space available when actually it is not. He noted that in the staff report, he pointed out that the highway department does not permit the parking of vehicles on their right-of-way in conjunction with a business. He stated that staff recommends that the rezoning be denied .basically for two reasons: 1) the concern about the parking issue and 2) this area of Huntsville Road isn't considered to be a viable commercial area although it may have been at one time. Sometimes if you have a non -conforming use like the old Duncan Liquor Store, there is some justification for rezoning the property if it appears to be in a viable commercial with no problems related to surrounding land uses, the absence of off-street parking, etc. He doesn't consider this to be the case on this rezoning so he recommends that this petition be denied. He advised that the neighborhood has gotten together a petition on this item and one issue that has been raised by some of the neighboring property owners who have contacted us is the issue of serving alcoholic beverages in the cafe if the rezoning were to be approved. Anyone certainly has an opportunity to express their opinion on the consumption of alcoholic beverages, however, that is an issue that will be decided in the alcoholic beverage licensing process and is not really a zoning '7 • e • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 3 question. The Planning Commission meeting is not really the forum to debate the consumption of alcohol on the premises. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing. Gary Carson of 118 North Block Street stated that he is not here representing Mrs. Smith from a legal standpoint although he is an attorney at law. He stated that he is the owner along with Len Edens of this property and is under a contract to sell the property to Mrs. Smith. He added that he doesn't know how many years that the Duncan Liquor Store property was used as a commercial business but probably for 20 or more years. He noted that Mr. Edens and himself were required to move their retail liquor permit from that location to another location on Wedington Drive about two years ago. Since that time, they have been trying to sell the property and it is really not suitable for residential purposes. The house that is on the property has been used as a residence but only by their employees as part of an incentive program to get someone to live there. The building is decaying rapidly and they don't have the money to invest in that particular building anymore and this is the first chance to sell it they have had in two years conditioned on it being rezoned for use as a cafe. When Mrs. Smith filed a petition, she was advised by someone to petition from R-2 to C-2 and in truth and fact C-1 would have been more appropriate. If it is appropriate to orally amend that at this time, she wishes to do that. As far as traffic is concerned, he assured the Commission that when it was operated as a retail liquor store there were on occasions anywhere from 500 to 1,000 motor vehicles in and out of that property in a given day. A cafe would generate much less traffic than the retail liquor store. Mrs. Smith has plans, if parking is a problem, to use and convert what used to be the front yard of the residence and what is behind the residence for parking. He noted that they don't see it as a problem because there is plenty of room on the premises for off-street parking. Commissioner Springborn stated that in his understanding that building was used as non -conforming uses. Mr. Carson stated that he understands that it was used as a bait shop and grocery store out of which beer was sold in 1965 when it was annexed. For all those years from that time, it was a non -conforming use. Mr. Carson pointed out that the property directly across the street is zoned C-1 and there is a large mobile home park Just west of this and the property immediately to the East is used as a lot for the parking of heavy construction equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes and dumptrucks which was probably grandfathered in also. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Carson if Mrs. Smith plans to repair the decay of the building. Mr. Carson answered, yes, as a matter of fact, the Health Department for cafe purposes has a lot of requirements. That building will have to be upgraded considerably for plumbing, restrooms & kitchen facilities. As a result of that, that is why they applied for what should have been a C-1 rezoning as opposed to a Conditional Use. It was his understanding that since these improvements have to be made, it was his understanding was that it was improper to apply for a Conditional Use under those circumstances. Sharon Smith of Route 7, Box 471 stated that she dust wants to open a restaurant and upgrade this building. She noted that she would like to have an art studio / • e • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 4 in the back. She added that she didn't want to lie about the fact that she wanted to sell beer to customers that want it. She stated that she didn't mean to insult anyone. Commissioner Klingaman asked when the C-2 zoning was suggested. Mrs. Smith stated that when she went to the Planning Office they suggested C-2 and then someone else wrote to her and suggested C-1. She stated that she didn't know the difference between the two. C-1 is fine. She didn't want to create any problems, she just wants to fix the place up and it would be an improvement not a discredit to the neighborhood. Commissioner Seiff asked if she bought the property and it was rezoned for a cafe, was it her intention to provide the correct requirements for parking. Mrs. Smith stated that she would do whatever she would have to do to be right. She stated that she feels like there is enough room to provide the parking and if it is necessary to put a parking lot behind, she will do so. Commissioner Allred stated that if she provided the additional parking spaces it is his understanding that it would have to be a dustless surface. He asked John Merrell if that meant it would have to be either concrete or asphalt and not gravel. Mr. Merrell stated that any additional parking that had to be added would have to be done in a dustless and durable surface according to the ordinance which they interpret as paving. Commissioner Allred asked if Mrs. Smith was aware of that requirement. Mrs. Smith answered, yes. Commissioner Ozment stated that according to Mr. Merrell's first staff report, the property across the highway from this property is zoned C-1 and in the second report it is implied that it is not C-1 but a non -conforming use. Which is correct? Mr. Merrell stated that the property across the highway is zoned C-1 where the flea market was and his understanding is that it was a situation sort of like the old liquor store where it was a commercial use that was grandfathered into the City after annexation. Recently, it was being used as an occasional flea market but it is no longer used in that manner. Commissioner Ozment asked if the excavators business is in compliance. Mr. Merrell stated that as far as the staff can tell from the records, that was also grandfathered in but a good bit of that business is actually outside the City. Commissioner Nash asked Mr. Merrell if the Planning Commission recommended rezoning this to C-1, would his staff opinion be to recommend denial. Mr. Merrell stated that staff recommends denial of any commercial rezoning. He commented that he agrees with Mr. Carson in that the proposed uses for the property if the City were to approve the rezoning could be accommodated under the C-1 zone. Lynn Faith Clampett of Fayetteville stated that she feels what Mrs. Smith is proposing would benefit the community and serve as a good business, serve good food and would not be detrimental to the community. Chairman Jacks stated that the petition that was submitted as the signatures of around 75 people saying that they object to the petition for a rezoning. • e • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 5 Tom Combs who is the owner of the property on the west side of this location stated that he is opposed to this because the building is sitting so close to the highway right-of-way and makes a terrible traffic hazard along there. He is concerned about the fact that there is no parking for a business in there and no feasible place to put a parking lot. Also, on the back side of the building there is an 8" high pressure gas line that supplies the City of Fayetteville which is within two or three feet of the building. Commissioner Klingaman asked Mr. Combs if he owned the trailer court. Mr. Combs stated that he owns the property between the mobile home park and the property in question. He noted that it was his property that was used for parking with past operations and he objects to that. Odetta Fritz of 3600 Huntsville Road stated that her property joins the subject property on her west boundary line and she is the one who submitted the petition for the objection to this rezoning. She noted that this is a well -traveled highway and the Hinkle Mobile Trailer Court has an entrance which is approximately 100' from this subject property. She stated that she is concerned with the heavy traffic flow as it is now and this would add to the problem. She also believes this would be strip zoning. She stated that Mrs. Smith had came to her house and told her what she planned and when questioned as to whether she would sell alcoholic beverages, she stated that she wanted to. Mrs. Fritz stated that to her this would make traveling on this highway more hazardous. Also, this would decrease the value of her property and any other property in the area. She is very much opposed to this rezoning petition. Commissioner Allred asked Mrs. Fritz if all the people who signed the petition were property owners near here. She stated that she didn't know if they were all property owners but most of them are. Commissioner Allred asked if this was denied and this property was left to deteriorate, what does she think it would do to her property value at that time. She stated that it does look terrible but with a half acre anyone could come in and tear those three small buildings down and build a very nice home which would enhance the neighborhood. Tommy Gage of 3398 E. Huntsville which is just west of the mobile home park stated that he is concerned about the hazardous traffic conditions. He noted that there has been a lot more traffic that has infiltrated that area in the past two years since that liquor store closed. Also, there is no parking and there is an 8" gas main that runs between the building and the dwelling house with a 25' easement which comes across the front of the trailer park and across his backyard. If this was paved to build a parking lot back there, there is no way they could cover up that 25' easement on the gas main. Also, as far as alcoholic beverages, they don't need another bar and grill in the neighborhood. Mike's Bar & Grill on South School has four -lane highway with turn lanes which is the only thing that saves accidents there in a 35 mph speed zone. At this location on Huntsville, there is a 55 mph speed limit. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Gage was saying that there is a high pressure gas main that runs directly between that house and the cafe. Mr. Gage answered, yes. • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 6 Wes Vaughn of 3509 E. Huntsville across the road from this stated that he is opposed to having that area commercialized. That building next to him on the east is condemned. Dale Parsley of 1005 Wood Ave. stated that his mother-in-law owns property across the street and he is opposed to it because of his interest in the property. Ms. Clampett stated that the busiest times on Highway 16 (Huntsville Road) are first thing in the morning and in the evening. Second of all, this will not be a bar & grill, it will be a cafe with breakfast and lunch served. Thirdly, in the front of the liquor store, there is plenty of space for approximately eight cars, at least, without deterring any traffic. Mr. Carson stated that he has heard a lot of people who live in that area complain that rezoning to C-1 might create traffic problems. He advised that he and Mr. Edens operated a liquor store there for five years with thousands of cars coming in and out of there every day and there was never one accident from a vehicle entering that premises or leaving that premises during that time and the traffic count with a cafe is going to be much less. Commissioner Allred asked what the seating capacity is here. Mrs. Smith stated that it would seat no more than 20 people at the most. She added that she would not have the cafe open any later than 6 or 7 in the evening: Commissioner Allred stated that with 4 or 5 cars they would be maxed out as far as seating capacity. Commissioner Springborn asked how they would propose to handle the occasional truck that wanted to stop there. Mr. Carson stated that they would probably just expand the parking by taking the front yard out of the house Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is curious about the property to the west of this with the rather sizable hunk of hard surface on that particular piece of property. He asked if these were at one time jointly owned. Mr. Carson answered yes he was sure they were. Mr. Combs stated that part of the front of his property was paved before he purchased it about four years ago. Mr. Carson stated that it was his understanding when they purchased the property that whoever owned the Duncan's Liquor Store property had the use of that little area that Mr. Combs now owns to be used for parking. Chairman Jacks stated that according to the staff report they would be required to have nine parking spaces and he thinks there is probably room in front of the building to make a parking lot for nine cars but trucks are another issue. Ms. Gage who is Mrs. Fritz's daughter and lives just west of the trailer park stated that she wonders what Ms. Clampett's interest is in this because she does not live in this community. Also, Ms. Clampett had stated that the busiest time for traffic is of a morning and in the evening and Mrs. Smith has stated that she wants to serve breakfast which would be the busiest time of the day. She added that there is not room to park a semi -truck there. She noted that the • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 7 building that sets across the street by Mr. Vaughn's property has been condemned. Richard Fritz of 2230 Coleman stated that he has a business right next to this and he wanted to mention that this would be strip zoning and he is opposed to it. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Commissioners. Commissioner Hanna stated that it is always hard when there is a commercial building that has been allowed to set vacant and they lose there conditional use or use by right, but most the people that have addressed the Commission tonight don't have the site plan that the Commissioners were given. From looking at the site plan, when the right-of-way which is 70 to 75 percent of that surfaced area in front of that building is taken away, there is not room in front of the building and the existing house for ten cars to park. That parking problem alone would be reason enough to turn down the request for a commercial zoning. Commissioner Seiff asked if they are dealing with C-1 or C-2. Chairman Jacks advised that the petition is for C-2, but they would have the option of voting on C-1 if they chose to do so. Commissioner Klingaman stated that they approved a tea room a couple of weeks ago that had almost no parking space for it and he is curious what kind of formula is used to calculate the number of parking spaces for a tea room as opposed to this. Chairman Jacks stated that the parking is based on one space for so many square feet depending on the zone. Mr. Merrell agreed that the formula is one space per 200 square feet of interior area and that is generally rounded off and with the tea room on East Street, their proposal was to use 800 square feet of that house for the tea room and they had provided four off-street parking spaces. Chairman Jacks stated that contrary to what Commissioner Hanna has stated, he thinks they could get nine spaces in front of the building although it would be tight. Commissioner Nash read from their criteria for granting rezoning which includes eleven items such as 1) is there a public need for additional land space to be rezoned as requested, 2) is there an alternative area for the use requested that would eliminate the need for rezoning, 3) would granting the rezoning request conform to the future land use plan and 4) is this change really needed by the public or is it merely a convenience to the owner. She added that with all of this in mind, she really sees nothing that convinces her that they need this rezoning and she is in favor of denying it. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to recommend denial of any commercial rezoning of this property, seconded by Springborn. The motion vas passed 9-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised Mr. Carson that he does have the opportunity to appeal • Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 8 this to the Board of Directors. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM #1 Chairman Jacks stated that with the two new commissioners joining them tonight, he has provided a package of material for all the commissioners talking about general purposes and duties of the Planning Commission which is a paraphrasing of the State Enabling Legislation. There is another thing included called Community Land Use Goal and Development Objectives and other information. Also, when they launched themselves into this present updating of the comprehensive plan last year, the Planning Commission met in special meetings for several times to look back at the old goals and policies that came about in 1970 to see if they still agreed with that and the minutes from those meetings are included. Finally, there is a xerox copy of something that Larry Wood had given them that talks about planning rather generically and takes an idealized situation realizing that in the practical situations that they deal with, it is not going to be that idealized but at least it set goals for them. All of these items are for informational purposes. ITEM #2 Chairman Jacks stated that he was at the Board meeting the other night when the City Manager made a report to the Board where he mentioned ongoing contacts with the planners, etc. He added that he is concerned that the Planning Commission will be handed a fixed package of finished documents with a mandate to hold public hearings and it will happen awfully fast. This tendency caused them lots of problems in the past. He stated that the Subdivision Regulations is a good case in point. A couple years ago the City had worked with Mr. Reynolds, the engineer, for a year or more holding meetings and the Planning Commission didn't even know it and they deal with Subdivision Regulations on a weekly basis. The Planning Commission was very interested in having some input although they didn't know anything was going on. Then all of the sudden there was this document on which they were supposed to hold public hearings. After that they spent about 18 months and got input from engineers and developers, etc. and rewrote that document totally. Therefore, it seemed like the City had wasted whatever fee they had paid that engineer. He added that he is afraid they are going to run into the same kind of thing on this planning effort. He stated that Commissioner Hanna chaired an updating of the Zoning Ordinance Committee and they handed the planners a list of those things having to do with elderly concerns and "high- tech" industrial areas and historic districts. Also, they had a Landscape Committee working which really stopped operating anticipating something coming from the planners along that line. He advised that the Planning Commission by law from the Enabling Legislation has the responsibility for the quality of the plan they recommend to the City Board. He is afraid they are going to get into one of those situations down the line where they have that document and they end up spending another eighteen months or two years revising it because they don't agree with it. He asked John Merrell if he knew what was going on along that Planning Commission January 23, 1989 Page 9 planning line at this stage of the game. Mr. Merrell stated that when he came on board as the new Planning Director last summer, he inherited a project (Phase I) to produce the new plan that was about three-fourths of the way along. He noted that they did have the major meeting of the Board, the Commission and others in August to try to solicit some input. He stated that the Planning Commission would be given a draft of that document in the very near future. However, Phase II of the project is going to get started later this year which will involve the new zoning ordinance, tree protection ordinance, landscaping ordinance, annexation policies and several other sub- projects. He noted that he will soon be proposing to them a schedule of implementation, adoption and review for those various projects that will be superior to what they have on plan. The bottom line is that the Planning Commission needs to have more input into these plans and ordinances and he assured them that he would try to help out in that regard. He advised that the City that he left in Virginia went through this exact same process in the final two years of his job there and they made an extensive effort to involve the Commission and the public in the preparation of those documents. Chairman Jacks asked where the Subdivision Regulations that they worked on are. Mr. Merrell stated that he has them and Al Raby has a copy of them. Commissioner Springborn stated he endorses everything that Chairman Jacks just stated. He added that in order to find anything out, the Planning Commission continually has to ask questions. He asked if it would be out of order to ask that they get periodic status reports on this activity. Mr. Merrell stated that is a good suggestion and is something that they can start incorporating with their meetings. He stated that he hopes to have for them at the next meeting, a schedule of the Phase II projects and he is anticipating a number of special meetings of the Commission in 1989. There is an incredible volume of work that has to be addressed in 1989. He would like to incorporate the concept of neighborhood meetings in the review and adoption recommendation process to give the people an opportunity for input. The public would have the opportunity to look through the zoning maps and find out how there property is zoned. ITEM #3 Commissioner Nash stated that in August or September in 1986 this body passed a Code of Ethics governing the Commission' behavior toward each other and toward concerned citizens. She stated that she thought it would be helpful if they had a copy of it. Chairman Jacks stated that this supposedly was incorporated in their bylaws. Commissioner Seiff advised that what was discussed in September of 1986 was incorporated on Page 3 0) of the Bylaws. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 1989 were approved as distributed.