Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Coission was held on Monday, February 27, 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 Seiff and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Klingaman OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others Chairman Jacks stated that Ervan Wimberly had died this weekend. He noted that no other person that he knows of other than members of these boards and commissions themselves has probably contributed more time toward quality development in the City. He was always willing to do anything they asked of him without quibbling about it. The revised Subdivision Regulations which they spent about a year and a half working on are as much a monument to Ervan as to anybody on the Planning Commission. He was always an engineeritfirst _.interested in quality development and they learned to count on him here in the Planning Commission and they will miss his advice. Chairman Jacks advised that he had a request to move items 12 & 13 up to first on the agenda: Lot Split and Tandem Lot on Rockwood Trail. He asked if anyone in the audience had an objection to this shift in the agenda or anyone on the Planning Commission. There being no objections, items 12 & 13 were heard first. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT ROBERT NEUKRANZ - N OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL The thirteenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations - Lot Split submitted by Robert Neukranz for property north of Rockwood Trail (a part of Lot 9, Block 1 of South Hampton Addition). Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. One lot will contain .75 acres and the other will contain .8 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is just east of Pembroke Lane. The staff does not have any objection to the Lot Split. Both water and sewer and other utilities are available to it. They do ask that approval be conditioned on the owners getting with the other utilities and granting whatever easements they may require in order to serve the property properly. Staff does not have any objections to the Lot Split or the Tandem Lot application. 17 • • • Planning Commission February 27,1989 Page 2 Ralph Goff who owns property on Shrewsbury (Lots 6, 7 & 8) which is north of this tandem lot stated that if Mr. Neukranz builds on this back lot, it would be right below his patio. He was concerned that this would degrade the whole neighborhood because they would have to put small houses on these lots. It would be wrong to accommodate one person when you have expensive homes and lots around it. Commissioner Springborn stated that Mr. Goff referred to these proposed lots as being small but one lot will be .75 of an acre and the other will .8 of an acre. Robert Neukranz stated that the two lots would be much larger than any lots to the West. The lots to the East are larger so his property would be a natural buffer. As far as the worth of the lots and houses, the house he intends to build on Tract B would in no way reduce the worth of the surrounding lots. Tom Sager of 859 Shrewsbury (Lot 6) and the owner of Lot 1 on Rockwood (the area immediately west of Pembroke) was concerned about the size of the lots. Also, he asked what is to keep an owner or developer from coming in with those large lots to the East and doing lot splits. Instead of having nine lots, they could end up with 36 lots. He asked them to deny this request. Elaine Cattaneo, City Planning Secretary, stated that Mark Foster, the developer of the land to the East, had came in the office and was concerned about the size of these proposed lots. Commissioner Hanna stated that he had calls from at least three people that aren't present tonight. One was the previous owner who was distressed because she didn't know there was any intention of splitting that.•.lot when she sold it. This property had been in her family for a long time and she is well acquainted with the neighbors around there and didn't have any intention of having two houses on that lot. He noted that his first thought concerning lot splits are that if there is room for it, they are a good tool. However, this 25' wide strip of land giving access to Tract A is about 230' long. There is a problem there with trash pickup and drainage runoff down the hill. He advised that the agenda shows this as the first lot split but the first was probably the house that Mr. Clark lives in on Rockwood. He added that he feels like this would be unfair to the people who have bought lots in well laid out subdivisions on all four sides of this piece of property. He is opposed to this because of the lot strip to get to the back property plus the fact that this split will impact the backyards of about six lots on Shrewsbury plus whatever there is down the hill, Foster's Subdivision and across the road. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to deny the Lot Split. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Springborn stated that as far as trash pickup, according to the ordinance, they either have to provide for a turnaround at the end of such a driveway or the owner has to place the trash out at the street to be picked up with a concrete base provided for the trash pickup. It looks like the second option has been taken in this case and he doesn't see how they can have a problem with that particular aspect of it. • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Neukranz stated that in his opinion this follows the rules and regulations of the City. In the topographic area, Lot 9 is in a wooded area and the smaller lots to the West (Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8) are much higher in elevation and would see over anything built on these proposed lots. The lots to the East are much lower and he questions whether the houses that would be built in there would even be seen most times of the year. He stated that he can't see how this could be of any detrimental affect to anyone in the neighborhood. He noted that the acreage was calculated by the surveyors of Engineering Services, Inc. in Springdale and is correct as stated (.75 acres & .8 acres). He advised that he doesn't have any immediate plans for Tract A. Chairman Jacks asked all persons in the audience who are opposed to this to please stand. He counted 7 people. Commissioner Hanna stated that lots split off like this proposed split practically don't follow any Subdivision Regulations at all. Mr. Goff asked for explanation on how Mr. Neukranz will hookup to sewer. Don Bunn stated that he would have to look at the maps downstairs to tell them exactly where it is but he did check the access and it is available. Commissioner Allred stated that he knows the City can't enforce restrictive covenants. However, if this is split would both of these lots come under the restrictive covenants of the Subdivision. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't know if anyone knows at this point if there are any restrictive covenants or not. Mr. Sager stated that there are restrictive covenants to the South Hampton Subdivision and he does not recall seeing anything_...in.them about a Lot Split allowed. They are restricted to one-story homes and size wise is restricted and no detached structures are allowed. Commissioner Nash stated that if there is a Property Owners Association, those officers would deal with the new owners if and when it happens. She asked if anyone knew the square footage of the lots and if they meet the 8,000 square footage requirements. She was assured that they meet the requirement. She noted that she doesn't find anything in the lot split ordinances that would prohibit them passing this and she is afraid that if they act arbitrarily, they could be held accountable. Commissioner Seiff stated that he has seen splits on paper during his time on the Planning Commission that are a lot more obtrusive than this. He added that he didn't get a chance to look at the lot today and he thinks the topography would have something to do with it. Therefore, he would have to abstain. Commissioner Hanna noted in reference to Commissioner Nash's comments that they might be acting arbitrarily without having a reason, the memo that they have concerning rezoning criteria which he assumes in the absence of criteria for lot splits would be pretty close to criteria for lot splits. One of the things that it states is that the feelings of the residents in the neighborhood with a reference to the approval or disapproval of the request for rezoning is a legitimate factor to be considered. He added that probably the same thing would apply for lot splits. • • • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Neukranz stated that he did check in the County Recording Office on protective covenants and could not find any. He noted that he doesn't object to protective covenants because he intends to build a home for himself that he would value at least as good or better than his neighbors. Also, there is an existing sewer on both the east and west sides of this Lot 9. John Merrell stated that it is true that the City does not enforce restrictive covenants. If the City is a direct party to a restrictive covenant, that is a different story. As far as they know, that is not the case in this particular instance. Also, many planners don't feel that the concept of a tandem lot is a good way to subdivide property and he is one of them. He stated that he is used to working in communities where tandem lots are outlawed outright. Fayetteville over the years has taken a little bit more generous position and they are provided for in the ordinance under certain circumstances and conditions. If the Commission chooses to deny this request, it probably is important to be specific in their reasons. Chairman Jacks stated that the primary purpose of the Lot Split ordinance is to keep people from subdividing by metes and bounds and simply not providing the necessary improvements. The reason for the Tandem Lot ordinance is that there is a much better use for tandem lots in mountainous terrain such as Fayetteville than in a flatter kind of terrain where you are able to reach properties that are on great slopes, etc. He stated that he didn't know that he would put this in that category however. He noted that he thinks this is developable outside the Tandem Lot ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment Mr. Goff stated that his basic concern was the size of the lots. Commissioner Ozment;asked if there was anyone else in the audience that could lend more to the objections. Mr. Goff stated that the basic concerns were the size of the lots that are proposed. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved Nash and followed by discu tandem lots also but she sees gentleman a lot split. The Springborn, Jacks and Nash "abstaining". to approve the lot split as requested, seconded by ssion. Commissioner Nash stated that she dislikes no pertinent reason that they have to deny this motion passed 6-1-1 with Cleghorn, Ozment, Allred, voting "yes", Hanna voting "no" and Allred CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT ROBERT NEUKRANZ - N OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL The thirteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a tandem lot submitted by Robert Neukranz for property located north of Rockwood Trail and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Commissioner Allred stated that he doesn't really care for tandem lots, but looking at the plat this tandem lot is going to be larger than the platted lot of the existing subdivision. IS Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 5 NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the tandem lot as requested, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-1-1 with Nash, Springborn, Ozment, Jacks Cleghorn and Allred voting "yes", Hanna voting "no" and Seiff "abstaining". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-7 JAMES LINDSEY - VANTAGE SQUARE, TRACT 1, N OF JOYCE, S OF STEARNS RD The first item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition 11R89-7 submitted by James Lindsey for Vantage Square, Tract 1. Property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road containing 17.16 acres. Request was to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-0, Residential -Office to all C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION OR89-8 JAMES LINDSEY - VANTAGE SQUARE -TRACT 2, N OF.JOYCE ST The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition #R89-8 submitted by James Lindsey for Vantage Square -Tract 2. Property located north of Joyce Street containing 10.70 acres. Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-9 JAMES LINDSEY - VANTAGE SQUARE -TRACT 3, S OF JOYCE STREET The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for .a.> rezoning petition 11R89-9 submitted by James Lindsey for Vantage Square -Tract 3. Property located south of Joyce Street containing 7.94 acres. Request was to rezone from R-0, Residential - Office and R-2, Medium Density Residential to all R-0, Residential -Office. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-10 JAMES LINDSEY - VANTAGE SQUARE -TRACT 4, S OF JOYCE STREET The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition 11R89- 10 submitted by James Lindsey for Vantage Square, Tract 4 containing 19.77 acres. Property is located south of Joyce Street. Request was to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential to all C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that they have an application for four separate pieces of property and it is the staff's opinion that the Planning Commission will have to vote separately as far as the recommendation to the City Board of Directors. However, it probably is prudent to discuss the properties at the same time since in a couple of cases they abut each other. This area is near the intersection with North College Avenue and has gained a certain amount of notoriety over the last year or so due to the removal of trees in that area. The land has been totally cleared and it is the staff's understanding that there are no immediately plans to develop any of the four parcels of property. However, the Commission did recently approve two Large Scale Developments in this area; the Merrill -Lynch Building and the LakeShore Apartment complex. He noted that he has spoken with representatives of A.W. Realty and Jim Lindsey and have been told that as far as the four tracts of land that are up for rezoning this evening, IG • • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 6 there are no immediate plans at this time. Also, he has a response to the questions that a gentleman brought into his office to be answered today with him in a file. Staff is recommending approval of the various rezonings. Chairman Jacks stated that when this area was changed from A-1, Agricultural zoning by A.W. Realty, they had overall planning involved of a professional nature. They went through several periods of negotiation between the Planning Commission and A.W. Realty. The obvious approach being C-2 at the intersection and gradually buffering from R-0, Residential -Office to R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential. Several years ago Mr. Lindsey asked for R-0 and C-1 across the street from the Butterfield Trail Village development which was to be doctors offices and an ethical drugstore and it has pretty well held to that kind of professionalism out there. He advised that he is very much opposed to stripping Joyce Street. He thought they had a good overall plan there some years ago that seemed to be working. A deal was struck with the developers to restrict commercial properties to what seems to be a very large area down at Highway 71 and Joyce Street intersection. The retirement area was to be in a residential neighborhood. He is very much opposed to extending commercial zoning to any great extend and certainly opposed to extending R-0 properties any farther to the East. Commissioner Nash stated that there is some C-2 property that is being asked to be rezoned to R-0, yet there is R-0 property that they want rezoned to C-2. Rather than whimsically moving around the zones, would it not be better for the developer to use what they already have zoned and maybe change his plans. Mr. Merrell stated that Commissioner Nash has a good point there and it is the kind of thing that he would normally try to encourage: -:Then again the staff is in a position where they really can't reject a rezoning application administratively. Commissioner Seiff asked if on Tract 1 what they are essentially doing is just eliminating the R-0 zoning. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, basically the majority of Tract 1 is zoned primarily C-2 and it is the staff's understanding that the applicant wants to have a unified C-2 for that entire tract. Commissioner Seiff stated then if that rezoning was granted, the C-2 zoning would be abutting an existing R-0 zoning to the East. The Public Hearing was opened. Jim Lindsey stated that on Tracts 1,3 and 4 they are trying to make adjustments back in consideration of where the drainage channels are located. They are not trying to extend more commercial zoning down Joyce Street. Tract 1 does have a little R-0 frontage existing now and it is very difficult to know where that breaks so they thought the drainage channel was a more significant break. With Tracts 3 & 4 you can see how irregular the commercial and R-2 come together in those situations and it just made more sense to do it this way. Tract 2 could be apartment zoning or offices. Overall they still leave a buffer between this tract and the next piece of property. There is approximately 660' from their east boundary to Old Missouri Road on the north side of the street. There is a tract of land in there that could additionally buffer Old Missouri Road. It appeared as an overall plan for the future knowing that in an R-0 zone under a Conditional Use you could build apartments. It just made sense overall to put that zone in there in that fashion. Tracts 1,3 & 4 are just adjusting to the Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 7 creek, making it suitable and easier to develop and work with. Tract 2 is an extension of a zone down Joyce Street. They feel as an overall plan it is still buffered by drainage channels and by zoning changes. Chairman Jacks noted that this leaves a pocket of R-2 property back somewhat to the southwest. Mr. Lindsey stated that piece is on the other side of the creek and he saw that as a buffering effect. In answer to a question from Mr. Seiff, Mr. Lindsey stated that they plan to immediately build an apartment complex behind Tract 2 and a plan to build a commercial building up on Front Street immediately north of Southwest Energy's headquarters, but past that point what they have attempted to do was to take a piece of property in the flood plain and bring it out of the flood plain and to grade to where they could do something with it. He advised that they had applied to FEMA to get that accomplished and they have gotten approval on the proposal and on the construction as it was completed. Their goal ultimately is that the next major development of Fayetteville will take place in that location. They don't have a specific buyer, developer or project outside those two he mentioned. Commissioner Nash stated that she is concerned about the traffic on Joyce Street and on parts of Front Street where the new buildings have gone up which is really pretty bad. She noted that she would like to wait and get a traffic count and see what the City is going to do about Joyce and a street light system before they commit to anymore commercial zoning on Joyce. Mr. Lindsey stated that they feel that most of the development out there will be complete within eight years. The larger tracts of land will be more in line to develop in a real, nice, beautiful and proper way. He noted that the City is in the process of widening Joyce Street from Old Missouri Road over to Highway 265. Commissioner Ozment asked if the City has a plan on how to handle the traffic getting on to Highway 71 from there. John Merrell commented that there is a traffic problem at the intersection of Joyce and North College and the Traffic Department is aware of that. He spoke to Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, about this and was told that later on this year, a new signaling system is going to be installed at that intersection that will be of particular benefit to people who are on Joyce Street and desire to make a lefthand turn onto North College. Commissioner Springborn stated that at this point in time he has considerable reluctance to see an increase in the area dedicated to C-2 at least until they have had the benefit of the present consultant's report on the Land Use Planning and the ordinance for planning. Commissioner Nash stated that she is not concerned with the quality of what he builds, her point is that if she had nine votes on this Commission, she would declare a moratorium on building anything at all there until the streets are fixed. Not just the intersection, but all the little roads that are currently coming out all the way down Joyce practically. She advised that she would like to see something in writing from the City Street Department on the future plan before she addresses anymore building on Joyce. Harley Brigham of Fox Hunter Road stated that he is concerned about whether that land has been brought up to an elevation where it is safe from flooding in the future. Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates stated that they have submitted Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 8 • to FEMA and they have received a letter from them their approval and is in a buildable state. • • Mr. Brigham commented that he wonders if it is make these site preparations before they ask for that the proper procedure would be to apply for a with site preparation. Also, is there really a Fayetteville at this time and there are a lot around town as well. He added that he disliked the idea of destroying 138 acres of woodland in the flood plain and then asking to upgrade by rezoning. He asked who would have final say on when the elevation in a flood plain was brought up to standards for development. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the City would approve buildings out there in accordance with the FEMA Management Study that was done. They would not have any other basis for making the decision. stating that it does meet a wise practice to go ahead and a zoning approval. It seems zone approval and then go ahead need for more apartments in of vacant commercial buildings Mr. Merrell stated that when the applicants come in for a building permit, the Inspection Department will ensure that the building isn't going to be built in the flood plain before they issue a building permit. Commissioner Seiff stated that if in the future, their plans include a grading ordinance or grading permit for a builder that perhaps some of Mr. Brigham's concerns would be addressed. Mr. Merrell stated that they do have a number of development ordinances that the Consultant Planning Group will be drafting for the City that includes a new zoning ordinance, a tree protection ordinance, a landscaping ordinance and later on this year the City staff will form a committee and prepare a draft of a grading ordinance for consideration by the City. Therefore, they are moving in the direction to address these concerns in one way or another. David Wilson, an adjoining property owner, stated that his property is on the bluff to the South of this project and he is concerned about what Mr. Lindsey has planned to replace some of the greenery. Mr. Lindsey stated that he would put a wager that he planted more trees than anyone in this town last year. He added that they believe in landscaping as a critical part. Over two-thirds of this 132 acres was overgrown pasture ground. All of the sudden scrub oaks have become the California Redwoods and it is not fair. They cleaned up a swamp. He promised Mr. Wilson and anyone else here that when they finish developing that piece of land, it will be a beautiful place for him to look down on. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission has to look at the overall zoning and ask themselves if this property is suitable for C-2 rather than R-2, etc. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks advised the Planning Commission that if they choose to disapprove a rezoning request they need to state a reason for that which would be transmitted to the petition. Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 9 • MOTION • • Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of Tract 1 (R89-7) as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion was passed 7-1-0 with Nash voting "no". MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of Tract 2 (R89- 8) as requested, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion was passed 6-2-0 with Nash & Jacks voting "no". MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of Tract 3 (R89- 9) as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Nash & Jacks voting "no". Commissioner Seiff suggested that with Tract 4 they should maybe think about the property to the South that is zoned R-2 and maybe table this one until all of them have had time to think about it. Chairman Jacks stated that they hadn't discussed access to that piece. Mr. Lindsey stated that it is on a sideslope and is very wooded and is hard to get to so it probably wouldn't be appropriate as commercial but maybe as apartments in the future. He noted that when they look at the Subdivision plat they will see how they plan to access it. The terrain is very rough. Chairman Jacks asked if Sain Street had been officially vacated. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, that is his understanding. Chairman Jacks asked how close to Millsap Street does this land go. Mr. Lindsey stated that it backs up against a church back there. Commissioner Springborn asked if they had considered the possibility of making all of this tract 4 into R-2 zoning. Mr. Lindsey stated that he hadn't thought about this but it would probably come back to the value of the land. He stated that he thinks there are better places on that overall piece of land to put apartments. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition (R89-10) as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Nash & Springborn voting "no". PREL hINARY PLAT OF VANTAGE SQUARE SUBDIVISION - UNIT 2 JAMES LINDSEY - ALONG JOYCE ON THE NORTH & SOUTH SIDES OF THE STREET The fifth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Vantage Square Subdivision - Unit 2 submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located along Joyce on the north and the south sides of the street east of Front Street and west of Old Missouri Road containing 132.23 acres with 12 proposed lots. Property is zoned as shown on plat. zo • • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 10 Don Bunn stated that the staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review minutes and final approval of detailed plans and specifications for the various utilities extensions. He added that this plat does contain the easements that were asked for by the utility representatives. However, the utilities reserve the right to ask for more easements if the lots are changed at some point in the future. These tracts are quite large and they would expect at some point in the future that there will be changes on the configuration of the lots either by lot splits or a replat of the subdivision. There are no off-site improvements required except for access to Lot 9 and as he understands it, that street won't be constructed until or unless Lot 9 is developed. There are some off-site improvements as far as waterline extensions and drainage to be addressed and that will be approved as detailed plans and specifications are submitted for his approval. He advised that the street was renamed to "Merrill" Street. Chairman Jacks asked how much of the four tracts of land that they were asking for rezonings on was included in this subdivision. Mr. Hopper stated that this subdivision included all four tracts of land as well as more land. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to this. Tom Hopper stated that there are 12 proposed lots based upon the zoning of the area. Mr. Brigham stated that a public park in this area would be nice at some future date. He asked if it would be possible to hold back on such a large scale project until the City has come to a conclusion• -as to what they want the developers to provide in the way of parks and greenspace. Chairman Jacks advised that they have a greenspace ordinance having to do with residential property which requires .0125 acres for each single-family unit and .01 acres for each multi -family unit or money in lieu. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that a lot of Mr. Brigham's concerns are probably issues that should have been addressed years ago but they weren't. Now what we are faced with is a situation and the land out there is exactly suited for what Mr. Lindsey wants it for and we can't go back and change what has happened. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to approve the preliminary plat contingent on the Plat Review minutes, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. REZONING PETITION (►R89-6 ALTA INVESTMENTS INC. - 1728 MISSION BLVD The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition (#R89-6) submitted by Alta Investments Inc. and represented by J. D. Crouch for property located at 1728 Mission Boulevard containing 1.3 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-0, Residential -Office. z► • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 11 John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that he tried to hit on two points in his report: 1) the staff feels very strongly that any rezoning of property away from A-1 or the Residential zones needs to be looked at very carefully on Mission Boulevard. In this case, staff felt like it could support this rezoning for this single piece of property which is adjacent to the cemetery. He stated that they do feel that they can support it only with a Bill of Assurance that the property would only be used as a funeral home facility. Chairman Jacks stated that there has been a petition submitted with approximately 50 signatures on it from people in the neighborhood asking that this petition be denied for various reasons. Commissioner Hanna stated that Use Unit 12 which is allowed in R-0 is the use of funeral homes. He asked if that is something that has just been in Fayetteville or is this nationwide that you can put a funeral home in R-0 type zoning. It seems more commercial to him. Mr. Merrell stated that his personal exposure to zoning ordinances is such that funeral homes for whatever reason are often allowed in an R-0 type zone. Generally, they are a fairly low -impact commercial use in a residential area compared to many other types of commercial uses. The main impact is when a funeral is going on; at other times they are fairly quiet. Chairman Jacks advised that when the R-0 zone was set up in 1970, the R-0 zone was conceived to take care of rather dense development close to downtown. However, that really never developed. • The Public Hearing was opened. • J.D. Crouch, the General Manager of Fairview Memorial Gardens, submitted a copy of his proposal to each Planning Commissioner. He stated that he is planning to remove or tear down the existing office which is somewhat of an eyesore and replace it with a quality new structure. This new structure would house the funeral home and the office and he would be more than happy to agree to a Bill of Assurance that the property will only be used for a funeral home. He stated that the style of funeral home that he plans would certainly beautify the neighborhood and it would also extend a 65 year traditional of service to the community as well as expand that service. It would also provide a healthy competition for the funeral home industry which is especially good for the consumer. He added that they know some of the neighbors are wondering if this proposal would increase traffic in the area. In this instance, it shouldn't. When a service is held at Fairview, a funeral procession must proceed from the funeral home where the service is held to the cemetery. If there were a funeral home on this property then the service would be held and proceed directly to the gravesite thus eliminating the need to use the City streets for the procession. He noted that he didn't think there would be any additional traffic with people stopping by to make arrangements because the majority of the time their counselors will visit with the families in their own homes. Also, across the street from the cemetery is a convenience store (zoned C-1) which will point out the fact that he is not trying to set a precedence in the area. He is not trying to impose something new on the neighborhood. He stated that they have had a retail office at that location for twenty years. His proposal would be an expansion of the service they are already offering. • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Crouch stated that there is only 31' of frontage now on that piece of property and what they propose is to combine the existing cemetery entrance with the funeral home entrance by means of a permanent easement granted by the cemetery which would give them approximately 230' of street frontage to construct a paved entrance. Mr. Crouch advised that after consulting with four different real estate appraisers in the area (Larry Dowell, Howard Scott, Terry Sholtz and Lee Ward), they were all in agreement that since there is already a cemetery and retail office on the property, values would be unaffected. Two written opinions reflecting this have been submitted in the proposal. Commissioner Hanna stated that the plat Mr. Crouch has submitted in his proposal shows 5,800 square feet of proposed building and according to the ordinance he would have to have 116 parking spaces and he only shows 51 spaces. Mr. Crouch stated that he didn't know that his building would be quite that large. Chairman Jacks asked for a show of hands in the audience of people who are in opposition to this petition. Nine to twelve people raised there hands. Mark Davis of 1709 Mission stated that he has four main points that he would like to bring up about why they shouldn't do this: 1) This is a predominantly R-1 neighborhood near a school and it would be tragic if this turned into a commercial area being rezoned., 2) If this is changed to what amounts to a commercial business, then someone else is going to want to do it., 3) The traffic is going to increase no matter how you look at it., 4) Homeowner property values are going to go down if this is rezoned for a business. He stated that Fayetteville does need solidly residential neighborhoods without business mixed in. Winston Sloan of 1807 Viewpoint Drive stated that the Planning Commission has held pretty strongly to keep this area an R-1 neighborhood in the past He added that the traffic may not get any worse but it will not get any less if this were put in. He advised that his primary objection is the traffic flow there. Patty Riddle of 1702 Mission Boulevard stated that their neighborhood has relative freedom from business congestion and they would like to keep it that way. Already there is too much traffic. The neighborhood is general is acclimated respectfully to the idea of a cemetery but a funeral home is totally out of the question. Children cross at a crosswalk right in front of the cemetery and they don't need to endanger their safety anymore that it already is. She stated that she had been told that a funeral home in the neighborhood would decrease the value of her property. Mr. Crouch stated that this is a service-oriented type business and he would be willing to work with the neighborhood as far as privacy fences and landscaping. Ray Adams of Forrest Avenue stated that he had lived in this school district since 1906 and he feels that this would enhance the entrance at the cemetery and his only interest in this is the attractiveness of the City. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. • • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 13 Commissioner Seiff stated that Mr. Crouch is entitled to pursue his livelihood and it is not in the Planning Commission's power to stop him. He noted that he agrees that the traffic may be less severe if indeed the cemetery is next to the sales office and the funeral processions would originate at the funeral home and stay on private property. However, the indicated square footage proposed would require twice as much parking as shown. He quoted two laws that have been sited in the state: In 1982 "McMinn vs. City of Little Rock" and in 1966 "Downs vs. City of Little Rock" which both state that the feelings of the residents in the neighborhood with reference to the approval or disapproval of the request for rezoning as the legitimate factor to be considered. They also have a petition with 50 signatures opposing this which indicates that the residents overwhelmingly do not favor this. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend denial of the rezoning petition as submitted, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Allred asked if this were approved, wouldn't they still have to meet all parking regulations that are required. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, if the rezoning were approved and Mr. Crouch obtained a building permit to build a funeral home, his required amount of off-street parking must be provided according to the square footage of the building which is governed by the zoning ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that there are no plans to make Mission Boulevard into a four -lane -highway at this time that he is aware of. Commissioner Hanna advised that they have turned down R-0 zoning on the property directly to the East of this within two years that he knows of. He stated that he doesn't think that this is a good location for a funeral home. The motion to recommend denial of this rezoning petition passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised that Mr. Crouch can appeal this to the City Board of Directors. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HEMINGWAY RIDGE SUBDIVISION - PHASE I ROCK REED - N OF STUBBLEFIELD, W OF OLD MISSOURI RD The seventh item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Hemingway Ridge Subdivision -Phase I submitted by Rock Reed and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates. Property located north of Stubblefield Road and west of Old Missouri Road with 18 proposed lots, containing 4.90 acres and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn stated that they submitted with their plat an indication of future phases of this subdivision which show this street tying back into the subdivision to the West, Yorktowne Square, as well as a street going out to Old Missouri Road further to the North. This would be a temporary cul-de-sac which is 800' long. Stubblefield Road is a narrow road with a lot of traffic and this will increase Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 14 • the traffic on Stubblefield Road. Right now the City will receive within three or four weeks proposals for engineering on Stubblefield Road to improve it from Old Missouri Road back around to Harold Street. Along with that would be drainage improvements along Stubblefield and along that creek from Stubblefield north to Mudd Creek which will be included in the engineering study that will be done this year. They would hope to include the construction in the 1990 Capital Improvement Program. He advised that it is the staff's recommendation that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review minutes and to a Bill of Assurance on improvements along Stubblefield. • Chairman Jacks asked if he was recommending a waiver of the length of the temporary cul-de-sac. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, from 500' to 800'. Chairman Jacks asked if they had resolved the name of the street question. Dave Jorgensen stated that they have an alternative name chosen but they haven't submitted it yet. Mr. Jorgensen passed out a copy of the proposed concept plan which shows that they plan to develop the property directly to the North which would wrap around the north side of Yorktowne Square and would border the property to the West which would be Summerhill Addition. On the north would be the Lindsey property that was discussed earlier and on the east would be Old Missouri Road. He explained that this is the first Phase, the second Phase would tie into the backside of Yorktowne Square or the Phase that turns on to Old Missouri Road in the interest of access. He advised that the developer understands that the condition of approval of this preliminary plat would be the off-street improvements and the Bill of Assurance for the paying his fair share of the improvements along Stubblefield Road. Commissioner Springborn stated that the problem of the length of the cul-de-sac could easily be solved by reducing the extent of Phase I so that you would conform to the requirements. Mr. Jorgensen answered, yes, however taking into consideration the fact that the next Phase would tie the two together and eventually tie into Old Missouri Road and the fact that the length of the cul-de- sac isn't that much more than the maximum allowed. Chairman Jacks stated that the problem with the length of the cul-de-sac is that if anything every needs to cut the street, people can't get in or out and also it could be a problem for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Springborn stated that it seems to him with everything going on out there relative to street improvement and drainage improvement and the problems associated with too long a cul-de-sac that it wouldn't be putting much of a hardship on you to ask you to conform. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he sees what Commissioner Springborn is talking about, but the concept plat does tie the two streets together and the Planning Commission recently approved a cul-de-sac that is around 900' long on Mr. Tomlinson's project on the west side of town so they didn't feel like this particular length was that excessive to cause a problem. Commissioner Ozment asked if they stay within the guidelines of the length of the cul-de-sac, how many lots would they lose. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they would be losing six lots. • Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to this. Planning Commission February 27,1989 Page 15 Nancy Seiff asked if there were any plans for a sidewalk or a place for joggers along that road. Mr. Bunn stated that it should have a sidewalk but probably not a jogging trail. Commissioner Ozment asked if the developers on the recent subdivisions in there will share in the cost of reworking Stubblefield at whatever time it is budgeted. Chairman Jacks answered, yes, they sign a Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Seiff stated that the latest they have heard is that Stubblefield Road is going to be improved hopefully by 1990. He advised that he will vote against anything on Stubblefield Road until he sees that the City has in writing plans to improve Stubblefield Road. He noted that he lives off of Stubblefield Road and has been forced into the brush many times along Stubblefield Road because of its narrowness of the street. This has been going on for a long time. This started with Wade Bishop's development, across the street there is new private development, there is another development to the East that accesses on Stubblefield Road and this proposal that will access Stubblefield Road. Commissioner Hanna asked if they didn't approve this subdivision and the road is improved in 1990 and then these people come back in 1990 they wouldn't have to pay anything on the upgrading of Stubblefield Road. Mr. Bunn stated that he thinks that is correct. In other words, it would put more of the cost of the improvements on Stubblefield. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he agrees with Commissioner Seiff about this whole situation. Due to his discussion of the narrowness of the road, thankfully the improvements are being bumped up on the priority list. He stated that a big percentage of the improvements will be paid by the developers such that the City can improve this by 1990. He advised that he plans to submit a proposal and hopes to do the improvements on Stubblefield. Mr. Bunn stated that the construction on Stubblefield Road is in the Capital Improvement Plan which is contained in the 5 -year plan. Since the engineering is approved for this year, then construction would probably follow soon after that. He noted that he feels likes it is a priority. The City will do the construction whether or not anymore subdivisions develop along there but it will depend on is the sell of bonds in connection with the sales tax. The sell of the bonds will depend on the City Board and another vote of the people at some point in the future. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments and the Bill of Assurance for off-site improvements, and a waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac and to include a temporary turnaround, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Seiff and Nash voting "no". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 81 BRAUN'S ICE CREAM CO - W SIDE OF N COLLEGE, E OF VILLA ST The eighth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split 111 submitted by Braum's Ice Cream Company and represented by Terry Force. Property located on the west side of North College and east of Villa Street and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 23 • • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 16 Don Bunn stated that this is just north of the "Big Eight Tire Company" on North College and they propose to split this piece into two tracts with one containing .85 acres and one containing .4 acres. He noted that there is water, sewer and other utilities available to the lots. Staff recommends that the Lot Split be approved. Commissioner Hanna asked which lot they are proposing to put the Braum's Ice Cream on. Terry Force stated that they intend to put it on the tract containing the .85 acres (Tract A). Commissioner Hanna asked if there would be a back entrance off of Villa Boulevard as well as off of College. Mr. Force answered yes. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the Lot Split as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT it R. J. KEATING - LOT 5, RSPLAT OF BLK 2 OF COLT SQUARE The ninth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split 111 submitted by R.J. Keating for Lot 5 of the replat of Block 2 of Colt Square and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn stated that they propose to divide lot 5 of the replat of Block 2 of Colt Square into two tracts with one being .35 acres and the remaining tract being .45 acres. Staff's recommendation is that the lot split be granted. He advised that they have had several lot splits in this particular area. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the lot split as commented, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS- IAT SPLIT #3 RAY ADAMS - 5869 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The tenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #3 submitted by Ray Adams for property located at 5869 East Huntsville Road zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT RAY ADAMS - 5869 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The eleventh item was a conditional use request for a tandem lot in connection with the lot split application submitted by Ray Adams for property located at 5869 East Huntsville Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn stated that this item and the next will tie together. This split will create a tandem lot. Tract C is the piece being split off and contains .34 acres and the remaining Tract will be approximately 3.68 acres. There is a 35' access • • Planning Commission February 27, 1989 Page 17 easement that will be dedicated for access to the Tract C. Tract B does have the required frontage on Huntsville Road so it is a legal lot. Therefore, Tract C is the tandem lot. Chairman Jacks advised that the primary reason for the tandem lot ordinance was for property on a hillside or something that you couldn't get to very well and develop otherwise. Mr. Bunn stated that they attempted to divide the lot so that each lot would be legal but there simply wasn't enough frontage in an R-1 zone. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant this lot split and the tandem lot conditional use as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion to grant the lot split and the tandem lot passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION OF REZONING CRITERIA The fourteenth item on the agenda was a discussion of rezoning criteria. Chairman Jacks stated that he had given all the Commissioners a copy of a memo that was sent to Sandra Carlisle from Jim McCord, the City Attorney, on January 24, 1986 which discussed Rezoning Criteria. He advised that when they disapprove a rezoning request, they legally need to provide a reason for disapproval in writing to the petitioner which would take the form of the minutes of the meeting. He read excerpts of the memo to the Planning Commissioners. He advised that it discusses purposes of zoning and the City cannot amend merely to give greater economic gain to the owner, etc. He advisedahat_this will give them guidance when reviewing rezoning petitions. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS The last item on the agenda was the appointment of Committee members. Chairman Jacks advised that for the Subdivision Committee members will include Julie Nash as chairperson, J.E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn and David Ozment. The Elderly Committee will continue with Fred Hanna as chairman. The Landscape Committee will include Gerald Klingaman as the chairman, Nash and Allred as members. OTHER BUSINESS John Merrell advised that the meeting with Al Raby, Planning Consultant is set for March 8, 1989 at 12:00 noon. He asked the Commissioners to read the packet that has been given to them from Al Raby. MINUSES The minutes of the regular meeting of February 13th, 1989 were approved as distributed. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.