Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-25 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 25, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J. David Ozment, Jack Cleghorn, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Julie Nash, J.E. Springborn and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Klingaman OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1989 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-23 DON WARD - 2015 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The first item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #IR89-23 submitted by Don Ward for property located at 2015 Huntsville Road and containing one acre. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office. This item was tabled at the last meeting. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to remove this item from the table, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff has taken a look at this area and he has spoken to Al Raby, Planning Consultant, regarding this area of Huntsville Road and the proposed eastern loop which has been discussed. He advised that there has been somewhat of a transition from residential to commercial uses in the stretch of Huntsville Road between Crossover Road and Happy Hollow Road to the west. This area may, over a period of years, perhaps transition over completely to commercial, but the staff is not prepared to recommend to the Planning Commission that the whole strip of road be rezoned commercial either in one swoop or in a case where plans to utilize commercially one particular piece really aren't that firm. He noted that it is the staff's understanding that all Mr. Ward wants right now is to establish a real estate office in his home and there is basically no problem with that. Although, the staff would recommend that the Commission consider and recommend approval of an R-0 rezoning provided that Mr. Ward is willing to submit a Bill • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 2 of Assurance limiting it to a real estate office as the only commercial use for the property at this time. Mr. Ward would have the option to approach the City at some future date to request that the Bill of Assurance be removed or amended. Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Ward could do the same thing as a Home Occupation as long as this is a real estate office in his home. Mr. Merrell stated that the Planning staff discussed that with Mr. Ward and the understanding was that there is a provision from the Board of Realtors that states that a larger sign than would be allowed would be needed. Chairman Jacks noted that Mr. Ward had indicated before that he didn't really want to pin this down to only the real estate office. He added that the public opposition that they have had in the neighborhood has been primarily directed at multi -family use. Commissioner Springborn asked Mr. Merrell what the situation is east of this property. Mr. Merrell stated that the corner of Huntsville and Jerry Avenue was rezoned sometime back to accommodate the convenience store and carwash there. Also, a rezoning took place some years ago to C-2 commercial for the northeast corner of Crossover and Huntsville Road. Commissioner Springborn asked what the zoning is of the property directly to the East of the subject property. Mr. Merrell stated that the property directly east of this is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Jacks noted that Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road) had been very difficult for the Planning Commission to handle because there are such a hodgepodge of uses out there and a lot of them were there before zoning. He added that there is still a lot of low density residential property around there both across the highway and immediately south of this one. Mr. Merrell stated that even though there has been some transition, the predominant use is still single-family residential. Commissioner Allred asked if the staff has a traffic count on that area. The staff answered that they didn't know of one. The Public Hearing was opened. Don Ward of 2015 Huntsville Road stated that he made a traffic count one morning for six minutes and there were 90 cars which adds up to about 900 cars per hour. According to this, between 5:30 and 8:00 a.m. there would be well over 2,000 cars. He noted that he has difficulty getting out of his driveway in the mornings and since the last meeting, he has decided that he doesn't want to live there for the rest of his life because it is not a residential area anymore. Mr. Ward stated that the man who spoke in opposition at the last meeting to his request doesn't live on Huntsville Road but on Lee Street which is buffered noise wise by this property. Any business that is run on Huntsville Road is not going to cause any additional traffic in that residential subdivision because of the • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 3 geography and location of it. He stated that the staff recommends that this be approved subject to his willingness to provide a Bill of Assurance and he has no problem with that. However, staff has only recommended that tract 2 be rezoned and his intentions are to build another residence on the lot west of the old house. He stated that his plans are to build another small home which may not be a wise move on his part and noted that his original intentions with the lot split were to buy the older place and live in it for about a year while he is building a new home with the intention of selling both of them within a year or two. Mr. Ward stated that it would suit him fine if they do the Bill of Assurance but on the total property simply for the purpose that if he does build a new house and move into it and sell the older one. If not, within a year he would be back asking for the same thing in order to keep the real estate brokerage legal. He advised that he was told that in an R-1 zone, a sign can not be put up except real estate "for sale" signs in yards, etc. The Arkansas Real Estate Commission requires a sign up that is easily visible from the street and that is his reason for asking for R-0. A sign in R-1 is not allowed unless there is a waiver given. He reiterated that he would like to cover both the lots with the zoning to allow him to run a real estate office whether it is on either property. Chairman Jacks stated that he had the impression that Mr. Ward's ultimate plans were to build multi -family housing. Mr. Ward stated that he has learned since that time that multi -family housing is kind of at a standstill in Fayetteville. Loan companies won't give money on it. Chairman Jacks commented that Mr. Merrell's recommendation talks about a "Bill of Assurance that the only non-residential use of the property be his proposed real estate broker's office" so it wouldn't restrict multi -family. Mr. Ward stated that if he understands the ordinance, apartments aren't allowed in R-0. Mr. Merrell advised that apartments are only allowed by conditional use in R-0. Roger Curtis who lives to the south of the subject property on Lee Street submitted a petition with approximately twenty-one names of persons in this neighborhood who are opposed to more multi -housing. There are several duplexes in this neighborhood that are rundown. He asked if one parcel of this was zoned R-0, could Mr. Ward go ahead and build a single-family house on the other lot. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. Mr. Curtis stated that they have no quarrel with that, but they don't want any more rental property in their area. They are concerned about anything in the neighborhood that would devalue their property. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks commented that it seems that the real estate office under the present zoning could be handled under a "home occupation". He noted that he is concerned because once they rezone the property to R-0, they can put in anything allowed in that zone. Commissioner Allred reiterated that the Arkansas Real Estate Commission will • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 4 not grant Mr. Ward a license if he does not have a sign that is visible to the public which is intended to protect the public. Chairman Jacks stated that a sign is allowed with a home occupation. Mr. Merrell advised that a sign up to three square feet in area is allowed with a home occupation except in an R-1 district. Commissioner Seiff noted that Mr. Ward might be able to do this as a home occupation with a sign variance. Commissioner Springborn stated that he agrees with Commissioner Seiff, but he feels that the Planning Commission is not the proper body to resolve sign problems. Commissioner Allred advised that they need to remember that Mr. Ward is not wanting to rezone this to commercial, but a lesser zoning. He noted that he is concerned about the traffic count here and wonders if it is residential property. In his opinion, this request isn't out of line and the multi -family issue would have to be addressed at a later time when he comes back for a conditional use if he decides to. The adjoining neighbors don't seem to be concerned about a real estate office. Commissioner Nash stated that one of the criteria that they look at when considering granting a rezoning states " Is this change really needed by the public or is it a convenience for the owner?". She asked if there is a public need for additional land space to be rezoned as requested. Mr. Merrell stated that he isn't really prepared to quote the amount of R-0 acreage in the City, but he does see the point that she is making. He added that the staff does try to bear in mind the criteria for rezonings when making their recommendations and he in this case it is questionable as to whether or not they meet that criteria. Mr. Ward spoke from the audience and asked them to forget the rezoning and give him a waiver on the sign. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to do that; the Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals would have that authority. Mr. Ward asked if they could recommend a waiver of the sign. NOTION Connissioner Seiff moved to deny the request for the rezoning but recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they make the proper adjustment for the type of sign that Mr. Ward would need, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that Mr. Ward just wants to rezone a lot so that he can operate a small real estate business on a busy highway. He added that whether or not it meets the criteria that Commissioner Nash just read, he thinks that they need to be concerned about whether or not they want to try to accommodate a citizen who is just trying to use his land for his business. He added that he thinks sending him to the Board of Adjustment is unfair to him and to the Board of Adjustment. Colin issioner Nash stated that if they just accommodated everyone who wanted to Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 5 do anything they wanted with their property, they may as well throw away the zoning ordinance. Cou'nissioner Ozment stated that it is kind of a catch-22 situation; this location is not really practical for single-family homes anymore and the residents don't want multi -family homes there and probably not convenience stores. Therefore, this may be the lesser of several evils. The motion passed 5-3-0 with Springborn, Jacks, Nash, Seiff & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Hanna, Ozment and Allred voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that the motion passed to deny the rezoning with the recommendation of going to the Board of Adjustment to look in favor of Mr. Ward s sign request. CONDITIONAL USE FOR MINI -STORAGE IN C-2 ZONING LAWRENCE STARR - N OF TOWNSHIP, E OF COLLEGE AVE The third item on the agenda was a conditional use request for mini -storage in C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, submitted by Lawrence Starr and represented by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering for property located north of Township and east of College Avenue and containing 5 acres. This item was tabled at the last meeting. Chairman Jacks advised that the next item on the agenda is a related Large Scale Development Plan. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to remove this item from the table, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. Mr. Merrell stated that this is has been one of the more difficult situations that the staff has dealt with in the last year. Certainly, no one on the staff wants to support an application for using land with various levels of development going up the hillside. This is a situation where Mr. Starr is trying to find a way to utilize his property. Mr. Starr stated at the last meeting that he would withdraw his appeal of the Commission's recommendation for denial of the rezoning for the rear of this property which he did indeed do. He added that as Don Bunn had reported at the last meeting, under the proposed hillside development regulations, which are in draft form from Mr. Raby and his colleagues, the property could probably be used for this purpose but not at the scale or the density that Mr. Starr is proposing. However, those regulations aren't on the books right now and the staff has basically taken the approach that when they deal with an applicant, the regulations on the books now are what is followed. He noted that they do hope to have some more stringent regulations in the future, but until such time, the staff has difficulty recommending against an item like this. With a certain amount of reservation, the staff does support Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 6 the conditional use application. Mr. Bunn is also recommending the large scale development with some rather strict conditions. Chairman Jacks asked where the boundary line on the property between the R-0 and C-2 zoning come from originally. Mr. Bunn stated that he doesn't know how it was defined or when it was zoned that way, but there is a legal description for it. It follows a contour line. Mr. Milholland stated that the boundary line shown is to scale and has a radius call, etc. Therefore, it is in accordance with the description that is on record in the drafting department. He added that it is his understanding that there was even opposition from people on Karyn Street back at the time this piece was rezoned with the fear of Karyn Street being extended to the North. To protect the R-1 property in Brophy Addition, parts of this property was zoned R-1 and part R-0 as a buffer and then the C-2 as a commercial. Mr. Milholland stated that Mr. Starr started well over a year ago working with the City staff to try to find answers as to how he could develop this piece of property as it exists. The only thing he has tried to develop here is mini - storage and hasn't tried several other options that would be allowed in C-2. He added that the plan has been scaled back since the rezoning petition was denied by the Planning Commission. He noted that large scale development plan is for the C-2 portion of the property only. This use, would be low traffic and more adaptable to the community compared to other things allowed there. Mr. Starr plans to build a quality concrete road into it and maintain it and build the project in phases td cut down on drainage problems during construction. Mr. Milholland stated that he would like to present a topo map showing the percentage grades on the area that he is planning to develop. Chairman Jacks stated that they probably should wait until they discuss the large scale development plan to see his map. Commissioner Allred stated that it looks to him like there is a 110' of fall from College Avenue up to the top of the hill. Mr. Milholland stated that they are looking at approximately 100'. Commissioner Allred stated that he is concerned more with the visual affect of it rather than the drainage or the grading; this will resemble a hillside full of poultry houses. Chairman Jacks stated that it seems to him that warehousing is most appropriately put on fairly level ground because of trucks hauling things to these units. Mr. Milholland asked what percentage grade did they feel is steep. Chairman Jacks stated that 0 percent is not steep; it is not a hard and fast line. Mr. Milholland stated that there are apartment houses and single-family houses with real steep 20 to 25 percent grade driveways with very few trees. He commented that the steepest grade on the driveway will be 13.5 percent with the entrance being around 10 to 11 percent for about 100 feet compared to Township Road which is 20 percent and most of the driveways to the houses in Brophy Addition are exceeding 13 percent. • • • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 7 Commissioner Nash advised that she would like to see the topo map with the figures on the slopes since they are already talking about it. Commissioner Hanna stated that staff in their recommendation is suggesting the maintenance of the wooded buffer as shown on the large scale development plan. He asked how deep the wooded buffer is going to be. Mr. Milholland stated that there would be a buffer with a minimum of 10' up to 50' left along the western, northern and eastern perimeters in addition to the R-0 and R-1 that is wooded on the southeast side. Commissioner Hanna asked how they would maintain the wooded buffer if the R-0 portion of the property is developed. Mr. Milholland stated that there is still the R-1 triangular shaped portion of the property behind the R-0 portion and Mr. Starr would probably be agreeable to leaving a 10' buffer on the south and east side of the R-0 property if it was developed. Tom Stockland stated that he is an attorney in town and he is representing a group of residents on Sherwood Lane, Karyn, Jimmie and some of the other streets. He noted that most of the points that he wanted to make have already been made. He added that this is C-2 property and the mini -storage is something that isn't allowed by right in C-2 property. There is a fairly nice neighborhood here where the people are proud of their homes and this would be a very ugly development. It is not what they want to represent Fayetteville and it is not what the persons living in the area want in their neighborhood because it would detract from their property. This is more the type of development that would be more proper in an area where there are similar buildings. He stated that he is concerned about the grade and the number of trucks that will be driving into this development. An improperly loaded truck on even a 13.5 % grade is a problem; there is some question about the safety factor because there would be improperly loaded trucks. He noted that as far as he knows, there isn't a big demand for a storage area in that specific location. Until tonight, it was everyone's understanding that they were planning to leave a 30' wooded buffer. Some of the residents have been concerned about the legal description because it is there understanding that maybe it overlaps a little into the R-0. He advised that Mr. Starr knew what he was buying when he purchased this land and apparently didn't have any intentions of building commercial property and there is no hardship here and nothing that should require us to give him a zoning variance. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to deny the application, seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Cou'nissioner Seiff stated that he is going to vote to deny this because one of the criteria for granting conditional uses is that the proposed use should not prevent enjoyment of uses already permitted on adjacent land. In his opinion, the residents of this area who have shown in force are enjoying living there and would not enjoy living on their land with this type of use next to it. Also, there is no doubt that this would be an awful looking development. The motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 8 Chairman Jacks stated that the Planning Commission should probably take action on the Large Scale Development Plan related to this. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MINI -STORAGE LAWRENCE STARR - N OF TOWNSHIP, E OF COLLEGE AVE The fourth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for mini -storage submitted by Lawrence Starr for property located north of Township and east of College Avenue containing 5 acres and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to deny the large scale development plan, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Nash commented that she is very concerned about where they stand on denying something and not basing their denial on a particular ordinance. Some people would say if there isn't an ordinance specifically saying they can then they can't. Maybe staff has the right idea that Mr. Starr had probably complied to ordinance. Chairman Jacks stated that as far as he is concerned the conditional use was denied primarily because of the type of usage for this steep piece of property which is not large scale development particularly. Commissioner Ozment stated that "conditional use" itself means exception. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't know that they are called upon legally to state a reason for denying something except with a rezoning. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CHRISTIAN LIFE CATHEDRAL RED DIXON - 1285 MILISAP ROAD The fifth item was a large scale development plan for Christian Life Cathedral submitted by Red Dixon on behalf of the church and represented by Dave Jorgensen for property located at 1285 Millsap Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is actually two separate presentations to the Commission: a large scale development and a concept plat. He noted that there was really no significant comments by the other utilities. There is an existing building there and all the utilities are present and sufficient for the addition. They do plan to bring fire protection into the property and there was a request by the fire chief to relocate the fire hydrant which was agreed to. Mr. Bunn noted that the proposed addition to the church is located on a street right-of-way and they will be required to close the right-of-way before the building can be built as proposed. There is an existing cemetery located east of the church and access will have to be assured to the cemetery. The right- of-way was originally given across that property so that Millsap Road could be extended on to the east and what they are planning to do in the large scale development is to take that road to the north and back to the east. In that way • • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 9 it will serve the purpose of the original dedication and they don't see any particular problem with doing that. The staff is recommending that this large scale development be approved subject to the Board of Directors closing of the existing 50' right-of-way which continues easterly and a little bit northerly from the end of Millsap Road that is shown, the extension of fire protection of the property which they have agreed to do, the dedication by separate instrument of a 50' street easement across the property shown on the plat, the construction of Millsap Road to at least the northwest corner of that property, approval of a Conditional Use for the church if none has been granted before, recording of a legal instrument which assures the cemetery association and the general public access to the cemetery across their parking area. Chairman Jacks complemented Mr. Bunn on the drawing that he had submitted with the agenda packet (attached to the back of the Minutes) which shows the future plan to tie streets together in this area. He asked if Mr. Bunn is projecting what he thinks might happen north of Stubblefield or does the staff have layouts. Mr. Bunn stated that they have preliminary layouts, but there is no guarantee that any of the dashed line streets on the drawing will be put in that way. Commissioner Nash asked if the sidewalk ordinance applies to this. Mr. Bunn stated that if there is a sidewalk required according to the Master Sidewalk Plan, they would be required to put it in. He added that sidewalks are required by ordinance and as he has said before, if they are shownon the Master Plan, they are required even if he fails to mention it in his report. Commissioner Seiff asked if it is possible that the projected street (the dotted street north of Yorktowne Square on the drawing) to the east would connect with that subdivision sometime in the future. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, the staff is recommending that a 50' right-of-way be reserved for that purpose. Red Dixon stated that he hasn't seen Mr. Bunn's drawing on projected streets but there is a future plan of a street going off to the gas company property. He noted that when they were before the Planning Commission about five years ago, they asked that they be given some time to build a street into their property which they have done. He added that they would like some time to do the street this time except maybe as a private drive into their parking lot because of the fact that if that street is completed to the northwest corner of the property, it is really not going to serve any purpose right now. He noted that they would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance on that. Mr. Merrell advised that they would not have any objections to giving them some time to build the street. John R. Dockery of 3225 Mt. Comfort Road stated that he and his wife are co - treasurer and secretary for the Cemetery Association. He noted that they are glad that Christian Life Center has done the work that they have in the area because it has improved the looks of the cemetery. However, that strip of land just north of the cemetery (30' wide) isn't a right-of-way. They have planned to put additional graves there. The street was for the purpose of the cemetery and they have deed documents that the 30' north of the fence belongs to the • • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 10 cemetery. Chairman Jacks clarified that Mr. Dockery is saying that the 30' right-of-way that is being suggested to be closed really belongs to the cemetery. Mr. Dockery added that Mr. Jorgensen had told him that there were no plans to run the road all the way through there. Commissioner Hanna stated that the plat shows the road running way to the North of the cemetery so the right-of-way that they are giving to get to the cemetery will end at the cemetery property. Chairman Jacks advised that the right-of- way that they are asking to be vacated is only on Christian Life Property not in front of the cemetery. Mr. Bunn stated that is correct. Mr. Dockery was shown a copy of the plat reflecting this. Mr. Dockery stated that he was mistaken and they have no other opposition to this. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to the recommendations of the staff, that the Board of Directors close the existing 50' right-of-way, extension of fire protection, dedication on a separate instrument moving the road to the north for access to the east, construction of the road to the North being done subject to a Bill of Assurance by the church that it will be built as the need arises, the recording of the instruments as requested by staff, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. Don Bunn asked if they have a comment on the concept plat. Chairman Jacks noted that it wasn't on their agenda. Mr. Bunn stated that he felt they should discuss it. He added that there weren't that many comments on it except a note that they were recommending a 50' right-of-way shown on the plat which extends to the east and would tie those together. Also, on the large scale development itself, there is a little spur right-of-way that goes to the North that could tie into Vantage Square. Commissioner Hanna clarified that this would give access to the North to the Arkansas Western development and also to the East possibly behind Stubblefield. Mr. Bunn stated that was correct. Commissioner Hanna stated that the only cul- de-sac that they might need a variance on is if they develop down that single- family area shown on the plat which would have to be addressed when they bring in the plan on it. According to the drawing that Mr. Bunn submitted, there is another possible connection to the East which would really give another access to this development if they needed it. When and if the concept plat is brought in for large scale development as a R-1 subdivision, they should consider cutting the road through to the East. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLITS O1 & 2 JOHN DOCKERY - DOCKERY LANE, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD, E OF RAY AVE The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Splits 1 & 2 submitted by John Dockery and represented by • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 11 Charles Dunaway. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated that the lot splits are for the purpose of building single-family houses and selling them. He noted that the staff recommends that the lot splits be approved subject to the installation of a fire hydrant at Dockery Lane and 16 West. There is a fire hydrant fairly close but it would not provide fire protection according to the ordinances to all of the property so they felt another fire hydrant at Dockery Lane was called for, a dedication of an additional 5' or right-of-way along Dockery Lane, the granting of a Bill of Assurance of eventual construction of one half of Dockery Lane which is presently a gravel street, payment of parks fee required by the City and cooperation of other utilities in the event that additional utility right-of-way is required by one of those utilities. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone appearing in opposition to this. There being no response, discussion took place among the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nash asked how big the lot is before the splits. Mr. Dunaway stated that it is 115' deep and 200' long. NOTION • Commissioner Nash moved to approve the two lot splits subject to staff comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 8-0-0. • WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 GARY RENAGER & JANES TINNIN - 1831 GREEN ACRES ROAD The seventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split ill submitted by Gary Renager and James Tinnin and represented by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers for property located at 1831 Green Acres Road and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn stated that there is an existing dentist office on the property and the property would be split into two tracts with both tracts approximately 3/10ths of an acre. The split will divide an office building along the interior walls. He added that they have mentioned in the recommendation that a two-hour firewall is required and that construction of sidewalk is required. However, in discussions with the staff and the City Attorney it has been determined that the firewall is not required and because the building is existing, they are not required to build a sidewalk. Therefore, the staff's recommendation is that the lot split be approved subject to the dedication of additional 5' of right-of- way along Green Acres Road. They are not requiring the first and second conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Hanna asked what the decision that the sidewalk would not be required was based on. Mr. Bunn stated that it was based on a provision in the ordinance which was a determination of the Board of Directors that where structures are existing, construction of a sidewalk would not be required. Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 12 Commissioner Nash asked if splitting a lot right through the building is a common occurrence. Mr. Bunn answered, no, but this is C-2 property and the side building setbacks required are 0'. He added that it is not uncommon on commercial property to build across property lines or have two buildings adjacent to each other. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve this lot split subject to comments and recommendations from staff after revisions, seconded by Springborn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that this would make the driveway only along one side of the lot split. He asked if they are giving an easement or something so that the other side will be able to use their parking lot. Mr. Milholland stated that the one that has the driveway coming in will be giving an easement to the other. The motion passed 8-0-0. FAYETTEVILLE - FARMINGTON GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY DISCUSSION Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that several months ago the City of Farmington had a proposed annexation area which took in some of the City of Fayetteville growth area. As a result of that, there was some discussion between Farmington and Fayetteville about the boundary line. The City of Fayetteville growth area was established in the late 60's and was changed somewhat in 1974 when water growth area was established. He submitted a map showing the City Limits (see attached drawing), Fayetteville's growth area and Farmington City Limits. The Fayetteville growth area that was adopted was butting up against Farmington and in 1980 Farmington came to the Fayetteville Planning Commission with a growth area and at the time the final recommendation of that growth area was that Farmington needed to put off the adoption of the growth area until they could establish by ordinance some control in the growth area. It was never taken to the Board of Directors and Farmington never came back with controls, so it fell through at the time. He added that City staff had a meeting several weeks ago with the City of Farmington and both cities agreed on a growth area boundary line which pretty much divides the area between Fayetteville and Farmington. Farmington is proposing to annex right up to the growth area line but not beyond it, so right now they are asking for two changes in the growth area boundary. Chairman Jacks stated that they have pretty much determined that if a City does indeed set up an annexation, there is really nothing the City of Fayetteville can do about it. Mr. Merrell stated that Farmington's proposed annexation is not going to encroach southeasterly up under the southern City Limits of Fayetteville. • Planning Commission September 25, 1989 Page 13 Phyllis Rice of Northwest Arkansas Times asked if Farmington wanted to annex in either the existing Fayetteville growth area or in a proposed growth area which might be approved, could they legally do that. Mr. Bunn stated that there are laws about how the growth area is established, but there aren't any laws that control the annexation process. They could annex right up next to our City Limits or Fayetteville could do the same to them. He added that what the staff is trying to do with this is get an agreement between Fayetteville and Farmington so that doesn't happen. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Rose, the City Attorney, if he had any comments. Mr. Rose stated that he didn't have anything to add to the discussion. Commissioner Nash asked how you change the process; would that be done by getting the Board to vote to meet with Farmington's Board and talk. Mr. Bunn stated that they hope to get a recommendation for this proposal from the Planning Commission to the Board of Directors. Then the Board will adopt their revised growth area MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend this proposal to the Board of Directors, seconded by Nash. • John Merrell stated that Mayor Roy Drake, mayor of Farmington, has told the staff that they are taking this same proposal to the Farmington -Planning Commission. • The motion passed 8-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. SOWS Oste 441 _ A _ pYGKa.'TO 1 ---pgopo9E17 FARlslIW&T'o1J i I (l7 /GofZl�o�'Tfr l.IM17"� 24 so a -M1 -.-E a -s -I Ei kr- �- �T=_ kenv,067-00 - FaYETT6✓01.4.-E • • • • adoa Scale' r=4 11 11 11 11 • (r II II II II l r-� 11 11 11 H I 11 (./2/ 11 _J L. 2,-N( U Q J 0 ItX2 ONIC DRIVE STUBBLEFIELD Sec. 26, T -17-N, R -30-W Christian Life Cathedral - LSD 1285 Millsap Rd. Zoned R-1 P.C. 9-25-89