Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 11, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: HEMMERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Jerry Allred, J. David Ozment, Jack Cleghorn, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Gerald &lingaman and Gerald Seiff J. E. Springborn and Julie Nash John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1989 were approved as distributed. REPORT FROM PERRY FRANKLIN, TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT ON TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES The first item on the agenda was a report from the Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin on the Traffic Impact Studies he has been doing all plats that come to the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission had asked for some information about how to read the traffic impact study reports. Perry Franklin advised that the ITE Trip Generation Report is a manual that is put out by the Institution of Transportation Engineers and is updated about every three or four years. This manual is a compilation of thousands of traffic studies that are made across the United States with several different types and sizes of land use. It is full of those tables which are used to come up with a conversion factor based on that type of land use that can be used to obtain a projection of traffic as a planning tool. He advised that he has a software program in his office that basically has that whole manual on a disk. The example that he has submitted is for the IBM building expansion. This software allows for many, many selections to provide a study. Depending on what selection is made, there are all kinds of variables that are considered with each different land use when determining the traffic counts to create these conversion factors. He noted that when he enters the square footage, for example, it goes through all the tables and conversion factors and multiplies the square footage by a factor based on the closest studies they have made on an office building. It comprises 300 or 400 traffic counts of different types of office buildings and it is an average of all of those counts. Then, it gives a report with the factor • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 2 used being an average rate of driveway volume with an average weekday, two-way volume. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Franklin if this was exclusive of local or area population. Mr. Franklin answered, yes, this does not include anything here locally that would affect those tables. He added that this is the closest they can get. Mr. Franklin stated that there is a selection in the software that could be used if he had some type of factor such as an increased truck count. For example, if they knew that this particular business was going to generate more trucks than the average business, you could adjust the factors for that to give you a number that would include truck traffic. Mr. Franklin further stated that in these studies, they also study when is the busiest time of the day (the peak hours). He advised that the thing that he needs to get across to them is that this software is based on a manual that is updated periodically. It is just accessing information that has been gathered across the nation based on different types of land uses so that the City of Fayetteville will have a tool to plan with as far as traffic count. Mr. Franklin stated that he will send them the summary page in the future that tells them what the average weekday 24 hour volume isat the 7 - 9 a.m. peak and he 4 - 6 p.m peak. The average rate is the conversion factor that they are multiplying those tables by to get as close that they can to the particular usage. Chairman Jacks stated that it occurs to him that sometimes this information is really critical to some of their decisions, but those instances are fairly rare. Mr. Franklin noted that until they get some planning regulations that actually do encompass volume requirements, etc., this is tool for him to figure out how he is going to handle that traffic when it comes. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R89-23 2015 HUNTSVILLE ROAD - DON WARD The third item on the agenda was a rezoning appeal R89-23 which was tabled at the August 28th meeting and was postponed from this meeting until the next regular meeting on September 25th at the request of the applicant, Don Ward, because of•a conflicting appointment. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to continue this on table, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion to continue this on table passed 7-0-0. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the zoning ordinance states that the Commission has to make a decision on a rezoning within 45 • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 3 from the first public hearing on the appeal. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R89-25 JACK EDMISTON - 201 SOUTH GREGG The fourth item on the agenda was a rezoning appeal R89-25 submitted by Jack Edmiston for property located at 201 South Gregg (Lot 7 of Hall & Gollaher Addition). Request was to rezone from I-1, Light Industrial to R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell stated that this rezoning request is on a small lot. He added that he wanted to correct something in the report that was sent to the Commissioners in the agenda. If this were rezoned to R-1 in order for a small single-family house to be constructed on this property, this would be a non -conforming lot of record. Even though this lot contains only around 4,000 square feet with the minimum lot size per ordinance being 8,000 square feet and the width is only about 50' and the width required per Code is 70 feet, the staff still could issue a building permit to build a house on the lot as long as the house would conform to the setback regulations. Chairman Jacks clarified that if they Planning Commission approved this rezoning, this lot would be an existing lot of record and it could be built on as long as it conforms to setbacks. Mr. Merrell stated that this is a curious way for it to happen because most non -conforming use regulations are to acknowledge what is there now rather than set up a situation where they create non -conforming use regulations. He advised that the staff isn't going to change their recommendation that the rezoning be denied because this is not a borderline case. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was here to speak in favor of this proposal. There was no one in the audience representing this request. He asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this request. H.O. Hardcastle who lives in Springdale stated that he is representing Bobby Taylor who owns property on the north side of this lot in question and he wants to know what they are planning to build there and if they have a contract on it. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission doesn't have that information. What they have to consider is that Mr. Edmiston is asking for single-family residential and they would have to assume that he is going to build one single-family residence on it. Mr. Hardcastle stated that he would like to request that this be denied until they find out what is going to be built. He noted that he might not be opposed to it if he knew what they are going to do. Mr. Merrell commented that he did ask Mr. Edmiston what his plans were and Mr. Edmiston stated that his intent was to sell the property to Donald Dees for possible future construction of a small single-family house on that property. Mr. Merrell noted that the standard setbacks in an R-1 zone are 25' in the front • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 4 yard, 8' on both sides and 20' in the rear yard so they would have to build an extremely small house. Chairman Jacks advised that all the Planning Commission can look at is whether or not this should be single-family property considering the area and the size of the lot, etc. There being no further opposition, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to deny the petition based on the staff report and the fact that it would be spot rezoning, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 7-0- 0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST R89-26 BRYAN ABERNATHY, H.D. - 1643, 1649 & 1657 HUNTSVILLE RD The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning request R89-26 • submitted by Bryan Abernathy, M.D. for property located at 1643, 1649 & 1657 Huntsville Road and containing five acres. The request was to rezone from R-0, Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. • Chairman Jacks reminded the Commission that this property was rezoned to R-0 just a short time ago. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the purpose of this rezoning is to rezone to C-1 in order to allow the construction of a pharmacy within his proposed development. He added that it has been through the large scale development process. He advised that the staff has no problems with it and recommend that it be approved. Chairman Jacks asked why the entire five acres needed to be rezoned to C-1 instead of just the property that this pharmacy will set on. Mr. Merrell stated that the Chairman had a good point and he would go so far as to amend the staff's recommendation to state that they recommend rezoning of just the property for the pharmacy. The public hearing was opened. Bryan Abernathy stated that when he bought this property, he was told by the realtor that R-0 would be adequate to cover pharmacies, etc. The only reason he has decided to ask for a rezoning of the entire five acres is that the pharmacy is not necessarily going in right away and there may be other things added at some point such as an orthopedic appliances on that same five acres He noted that with the large scale development, this property is already divided up into Tract A with the clinic itself on it and Tract B is the parcel that he Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 5 would be more interested in for C-1 simply because he doesn't know what the future holds for it. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought the Planning Commission understood initially that they were talking about a pharmacy with the large scale development. He asked how many acres are in the Tract B. Albert Skiles, Architect, stated that there is about three acres in that tract. Commissioner Ozment noted that at the very end of the meeting when the large scale development at this location was discussed, someone did notice the fact that the pharmacy was there and could be a problem in R-0 zoning. He asked if Tract B is primarily the area where the future pharmacy and other businesses would be. Mr. Abernathy answered, yes, Tract A is going to be where the clinic itself sets only. Commissioner Allred asked if a conditional use in the R-0 zoning accomplishment this for a pharmacy. Mr. Merrell answered, no. Commissioner Hanna noted that Green Acres Pharmacy was allowed to open on Green Acres Road in an R-0 zone so it has been done before. Chairman Jacks advised that particular pharmacy was described to them as a "ethical pharmacy" with basically prescriptions only. Commissioner Hanna stated that the Green Acres Pharmacy has everything that people would ask for just like Collier's. In answer to a question from Con'nissioner Klingaman, Mr. Abernathy stated that Tract B does have road access with frontage on Huntsville Road. He added that as far as the C-1 zoning is concerned, another thing he was thinking of is that as time goes on it might change and he didn't know if the Planning Commission would want him to bring an application through each time he puts together another piece of his plan. There being no one else in the audience who wanted to speak to this, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning from R-0, Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial for Tract B of the large scale development and leave Tract A as R-0, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR IBM BUILDING EXPANSION RON TABOR - 4058 NORTH COLLEGE AVE The sixth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for an expansion of the IBM building submitted by Ron Tabor of Flake & Company for property located at 4058 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee didn't meet on this last week because they didn't have a quorum available. • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 6 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the LSD consists of approximately 12,000 square feet addition to the building. He added that all of the utilities are already on site and sufficient for the proposed expansion. The only question was that of what additional parking was required and the staff had some lengthy discussions with the IBM representatives both locally and out of Chicago. After discussions with them, it was determined that the proposed addition was a service area rather than retail area so the existing parking is sufficient. Mr. Bunn commented that they looked at the parking lot four or five times at different times of the day and found that only 44% of the spaces were currently in use. The staff feels that the parking as it exists now is sufficient and they recommend approval of this large scale development. Chairman Jacks asked if this proposed addition changes the single -direction ingress off of the highway into the site. Mr. Bunn stated that there was nothing proposed to be changed on that so this plan does not change that. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that he thought the existing IBM building had less that 16,000 square feet in it. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn stated that he thought the current building has a 100% occupancy. Ron Tabor of Flake & Company in Little Rock stated that they are the owner/developer of this building which they refer to as "One Corporate Square" because IBM doesn't like to called the "IBM building". He advised that there will be no change in the ingress/egress because when the original building was approved an agreement was reached with both the City of Fayetteville and the State Highway Department that it would be an ingress only and the exit would go back to the east to the traffic signal. There is 42,000 square feet in the current building and this proposed addition will be a t -shaped addition to the entrance of the building. The building is currently 92% occupied. Mr. Tabor explained that a lot has happened since the existing building was completed with IBM's management structure and they have decided to consider this location in Fayetteville as a regional office. This addition is primarily directed towards service and this location will be a full-service facility. He noted that in the application there was an error on the number of parking spaces. He advised that they had stated that there were 133 spaces when in fact there are only 129 so they will be losing four spaces so leaves them with 125 spaces. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is comfortable with the parking as has been noted. So much of the addition is going to be taken up with non -people area for computer hardware. Commissioner Allred asked if the Planning Commission would have to grant a waiver of the parking requirement. Mr. Merrell answered, no, because the staff feels there is sufficient latitude under the parking requirements in Use Unit 12 whereby the parking ratio is one space per 300 square feet of floor area for office and sales and the requirement for a service is one space per 500 square feet of floor area. They did compute it out and do feel • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 7 that it is covered in the ordinance. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to approve subject to the various comments, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SLOAN ADDITION CHARLES SLOAN - N OF MISSION BLVD, E OF OLD WIRE RD The seventh item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Sloan Addition submitted by Charles Sloan and represented by Harry Gray for property located north of Mission Boulevard and east of Old Wire Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with 9.7 acres Chairman Jacks noted that this is the same property that they dealt with for a large scale development on a church not too long ago. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the subdivision consists of a single street with building lots on either side with the total proposed lots being 28. He commented that there were not any significant problems at the Plat Review meeting. However, they did note that there would be an additional street dedication of 20' along the south side of lot 1 adjacent to Mission with the total right-of-way on that side of the road to 50'. Also, "Charlee Avenue" does end in a cul-de-sac which is nearly 1,300 feet long with the maximum length of a cul-de-sac allowed by the Subdivision ordinance being 500 feet. There are two locations where right-of-way could be provided for future streets: 1) on lot 13 at the north end of the subdivision to provide a tie of the property to the North and possibly back to the West and a right-of-way of 50' would be requested. 2) a 50' right-of-way across lot 20 to the West that would possibly be a tie to Ramsey which is located east of this subdivision. Mr. Bunn noted that the Staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the Plat Review comments, the dedication of additional right-of-way along Highway 45 and the dedication of the 50' right-of-ways for future streets. They would not require that these streets be constructed within the right-of-ways at this time. These right-of- way dedications would cause them to lose one or two lots. Harry Gray, representative, stated that he sees no problem with either of the right-of-way dedications on an either/or basis. There is the possibility that this street will need to be looped, but to be looped to the North and to the West without some kind of master plan is a little of an overkill. He had anticipated dedicating one right-of-way dedication for the possibility of extending the street, but he would like to see the two future right-of-ways requested be reconsidered. Chairman Jacks noted that it seems to him that these things ought to be worked out before they go to all that trouble. There has been problems in this area of town because with the type of development there, they haven't really been able to see the details of tying streets together. Mr. Gray stated that without a master plan, they would be guessing on what ties would be best. They would agree to one right-of-way dedication for a future • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 8 street and the one on the north end would seem more reasonable. Mr. Bunn advised that he agrees with Mr. Gray that an tie-in on the north end would seem more reasonable if they are talking either/or. Commissioner Allred stated that if lot 13 was eliminated then it would alleviate the long permanent cul-de-sac. Mr. Bunn stated that it would be an iffy situation because he can envision it not happening for some time. Commissioner Allred stated that he knows who owns the property to the North and he does foresee it being developed in the near future. Mr. Merrell stated that he has noticed an increased concern by the Planning Commission as to how new development is going to tie in to existing streets especially in these types of areas. Chairman Jacks clarified that Mr. Gray has stated that he agrees with the staff's comments with the exception that he would opt for one extension possibility rather than two. There is no question about the dedication of right-of-way along Highway 45 and in the process he is asking for a waiver of the cul-de-sac length. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Gray stated that there plans on the flood plain area for Lot 28 is that they are planning to build a house on Lot 28. He advised that they can't do anything in the floodway, but they can in the fringe area. Commissioner Seiff advised that he agrees that it would be hard to dedicate right-of-way if you don't know where it is going to go. Chairman Jacks noted that this may be a case where they should have asked for a staff study of the residential street pattern in that area to help predict where streets need to go. Commissioner Allred stated that it seems logical that the possibility of some future development lies to the North and not to Ramsey at this point. If development doesn't come this way, they can always ask for that right-of-way to be vacated at some point down the road. He commented that it would be better to have an easement on the north to possibly reduce a lengthy cul-de-sac and to tie in to future development to the North. Commissioner Seiff asked if that would set a precedent for future developers. Commissioner Allred noted that they have done that in the past so the precedent has already been set. Mr. Bunn stated that there is a lot of points to be made both ways (the west or the north) and it is a guess either way. He noted that the staff wouldn't be crushed if they chose one way. Chairman Jacks stated that he sees a lot of undeveloped land to the West and to the North so he thinks they need both of the right-of-way dedications. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's recommendations in the staff report with a future right-of-way dedication on Lot • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 9 13 and nothing on Lot 20, seconded by Hanna and followed by a question from Commissioner Seiff. He asked if they could shown later that a right-of-way dedication is not necessary, could they get one vacated. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. Mr. Bunn advised that vacation of an easement or right-of-way is possible, but it is a lot harder sometimes to abandon it than it is to make it. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY JEANB'1TE POTTS - 5514 WEDINGTON DRIVE The eighth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a Child Care Facility submitted by Jeanette Potts for property located at 5514 Wedington Drive and zoned A-1, Agricultural. John Merrell advised that this is the first application that has come to the Commission under the "You Can" Program. Early in 1989, the City Board of Directors approved the "You Can" Program which is a twofold program which is funded entirely by the City of Fayetteville. It attempts to help people in two different ways: 1) one part of the program is oriented toward helping individuals who want to continue their education providedthat they qualify under certain income guidelines and 2) the second part of the program and the one that affects this Commission is a program to loan money to qualified individuals to start businesses in their home in the way of child care. The theory is that there are people living at home who could perhaps make use of their time and earn some money and elevate themselves out of a low and moderate income environment. Mr. Merrell advised that his understanding from the EOA staff is that Ms. Potts proposes to keep up to 10 children at this home which is at the corner of Wedington Drive and 54th Street. The staff s understanding is that the hours of business would be from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and the age range would be from infant to seven years old. The kids would have access to approximately 1,100 square feet of the house including a couple of bedrooms, a dining room and bathroom. Mr. Merrell commented that when the staff went out and looked at the property last week, the first thing that was noticed was that there were several violations of the City Code including a couple of unlicensed vehicles on the property, high weeds in the backyard and a refrigerator sitting outside the house with the door still attached to the refrigerator. He advised that the staff thinks it is important for the Planning Commission to consider how they want to approach this program. What various factors would they like to see the staff evaluate and what various factors the Planning Commission themselves proposed to evaluate when these applications come in. There will be other applications of this sort before them. He added that he was unable to get out to this location today to see if these violations had been taken care of. The staff will not be recommending that the Commission approve any of these applications if there are substantial violations of the City Code that are as obvious as these • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 10 were last week. Mr. Merrell noted that some of the factors the staff thinks should be looked at in all of these applications include the following: a) the zoning of the property, b) surrounding land use, c) the condition of the property, d) proposed number of children, f) proposed hours and days of operation, g) screening or buffering considerations, h) traffic and parking considerations and i) any other criteria desired by the Planning Commission. In Fayetteville, there are certain regulations regarding child care in the home being done on a commercial basis. One thing that has been a bit of a problem to the City staff as well as the EOA staff is that those regulations in the zoning ordinance are not exactly a model of clear writing. It boils down to the fact that a person can keep up to six children in their home as a "home occupation" which can be administratively approved unless it is located in an R-1 zone. A home occupation in an R-1 zone has to be approved by the Planning Commission. If a person plans to keep more than six children in your home, it is considered a "child care center" which is covered by other regulations in the zoning ordinance and it does require a conditional use from the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Merrell if he is inferring that the ordinance as it is written is not compatible with this "You Can" program. Mr. Merrell commented that he wouldn't go quite that far, but the ordinance could be more clear as to what the thresholds are in the number of children a person is allowed to keep, etc. It should be more coordinated with the State Regulations. If the Commission decides to take definite final action on this, he requested that they condition approval upon the State Licensing with the proviso that ten children or whatever is approved by the State whichever is less could be kept. Chairman Jacks advised that there is a new Comprehensive Plan coming up so if the staff feels like there should be some adjustments to that ordinance, they should be discussed. He noted that he is so accustomed to this system that he doesn't feel any great discomfort with it. Commissioner Allred stated that he feels this is a very worthwhile program of the EOA, but the Planning Commission has an obligation to the community as a whole to look at these on an individual case by case basis to decide what kind of an impact it will have a the surrounding neighborhood and make a decision based upon that. Mr. Merrell stated that it appears that the head of the Planning Office before he came may have made some interpretations of the zoning ordinance in the past which he would not agree with whereby perhaps some situations like this may have been administratively approved when the ordinance quite clearly states that it has to come before this Commission. He commented that they are in the arena of zoning and not humanitarian affairs and the bottom line is that other people have their rights to. He stated that the staff recommends that they look at these closely on case-by-case basis. One thing that does concern the staff considerably about this application is the proposal to put the playground in the front yard of the house. These should be set up so that they blend into the neighborhood as best as possible and one of the worst things that can be done • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 11 to not blend into the neighborhood is to set up a playground in the front yard. Commissioner Allred asked if there was an ordinance that refers to fencing in front of the house. Mr. Merrell advised that there is a section in the zoning ordinance that does get into screening and buffering, but the ordinance doesn't prohibit a fence in the front yard. Commissioner Ozment noted that, in his opinion, they should hear from the people who live in the surrounding areas with any conditional use whether it be daycare or whatever. Dash Goff, the owner of this property, stated that Ms. Potts had been a tenant of his for three years plus and has worked very hard on this project of putting the child care center in. He noted that he was unaware of the refrigerator and the tall weeds but they have been taken care of and moved out. There was a tenant in the other part of the building who had some undesirable guests and some old trashy cars, but that tenant has been evicted and moved out this week. He commented that this structure has been a triplex at one time and Ms. Potts is in the process of buying this and is planning to open up one of the apartments into her apartment to make room for this child care center. There is another old refrigerator there that he plans to haul off in the morning. This location is surrounded by a church and an open pasture across the street and a full pasture to the east of the property so it is .not a densely populated neighborhood. Eugene Hinton stated that he lives on North 54th Street and the street actually belongs to him. He noted that Harry Gray could verify that. He commented that he has maintained this road for thirty years and nobody has offered to give him any money for chat, gravel or maintenance on the road and he paid the State for the 40' culvert that comes off of Highway 16 West that comes onto this road. He noted that when this road was built there, he came the man an ingress/egress to park two cars in front of that apartment. For the last couple of years, there have been automobiles parked in the road and everywhere else. There have been two or three people killed up on N. 54th Street in the last year and a half. The continued and extra traffic on that road would bring detriment to the ladies bringing their children there to be cared for. Jeanette Potts stated that she has lived there for three years and is asking the Planning Commission's permission to have ten children there which includes two of her own. She noted that she will be state licensed on October 1st. The closing of the house will be anytime. She talked with nine of her neighbors and she only has two oppositions: Mr. Hinton who lives about 1/2 mile away and his daughter whose property borders hers. The other neighbors including Mrs. Ann Griffin stated that they have no objections to this. The woman who lives in the other apartment will be assisting her with the children. One of the neighbors stated that anything that the opposition was for, they would be glad to be against. Ms. Potts stated that she will be state licensed so there is a 60 page rule book that they have to go by. They have good access. Wedington and Fayetteville fire • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 12 departments had to come down the street to fight a fire at the Walters last year and there was no problem getting in or out with eight fire trucks. She advised that if she felt this was unsafe, she wouldn't do it. The apartment behind hers was rented two years ago to a woman who kept 10 or 12 children with no license and at that time, there wasn't a yard. They left room in front of their fence for the children to get to the school bus and for Mrs. Clevenger to get her riding lawn mower across there and down to her father's house at the end of the road. There is a hole around a tree that they will be patching. The other violations have been taken care of. She advised that she will not be keeping more than four children until she is approved for this. Paula Ellington, Director of "You Can" Program, stated that they have been working with Mrs. Potts to help get her establishment together. She stated that they are very interested in working in cooperation with the City Planning Commission as far as the ordinances that are required for these homes. She added that if is fine with them to come before them for each home and in making sure that neighbors are notified. In this situation, there is one set of opposition but they will make sure that all neighbors are in agreement to this and have their chance to voice their feelings. She commented that she feels that the situation with Mrs. Potts is real good. When she traveled out there about 8 a.m. this morning, there seemed to be no serious traffic problem at all. As far as she knows, the particular road that goes by the Potts home is a public access road. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Ms. Ellington stated that the general consensus of the neighborhood around Mrs. Potts home is positive. Commissioner Allred stated that if 54th Street is private and the owner chooses to block it off, what do they do at that point as far as ingress/egress to this property. Is it a perpetual easement that cannot be blocked and if only two vehicles are allowed there according to the deed restrictions, what happens at that point. This is a situation that needs to be addressed. If that is a private road, then they need to clarify that and see what can be done should that not become a public access road. Ms. Ellington stated that she talked to Michael Dean at the Street Department and he stated to her that it is a public road. Don Bunn stated that he wasn't aware that there was a question of whether it was a public or private road. The question would be how long it has been open to the general public and if it has been open at least seven years to the general public, then in his opinion it would be a public road. He advised that he doesn't know the facts one way or the other on that. Commissioner Allred stated that his concern is that if it were still considered a private road and discontinued and then people parked on the shoulders, it would create a hazard. Mr. Bunn stated that he didn't know that parking was allowed on the road anyway. Mr. Merrell stated that if the road was blocked of, Mrs. Potts could petition the Highway Department to put in a driveway coming off of Wedington. Mr. Bunn • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 13 stated that access would have to be provided because there are laws about landlocked property and access to a public road. Barbara Clevenger of 5516 Wedington, who is an adjoining property owner, stated that she took several pictures approximately two weeks ago of Mrs. Potts' yard. She noted that the yard was cleaned up only because Mrs. Potts knew that she was going be in opposition to this. She commented that she strongly objects to having a business located in a residential area. She questioned why the EOA does not have certain qualifying criteria that applicants must meet before they are eligible for grants for day care centers. All applicants should be screened closely and unscheduled home visits should be mandatory to see that the home environment is clean, healthy and safe. Mrs. Potts has already begun taking in children with old refrigerators, junk cars, tree limbs and trash on the property which is a danger to the children. The yard has not been mowed for two weeks. If Mrs. Potts is not capable of maintaining the yard, is she capable of maintaining a business. She advised that she drove on 54th Street North on Tuesday, September 5, 1989 and Mrs. Potts was talking with another lady on the road and the children were playing on the road unsupervised. The children threw rocks at her car. Also, Mrs. Potts dog has bitten their child which had to be taken to the emergency room. She asked if Mr. Goff or Mr. & Mrs. Potts are willing to pay the increase that she is going to have in her homeowner's insurance since her residential property would be located beside a business. Mrs. Clevenger asked what kind of daycare help Mrs. Potts is looking for. She noted that she heard about an applicant named Mrs. Ledbetter. Mrs. Ledbetter's son, Justin, had came to her house one night a few months and told her his father was beating his mother. About one hour later Mrs. Ledbetter came to the house looking for her son. She had on sunglasses, her suspicion was that Justin was right. Mrs. Clevenger asked if EOA looks into the police record of it's applicants. They were told that Mr. Potts did not drive Mrs. Potts' car for several months because of DWI charges. Mrs. Clevenger stated that as a nurse, she knows how important good medical training and an adequate amount of medical supplies are to a good daycare. She noted that she would like to know if EOA demands that all daycare personnel be required to have a CPR course especially in tiny tot and a first aid course. What kind of medical supplies are mandatory for these daycare centers. What kind of liability insurance is mandatory for these people to carry. What safety measures are mandatory for the home and the property. What immunization standards are mandatory. If she willing to check all of the children on a regular basis for headlice. She is concerned about whether the electrical outlets have plugs and the increase of traffic this daycare will have on 54th Street North. There will not be adequate access in or out for the people living on 54th Street North and for emergency vehicles. The yard isn't completed yet and they have highway frontage. A car went through and destroyed a large section of fence near here last year. There have been many traffic accidents on this highway. Mr. Hinton stated that he is employed by the Equal Opportunity people of this state and he also works for the Arkansas Aging Assistance. He noted that he had talked with one of the people, Shirley Haggard and Mrs. Williams in Harrison, with the Arkansas Equal this afternoon and was told to ask how a grant could be • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 14 given for $2,500 for this when they could not afford to buy them paper napkins, paper towels, etc. that they need in the Center in Springdale for the old age assistant programs. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Merrell to find out what actually the Planning Commission needs to consider. For example, it is his opinion, that they are not supposed to consider the merits of EOA and EOA's working. Mr. Merrell commented that whatever decision they make an this application and any others that may come up, it must be based on land use planning principles and the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Although, issues such as the supervision of the children, health department standards, etc. are extremely important, other agencies are hopefully going to consider those. The state licensing procedure gets into food standards, cleanliness, health standards, number of children, supervision of activities, etc. Traffic, parking, buffering & screening, the zoning of the property, surrounding land uses, etc. are what the Planning Commission needs to look at with these applications. Chairman Jacks advised that they are basically looking at impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Hanna commented that both sides on this particular application have good points and it is hard for him to sift out what the Planning Commission is supposed to consider. He added that he is concerned that they are considering an application for a child care facility on a busy highway which is not ideal for this type of facility and also the controversy on the access road. He noted that he doesn't believe that this application has been considered by some of the other people who should be making these decisions which puts it on the Planning Commission. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merrell stated that he is fairly sure that a child care facility would be a use by right in a C-1 zone. Commissioner Klingaman advised that C-1 areas are typically high traffic areas. Commissioner Allred stated that the Planning Commission is being put in a position of being judge and jury on two issues: 1) whether this is prudent land use and 2) the merits of this particular daycare center. He added that he doesn't feel that the Planning Commission has the jurisdiction or the expertise to a judgement call on whether this is a good or bad program They need to limit their decision based upon land use If she is being licensed, the state has the obligation to monitor her day care center. He is concerned about the fence in the front yard. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to grant this conditional use. The motion died for the lack of a second. Commissioner Ozment stated that it seems that the people are extremely in favor of this or extremely opposed it and he isn't prepared to support a motion for or against at this meeting. • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 15 MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved to table this until the next meeting, seconded by Seiff. Nonnie Vance, the local state licensing representative, stated that she isn't Mrs. Potts licensing worker. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to table this, she will go back and look at that play yard. She asked if the fence was moved, would that take care of their concerns about the play yard. Chairman Jacks stated that he didn't know if they were prepared to answer that question at this point. Ms. Vance stated that Mrs. Potts timetable is October 1st to meet the State's regulations. The state always considers the neighborhood. A lot of the homes that they will be looking at with this new program are not going to have everything as they would want it to be in the beginning. That is part of the learning process they go through and they want them to learn more than just babysitting. Mrs. Potts licensing worker would be making monitor visits on a regular basis. Commissioner Allred asked if Mrs. Potts' state licensing contingent on the Planning Commission granting this conditional use. Ms. Vance explained that it has been in the past. She advised that this is her twentieth year and they have always tried to work with the City. Part of the problem about eight years ago was that they ran into the situation that the State of Arkansas has an exemption number where child care in the home is situated. Prior to this past year, the State would not go into a home if the home cared for four families of children or less or no more than six children in care. Therefore, if the State could not go into a family home situation, the City still wanted to maintain a right if they felt the need to go into that home. Consequently, in the past they have always tried to get the would be provider to come before the Planning Commission. If they were caring for six or less children and wanted to be state licensed, they knew they didn't have to come before the Planning Commission. In the past two years, they have told the would be provider that there is an ordinance if they re wanting to care for more than six children and they are to come before the Planning Commission. Whether they do or not technically doesn't come under her purview. She added that they have always tried to work with the City. Chairman Jacks stated that any child care being done in a residence in R-1 requires a Conditional Use for a Home Occupation. AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to amend the earlier motion that be left on the table until Mrs. Potts has obtained her state license, the amendment was accepted by Commissioner Ozment and seconded by Seiff and followed by further discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that there are several questions that need to be • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 16 answered before this is brought back before them. He added that his drawing shows a fence on the northwest corner of this property and when he was there today, the fence posts were set across the front yard. Also, the street access is a question. Chairman Jacks clarified for Commissioner Klingaman that their decision isn't contingent on whether Mrs. Potts can obtain a state license. The motion to table passed 6-1-0 with Seiff, Allred, Ozment, Hanna, Jacks & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH MISSION IN R-2 ZONE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - 2605 VILLA BLVD The ninth item on the agenda was a conditional use for a church mission in an R-2 zone submitted by Bill Rose for the First Baptist Church for property located at 2605 Villa Boulevard. Mr. Merrell stated that request is not to establish a church but to continue to use a trailer in a mobile home park on Villa Blvd as a church. He added that he has spoken to Mr. Rose and is satisfied that they did not set out to create an ordinance violation. He commented that the staff would normally not want to see churches established within a mobile home in a mobile home park. However, in this particular case, since the zoning ordinance does allow accessory commercial uses in a mobile home park, the staff feels that they have no objection to this based on this particular situation. The staff recommends that the Commission approve the conditional use request. Bill Rose, representative, stated that they felt there was a need in the mobile home park for this. The fire department informed them that there was a problem with this and the trailer has been brought up to City Codes. He advised that this is only for the people living in the mobile home park and they are just providing a ministry there which they do not expect to ever become a church. Commissioner Allred asked if the Planning Commission can grant a conditional use to someone other than the property owner. Mr. Merrell stated that he believed that they can but he will check it out with the new City Attorney, Mr. Rose. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the Conditional Use as requested, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR MINI -STORAGE IN A C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, ZONE LAWRENCE STARR - N OF TOWNSHIP AND EAST OF COLLEGE AVENUE • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 17 The tenth item on the agenda was a conditional use for mini -storage in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, zone submitted by Lawrence Starr for property located north of Township Road and east of College Avenue. Chairman Jacks advised that they saw this property not long ago as a petition to rezone additional property. This request is for a Conditional Use on the property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Lawrence Starr of Route 8, Conway, Arkansas stated that this piece of property that he is asking a conditional use for is not suitable because of this location for a motel, hotel, amusement facilities, shopping center, etc. which are all allowed in a C-2 zone by right. However, he does feel that it is suitable for a self -storage facility which would have less noise and traffic and would only open during daylight hours. John Merrell noted that the staff had neglected to include the report on this in the agenda packet. Most of this property is zoned C-2, but the back corner is still zoned partly R-0 and partly R-1. Mr. Starr has exercised his option to file an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the recent rezoning petition with the Board of Directors which will be heard on Tuesday night of next week. He added that he had asked the City Engineer to have a look at this application as far as the slope situation to see how it might be regarded under the proposed new unified development ordinance. Mr. Bunn, City Engineer, advised that this project as far as mini -storage is concerned could be done under the new development ordinance. The hillside development ordinance includes a provision where only a certain percentage of a wooded area could be disturbed at certain slopes. It appears as though the average slope over most of this property is about 20%. The new ordinance would limit the cleared area to 30% of the total area of the lot so it does not prohibit any particular use of the hillside but it would limit the area that could be cleared for whatever use is being proposed. Therefore, this could be done under the hillside ordinance provided it was in place at this time. The scope of it would, however, be cut back under that provision. As it stands right now, if the Planning Commission were to grant a conditional use for mini -storage, it would come back before the Planning Commission as a large scale development plan. The staff would be concerned about the plans for control of the drainage and erosion. The drainage plans would have to be approved by the staff and as a condition of approval a plan would have to be filed to show how drainage and erosion would be handled during construction as well as the drainage that would be in place after construction. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the portion of the property that is zoned R-0 would be used for the mini -storage. Mr. Bunn answered, no, but they would use a portion of the R-0 property for a drive. Mr. Bunn advised that if Mr. Starr s appeal on the rezoning to the Board of Directors is successful, then he would probably have to come for a Conditional Use on the remainder of the property. Chairman Jacks asked if this was framed in such a way that if the Board grants that appeal, then all the C-2 property would be under their action. Mr. Bunn Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 18 commented that this conditional use is being requested just for the portion presently zoned C-2. In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Starr advised that they would not have to build a ramp at the entrance such as the one north of this area because this property does not have the curve or the slope. Mr. Bunn stated that he thinks the driveway slope approaches around 10% at the beginning and probably doesn't go up higher than 12% across the property because they are curving it with the contours. Cour issioner Klingaman stated that there was quite a bit of neighborhood interest at the last meeting when they considered the rezoning at this location and the number of neighbors has dwindled. He asked if notification was made on this application. Chairman Jacks stated that this request doesn't touch the property of the people to the south. He asked the City Planning Secretary if letters were normally sent to the adjacent owners with a Conditional Use request Mrs. Cattaneo commented that an agenda notice was sent to the people on the list of adjoining property owners that was submitted with the Conditional Use application. In answer to some questions from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Starr stated that there is approximately 5 acres of land in the C-2 portion of the property and that everything will be sloped toward the main driveway between all the buildings. The property will be cut so that the buildings can set in level. Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers stated that they will use the contour of the ground when cutting into the hill. Mr. Bunn stated that the staff is prepared to recommend approval of a large scale development plan for mini -storage provided the present ordinances are met and in that context they could recommend approval of the conditional use for that mini -storage. Mr. Merrell noted that one question that the staff has is what impact an approving vote of the Commission tonight would have on Mr. Starr's appeal to the Board of Directors on the rezoning. Commissioner Klingaman noted that under current operating procedure, the applicant could clear all of the hillside in the C-2 property; whereas, if this were delayed until after the new ordinance, they would be able to maintain a little more cover on that slope. Chairman Jacks noted that is correct if the new ordinance contains that provision as it is being proposed to them. Commissioner Allred stated that they are put in the position as to whether they should operate under today's ordinance or try to operate under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bunn stated that it is the staff's position that they are bound to operate under the existing ordinance. Commissioner Cleghorn commented that if the Board of Directors do overturn the Planning Commission's decision on the rezoning at this location, that will change • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 19 the complexity of it because at the next meeting the whole neighborhood will be here which does carry some weight. He added that he is also concerned with the height up of the hillside. He advised that he would like to wait and see what the City Board does before the Planning Commission takes action on this issue. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to table this until the next regular meeting after the Board of Directors has voted on the rezoning appeal, seconded by Klingaman and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that he has a hard time seeing how they can refuse a conditional use for mini -storage in a C-2 zone, but he feels like they have been put in a position where tabling this might be best since their last decision has been appealed to the Board of Directors. Mr. Starr asked what the feeling would be if he withdraws the appeal to the Board. The reason that he appealed is that he felt like their was a misinterpretation of what the R-0 property was for. He added that he doesn't have any intentions as of now with the new drawings that they are submitting for the mini -storage to do anything with the R-0 portion of the property. Commissioner Hanna stated that if Mr. Starr is willing to withdraw the appeal, he would be in favor of voting on the Conditional Use tonight. Mr. Starr stated that he withdraws his appeal. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the opposition at the last meeting was of a much larger scope than tonight and he feels that the neighborhood should have had more input in this. He noted that he doesn't feel terribly confident that given the opposition last time, there was adequate notification this time. Commissioner Allred noted that the property is already zoned C-2 and if he were living up there he would much rather have mini -storage there than some of the other uses permitted in a C-2 zone that could be developed on that hillside. He added that he got the interpretation that the neighbors were objecting to having an ingress/egress coming out on Jimmie Avenue. They strongly were opposed to that and he agreed with them. They need to look at what would have the least negative impact on the neighborhood and he agrees that a mini -storage wouldn't have a lot of traffic or noise and maybe it is not a bad use in that area. Commissioner Hanna asked what zone a mini -storage could be developed in without having to obtain a Conditional Use. Mr. Merrell noted that it is allowed as a use by right in the I-1 and I-2 zones. He added that he agrees that the type of storage facility that Mr. Starr plans to build fits into a C-2 zone better than it does in an I-1 or I-2. Commissioner Allred advised that he manages a mini -storage that is in an Industrial zone and they have a large number of thefts because there is no one around. Therefore, from a safety standpoint, a commercial zone would be much • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 20 better for the tenants that rent the spaces as well as the owners. Mr. Starr stated that based on what was said for the reason for tabling, he will withdraw his appeal to Board of Directors. Chairman Jacks advised that there is a motion to table before them. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he is not confident that the people that would have some more input on this are aware that it is going on. Elaine Cattaneo stated that as far as she knows the Planning Office sent out agenda notices (not certified mail) to the same people that they sent them to for the rezoning petition. She advised that there wasn't a sign put up like they did for the rezoning because this type of conditional use doesn't require a sign notice on the property. There was also a notice put in the newspaper in the legal section that included this conditional use. Commissioner Hanna stated that denying a conditional use for mini -storage in C- 2 on this property, in his opinion, amounts to saying that they aren't going to let anyone use that C-2 zone. It is the person's right to use their property and he doesn't think it is right to let the neighbors control whether or someone develops there property. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Starr stated that he plans to have a buffer on all sides of the large scale development. Mr. Bunn noted that they would have to clear probably 85 to 90% of the property. Commissioner Klingaman commented that they should also consider that their would be pretty heavy pressure to development some use in R-0 or another attempt to change the zoning of the R-0 portion to commercial down the road. The motion to table passed 4-3-0 with Seiff, Klingaman, Jacks & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Allred, Ozment & Hanna voting "no". Chairman Jacks noted that under the circumstances, they shouldn't try to hold Mr. Starr to his desire to cancel his appeal. This will be put on the agenda at the next meeting. Mel Milholland requested that all the notifications be done again so that there will not be any problem with making sure adequate notification was made. Mr. Merrell stated that they will make sure that all the adjoining property owners are notified of the September 25th meeting. CONDITIONAL USE FOR CAKE/COFFEE SHOP IN R -O ZONE JANES WILCOX - 701 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE The eleventh item on the agenda was a conditional use for a Cake/Coffee Shop in an R-0, Residential -Office submitted by James Wilcox on behalf of the owner J.B. Hayes for property located at 701 North College Avenue. • • • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 21 Mr. Merrell stated that this property is the previous "Bingo's Pizza" building. The staff recommends approval of this with the condition that the paving of the parking around the building with a "durable and dustless" surface. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Wilcox stated that the seating capacity will be around twelve or fifteen. He commented that they will mainly be a cake shop and will not be serving donuts. It will be strictly an over the phone ordering of cakes, etc. He advised that he was told by the Planning Office that there would be some problem with strictly carry -out only so there would need to be seating inside the building. He added that he wants to move because he is having problems with vandalism and parking at his current location next to "Doc Murdock's". He advised that he is in the process of purchasing the property. Elaine Cattaneo stated that a bakery is not listed as a use by right or as a conditional use in an R-0 zone. She added that the owner had signed this application. Chairman Jacks stated that there has been trouble with parking in that whole area. He noted that maybe they need to include a cake order business in an R- 0 zone. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant this conditional use as requested subject to staff's recommendations, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 BILL GRAUE - LOT 6 OF GRAUE ADDITION The twelfth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split ill) submitted by Bill Graue for property located_west of Old Wire Road on Lot 6 of Graue Addition and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the original tract is lot 6 of Graue Addition and according to Mr. Graue this lot was actually supposed to be two lots to begin with. He is proposing to split the property into two tracts, one about 1/2 acre and one 1/4 acre. Water and sewer is available to the site and the staff recommends that the lot split be approved subject to a survey of the property by a registered surveyor, payments of the required parks fee and notification of the other utility to determine if additional easements are required in order to serve the property. This property has been split several times over the years, but it was subdivided last year. As a result, this would be the first split. Bill Graue stated that they have easements there with all the utilities already in. The biggest problem is another driveway on to Old Wire Road. NOTION • Planning Commission September 11, 1989 Page 22 Commissioner Seiff moved to approve the lot split subject to the staff's recommendations, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.