Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, August 28, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Gerald Rlingaman, Julie Nash and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: J. David Ozment OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1989 were approved as distributed with one correction on page 12 under "Other Business". The third line should read "to select a consultant to conduct,a study of.Dickson Street in relationship to downtown." PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST R89-23 DON WARD - 2015 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The second item on the agenda was a rezoning request R89-23 submitted by Don Ward for property located at 2015 Huntsville Road containing one acre. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that he hasn't had a chance to look into this request very much because he just returned from vacation. He noted that as he understands it, this property consists of actually two pieces of property that equal one acre. The Land Use Plan for the subsequent property is Medium Density Residential and the Land Use Plan designation across the street is Commercial Services. He added that this is an area of Huntsville Road that still retains some aspects of a viable residential area. On the other hand, there are some businesses and some commercial zoning that have gone into this area. He advised that the staff hasn't really had time, due to his vacation, to sufficiently study this to give a recommendation. He is concerned about the hodgepodge of zoning districts in this area. The most recent rezoning in this general vicinity was the Ferguson rezoning which is a little to the East of this property on the north side of the road. The staff's understanding is that Mr. Ward proposes to use the existing house on the property as a real estate office. Commissioner Seiff asked the Planning Director if he felt he needed more time to review this. Mr. Merrell stated that ideally he would need more time, but he wouldn't want to hold up the applicant. Oui Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 2 The Public Hearing was opened and Don Ward stated that the traffic in this neighborhood is very bad, so it doesn't make an ideal place for residential. There is a lot of R-2 property in this area and C-1 just up the street. Eventually, this strip will be all businesses and such. He noted that what he proposes is real compatible with the zoning around him. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Ward if he plans to continue living in the house. Mr. Ward stated that at the present he plans to and he plans to put a real estate agency in the house. It will only be a part-time brokerage situation to start with and consequently, 95% of the business will be done on the phone from the office in the back of the house. He noted that the empty lot was to the West of him. Chairman Jacks wanted to remind the Commission that there has been ample evidence of what happens when a rezoning is approved for a particular situation. If they approve an R-0 zoning, anything allowed in the R-0 district can happen without any further questions. Roger Curtis who owns 90 feet directly south on Lee Street stated that he did own 180 feet but he sold an empty lot to his sister-in-law and she is planning to build a house there. It will be directly south of the property on Lee Street. Mr. Curtis' house would be north on Lee Street. Mr. Curtis stated that he had lived in this town for 45 years and that if he were going to sell real estate out of his house, he would just put up a sign and do it. There are things operating out of houses all over town that don't call for rezoning. He questioned why they should rezone this land for a part-time situation. Mr. Curtis stated that they live in a neighborhood where houses range from $35,000 to $45,000 and anything that would bring down the property value would be objected to by the whole neighborhood. He asked if Mr. Ward had to specify what he was going to do with the land. Chairman Jacks advised that he does not have to specify with a rezoning. In light of that, Mr. Curtis stated he was prepared to get a petition and be represented by a lawyer to stop anything that would deteriorate the value of the property. He added that wasn't aware of all of his options, but he was prepared to carry it to the limit to protect his property unless Mr. Ward can specify what he is going to do with the property. Mr. Curtis asked what comes under the R-0, residential office zoning. Mr. Merrell, Planning Director, stated that there are several non-residential uses that can be allowed in the R-0 zone. Chairman Jacks stated that a person doesn't have to specify what he plans to do with the property. Some of the others you spoke about probably came through as home occupations in which case they do have to specify. Mr. Merrell stated that the R-0 allows for certain medical offices, insurance sales, teaching of the fine or liberal arts, photography studios, welfare agencies, architect, engineer, attorney, accountant, business consultant, realtor, broker, interior decorator, veterinary clinic, out-patient clinic and there are several other similar uses to these that are allowed in that zone. • • • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 3 Restaurants are included and more public kinds of operations. Mr. Curtis asked if there was anything in the zoning like rent housing such as apartment complexes. Commissioner Hanna stated that there are other residential uses that are in that zone such as single family dwellings and duplexes. The property could be used to build rental property. Mr. Merrell said he was becoming increasingly reluctant to recommend bills of assurance from an individual if it's a bill of assurance to do some on sight improvement. It has just become an administrative nightmare. He noted that he did not have that reluctance to a bill of assurance to not do something He stated that as the other commissioners knew, on occasion, further down the road the City Board will occasionally approve the re -zoning if the applicant offers a bill of assurance to only use the property in a certain way. For example, only using it as a real estate business which offers a certain amount of protection to the neighborhood. Then he can't just go in and do anything that is allowed in that district. Chairman Jacks stated that this was not really appropriate at this point, but that the Bill of Assurance situation should be discussed. There are cases where there seems to be no other answer. Commissioner Seiff stated he wanted to comment a little bit more on this -Bill of Assurance. Chairman Jacks if there wasn't a better forum for that? Commissioner Seiff agreed. Chairman Jacks advised that a Bill of Assurance should be discussed as a separate item. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Curtis would be opposed to it if the applicant could only use it as a real estate office. Mr. Curtis stated no. He is only opposed to multi -housing development. The neighborhood in which he lives is mostly retired people. It's quiet. You don't have people running up and down the street and there are several elderly ladies who live there and with any multi -housing there would be children running and the neighborhood is all against it. Chairman Jacks asked if he offered a Bill of Assurance that he would use it only for real estate office or single family residence, then would he still be opposed. Mr. Curtis replied he would not be opposed. Commissioner Seiff stated that this was his point, if Mr. Ward gives that Bill of Assurance and then he sells the property 3 months later would the conditional use go with the property or is the new owner at liberty to do any type of other use allowed by R-0? Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 4 Mr. Rose, the City Attorney, stated that it was difficult to enforce. He stated that they should run with the land but that they were difficult to enforce. Commissioner Nash stated that a couple of years ago they were advised that that would be contract zoning if the use for the land was specified. She stated they were advised not to even entertain it. Her question was where they stood on that now. Commissioner Merrell stated that was his understanding. He said the City cannot say, " Mr. Ward, we will rezone this property provided you offer this Bill of Assurance." It has to be offered voluntarily by the applicant. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Ward would like to offer any further comment in favor of the proposal. Mr. Ward said that he didn't mean to offend anyone or anything in the manner in which he conducted his application for rezoning. He noted that he knows that when he was a kid possibly you would go around and ask neighbors their opinion, but he thought we had graduated to the point that City business was conducted by making application for rezoning, posting the sign and sending out letters to the adjoining property owners just as a matter of convenience so that people can get together and talk things over. He added that R-2 zoning which allows multi- family housing all around him, what difference would it make on this piece of property. There is a Liquor store down on the parking area of -the shopping center and Mexican Original there that makes noise all night long. The problem that he has with the opposition here is that he will not conduct any kind of business in a neighborhood where I wouldn't live right next door to it. He stated that he would not allow anything that he has anything to do with to disturb neighbors in any way. He advised that he doesn't really see the connection here of rezoning this to just straight R-0 which would allow offices on it. The residential area that Mr. Lewis is speaking of is Lee Street down off of Huntsville Road. Huntsville Road is fast changing from residential to drive-thru, retail, and what have you. Commissioner Nash stated that in the agenda packet the property is identified as Tract A as 4/10th of an acre and Tract B as 6/10th of an acre. Mr. Ward stated that it is two tracts. Commissioner Nash stated if he planned to work on one of these tracts and live on the other one would he need both of them rezoned. Mr. Ward stated that his thinking is that it's erroneous to think that he meant to rezone it R-0 and strictly work out of that house for the real estate office. That is the intention to begin with because he is fully employed elsewhere. He advised that unless you are an associate broker, the real estate law does not allow you to hire sales people. You can be a broker part-time. He stated he doesn't think it is an unreasonable request to ask for both of them on the basis of the C-1 and the doctor offices and such nearby. This would create no traffic anywhere except people stopping on Huntsville Road no matter what he put in there in the way of business or offices. He added that if he were down on Lee Street and wanting this, that's a different story, but his property is on Huntsville Road, a much traveled street. The fact is it is the main arterial connection • • • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 5 on the front page of our City map for the year 2010 connecting the present west By -Pass and the proposed east by-pass. Right in front of this little house will probably be a four-laned street in twenty years. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed and opened to the Planning Commissioners for comments. Commissioner Allred stated that it seems like in the past two or three years, we have had a number of rezoning requests out there. He asked if there was anyway they could get staff's opinion of that whole area as to what they need to be doing out there to clean up some of the hodge-podge. He noted that he would be in favor of tabling this until they can get some good staff recommendations on what to do in that entire area MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table this until the Commission could receive a staff recommendation on the area, seconded by Commissioner Springborn. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Seiff voting "no". Mr. Merrell stated that he would try to have the staff's recommendation by the next meeting. Commissioner Klingaman suggested that the procedure for re -hearing this be gone over. He asked if they would have to bring it up themselves. Commissioner Jacks stated that it would appear on the agenda when the study has been done and they will simply bring it off the table. They have to vote to bring it off the table. Commissioner Jacks asked Mr. Ward if he understood what was going on. The request was tabled and a study is expected at the next meeting and it very well could come off the table at the next meeting which will be September 11. Commissioner Jacks asked that a copy of the agenda where it appears be sent to Mr. Curtis since he spoke here. PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING PETITION #R89-24 JAMIE JONES - 1654 E ZION RD The third item on the agenda was a rezoning petition 1R89-24 submitted by Jamie Jones for property located 1654 E. Zion Road and containing 1.06 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell stated that he was unable to study this very closely because he just returned from vacation. However, it is his understanding that the applicant desires to build an addition onto the existing house on this property. The property is presently zoned A-1 which requires a 35' front yard building setback and this house is setback about 27' from the front property line. Therefore,. • • • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 6 it is nonconforming. In order to accomplish the addition to the house, he will need and R-1 rezoning. The only other option would be to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. The Commission requested a study of Zion Road which the staff has been working on and have almost completed. He noted that he did go out and look at this in the context of the work they have been doing on the Zion Road study. He advised that he feels the staff can support this particular rezoning. He added that he envisions that with the Zion Road study, they will be recommending a lower density zoning such as R-1 along the north side of Zion Road. This is another situation where they seem to be evolving into another hodgepodge of zoning districts and Zion Road is a rather small and narrow road which carries a fairly significant amount of traffic. Obviously, if the density of development is increased out there, it will have a fairly significant impact on Zion Road. This is in conformance with the Land Use Plan and staff recommends that the Commission approve this rezoning petition. The public hearing was opened. Jamie Jones, petitioner, stated that the addition he proposes is just an 8' x 10' extension of what was an old porch and is now part of the living to permit them to have a door in the west room which has no access now except through another bedroom. This request would make the present dwelling more conformable to City Code since they are already too close to Zion Road for the A-1 zoning. There being no opposition, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the request to rezone this property from A- 1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FAYEITEVILLE R V PARK LEE & RAY {ILLKM - 2306 S SCHOOL The fourth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan submitted by Lee & Ray Willkie for property located at 2306 South School and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and containing 2.04 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is located on the east side of Highway 71 South just north of 24th Street. They are proposing 13 R.V. spaces within that area. There is an existing pond on the site which is the remains of a catfishing place that went in a few years ago. He added that they had considered that fact that R.V.'s were a lot like mobile homes and a mobile home park would not work in this area because of the size. What the staff is recommending is approval as a large recreation site in a C-2 zone. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that his initial reaction was to consider this as a mobile home park. There aren't any R.V. parks inside the City Limits of Fayetteville to his knowledge. After meeting with the Willkie's • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 7 and discussing this with them in some detail, it became apparent to him that it might be a little bit severe for the staff to review this strictly as a mobile home park. What they are proposing is an R.V. park where people would only stay for a short period of time to fish in the lake, etc. He noted that ane recommendation that the staff is making is to require as the zoning ordinance states that all the off-street parking being "dustless and durable". The staff would like to see the loop -road paved although it may be a little much to ask for the actual R.V. spaces to be paved. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is a little bit hard-pressed to find anything in the ordinance that covers R.V. parks. Mr. Merrell stated that there is really nothing that adequately addresses this in the present ordinance. Commissioner Springborn advised that he got into this matter of mobile and trailer court some time back and at that point proposed some changes subject to review by the then City Attorney. He noted that under definitions, there is mobile and trailer court lumped together and defined as one. Going on down in the same definitions, there is a definition of the travel trailer as it is included with the mobile and trailer court. It is defined as a "vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel and recreational purposes." He added that this definition at that time was intended to cover both. If they accept those definitions and then refer to the mobile home court, the minimum area is not satisfied here. He advised that at the time he brought this up to the Commission, the matter was tabled waiting for a legal opinion on it and haven't received one yet. Commissioner Klingaman stated that one concern he had about the loop road is that it is going to take out a lot of the trees. To him it looks like a gravel road through there would be a lot less destructive through there to the existing trees. He asked Mr. Merrell how he felt a trade-off would be about saving the trees and not having a dust -free road. Mr. Merrell stated that they should perhaps consider that. He noted that staff would probably support a gravel road in there provided that the road is constructed well to standards that can be approved by the engineering staff in an effort to preserve as many of the trees and vegetation on the property. There could be a middle ground between doing it as a mud road and a paved road. One other thing that the staff would like to recommend is if this is approved a proviso be put in the Planning Commission's recommendation that individuals would only be allowed to camp here for a certain amount of time; two weeks is fairly common. That would keep it from evolving into a Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Allred stated that regarding the loop -road, the ordinance is set up to keep the dust down to a minimum. He asked what the staff's opinion would be if the spaces that front on the road be paved up to that point and then the other area gravel. Mr. Merrell noted that it is a possible alternative. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the plans for a dump station here. Commissioner Seiff stated that he understands that each individual site would have it's own sewer connection. • • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 8 Commissioner Nash advised that the Subdivision Committee didn't approve or deny this, but sent it on to the Planning Commission strictly because there isn't an ordinance that addresses an R.V. park. The motion recommended that the Planning Commission undertake to get further guidance on this from either staff or the Board. Don Bunn advised that there is a sewer hook-up planned for each space so there isn't going to be a need for a dump station. Ray Willkie stated that they plan to put in a first class park with electricity, water, television cable and sewer connections with laundry and bathroom facilities with showers. Chairman Jacks stated that he wasn't sure if the Planning Commission would have the authority to waive the "durable and dustless" requirement. He added that it would be required unless it were waived. Mr. Willkie stated that it has a 24' paved entrance but they were hoping to put gravel the rest of the way around. Commissioner Allred asked if there would be additional spaces added later on. Mr. Willkie stated that they would hope to add a few more additional spaces as they go with maybe 16 to 18 at the most. There being no opposition, it was opened to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Springborn stated that he has some concern with moving ahead on this because of the ambiguity in the ordinance. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this and request a legal opinion as to how to handle it, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion tied 4-4-0 with Cleghorn, Springborn, Jacks & Nash voting "yes" and Allred, Klingaman, Seiff and Hanna voting "no". Therefore, the motion did not carry. Commissioner Hanna stated that he feels Fayetteville needs an R.V. park and most of these vehicles are self-contained. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve this large scale development with the provisions that they limit the stay to a maximum of two weeks and that the driveway in front of where the recreational vehicles will be parked with the spaces paved and the rest of the drive around by the pond be improved gravel and to Subdivision Committee comments, seconded to Seiff. Chairman Jacks clarified that Hanna's motion included a waiver of all the parking except that in front of, facing onto the thirteen spaces. Commissioner Hanna stated that if they add anymore they will have to come back through the large • • • Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 9 scale development process. Commissioner Seiff stated that he would like to support this because of the lack of any anti -sentiment from the audience with no neighbors here to oppose it. Commissioner Allred stated that this is an excellent use of this land. He suggested to clarify this paving is as a addendum to his motion is that any additional spaces would have to be paved in front of that unit. Commissioner Springborn asked for clarification on what part of the ordinance they are acting under in approving this. Mr. Merrell stated that the commercial recreation large sites is use unit 20 and it allows uses such as amusement park, drag strip & drive-in theatres, etc. This is a use by right in the C-2 zoning district. What they are proposing is a lot less intense than some other uses that would be allowed the use unit 20. Chairman Jacks noted that there needs to be some more specific provision but there isn't one right now. Commissioner Nash stated that she would like to point out that there is one more option that they haven't considered is to send this with no recommendation to the Board of Directors. The motion passed 8-0-0 to approve this large scale development. CONCEPT PLAT OF FERGUSON ADDITION FRANCIS FERGUSON - S OF OLD WIRE, W OF CROSSOVER RD The fifth item of business is a concept plat for the Ferguson Addition submitted by Francis Ferguson and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers. Property is located south of Old Wire and west of Crossover. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is a concept plat of Ferguson Addition which consists of 27 lots located on 18 acres and the development is being presented to the staff and to the Planning Commission to determine the feasibility of continuing with the project. Much of the area in the subdivision is located within the 100 year flood plan. There are 13 lots that will have access to Highway 265 and Lots 6-11 are mostly in the flood plain in that section. The other section of the subdivision will be at the end of the east end of Magnolia Drive and lots 7-14 are mainly within the flood plain. There were some problems with the easements that the other utilities noted because of the existence of the flood plain, but it appears that those problems can be worked out. The staff feels that this subdivision is a marginal one because of the extensive development within the flood plain. Staff feels that this development should be discouraged by the Planning Commission and that's the recommendation. However, it should be noted that under the City's subdivision regulations this Planning Commission August 28,1 1989 Page 10 subdivision could possibly be approved as meeting the subdivision regulations although it might not meet the intent of the regulations. Chairman Jacks asked if under the present ordinance, development could take place in the 100 year flood plain? Mr. Bunn stated that it had to be built up so that the structures are out of the flood plain. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the 100 year flood plain was based on a site before any development or after all the drives and routes had been added? Mr. Bunn stated that the 100 year flood plain comes from the FEMA flood maps that are available in the Inspections Office and developed by the Corp of Engineers. He noted that he thought they are before any development although it's probably fair to say that it depends more on development up -stream from this development rather than the development of this property itself. Commissioner Hanna asked if this was Mudd Creek that runs down through the development. Mr. Bunn stated that he thought it was a tributary to Mudd Creek. Chairman Jacks asked if there was a report from the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Nash said they did look at this but did not vote. She stated that she thought Mr. Bunn had covered their discussion. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Bunn about the transportation study. He asked for an interpretation of the study. Mr. Bunn stated that the Traffic Superintendent, Mr. Franklin, has a trip generation program that he uses and he would have to explain it to them. Chairman Jacks advised that they put that as an item on the next agenda to let Perry Franklin come and explain the trip generation reports. Harry Gray, proponent who is representing the owner, stated that there had been a lot of development in the flood plain in Fayetteville and he had some documents for additional reference. He explained that they had presented this as a Concept Plat because there are some unique problems with it. The first consideration would be the zoning. The property is now zoned A-1 and would require an R-1 zoning. The existing zoning to the North, West, and South is R-1. Mr. Gray noted that this probably needs to be considered separately with access from Crossover Road on one side and access from Magnolia on the other. Block 2 could be submitted, if it had the proper zoning, as a preliminary plat and would meet all requirements. The street is less than the 500 foot maximum and the location at the intersection is on the outside of the curve. There is sight distance of at least 800 feet to the south and probably a quarter of a mile to the north. Planning Commission would be hard pressed to turn it down. Mr. Gray stated the flood ordinance does allow for development in the flood plain and in fact it outlines what has to be done before a subdivision is to be built in the flood plain. Chairman Jacks advised that originally they had a flood zone, an F-1 zone. Mr. Gray handed out information to the Planning Commissioners on the flood plain Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 11 regulations. In the ordinance it states that the State passes this on to the City. The City could have made these regulations more stringent but they adopted them as they are in this study. In most cases, the designated floodway could be filled up and based on their studies, you wouldn't be raising it quite a foot. Basically one foot is the limit. Mr. Gray referred to the A. W. Realty property where they channelized the creek and reclaimed most of the land. Looking at these maps, you can see from an economic standpoint why it is desireable to reclaim this land. In the area of Appleby Road and the by-pass, the a substantial portion of the Appleby Apartments is in the flood plain. The trailer court to the north of Appleby is in the flood plain. Then as you go north of the by-pass, a portion of the Johnson Road subdivision is in the floodplain. Chairman Jacks asked if what Mr. Gray was telling them was that there were a proven number of developments in the flood plain. Mr. Gray answered there was a substantial number of developments and there is no problem from a flooding standpoint. That is what the guidelines were set up for is to establish where you can fill and how much you can fill without creating dangerous conditions. Mr. Gray stated there would be a large buffer zone between this project and Cedarwood Addition. Chairman Jacks said that what Mr. Gray was telling the Planning Commission is that all this discussion is directed at telling them that he would propose to do this in accordance with the subdivision regulations and flood regulations. Mr. Gray explained that the regulations outline what all has to be prepared by the engineer to develop in the flood plain. Gray stated that he would like the Commission to consider them extending on across the street and include that which is the least timbered area. He asked if there were any recommendations on the lot lines. Chairman Jacks noted that the subdivision regulations do say that the Planning Commission may refuse development on steep grades, unstable soil, and flood plains should they chose to do so. Lois Fordyce of 2737 Wakefield Place whose property adjoins the proposed subdivision site from the south stated that she had three points to make. First, she stated that they are a bit puzzled by the 100 year flood line that was displayed on one of the maps because it is quite different from the one they have on the plats that were given to them when they bought their lots. She said that they don't know anything about the Magnolia area. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Bunn if, when a plat comes in, the staff checks the location of the flood plain? Mr. Bunn said generally the Inspection Office handles the flood plain portion of the development in determining where the flood plain is and the accuracy . Usually they deal with the developer and the Corp of Engineers in development within the flood plain. Mrs. Fordyce stated that her second point is that they had a civil engineer, David Greer, who is retired after many years in a consulting firm in New Jersey, out to look over the area behind their houses. She stated it is very difficult • • Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 12 to get in there and quite dangerous because there is so much debris back there. Huge slabs of concrete and big garage doors and all kinds of things are back there. Mr. Greer said that there is no way that you could find out whether this would be a wise plan or an unwise plan until a good topographical map is made of the area. He said that would be an expensive and quite lengthy process and that in the process of this a number of the trees would have to be destroyed because they would have to survey it. Mrs. Fordyce stated her third point was that in the opinion of those who live there, this is impossible because this is quite a steep area that goes down to the flood plain and there is a tremendous amount of drainage that goes down in there. It seems to them that particular area, at least, is a very poor bet and the Civil Engineer said that the drainage problems would be terrible. Mr. Robert Barger of 2560 Ferguson Avenue stated that this being a concept, he thought it had been presented as a bill of goods because he doesn't think it will ever fly. Lots of water comes down the hill with a 3 inch rain. He presented pictures that illustrated this point. The amount of traffic that is going to be created is going to be bad. Mr. Barger stated that another thing to consider is the flood insurance that has to be obtained by the owner from the Federal government. He said no one had mentioned that as of yet and he didn't find out about it until closing on his property at 2560 Ferguson Avenue. He said that was an important thing to be considered because dealing with the Federal Government was a little tough. Dave Tackett of 2800 Old Wire Road stated that his property comes from Old Wire Road down to the cul-de-sac at Magnolia, where Magnolia ends. His property is right in the corner. He has probably 4 vacant acres there that is undeveloped and his situation is that he is blocked in and if the subdivision comes in, he would need an access into the subdivision so that he could have access into his property. He will need an easement from the new development area into Old Wire Road. Mr. Tackett had a question about the sewage. He said he knew everyone was aware of the problem with the odors in that area and he wanted to know if the new development would create additional problems for them in that area. The City Engineer, Mr. Bunn, stated that he didn't think there would be any significant change in whatever the situation was as it exists right now. Reginald Houser of 2686 Ferguson stated that he concurred with the concerns mentioned and wanted to thank the City Engineer for discouraging this. He stated that he was in opposition to this and thanked the Commission for listening. Rita Dunkelburger of 2725 Wakefield Place stated that stated that the area along Ferguson Street and Wakefield Place is a watershed area and there is a natural spring coming through there. She said they live in a valley and they also get run off from the East Oaks Subdivision. If the new subdivision proposal passes, it would put their homes in serious jeopardy. Cutting down the trees would worsen the soil erosion that is already bad. She said they need every tree on that property and if the land is built up the trees would die. She submitted pictures of the trees and the water shed problem Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 13 Mrs. Dunkelburger said her last point was that they did not want potential problems to exists. She and all her neighbors do not want to take the risk. Shay Lastra of 2753 Wakefield Place stated that according to the plat they were given when they bought their property much more of the area would be considered to be in the flood plain of the new proposed subdivision behind Wakefield Place than what has been proposed on this plat. If this is developed, he soil erosion against the banks in that area would increase and the properties that supposedly would be in the flood zone that homes would be built on, would be eroding. She said that property was used as a dumping ground for years until two or three years ago when it was stopped which would all have to be transported to dump sites. Mrs. Lastra submitted some pictures showing a curve on Crossover and stated that there is a creek there which has dense fog half the year. She had a petition signed by those people who support what she and the others in the neighborhood have said. Mr. Gray stated that there were a couple of things he wanted to explain to everybody. He said that one reason this was presented as a concept plat is because it will take an extensive study to exactly establish where the 100 Year Flood Plain is and how much fill will have to be placed. He noted that this was taken off the City Contour Maps. They have been blown up and he thinks they are fairly close. He said they would be developing downstream so no easements should be needed. If this were approved, the City would want a mayor drainage easement for Mudd Creek tributary. Mr. Gray stated that there were minimum standards that are required in order for the citizens to qualify for flood insurance and they would have to meet these requirements. Chairman Jacks stated that they had a petition in opposition with the undersigned asking the Planning Commission and the City to consider excluding the area behind those lots of Cedarwood Addition 15, 16, 17, and 18 lying North of Cedarwood and leaving the area undisturbed as a semi- wildlife green space. People on the aforementioned lots assured before purchase that this area is a flood plain under control of the Federal government and could never be built on. Betty Bolte of 2680 Ferguson, Lot 10 in Cedarwood stated that several years back there was a pretty bad rain that flooded from the downtown area down and at that time Ferguson Avenue was covered with water. She was concerned that if this land was built up, it would slow down the drainage coming from downtown because a lot of the drainage comes from behind the school and also from right downtown in Fayetteville. Ms. Bolte also said that at this time there is a culvert that comes through by Lot 9 and the water cuts across if the rain is really heavy and makes its own tributary that goes down and around right at the edge of the flood plain and it comes in farther on down. She said debris is left all over from this water running through there. She said if there is a good rain, it sounds like roaring river in her backyard. Chairman Jacks asked that speakers not reiterate points that have already been Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 14 made but rather try to keep it to new evidence, new testimony. Dorothy MaGuire of 2672 Ferguson, Lot 119, adjacent to Betty Bolte stated that she has a 24 inch storm drain which runs down on the West side of her lot that does feed across the property between Mrs. Bolty's house and her house and that it has eroded about a foot and a half. She stated she had been in her house since May, 1988 and the water rises up to and above the bank and she would say that is almost 4 feet. She said there needs to be a very big consideration about the drain off down there. Karen Wolf of 2450 Magnolia Drive stated that her property was northwest of the proposed addition. She was concerned about the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Commissioner Nash said as the ordinance is written now, the owner of the land, Mr. Ferguson, could actually clear-cut it, fill it, and do pretty much anything he wanted with it beginning tomorrow as she understands it. Mr. Merrell said that would be his understanding as long as he complies with the various city ordinances and the flood plain regulations. Nash noted that what they are talking about is Mr. Gray's example, in her opinion, of the disaster on Joyce Street which has now become a precedent. She asked if it was correct that all they would vote on was the preliminary plat and the rezoning. Mr. Merrell said if they were to go forward with the project and send the money and prepare the documents and so forth then they can come back with a preliminary plat before the Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that by then, for instance, the land could already be clear cut and filled because that can be done before we vote on a rezoning or preliminary plat. Mr. Merrell said as far as the tree cutting is concerned, there is not a tree protection ordinance in Fayetteville and the owners can literally go in there and wipe out every tree on the whole tract of land whether they plan on building or not. He said that is true of not only this tract of land but any in the city. Chairman Jacks stated that he wanted to clarify one thing. He said that the Planning Commission has the right to refuse development in flood plains which is true according to ordinance. If that means he complies with the flood plain ordinance, which is to fill the property up to the required level and so forth that would be one matter, he wasn't totally sure. Reginald Houser of 2686 Ferguson stated he is all of the sudden real confused. He said he agreed that he could clear-cut his land, they're his trees and he has no problem; but he cannot fill up in that flood zone if it will affect my property. Mr. Bunn stated that if he plans to do anything within the flood plain, he has to deal with the Corp of Engineers in order to do a survey and do whatever work is necessary to prove that he is not raising the flood level by a foot. So, the answer is yes, he can clear cut it but, no, he cannot fill it without going through the proper channels. So, he couldn't do that tomorrow. He could cut the trees tomorrow and he could do it without asking us. He could do whatever is allowed within the flood plain without a development. He could do that without coming back to the Planning Commission. He would deal with the City Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 15 • staff and the Corp of Engineers. • • Mr. Gray stated that he wanted to further explain that it will take an extensive study like Mr. Greer said to establish exactly how much fill would have to be placed in there. The 100 year flood plain is established by elevation in this document here. He said what they would have to do is locate that on the ground but trying to run around right now through all those trees and cedars and everything with the leaves on, it would be a terribly expensive proposition. It would have to be done and then we would still have to come back with a preliminary plat. Chairman Jacks stated that they should have the right to develop their various properties as long as they don't increase a danger to another property. He said if someone does that and you could prove that person has indeed forced more natural drainage onto your property, then they would certainly have a good case for litigation. Mrs. MaGuire said she had a question on the sequence of events. She said this is a concept that has not been rezoned yet. It is still agricultural as far as she understood. So, in the sequence of events before any survey or anything can be done, wouldn't it have to be approved as a rezone first? Chairman Jacks clarified that a person has a right to do, in the absence of ordinances to the contrary, whatever he would like with his property, such as cut the trees, etc. except in the flood zone where before he does any filling activities, from what the City Engineer tells us, he would have to talk to the Corp of Engineers and they would have to approve it.. It doesn't come back to the City because we have no ordinances to control that. Commissioner Seiff stated that he has the right to survey. Chairman Jacks stated that he was not sure that this ordinance on grading, if it indeed were in place at this point, would protect this situation. Every owner has certain legal rights. Chairman Jacks said this item needed to be turned back over to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seiff stated that, first of all, this is certainly a concept as Chairman Jacks pointed out and in answer to the question about the steps. He said the first step is the concept and he would like to give his comments now. He commented that he feels that the Staff, first of all, has recommended to discourage the development of this area and he feels the same way. However, there is another violation that no one has brought up which is the cul-de-sac. It is somewhere around 900 feet from the end of the cul-de-sac where the radius of the cul-de-sac ends to the intersection of Azalea and Magnolia. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved that the Planning Commission discourage the continuation of this concept plat, seconded by Klingaman. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he would like to comment that this whole issue of flood plains needs to be looked at in light of the development that is Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 16 • in the area presently, not twenty years ago, or whenever it was basically just trees and grass. The motion passed 7-0-0 to discourage this development. • • CONDITIONAL USE - HOME OCCUPATION IN R-1 ZONE: CHILD CARE LINDA PUGH - 32 POPLAR STREET The tenth item was withdrawn by the staff until proof was submitted that the proper notification had been done per Code. CONDITIONAL USE - HOME OCCUPATION IN R-1 ZONE: COUNSELING OFFICE BETTY GARRETSON - 601 WILSON The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use for a home occupation ( Counseling Office) submitted by Betty Garretson for property located at 601 Wilson and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Commissioner Jacks asked if Ms. Garretson would like to come up and give more information about her request. Ms. Garretson stated that her profession was a counselor. She stated that she did have an office on the square, but she was also a student and a single parent. She noted that she did not feel comfortable in the building she was in at the back of the hallway at night and sometimes she has to practice at night. Due to these reasons she decided to move her office toherhome if she could get permission to have her business in her home. Ms. Garretson said she was licensed for individual and small group counseling. At this point she only has individuals, and since she is still in school and does have a graduate assistantship, she was assuming that her practice would not build rapidly or become large for awhile. Commissioner Jacks asked if anyone on the Planning Commission had a question for Ms. Garretson. Commissioner Allred asked what building she was located in on the square. Ms. Garretson stated that it was the old A. G. Edwards building. Commissioner Allred stated he needed to abstain from this item. Ms. Garretson was asked what kind of volume of clientele she was talking about and she stated that at this time she did not have any clients. The clients she had are not seeing her right now because she doesn't have the permission to practice in her home. She said at this point she would be lucky to have five a week. Commissioner Jacks asked if she were saying her practice would be limited by the fact that she was in school. Ms. Garretson said that was correct. She said it would be limited to the hours that she can coincide with the people who would want to come. Commissioner Jacks asked if she also had a request to be able to have her office open after 5:30. Ms. Garretson said yes, she did. • • • Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 17 Commissioner Jacks stated that he and probably all of the Commissioners had a copy of a letter written in opposition to this request from Mr. and Mrs. Hersh. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this request Mr. Hersh stated he was here in a personal capacity. He stated he lived about two houses down from the location on Wilson Street and that there is only one house on the corner of Wilson and Louise which is his house. Mr. Hersh stated that he took the opportunity to quickly jot down his first impressions and put it through in thoughts in his letter which was submitted a few days earlier so that he wouldn't take up much of the CoII Iissions time. Mr. Hersh said basically his thoughts were that he has a few serious concerns about this proposal. First concern was that they would be sending a signal to the community that the government is willing to tolerate or open the door to commercial encroachment to a very, very sensitive, stable core housing stock area close to the University which shelters very important green space and recreational area for the town. Mr Hersh stated that these were all older homes that require a lot of money to maintain. Mr. Hersh said that three houses down from this particular location Fayetteville's famous artist Mr. Wilson built a beautiful home with a studio several years ago. He stated that this was typical of how people had always invested their money in this area. Right now, he said, there is the incentive to spend twenty or thirty thousand dollars to do the tremendous work that is required to remodel homes andthat there were several of these projects going on right now. He said his neighbor had just finished spending a lot of money. There had been a lot of money spent on his home. He stated that if the City were to signal that it's willing to tolerate and open the door to this small commercial encroachment, he was afraid as a practical matter we will see the drying up of the funds and the incentive to go ahead with people who maintain this very, very vibrant and exciting and contributing neighborhood to the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Hersh said, as the Commission knew, this was a small neighborhood. He said they are bounded on the east by College, to the South is Maple, to the North is North Street, and then the University is to the West. Mr. Hersh stated that they have commercial development all around them. Dickson Street and the Walton Arts Festival or Center are to the South. Throughout the years, it has been kind of an unwritten contract between the town and this little neighborhood that there be no commercial development here. He noted that right now they were populated by a rich diversity of people. He said a lot of the college staff and faculty live in this neighborhood and they're engineers, lawyers, architects, archaeologists, as well as many, many student families. They maintain an open neighborhood for the community. They have the joggers, walkers, the children, the bicyclers, and the whole University community comes through their neighborhood everyday and utilizing their facilities. He advised that he shares the view that the most effective or efficient and the least expensive form of safety and security in a neighborhood like this is where you have stable, residential homes. People there maintaining the homes, watching the streets, providing this whole pervasive atmosphere of safety and security so that at any hour of the night you see the streets filled with the joggers and the walkers. Mr. Hersh stated that once you say "Well, let's let these houses be kind of Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 18 • offices, or home offices.", the next thing you know they're just 9 to 5 offices. • • Mr. Hersh said there are lots of areas in Fayetteville like on Block Street, north of the Square, and on School Street, and lots and lots of other areas where it was originally residential and now it is transitioned or transitioning into home offices, or small offices, small businesses. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hersh stated he felt it would be a real mistake, a real serious thing to take a delicate neighborhood like this, which exists in a real sensitive equilibrium with the University environment right next door and send the wrong signal to the community. If anything, he said, he thinks this application represents an opportunity for the staff and the City to re-evaluate the Wilson Park neighborhood and look at the contribution it makes to the community and reinforce the communities responsibility or commitment to maintain this real stable, high quality urban core housing stock area. He advised, on a micro level, he lives on Wilson Street, he knows what Wilson Street is like trying to negotiate the intersection of Wilson and Maple. There is a bad traffic pattern through here to Gregg and he had worked with Mr. Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, for a long time now. Everyone realizes that Wilson Street should not be utilized as a thoroughfare avenue, but it is. Mr. Hersh said there is no parking, of course, for this counseling service. Her location is right at the intersection of Ila and Wilson. Ila Street is marked no parking -tow zone this side. At three o'clock this afternoon, he said, there were cars parked all along the street, up and down the no parking -tow zone signs. Two blocks down, I maintain for the City parking on Louise by cutting and mowing all that grass and people park there all the time. He noted that he really doesn't want counseling service clients parked in front of his house all hours of the day and night. By the same token, he was a lawyer in real estate and he has a pretty good location so he guessed he could run a pretty good law office out of his house, two doors down the street. Then one thing would lead to another and he didn't think it was consistent with the character of the neighborhood or the desires of the residents. Mr. Hersh said he would ask that the City look at this thing on an overall level from all aspects and then make the best decision possible. Lyle Thompson, who lives at 412 Ila which is four houses down from Wilson, stated that he would like to speak against this in that neighborhood or any property in that neighborhood from its current residential use. He stated he had lived there 30 years and the community is adequately described by the gentleman that just preceded him. Incidentally, he said, this had nothing to do with the lady who is rather new in the community. He said she had lived there a couple of years or so and was a delightful member of the community; but he was speaking against the proposal. Mr. Thompson said Wilson had become almost a thoroughfare with traffic going north and south along the west edge of Wilson Park and it is kind of hard to get on it. He said there is no parking on Wilson Street. He said there is on Ila Street on one side, and of course, as people increase their number of cars, there is constantly almost filled with cars. In fact, he said, there are people who go to the University that will drive as far as Ila and then park. He said it is about as close as you can get to the University and park free. He stated that Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 19 when he drives, he normally has to drive home to find the nearest parking spot. Mr. Thompson said the counseling clients would probably have to park on Ila Street. She has a driveway that would handle two or three cars or something like that. He stated that the Phi Beta Kappa sorority is across the street from the location and they, each year, come back with more and more cars. He said at times they overflow and start parking on Ila Street too. He suggested that they not permit this request Commissioner Jacks said he would like to clarify that Ms. Garretson was not asking for rezoning but was asking for home occupation. Commissioner Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak. Ms. Garland Wheeler, who lives on the corner of Ila and Wilson, stated that 42 years ago they built their home in that residential section. She said they have enjoyed living there in that neighborhood. Wilson was not paved at that time, but she said they joined forces and paved their street. She said since the wonderful light on North Street has been installed, Wilson Street has become a thoroughfare, as was stated. She added that she has nothing against Garretson, but she reared a couple of children there and worked all the time. She noted that she hated to see a precedent set where offices can be installed in the homes because there is sort of a separation from the South by Maple Street and Ila Street. On the north side of Ila, in front of her house, is the only place to park because there are no -parking zones. She stated that she doesn't own the street, but she hated to see a precedent set to where offices can be opened in their neighborhood because they have had a wonderful, congenial, good neighbors. It's a nice neighborhood to live in and she has enjoyed it very much. Fred Stephen of 625 Wilson Street stated that he had very little to add to the comments that have been made except for the fact that he moved to that area because of the residential aspect of Wilson Park and the University. He also is concerned with setting a precedent and having home businesses being run there. He said he would just like to express his opposition to this specifically. Commissioner Jacks asked if anyone else would like to speak. Ms. Garretson stated that she appreciated what everyone had said and she wanted to make it clear to everyone that she too owns a house there. She said she had doubled the value of the property because she had remodeled it. She added that she can appreciate wanting a house in that neighborhood. She advised what she is trying to do is keep the house in that neighborhood and also start a business. She said she knew they understood her situation, and she understood theirs. She added that she also understood about the parking situation. She said actually 3 cars will fit in her yard and then probably 4 or 5 would fit in her driveway. Her understanding was that if the permission was granted and there was a complaint then she couldn't keep the business there. If, indeed, she did park in someone's place, and She advised that she didn't know if anyone would know there was a business there since she can't put a sign there. She said there are fewer cars there now since her kids were in college. Commissioner Springborn asked if she meant she had room for three cars on the driveway? Ms. Garretson said she had room for more than three cars on her driveway but that she would only see one client at a time. She said that actually her preference, if she see's a counselor, is to leave space between • • Planning Commission August 28, 1989 Page 20 the two so there would only be the one person there at the time. Mrs. Wheeler stated that Ms. Garretson mentioned that her business, of course, is new and hasn't built up. She added that she was not sure how many cars can fit in her driveway, but not many, and the only other alternative is for her clients to park in front of her house. There are time when her business builds up the parking would infringe on her part of Ila because she was the only one who had available spots. Commissioner Jacks asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Merrell commented that due to his vacation he had not had as much of a chance to look at this as he would have liked; however, he said the staff feeling is that due to the many questions regarding traffic, parking and also the balance of land use between the University area and the residential area are such that they simply cannot support this application. Commissioner Jacks opened the discussion to the Planning Commission for comment or motion. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to deny the application for home occupation in an R-1 zone as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Allred "abstaining" and Nash already gone home. OTHER BUSINESS There was a member of the audience who asked about an agenda item for a child care in an A-1 zone on Wedington Drive. She noted that she received a notice in the mail about it. The Planning Secretary explained that this item was an application for a home occupation in an A-1 zone for child care. Since a home occupation in A-1 is a use by right, this item was pulled from the agenda. She apologized and explained that she was under the impression that everyone had been notified to that affect. The audience member stated that she was opposed to a child care being allowed at that home. Chairman Jacks advised that home occupations are allowed by right in an A-1 zone. He asked that staff to look into it and see if they needed to review it on their next agenda. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.