HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-11 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December
11, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building,
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
MINUTES
J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie
Jacks, Gerald Elingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna
Jack Cleghorn
John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the
press and others
The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1989 were approved
as distributed.
Chairman Jacks stated that there has been a request from some citizens present
to move item 12 which is a rezoning petition for property on the southwest corner
of Wedington and Garland to first on the agenda because there are several people
present for that item. He asked if the Planning Commission had any objections.
Commissioner Nash noted that they moved an item up at an earlier meeting and
there where some complaints from people who came in later and missed it.
Chairman Jacks advised that they have had objections in the past when items are
moved around because with the anticipation of an item being discussed later, some
people did not arrive for the beginning of the meeting. Therefore, they will
proceed with the agenda in order.
LOT SPLITS 1 & 2 AND CONDITIONAL USE - 2 TANDEM LOTS
D.T. WILLIAMS - 1662 MISSION BLVD
This first and second items on the agenda were two lot splits and a conditional
use for two tandem lots submitted by D. T. Williams of 1662 Mission Blvd.
Chairman Jacks advised that items 2 & 3 have been withdrawn by the applicant.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A Q CHICKEN RESTAURANT
RON PALMER - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF APPLEBY RD & N COLLEGE
The fourth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for A.Q. Chicken
Restaurant submitted by Ron Palmer and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen
Engineers for property located on the southwest corner of Appleby Road and North
College Avenue. Property contains 2.13 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 2
Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no problems with the utility
companies. Water and sewer are available to the site. He added that there was
some discussion about the possibility of the rerouting of Appleby Road at that
point and it was determined that whether or not Appleby was rerouted, it wouldn't
really affect this property. The staff recommends approval of the large scale
development subject to the improvements of one-half of Appleby Road which has
been agreed to, construction of sidewalks as required by the Master Sidewalk
Plan, Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments and approval of the plans and
specifications for the off-site improvements.
In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Bunn stated that the rerouting
of Appleby Road is a viable possibility because it doesn't intersect into North
College at a very good location. He noted that it could be rerouted to the North
and come in square to College between Herman's Restaurant and this property.
He advised that this rerouting is not reflected on the Master Street Plan.
Commissioner Nash advised that the Subdivision Committee approved this subject
to the staff's comments and they also passed a resolution strongly encouraging
placing a traffic signal at Appleby & North College intersection. She noted that
it is their understanding that the money has already been budgeted.
Commissioner Ozment stated in regard to Appleby Road from Gregg Street all the
way to North College, he feels that it would be appropriate for the Planning
Commission to set a committee to try to work out some "game plan" for that whole
street and how they want to address traffic and zoning problems there.
John Merrell advised that the staff will prepare a report on that if the
Commission would like and present it with the next agenda.
NOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to
the staff's recommendations, Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments,
seconded by Hanna. There being no comments from the audience, the motion passed
8-0-0.
FINAL PLAT OF SPRING CREEK ADDITION (FORMERLY SLOAN ADDITION)
CHARLES SLOAN - N OF MISSION BLVD, E OF OLD WIRE RD
The fifth item on the agenda was a final plat of Spring Creek Addition submitted
by Charles Sloan and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers for
property located north of Mission Blvd and east of Old Wire Road. Property
contains 9.12 acres with 27 proposed lots and is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential.
Don Bunn advised that the final plat reflects a 50' right-of-way that was
required with the preliminary plat and none of the utilities had any problems
with this. The staff recommends approval of this final plat subject to Plat
Review & Subdivision Committee comments, payment of parks fees as required by
the city, construction of a sidewalk within the subdivision and along Mission
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 3
Blvd, execution of a contract with the City for public improvements that are not
already in place and all conditions imposed with preliminary plat approval which
includes the 50' right-of-way going to the North.
Commissioner Seiff noted that the cul-de-sac seems to be unusually long and he
asked if they have approved a variance on it at the preliminary stage. Mr. Bunn
stated that he thought that came up at the preliminary stage and perhaps wasn't
required since they made provisions to take the right-of-way on to the North.
Commissioner Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee approved this subject
to the staff's comments.
MOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve the final plat subject to staff's comments,
seconded by Seiff. There being no comments from the audience, the motion passed
8-0-0.
Chairman Jacks advised that it would be more appropriate to discuss item 7
(conditional use) before item 6 (LSD).
• CONDITIONAL USE FOR REHAB HOSPITAL
CONTINENPAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. - N OF APPLEBY RD
•
The seventh item was a conditional use for a Rehab Hospital submitted by Harry
Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Continental Medical Systems, Inc. for
property located north of Appleby Road just south of the new North Hills Medical
Park containing 5 acres and zoned R-0, Residential -Office.
Mr. Merrell stated that this is not being developed by the same developers as
the North Hills Medical Park. They are proposing a 60 -bed facility that will
offer services mostly for patients that need some form of acute physical therapy.
This will offer jobs for 150 employees which would be a real boost to the
economic development of Fayetteville. The staff recommends approval of this.
Harry Gray, representative, advised that there is 25 acres south of the Medical
Park site which is owned by Washington Regional Medical Center and this project
will be developed on a five acre parcel of the northeast corner of the 25 acre
tract. It does join the southeast corner of the Medical Park. He added that
Richard Fiske, the regional development director, with Continental Medical
Systems is present and they plan a $10 million investment.
Richard Fiske stated that Continental Medical Systems is the nation's leading
medical rehabilitation company and they presently have a facility open in
Jonesboro, Arkansas and are building a new one in north Pulaski County in
Sherwood, Arkansas. Their home office is located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
He commented that this project will be a 60 -bed inpatient, 58,000 square foot
facility and will be designed as a rehabilitation hospital only. It will also
be an outpatient facility. They will care for people who have head trauma and
brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke or neurological disorders. It will
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 4
include rehabilitation from amputations, work hardening for people who have had
injuries on the job, multiple sclerosis and arthritis. At the present time, the
majority of these services are being handled outside this community usually at
Craig Institute in Denver, Colorado or as far east as Shepherd's Spinal Center
in Atlanta, Georgia.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Fiske stated that they
have a tremendous working relationship with Washington Regional Medical Center
and they are not duplicating services that are already being provided by the
hospital. They are now in discussions with the WRMC to determine what level
that the working relationship will be.
There being no one else in the audience wanting to speak, it was turned over to
the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the conditional use, seconded by Hanna.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REHAB HOSPITAL
CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC - N OF APPLEBY RD
The sixth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for a Rehab
Hospital submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Continental Medical Systems, Inc..
Property is located north of Appleby Road, just south of the new North Hills
Medical Park containing 5 acres and zoned R-0, Residential -Office.
Mr. Bunn stated that the utility companies didn't have any problems with serving
this facility. The staff recommends that it be approved.
Commissioner Nash advised that the Subdivision Committee approves this large
scale development plan. She noted that this does go back to Commissioner Ozment
idea about solving the high traffic problems on Appleby Road and this should be
included in the staff's report.
NOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to
staff comments, seconded by Springborn. There being no one in the audience
wanting to speak on this, the motion passed 8-0-0.
FINAL PLAT OF PARADISE VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION
LINDSEY & ASSOCIATES - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF OLD WIRE RD
The eighth item on the agenda was a final plat of Paradise View Estates
Subdivision submitted by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of
Lindsey & Associates for property located west of Crossover Road and south of
Old Wire Road zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and containing 7.58 acres
with 19 proposed lots.
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 5
Don Bunn stated that the final plat is exactly the same as submitted in
preliminary form and there were no significant comments from the utilities.
There was a request to change the name of one of the streets so the names should
be "Par Court" and "Birdie Drive". The staff recommends approval subject to Plat
Review & Subdivision Committee comments, payments of the parks fees, filing of
subdivision covenants if there are any, the execution of a contract with the City
for all unfinished off-site and on-site improvements and the construction of
sidewalks as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan. Mr. Bunn advised that there
are some plans for a subdivision to the north of this with Par Court continuing
into the north property and tying back into Crossover Road.
Commissioner Nash advised that the Subdivision Committee approved this, but they
asked that a vicinity map be put on the plat. Mr. Hopper noted that has been
done.
MOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments,
seconded by Seiff. There being no one in the audience wanting to speak to this,
the motion passed 8-0-0.
• PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING PETITION R89-33 & CONDITIONAL USE FOR CONVALESCENT HOME
JIM LINDSEY - VANTAGE SQUARE (A JOINT VENTURE) - S OF JOYCE ST
•
The ninth & tenth items were a rezoning petition - R89-33 and a Conditional Use
for a Convalescent Home submitted by Jim Lindsey on behalf of Vantage Square (A
Joint Venture) for property located south of Joyce Street just west of
Butterfield Trail Village.
Chairman Jacks advised that items nine and ten have also been withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R89-34
JAMES KINNALLY - NE CORNER OF JOYCE & VALERIE
The eleventh item on the agenda was a rezoning petition #R89-34 submitted by
James Kinnally for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Street &
Valerie Drive containing 5.06 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1,
Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential.
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property consists
of two tracts of land with a total acreage of 5.06 acres more or less. This
request is for the purpose of ultimately building single-family houses here.
He added that the staff has taken a look at it and it doesn't conflict with any
City plans or policies. The land use planned for that area is low density
residential and the staff recommends that the rezoning be approved.
Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked who would like to speak on
this proposal.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 6
Leroy Duell of 4017 Valerie Drive across the street from this property asked Mr.
Kinnally how many houses he was planning to build on that property. Mr. Kinnally
stated that he plans to build four houses. Mr. Duell commented that his concern
is that the land is low-lying and drains toward Mudd Creek and all the houses
out there now are on septic tanks. With the A-1 zoning, the minimum land size
requirement is two acres and with four houses on 5.06 acres, there will not be
enough land area to serve the septic fields of those four houses. Two houses
would be sufficient for that area of land. He stated that he is opposed to a
rezoning if there are going to be four houses there.
Commissioner Hanna stated that the site plan shows two tracts so there couldn't
be more than one house build on each tract until a lot split was approved which
would have to come before the Planning Commission.
Thomas DeFord who owns the property adjacent to this property to the North stated
that he feels that two lots is sufficient because all of the other homes there
are two acres or more. There is a percolation problem with the land and his pond
drains onto that land when it overflows and he feels that it would increase the
health problem. He noted that he thinks Mr. Kinnally is trying to exploit this
to his benefit and to the neighbors detriment by putting in four lots in an area
where all the existing lots are two or more acres.
Chairman Jacks reiterated what Commissioner Hanna pointed out, the question
before the Planning Commission at this meeting is should this be residential
property rather than agricultural. He noted that if Mr. Kinnally proposes to
build more than one house per tract, he would have to come before the Planning
Commission and ask for a lot split.
Don Shooter of 4121 Valerie Drive stated that he would like to go on record as
opposing the change in zoning primarily based on the split. He asked what
benefit there was in going to R-1 from A-1 other than allowing a smaller house
on a smaller piece of property. He noted that in R-1, the lot size can be as
small as 8,000 square feet. Because Mr. Kinnally would be dealing with people
who would be buying a smaller expensive piece of property, consequently those
homes would likely be smaller less expensive homes. There neighborhood is of
nicer homes and they would like to keep it that way.
John Rollins who has vacant property that adjoins this on the opposite side of
the road (west side) advised that knowing the problems with the percolation of
the soil, it would not be suitable to have very many houses in there and two
would be the maximum.
Randy Newton of 4047 Valerie Drive which is directly across from the property
in question stated that he would like to go on record as being opposed to
changing from A-1 to R-1 because of the minimum size of the property.
Mr. Kinnally stated that he would like to make everyone aware of two things:
1) there are protective covenants that were formed on this land by the previous
owners which run for about another twenty years and one of the covenants is that
no home under 1,700 square feet can ever be constructed there and 2) he does have
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 7
results of a perc test that was done when he bought the property on both tracts
and the percolation rate for tract C is 14 minutes to fall 1 inch and the
percolation rate for tract D is 10 minutes to fall one inch.
A member of the audience asked what the purpose of the rezoning was. Mr.
Kinnally stated that the purpose is to split the property in the future and have
four homes there eventually with his home being on one of the lots. He added
that he is very concerned about the future of the neighborhood because he plans
to live there himself and he would support the protective covenants. A member
of the audience asked if the covenants stated that the minimum lot size of two
acres. Mr. Kinnally advised that the only thing the covenants state from a size
standpoint is that a house can't be any smaller than 1,700 square feet.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that Valerie
Drive is a city street.
Commissioner Nash asked how far this is from the floodplain. Mr. Merrell advised
that this is not within the floodplain and he doesn't know the distance from the
floodplain boundary. In answer to another question from Commissioner Nash, Mr.
Merrell stated that the surrounding zoning is mostly A-1.
Commissioner Klingaman asked how far the nearest city sewer line was. Mr.
Merrell stated that he was comfortably sure that the. closest line would be in
Crossover Road.
Mr. Merrell commented that he appreciates the concerns of some of the neighboring
property owners, however, the issue at this meeting is the possible rezoning of
the property. The gentleman is asking to have this property rezoned to the
City's most restrictive zoning district. The staff still recommends the rezoning
of the property and the issues such as the percolation test and any lot split
at a later date will be handled at that time. Chairman Jacks agreed that the
property is residential in nature rather than agricultural.
NOTION
Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning from A-1 to R-1,
seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that he sees
this property in the future as being R-1 because the most rapidly growing single-
family portion of the City is the northeastern area of the City and there doesn't
seem to be any signs that will change.
Commissioner Seiff stated that the reasons he would vote for the rezoning are:
1) there should be no concerns of the neighbors regarding the perc test because
the State Health Department has approved it, 2) there is no flooding area and
3) the size of the house is covered by the covenants.
Chairman Jacks advised that the city has an acre and one half minimum size on
a lot with a septic tank and there is not enough acreage here to support four
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 8
lots. Commissioner Seiff added that the lot split would come before them at a
later time.
A member of the audience stated that while there is an acre and one-half size
restriction at this time, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that sometime
in the future the City sewer will be extended through there which would throw
that size limitation out.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
Chairman Jacks advised that some of the citizens in that area might like to
leave their name with the City Planning Office to be notified at the time that
a lot split is asked for on this property.
Mr. Merrell advised that this will have to be approved by the Board of Directors
and with the normal course it would go to the Board of Directors at their first
meeting in January.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R89-35
CAROLINE PARSONS - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON (HWY 16 W) & GARLAND AVE
The twelfth item on the agenda was a rezoning petition #R89-35 submitted by Jerry
Taylor of REMAX Realtors on behalf of Caroline Parsons, Trustee for the Hathcock
Trust. Property is 5 lots located on the southwest corner of Wedington (Hwy 16
W) and Garland Avenue containing 4.17 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1,
Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial.
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property is five
contiguous undeveloped lots that are stretching along the west side of Garland,
south of Wedington Drive. He advised that John Hopkins, owner of Fuzzy's
Restaurant, is interested in relocating his restaurant to this property and the
applicant has submitted a letter from Mr. Hopkins to the Superintendent of
Schools dated November 17th stating his plans. Mr. Hopkins has stated that he
proposes a 4,000 square foot restaurant with customer parking for approximately
60 cars. Use Unit 13 in the zoning ordinance stipulates a parking requirement
ratio of 1/200 square feet of floor area in a restaurant. That means that a
minimum of 20 spaces are required. Although, there is no prohibition in the
zoning ordinance for proposed parking numbering over and above the spaces
required, it would have an impact on this site to triple the required parking
as planned. Mr. Hopkins also stated that less than 10% of the site will be
developed, but the staff determined from looking at the site plan submitted, that
percentage would be more than 10%. Thirdly, a proposal was made by Mr. Hopkins
for a wooden privacy fence to be erected along the west property line of the site
as a screen and noise buffer. The staff report comments that the City doesn't
have any specifics as to the height of the fence, the exact location and the
construction, but a wood privacy fence doesn't serve as a sound buffer. Mr.
Merrell noted that the staff does have some questions on the access of this
property. As the staff understands it, the access from Wedington will be just
east of the alley which runs along the west edge of Lot 5 in this vicinity,
approximately 280 feet from the Wedington and Garland intersection and that the
Garland entrance will be located across from Hughes Street south about 30' to
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 9
40'.
Mr. Merrell advised that several of the staff's concerns where pointed out in
the staff report relative to ingress/egress and to traffic in general with this
particular location. One concern is the issue of traffic sight distance relative
to eastbound traffic on Wedington and another is how the proposed Wedington
entrance will relate to the "ingress only" driveway off of Wedington which will
be built to serve the new Harp's Store currently under construction on part of
the northwest corner of Wedington and Garland. Also, the staff is concerned
about how the proposed Garland entrance will line up with Hughes Street and how
both of those entrances will relate to the triangular piece of street right-of-
way in front of lots 4 & 5. The fifth comment the staff has on Mr. Hopkins
proposal pertaining to his statement that he proposes "the retention of as many
trees as possible" is that the City of Fayetteville doesn't have a tree
protection ordinance at this time. It is true, however, that there is a version
of one which is included in the draft of the unified development ordinance that
the RM Plan Group has done.
Mr. Merrell commented that the surrounding properties in this area contain a
mixture of land uses including commercial on the northwest, northeast and
southeast corner. The property across Garland from lots 1, 2 & 3 of the subject
property is zoned R-3. To the west of these lots is an R-1 zoning with a single-
family residential subdivision development. The property immediately to the
south of the property is Leverett Elementary School.
The staff is recommending denial of the requested rezoning of lots 1, 2 & 3 on
the grounds of: 1) the proximity to Leverett School, 2) the land across Garland
on the east side of the street is used and zoned for residential purposes and
3) the requested rezoning of these three lots of the subject property appears
to be somewhat speculative in nature. The second recommendation that the staff
is making is that the Commission proceed and hold the public hearing on this
item, but further recommend that a decision be postponed on the requested
rezoning of lots 4 & 5 to allow the applicant additional time to prepare a site
plan and a tree preservation plan for the property. He added that there is some
fairly significant opposition to this rezoning and the staff feels this delay
would also allow the opposing parties the same opportunity to review the site
plan and tree preservation plan. Should the Commission choose not to postpone
their decision, the staff recommends denial of the C-1 rezoning and approval of
an R-0 rezoning for lots 4 & 5. It is the staff's opinion that the southwest
corner of Wedington and Garland is quite different from the other three corners
in several respects including: 1) the fact that the southwest corner is elevated
above and perhaps less affected by traffic volumes than the other three corners,
2) the southwest corner abuts a major city school and 3) the southwest corner
abuts a neighborhood of well -kept single-family homes that are zoned R-1.
Therefore, the staff has some problems with the argument that this corner should
be zoned commercial to match the other three.
Mr. Merrell advised that a restaurant is not a permitted use by right under the
R-0 zoning, but is a permissible use as a conditional use based upon an appeal
to the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission does have the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 10
prerogative, as they evaluate a conditional use application, to attach and
require certain conditions and performance standards to the development. Perhaps
this approach would be a good compromise and would allow all parties to have
another "shot" at the possible conditional use application down the road. This
would also allow the City to address the questions that the staff has raised and
that the public will raise regarding access, parking, screening & buffering and
tree preservation.
Commissioner Nash asked if the staff would recommend screening of the southern
portion of these tracts between this acreage and Leverett School playground.
Mr. Merrell stated that would be an issue that the staff would like to see on
a site plan. Commissioner Nash asked if the strip of land between Hall and these
five tracts would stay R-1. Mr. Merrell answered, yes.
Commissioner Klingaman asked if the alley is serviceable. Mr. Merrell stated
that it is a platted, dedicated 20' alley but is not physically existing.
Chairman Jacks advised that this is not the first time this property has been
before the Planning Commission. He noted that it is somewhat ironic that he
remembers some years ago that the most vocal person against anymore rezoning
there was Mrs. Hathcock and this petition is coming from the Hathcock Trust.
The public hearing was opened and Jerry Taylor, representing Ms. Parsons, stated
that they tried to lay this out as open as possible so that everyone would
understand what they are proposing here. He commented that they sent out letters
to all the neighboring people plus the people on the west side of Hall. He
advised that the owner intends to control the sell of lots of 1, 2 & 3 if they
are rezoned and she will give a Bill of Assurance that there will be no liquor
store there.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Taylor stated that the
proposed restaurant would be located on lots 4 & 5. In answer to a question from
Commissioner Nash, Mr. Taylor stated that a restaurant would be a conditional
use in the R-0 zone and it is possible that Ms. Parsons would ascertain asking
for an R-0 rezoning rather than a C-1.
Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates stated that he is trying to understand why
there would be any opposition against this, except for the adjacent property
owners behind it, given the zoning on the other three corners of the
intersection. He added that a large scale development would have to be approved
before anything could go on this property and some of these questions could be
cleared up then. Chairman Jacks agreed that any development on property of more
than one acre would have to go through the large scale development process.
Mr. Elsass stated that from his standpoint as a realtor, rezoning that corner
to C-1 and rezoning the other three lots to R-0 would result in a devaluation
of the three lots next to the C-1 zoning. Commissioner Hanna clarified that
what the staff is recommending is to rezone lots 4 & 5 to R-0 and leave the other
three as R-1.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 11
Chairman Jack
sass was
rezoning toCsnoted hthought tMr.
1ratherthan R-0 for lots 4 & 5 saying
would make the property more
marketable.
Commissior Nash connection
ates has with
is
property. neMr. Els ss statedtthat Lindsey has dityco-listed lhand he was asked to
represent his agency.
Margie Moldenhauer of REMAX Realty, one of the listing agents on this property,
stated that they tried to present this where there wouldn't be a fear factor
involved. She commented that she has met with two appraisers on the property
and both of them felt that the highest and best use for this property is
commercial. Even though it is zoned R-1 on Lots 1, 2 & 3, the properties across
the street from it are zoned R-3 and are rental properties. No one would build
a house on lots 1, 2 & 3 which would really devaluate the property extremely for
the owner and not rezoning this would be a real detriment to her. She stated
that the Planning Commission needs to consider whether the property would be
useable at all with what they are considering doing to it.
John Hopkins, the person wanting to develop lots 4 & 5, stated that he isn't sure
if he could do what he wants to do in an R-0 zone. It would be a "Conditional
Use" and he is planning a long-term project. He added that he only has about
25 parking spaces now and he needs more so he is proposing 60 to have enough.
He stated that his architect had talked to some of the Planning Commissioners
and was told that they would not need to submit a site plan so he didn't do one.
He commented that they will be meeting all the setbacks, etc. and he plans to
save as many trees as he can but can't put a number on it.
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else would like to speak to this.
Pat Briney of 816 Hall Street, whose backyard adjoins the Leverett School
playground stated that his concerns are: 1) the safety of the children who walk
by that corner to school because they aren't just talking about a family
restaurant but a beer joint that promotes alcohol and beer consumption and there
is a known problem that bars attract unwholesome characters, 2) the problem of
the grease smoke that Fuzzy's restaurant produces which, according
to
a they
in tthe neighborhood of the existing restaurant, g
even see across the street and Fuzzy's hasn't taken care of the problem and 3)
the children have already been exposed to "characters" flashing them and the last
thing needed there is a bar. He added that he feels that the representatives
of Fuzzy's realize that a bar is inappropriate for this location and have
conspicuously left that out in the name. He commented that he would like to
appeal to the Commission to take into consideration the well-being of the
citizens in that area. He stated that he for one as a resident in that area
is concerned about the type of business that is proposed for there.
Commissioner Nash asked if Mr. Briney was objecting to a rezoning to R-0 or was
he objecting to a bar being built there. Mr. Briney stated that he is objecting
propertyto the use of that for
ote
that
sn
think this corner will everhave as house built on i tr ,,ash n
b twill be sedeforesome
•
I
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 12
sort of non-residential use. They should probably try to go for the least
unobtrusive zoning available. Mr. Briney stated that maybe they could at least
put some restrictions on what type of use could be put there.
Commissioner Allred asked Mr. Hopkins if his Certificate of Occupancy classifies
him as a "restaurant" or a "bar" and what is his ratio of alcohol sales to his
total sales. Mr. Hopkins stated that at present alcohol sales is about 25% and
75% is restaurant sales.
Pat Green of 962 Hall which is directly behind lots 4 & 5 of the subject property
stated that they have spent a considerable amount of money developing their lot
in a residentially zoned area. She added that they believed that the City would
never zone commercial lots in a block that contains an elementary school. There
are 572 children enrolled at Leverett School with one sidewalk on Garland along
these lots. She is concerned about the safety of the children who walk to and
from school and is not in favor of putting any lots that would cut commercial
access drives into that sidewalk area on Garland.
Dan Goody, a resident of Fayetteville, stated that there are a large amount of
huge trees on this property and there isn't any way that it could be zoned
commercial and save very many of those trees. It is one of the rare sites in
Fayetteville where there are a number of large trees and he would like to see
those saved. He added that some of the criteria for granting a rezoning include:
1) whether there is a need for additional land space to be rezoned as requested,
2) whether there is an alternative area for the use requested that would
eliminate the need for rezoning, 3) if a public need exists, should the rezoning
be done in this area or in other areas, 4) would the request impose undue
hardships such as excessive noise, objectionable signs, odors and other nuisances
and 5) is this change really needed by the public or is it merely a convenience
to the owner. He noted that the only reason the four people who were in favor
of this are here is for financial improvement of their situation. He advised
that there is already such a traffic problem and if there was any kind of
commercial business there, it would hurt an already bad problem He stated that
the property could be left R-1 until, in an idea world, the City could buy it
to work with the school to be used to help alleviate some of the traffic problems
there and the alleyway could be developed. This land could be used as an
environmental classroom or a greenspace. If there was only one or two businesses
there that just a couple people would profit from, everybody would lose some of
the beauty, the trees, the beautiful view and perhaps a park. The City can
afford to spend 2.2 million on land in the Industrial Park, when only about 5
or 6% of that much money would buy four acres and make it one of the most
beautiful places in Fayetteville. With the other corners of that intersection
already developed, why not preserve this corner and its beautiful trees. He
requested that the chairman ask for a show of hands for the people who are here
in opposition of this rezoning request.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Coody stated that he didn't
have property that adjoins the subject property, but he is a very concerned
citizen.
• Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 13
In response to a request for a show of hands of those in opposition, there were
approximately 20 hands raised.
Winston Simpson, Superintendent of Fayetteville Public Schools, stated that his
preference in terms of safety for the school children who walk in this area is
that it not be rezoned which would only contribute to greater traffic and
increased curb cuts. He added that he understands that the Planning Commission
has some duty to balance various interests including the interests of the owner.
Apparently, some time in the not too distant past, the owner had resisted
development of this property and in that sense the owner has contributed to the
state that the current owners find themselves in which is a piece of property
that is somewhat unusual in that area of town. He noted guard that at the City
witysand
nd the
ischool currently share in gettinge cost ochildrenadult
across there, but it doesn't work
intersection s ray 16
children across Garland. That corner is developed in such a way that there is
some substantial amount of traffic there and one adult crossing guard would not
be sufficient to monitor the children as they transverse the length of Lot 4
primarily and to some extend lot 5. He commented that his request to the
Planning Commission if they feel compelled to rezone it in any fashion, is that
they follow the staff's recommendation which wouldn't allow a rezoning of lots
1, 2 & 3. Also, if lots 4 & 5 were rezoned to R-0 instead of C-1 and Mr.
• Hopkins continues his proposal, there would be an opportunity for the Planning
to
development that would be least parties
least ob_e t onable inthattry to arrive at a
area.
Commissioner Ozment asked what the typical student traffic peak use time was.
Mr. Simpson stated that it would be around 7:30 a.m. and 2:45 to 3:15 in the
afternoon.
Al Vick, a concerned citizen of Fayetteville, stated that he would like to
respond to the statement made by the gentleman wanting todevelo stated land
earlier which was that these lots aren't doing anybody any good.
t
he has to differ with that because there are several hundred trees in that area
with each one of those treesif they
for everyone eaoneh bundis meeting. d year old have have
provided a 20 year supply oxygen
add to the well-being of the neighborhood and provide homes for other living
things including birds. He commented that as a growing City, Fayetteville has
people who have various business needs who have a right to sit up their
businesses. However, they need to be stewards and artists at the same time and
an artist doesn't put all green or all red on his easel, they balance it out.
These things need to be planned well and with the idea of alcohol being served
near a school, of pavement all around, more traffic and more pollution leads him
to request that this rezoning not be allowed.
Sandy Pringle stated that she is a letter carrier who walks up Garland Avenue
by this property. She noted that she feels that there are enough businesses
already at that intersection. She added that she has had to retrieve many a ball
• kicked over the fence from the school and there are usually kids climbing the
fence and running out there to retrieve it. She commented that she would have
to restate the case that Mr. Merrell had against this because there wouldn't be
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 14
any safe ingress/egress into that property. The greenspace provided at that
corner is sort of a gateway to our community and university and is a real asset.
She advised that the Planning Commission has a difficult job and they always try
their best to weigh out individual rights against the public interest, but it
is just too easy to say "yes" to development. Sometimes they just have to say
"no".
Dan Vega of 919 Lindell just to the east of this property in question stated that
he has seen this whole area progressively deteriorate in the last 14 years and
this represents the last stand. He asked that the Planning Commission consider
denying this rezoning request for the simple fact of the woods that are there
and the life force they represent.
Chuck Baxtc: of 819 Hall Avenue stated that he teaches at Leverett Elementary
and is in his fourth year as crossing guard at that corner. Therefore, he has
a lot of experience with the traffic there. An additional commercial development
would only add to that problem. His concerns were all the things that have been
mentioned so far and also that Leverett School is also Leverett Park and it is
his hope that at some point this land adjacent to the playground could also
become part of the city park system.
John Faucette, realtor and concerned parent of student enrolled at Leverett
School, stated that he is torn about this because Fuzzy's restaurant is one of
the best places to eat in town. He noted that this public hearing is primarily
regarding the rezoning of the property and Mr. Hopkins' plans are secondary.
Mr. Hopkins is a victim of the circumstances. He added that he is not in favor
of a C-1 zoning here. He advised that he checked the zoning map downstairs and
all the grade schools locations show either R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-0 adjoining them
but no commercial so why would they want to rezone commercial next to this
school. His concerns are the safety of the children who walk to and from
Leverett School and the potential added traffic problem with a commercial
development here.
In answer to questions from Mr. Faucette, John Merrell advised that the
petitioner lives in Fayetteville.
Commissioner Nash advised that under "Community Land Use Goals and Development
Objectives" dated 1970 but still being used, it is noted that "elementary schools
and public parks should be located adjacent to one another to facilitate joint
use of public areas and should be located in the center of planned residential
neighborhoods".
Albert Green of 962 Hall stated that his points to be made are that there is
already enough C-1 & C-2 land in Fayetteville with a lot of vacant buildings and
even vacant restaurants which could be purchased and remodeled. There is a good
possibility that Dillion's Food Store will close when the Harp's Food Store is
opened which would provide another large vacant building. He commented that the
best use for that land would be as a school park.
Arvis Lawson of 1002 Hall which is just west of the subject property stated that
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 15
1002 Hall is the Trinity United Methodist Church parsonage which is valued at
about $100,000 to $110,000. This proposed commercial building to the east of
the parsonage is not appropriate and he is opposed to it.
There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed and
discussion took place among the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Klingaman stated that he would like to remind everyone that the fact
that Fuzzy's is looking at this parcel of land is really not relevant to the
discussion at this point because there have been too many cases where a parcel
has been rezoned and the proposed development doesn't take place. They are
really looking at just the change of zoning of this land.
Commissioner Allred noted that one thing that is in favor of this is that Fuzzy's
would not be open at 7:30 a.m. so it would not increase the traffic problem in
the morning and the afternoon is normally the restaurant's slack period. In all
fairness to the petitioners and to the owners, they need to follow the staff
recommendations and ask for a postponement to allow time for more concrete
informational to provide a clear understanding of what will be developed on that
site.
MOTION
Commissioner Allred moved to table this request until the petitioner can provide
the staff recommendations, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion.
Commissioner Nash stated that she understood that the staff's request was not
to table the decision on the entire 5 lots, but to table only lots 4 & 5 and to
deny 1, 2 & 3. Mr. Merrell advised that she is correct.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Allred amended his motion and moved to deny a rezoning on lots 1,
2 & 3 and table a decision on lots 4 & 5, seconded by Seiff and followed by
discussion.
Commissioner Nash noted that a landowner has a right to make money from his land,
but in their consideration the highest and best use of the land is what is good
for the future plans of Fayetteville and not for the owners of the property.
She advised that she will be abstaining on this vote, but she hopes that all five
lots will eventually be denied and left as R-1. She added that she understands
that the Planning Commission can initiate rezonings and she would like the staff
to look at how they might initiate a P-1 zoning for this property.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Seiff, Mr. Merrell stated that the map
of the proposed future land use for this area in the new 20 year plan in the
City's possession right now is at such a small scale that he would need a
microscope to read it. He added that if there is a postponement of at least
part of this rezoning, he will check with Al Raby on that.
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
• Page 16
Commissioner Springborn asked if the motion endorses the staff's recommendation
for an R-0 rezoning on lots 4 & 5 or just tabling the decision on lots 4 & 5 with
no rezoning recommendation. Chairman Jacks advised that the motion was to deny
a rezoning on lots 1, 2 & 3 and to table the decision on lots 4 & 5.
Commissioner Ozment stated that he would have liked to discuss it a little longer
before having to vote although he doesn't necessarily disagree with the motion.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Merrell stated that a large
scale development plan would have to be approved for development on lots 4 & 5
combined since the two of them together would contain more than one acre.
Commissioner Ozment noted that the trees, ingress/egress, etc. could be addressed
when this large scale development was sent through. Chairman Jacks noted that
there is a li
down
thing other than the standard things about property dedications
andtheonlyhas
to do with traffic.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Hopkins stated that his
restaurant is open from 11:00 a.m. to12:00dmid0ig0 ptnwith 90% . to 11:of0 him usanness
ess
being between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
intentions are to remain the same at a new location.
Commissioner Ozment commented that he would rather approve a rezoning to C-1 with
• the cards on the table as to what will be put on that lot vs. R-0 with 43 strings
attached because when the business closes down, there will be a nice building
stuck in a location where they will be put on the spot again to approve a second
conditional use. He added that he likes the control they can have, but it
bothers him when people in their positions years later are faced with something
the earlier Planning Commission members created.
Commissioner Springborn agreed with Commissioner Ozment's comments and noted that
the motion they are looking at now leaves the rezoning entirely open for lots
4 & 5.
Commissioner Klingaman stated that there was a comment earlier that there was
sufficient C-1 property available.
Commissioner Hanna commented that regarding the selling of alcohol that close
to a school, he was under the impression that there was an ordinance addressing
the distance from a school that liquor can be sold. Chairman Jacks stated that
retail liquor stores have to be at least 600' from a school.
Coissioner Ozment
o they
ect to be
accoasked mplished before thenext meeting by both parties. h d Mr.Merrell statedd that
his recommendation regarding this is that a postponement would allow additional
time for the applicant, Mr. Hopkins and others to prepare a site plan that
addresses some of the issues that have been mentioned such as ingress/egress,
screening & buffering, tree preservation, etc. Therefore, perhaps
the
preparation in this instance of a well-prepared scaled site plan that shows these
features and how they would relate to the land along with a tree preservation
•
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 17
plan prepared by a landscape architect would address some of the questions.
He added that this is a very sensitive location in Fayetteville and it was an
extremely difficult rezoning to evaluate to present a recommendation to the
Commission.
Commissioner Springborn noted that if this is tabled and comes before them again,
he would also like to see included in the staff's recommendation for lots 4 &
5, the other of the residential zones, R-2 & R-3.
Commissioner Hanna stated that before they table this and have everyone do a lot
of work and have to come back out again, he would like to mention that the
ordinance prohibiting the sell of alcohol closer than 600' to a school was passed
before people were allowed to sell beer in restaurants in Fayetteville. That
ordinance has a lot of merit and he doesn't think the children should have to
walk by a place that sells alcoholic beverages which is the main reason that he
is opposed to rezoning that property for that use
Commissioner Nash reassured Mr. Hopkins, that when they are talking about a
rezoning they aren't voting for or against Fuzzy's and she feels that they are
out of line to even be talking about what is going in there. She added that they
should be talking about whether the land in the backyard of Leverett School
should be commercial.
Mr. Hopkins stated that he understood they would not need to submit a site plan
with architectural drawings and such for the rezoning petition. Chairman Jacks
agreed that they are only voting on the rezoning question.
Commissioner Seiff withdrew his second to the motion. Therefore, the motion
died for the lack of a second from one of the other members.
Commissioner Ozment stated that what he is hearing is that they are supposed to
discuss whether they are going to approve a rezoning to R-0 or C-1 without caring
what is going to be put in there. He noted that part of the group is saying that
they aren't allowed to look at what development will take place there and the
other part is saying that they want to know more about those things. He asked
which they are going to do.
Commissioner Nash commented that Jim McCord, the prior City Attorney, advised
them that it would be contract zoning if they looked at the development there.
Commissioner Ozment stated that if that is the case, why put these people through
the gyrations of generating studies and conceptual plans when the Planning
Commission isn't even supposed to be asking them for these things.
Mr. Merrell stated that he has to dispute that statement. The Planning
Commission certainly has the option to consider how a piece of property is going
to be developed although it is not required. The degree to which you do that
reflects on the complexity of the rezoning and this petition is a complex
rezoning application. Whether or not it is desirable to either the opponents
or the proponents is another question. It is a possible avenue of a compromise
to address some unanswered questions. It is not mandatory, but perhaps in this
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 18
case, it might be desirable.
Chairman Jacks advised that the owners specifically could petition to ask them
to rezone to C-1 without stating what use it will be put to.
Commissioner Allred noted that all he has heard since he came on the Planning
Commission is to keep major development at major intersections and don't do strip
zoning. Now they are looking at a case where they are on a major intersection
and they are arguing the same question. He stated that he is confused as to what
they are supposed to do. Chairman Jacks stated that he thinks there are other
mitigating factors and this corner has other considerations.
MOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to deny the rezoning as requested, seconded by Klingaman
and followed by discussion.
Commissioner Ozment noted that there are some things that he likes about this
project but he doesn't like the fact that there would be alcohol served there
to any great degree. However, it is somewhat compatible with the school hours.
Sooner or later with or without them, this corner is going commercial and they
need to take advantage of an opportunity that they consider a decent compromise
on that corner.
Commissioner Klingaman noted that he agrees that this may go commercial at some
time, but it should be something with very low traffic there.
The motion passed 6-1-1 with Allred, Springborn, Jacks, Seiff, Klingaman & Hanna
voting "yes", Ozment voting "no" and Nash "abstaining".
MOTION
Commissioner Springborn moved to deny the rezoning of lots 1, 2 & 3 and approve
an R-2 rezoning for lots 4 & 5. Chairman Jacks advised that they have already
denied a rezoning of lots 1, 2 & 3 so the motion is basically to approve an R-
2 rezoning for lots 4 & 5. The motion died for the lack of a second.
MOTION
Commissioner Allred moved to approve a rezoning to R-0 of lots 4 & 5, seconded
by Ozment followed by discussion.
Commissioner Hanna commented that R-0 is compatible for this, but if they ask
for a conditional use for a restaurant, he would feel the same way about the use
of it.
Commissioner Nash noted that several of them have asked John Merrell and the
staff to include in the staff report, if this is tabled, some studies about the
different zonings including P-1 so shouldn't they consider tabling this.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 19
Commissioner Seiff stated that at this point, they have already denied a C-1
rezoning on all five lots so there is nothing to table.
The motion was denied 3-4-1 with Allred, Springborn, & Ozment voting "yes",
Jacks, Seiff, Klingaman & Hanna voting "no" and Nash "abstaining".
Chairman Jacks advised that the motion failed and the request has been denied,
but it may be appealed to the Board of Directors.
Commissioner Nash noted that she would still like information from John Merrell
regarding a P-1 zoning.
Commissioner Ozment commented that even though the request was denied, everybody
will leave here tonight knowing what the score is and he feels good about that.
CONDITIONAL USE - CHILD CARE FACILITY
JEANETTE POTTS - 5514 WEDINGTON DRIVE
The thirteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use 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 item first appeared before the Planning Commission
a couple of months ago in September and was tabled at that time. It is a request
by Jeannette Potts to operate a child care facility at her residence at 5514
Wedington Drive. This item was generated by a program which was funded for one
year earlier this year by the Board of Directors called the "You Can" program.
One aspect of this program is to provide, under certain conditions, stipends to
qualified individuals for their education. The other aspect of it is to
encourage child care in homes through the city zoning ordinance and through the
permission of the Planning Commission. The zoning ordinance allows child care
in the home in two ways: 1) with up to six children, it can be considered as
a home occupation except in an R-1 zoning district which still has to be brought
before the Planning Commission for approval, 2) with more than 6 children up to
10, regardless of the zoning district, the applicant has to come before the
Planning Commission and apply for a conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated that he understands that Mrs. Potts is caring for six children
as a home occupation and her request is for a conditional use to be allowed to
care for more children in the home. There was a public hearing held on this back
in September and there were statements in opposition and a number of issues were
brought up, some that pertained to the petition and some that didn't. The
Commission chose at that time to postpone the decision to see whether or not
Mrs. Potts successfully received a license from the State to care for children
in her home. The staff has recently received a letter from a representative of
the State who has stated that the issuance of that license will soon be
considered by the appropriate board in the state government and this
representative felt that the issuance of that license was imminent. He noted
that if the license has been issued, the staff hasn't been given any information
on the characteristics or provisions of that license. There is a representative
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 20
of the State in the audience who can perhaps address that question.
Mr. Merrell advised that a violation notice had been issued for this property
back in September of 1989 for several violations of the City Code including a
couple of unlicensed vehicles on the property, an old refrigerator sitting
outside and an area of high weeds. The refrigerator has been removed and the
weed problem has been taken care of, but there are still two unlicensed vehicles
on the property. In the staff's opinion, the violation notice has been ignored.
He added that Mrs. Potts stated over the telephone today that she disagrees with
the ordinance.
Mr. Merrell advised that he made the recommendation in his report that the
Planning Commission either deny or postpone their vote on this until the
violation is corrected. He further stated that when the Board of Directors
approved the funding of this program for one year, the staff advised them that
these items would have to go to the Planning Commission with certain
considerations in the zoning ordinance that would have to be followed and that
neighboring property owners would be allowed input at these public hearings.
He added that he thinks the Board understood all that and didn't have any intent
of this program to benefit, either directly or indirectly, people who are
violating other sections of the City Code. He commented that he is going to
amend his recommendation, but he doesn't plan to put anymore of these items on
the Planning Commission's agenda again until and unless certain questions are
answered to the staff requiring the number of kids, the age range, location of
the playground, etc. His amended recommendation is as follows: recommend
approval of this conditional use by the Planning Commission for a probationary
period of one year after which time the applicant can apply to have the
Conditional Use renewed. The approval would be for up to 10 children with the
age range being infant to 7 years, with the hours being from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on Monday through Friday. Another aspect of the recommendation is that the
approval of the conditional use, in this instance, be conditioned upon the
successful receipt of the state license. If during the one year probationary
period the state license is revoked, the conditional use would null and void.
As far as the two vehicles are concerned, the staff's recommendation is that the
conditional use be null and void if these vehicles are not either licensed or
removed in accordance with ordinance within 10 days. He noted that it the best
interest of this program or any other person who wants to have child care in
their home to try to blend their operation in with the surrounding property as
best they possibly can and one of the worst things they can do is to create a
commercial playground in their front yard.
Commissioner Seiff stated that Mr. Merrell gave a tremendous report and he is
in support of it.
Chairman Jacks noted that it sounds like the staff had problems getting the
information that was needed from the applicants. Mr. Merrell stated that they
have had a certain amount of difficulty, but he recently met with BOA Director,
Ralph Nesson, and Paula Ellington and he hopes they understand that the staff
feels like they have the responsibility to get as much information to the
Planning Commission in advance of the public hearings as possible. If that is
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 21
not complied with, there will not be anymore of these items on the agenda.
Floyd R. Lawson of Route 4, Box 423 stated that Mrs. Potts is his daughter. He
noted that he instigated putting up a chain-link fence for the safety of his
grandchildren whether there are other children there or not. Of the two
unlicensed cars, one belongs to a lady that is also living there on the property
and doesn't pertain to his daughter. The other car does belong to his daughter
and has been moved off the property and parked in a storage area in the side yard
which is blocked from visibility two different ways. The car is broke, but it
will be moved if the City wants it moved although he doesn't understand what
ordinance it is violating.
Jeanette Potts noted that the opposition which was at the last meeting is not
here today. She advised that she does have her state license and a sixty page
rule book to follow. Chairman Jacks asked if she understood Mr. Merrell's
recommendations. She answered, yes.
Commissioner Klingaman asked what the reason was for choosing age seven. Mrs.
Potts commented that she will be allowed by the state to keep two children that
will be catching the school bus in front of her house and getting off the bus
there in the afternoon.
Commissioner Seiff asked why the cars hadn't been taken care of. Mrs. Potts
advised that these violations were not hers because Dash Goff was the owner.
The refrigerator belonged to his other party next door who were moving out and
their car was broken down in the side storage area and she had no jurisdiction
to tell them to do anything because she was not the owner of the property.
However, the violations were put in her name. The high weeds were in the
neighbors part of the yard. This had nothing to do with them, but with Dash
Goff and his rental person. She noted that if they purchase this property, they
will be the responsible party. Of the two cars in question at this point, one
of them is the new renters car which was just purchased and has ten days to be
tagged. The other car is a '76 Mustang Cobra II that they are refurbishing for
her daughter in their spare time. It is located back in their storage property
and no one can see it. She noted that she can tow it out to her father's
property outside the city and store it if that is the recommendation.
Commissioner Seiff stated that he can't understand why a person can't have a car
that they are repairing on their property in the backyard or hidden somewhere.
He asked if it was against the City ordinance for him to have a car in is garage
without tags that he is working on. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, if it does not
have a current license plate. Commissioner Klingaman noted that a car can't be
tagged if you cant drive it into an inspection station.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mrs. Potts stated that they do
not own the property as of yet because they were turned down for one loan, but
they are applying for another loan. Therefore, they have plans to purchase the
property.
Commissioner Allred advised that they are discussing a conditional use for a
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 22
tenant that does not own the property, so what would happen if she should lose
her lease next month. Mr. Merrell commented that this question would have to
be raised with the City Attorney to give a fair answer. He added that they do
primarily grant conditional uses to the owner of the property, but in his opinion
the conditional use would be null and void if Mrs. Potts moved or was evicted
from this residence.
Mrs. Potts noted that Paula Ellington had arranged a document through an attorney
which Mr. Goff signed giving his permission for her to run a small day care
facility in her home. She added that they do rent the property.
Chairman Jacks advised that a conditional use runs with the applicant and not
with the property.
Commissioner Seiff asked if they could issue a conditional use to a tenant
without the property owner. Chairman Jacks stated that Mr. Goff had signed off
on this.
Commissioner Allred stated that his main concern is what is happening in the
other two units that are attached to this one. No one has control over those
tenants and he has a real problem with that for the kids safety. Mrs. Potts
advised that she if renting two of the units and the other one is occupied by
her brother and sister-in-law. She noted that she asked her brother and sister-
in-law to move in there because of her concern for the safety of the children.
Chairman Jacks noted that it seems to him that the property has been cleaned up
considerably since September. Mrs. Potts commented that when they first moved
in three years ago, the front yard was mud and the backyard was a mess. She
added that her husband has worked very hard to get that yard smooth and level.
Paula Ellington, Director of the You -Can Program, stated that there have been
some disagreements between her and Mr. Merrell as far as the procedures of
providing this initial information that is needed with the homes. They did have
a meeting recently to clarify this. She stated that it is not the interest of
You -Can to have any kind of special exception in the case of dealing with the
City ordinances or coming before the Planning Commission. They would like for
all their applicants to be treated the same way as any citizen would that came
asking for a conditional use permit. There was some confusion about exactly how
that procedure worked for a while and Mr. Merrell was confused about what her
role was supposed to be in terms of the applicants as to who was responsible for
providing the information to him. She commented that she is assuming that
primarily the applicants should provide all the information that is needed.
You -Can provides low interest loans of up to $2,000 to work with these homes and
they also provide a lot of support such as information about state licensing and
city requirements. In the seven months she has been dealing with this program,
she has talked to about 75 people who have an interest in day care in the City
of Fayetteville and there are about 15 of these that are providing day care that
are not state licensed, not in compliance with city code and not following
federal and state tax laws. Their program is designed to help low-income people,
women primarily. The lower income people who want to do day care encounter
Planning Commission
• December 11, 1989
Page 23
certain specific problems such as dealing with landlords who have to agree to
this, mistrust of regulations, planning commissions, state licensing
requirements, lack of basic start-up money. The You -Can program is in a little
bit of a dilemma because they are often asked to provide that start-up money,
but if they invest in someone who is then turned down by the Planning Commission,
there is a problem. There are also problems where more fluent people may
disapprove of certain habits or the lifestyle of someone who is in a lower income
bracket. It is not in the interest of You -Can to fight City Hall nor do they
ask for special treatment, although they do ask for compassion and understanding
for their learning and their mistakes. This project is very difficult to carry
out. She added that these problems can be addressed and corrected if the
communication is open and she as well as all of the applicants are always
available to Mr. Merrell for any kind of information that he requires for his
reports, etc. She reiterated that the reason that Mrs. Potts didn't follow
through with removing the car was because the City Police told her it was o.k.
that she had the car there working on it. Apparently, the City Police have
different rules that the City does on these things. She advised that if she had
known that Mrs. Potts was still in violation, she would have pushed her to
correct it.
•
Ms. Ellington advised that the Child Care Licensing Specialist from the
Department of Human Services was present until about 7:15 p.m. this evening, but
had to leave. The state representative did state, however, that what she does
in terms of these homes is that she visits to monitor the quality of the day care
family homes. Unannounced visits are made about once per quarter to make sure
that standards are maintained. According to the state, there were no
deficiencies in Mrs. Potts home as of the first week of October. Ms. Ellington
noted that she, herself, is not a licensing agent but she does have information
about the standards if the Planning Commission needs them.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Ms. Ellington stated that they
are funded to handled up to nine total child care facilities under the You -Can
Program and this is the first one where they have lived in one unit of a duplex
or tri-plex. Commissioner Hanna commented that he is concerned about there not
being any control over who lives in the other unit at this residence. Ms.
Ellington asked why the people living in the other unit would have any more
access to the children than a person living in a house next door. Commissioner
Hanna noted that they have a common building that they live in and the backdoor
probably opens up into that same backyard. Ms. Ellington explained that the
woman who is living in the other unit actually worked for Ms. Potts for a brief
time. She actually had to go through some of the procedures that are required
for any adult that actually works in a day care facility. She is not a
stranger and actually was o.k.'d by the State as an employee of Mrs. Potts.
Also, the structure of the house is set up in such a way that the separate unit
has its own entrance way and parking area. These tenants walk around the front
fence and actually have no contact with Mrs. Potts' entrance and the kids have
no access to the entrance of the other unit. Mrs. Potts advised that she has
no common yard with the other tenant.
• In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Ms. Ellington stated that
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 24
it is the site as well as Mrs. Potts that is licensed.
Mr. Merrell commented that these issues will be cleared up the next time or these
applications will not be coming to the Planning Commission, because the
Commission ought not to be in the responsibility of debating code violations,
etc.
Commissioner Nash suggested that they table this for two weeks and send the
violations to the owner of the property, Mr. Goff, and put the conditional use
in the name of the owner of the property. They could simplify it in this way
and clear up some of the confusion with who is responsible for the cars, etc.
Commissioner Ozment noted that it is essentially just one violation that they
have to deal with, a disabled car.
Mr. Merrell noted that if it is the general consensus of the Commission, they
could take the approach of tabling this although he will stand with the
recommendations he made earlier.
Commissioner Klingaman commented that doing what Commissioner Nash has suggested
would be putting Mr. Goff in the position of saying that the cars aren't his
either and he would be responsible if he tows off someone elses cars.
Commissioner Allred noted that on the violation notice submitted with the agenda,
it shows Mrs. Potts as the "owner/buyer". Apparently, she was in the process
at that time in trying to buy it. His main concern is that it is a duplex and
there are still violations and there is an argumentative approach to who is right
and who is wrong. Since this is a new program, there should be 1057 in the
spirit of cooperation from the participant and he doesn't see that here. The
Planning Commission is not obligated to grant a Conditional Use. It is a good
program for what it is designed for, but he is not sure that it is as successful
as what it was thought to be because no one has addressed the safety and welfare
of the product they are providing: child care to children that have no say in
what is going on.
Commissioner Klingaman noted that they, as the Planning Commission, are putting
themselves in the position where they are deciding what the state standards
should be for child care license and he has trouble with that.
Mr. Merrell reiterated that the things that the State evaluates in their state
licensing and the things that the Planning Commission need to evaluate under the
zoning ordinance are somewhat different. He cautioned the Commission that if
this program does generate any future requests like this, to be careful not to
condition their approval on a state license being received. One reason for that
is, in order to obtain a state license certain monies have to be spent and a lot
of work is required by the applicant and the You -Can representatives not knowing
what the ultimate decision of this Commission will be. He asked them to
remember that the Commission reviews certain things and the State reviews certain
things.
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 25
Commissioner Seiff noted that when he votes on this, he plans to ignore
everything (including state laws and automobile laws) except those factors that
would help him determine whether a conditional use should or should not be
granted.
MOTION
Commissioner Klingaman moved to approve the conditional use request subject to
the staff's recommendations with the exception of the automobile stored behind
the house, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion.
Commissioner Allred stated that as he sees the motion, it would be overriding
city ordinance.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Klingaman amended his motion and moved to approve the conditional
use request subject to it meeting all city codes, seconded by Nash.
The motion passed 5-3-0 with Allred, Jacks, Nash, Seiff & Klingaman voting "yes"
and Springborn, Ozment & Hanna voting "no".
CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION - BEAUTY SHOP INR -1
RAMONA LAYMANCE - 220 E. CLEBURN
The fourteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a home
occupation (Beauty Shop) in the R-1 zone submitted by Ramona Laymance for
property located at 220 E. Cleburn.
Mr. Merrell stated that this particular request has been filed by Ramona Laymance
through her attorney, Esther White. This residence is used as a single-family
home and the nearest commercial land uses in the neighborhood are just to the
west on North College Avenue. The staff feels that it is very important that
the Commission exercise special care in all conditional use requests in an R-1
zone, but particularly in a case where a business of this type is being proposed.
He advised that the staff has received several phone calls from operators of
barber & beauty shops who are in commercial locations. This is the kind of thing
that tends to attract the attention of people who are in a commercial location
and having to pay the overhead and who might prefer to operate out of their homes
themselves for convenience. He added that the applicant has explained that there
is a family problem which in her opinion requires her to remain at home and to
operate a one -chair beauty out of her home. The staff recommends the approval
of this request, but feels that the Commission might want to explore the reasons
behind her preference to operate out of her home.
Ms. White representing Ramona Laymance asked if the calls the staff received were
directly relating to this application and if they were from anyone in this
neighborhood. Mr. Merrell stated that they were directly relating to this
application, but no one identified themselves as being from this neighborhood.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 26
Ms. White stated that she has a copy of the notice that they put in the paper,
but she will provide that tomorrow. She added that she also received a notice
from a landowner across the street from the property, owner of the Fish Bowl,
who stated that she had not objections to this.
Ms. White noted that Mrs. Laymance wishes to operate this out of her home partly
because she wishes to have some supervision and control over her 14 year old son
and she has also been laid off from her last three jobs with two of them due to
health reasons. Ms. White added that the applicant does not have the funds to
rent a commercial property and open a business. This would not create a large
amount of traffic in this neighborhood and she does not plan to have a sign or
extra parking. According to Mr. Merrell, the gravel parking area would need to
be paved and they would provide that if it is required, but there is ample
parking in her driveway.
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or
in opposition of this request. There being no response, it was opened to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hanna commented that the "Fish Bowl" has been located across the
street from this location for a number of years and he is sure that this
operation generates more traffic than she will have by a log shot. He added that
his next door neighbor on Ila Street operates a one -chair beauty shop in her home
and there has never been any problem with it. This is a rather unobtrusive type
request.
MOTION
Commissioner Allred moved to grant this conditional use, seconded by Hanna. The
motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE - CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE
LINDA JOY FOX - 147 E. SPRING STREET
The fifteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a chiropractic
office submitted by Linda Joy Fox for property located at 147 East Spring Street
and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Merrell stated that this particular request has been filed by Linda Joy Fox
who is a licensed counselor to establish a chiropractic office and counseling
practice at 147 E. Spring which is located on the corner of East Spring and
Washington Avenue. The zoning ordinance lists a professional office in Use Unit
25 as being eligible for a conditional use. This neighborhood contains somewhat
of a mixture of land uses with mostly single and two-family residences. The
only real commercial activities in the area are on North College Avenue. The
applicant has proposed to use a small area of the rear yard for parking off of
Washington Avenue. As the staff has pointed out in the report, Washington Avenue
is really too narrow to feasibly or safely accommodate on -street parking although
4
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 27
Spring Street doesn't have sufficient width to accommodate on -street parking.
Mr. Merrell pointed out that the zoning ordinance requires five parking spaces
based on one space per 300 square feet of floor space. Depending on how the
parking area in the rear yard is measured, it would probably hold three or four
cars with reasonable safety. The applicants have stated that they have a low
volume practice. Dr. Smith, who is the chiropractor, sees approximately 20
patients per day and Ms. Fox sees about 10 patients per week. There is a tenant
in the house at this time and the plan is that she would remain living there and
the remainder of the house would be devoted to the professional office. The
staff's recommendation is essentially to approve the conditional use for one year
initially in order for the City to determine if any problems are generated by
the facility and that the Certificate of Occupancy would be required in any event
to be successfully obtained. He added that they felt it was a little more
important to recommend a time limitation initially on this conditional use due
to the relative amount of the structure to be used for the practice.
Commissioner Nash stated that she understands that conditional uses are reviewed
by the staff annually anyway if there have been complaints. She asked if Mr.
Merrell is saying this needs to be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Merrell
answered, yes, and stated that there is a very curious section in the
Fayetteville zoning ordinance which appears to give the Planning Director a
rather extraordinary amount of power as far as renewing conditional uses under
certain circumstances. He added that he has not exercised that power and doesn't
plan on it.
Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak.
Linda Joy Fox stated that she understands their concern as far as the parking
available. She noted that their objective is to keep a home -like atmosphere
here and they have been working for years out of the Star Shopper building with
only 5 spaces available for their use with one of those spaces shared with the
massage therapist who is not moving with them. If one were to project the space
that they have been using, you could say that they presently have enough. The
tenant who has lived upstairs for five years works at the U of A during the day
Ms. Fox noted that she is married to Dr. Smith so they will often share
transportation to the office location or she will be riding her bike or
motorcycle There is an outbuilding that they are planning to move which would
probably create room for two more spaces. They envision that they have
sufficient parking space. She advised that it would be somewhat of a hardship
for them to buy this building when they wouldn't have the surety that they would
be able to use it for an office after one year. Therefore, she is objecting to
the review after one year. The neighbors do not object to this because they
aren't trying to turn a residential location into an office, they want their
office to be in a home -like atmosphere.
Commissioner Allred asked if conditional uses are reviewed annually by statute.
Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Commissioner Allred noted then that one year is all
they can approve regardless. Mr. Merrell stated that he is not sure that he
•
•
•
0
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 28
agrees with that. However, there is a section in the zoning ordinance that
addresses this, but it deals with conditional uses permitted for home occupations
in the R-1 zone. This section (section f) is what he was alluding to earlier.
This section states that no conditional use permit shall be issued for a period
exceeding one year. It can be issued for a period shorter than one year and the
Planning Administrator shall have the authority to renew a conditional use permit
for the same period as originally authorized if the staff has received no
complaints or opposition from surrounding properties. He noted that it doesn't
really address what they are talking about here.
Chairman Jacks advised that Section F has to do with Home Occupations in R-1 and
since this request is in R-2 and it is not a home occupation, it does not apply.
Ms. Fox noted that they do not plan on residing at this location. Chairman Jacks
stated that he doesn't know that conditional uses are reviewed annually by
routine. Commissioner Springborn stated that they were.
Commissioner Hanna asked is it not the practice and the history with conditional
uses that if there haven't been complaints and it doesn't cause a problem, it
isn't brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Merrell answered, yes.
He added that what sometimes happens is that some neighbors are reluctant to
contact the person they perceived as causing the problem, they normally call the
City with their complaint.
Garret Smith stated that the staff's report gives the impression that they are
planning to do some major changes on the property and they have absolutely no
plan to change anything. It is a 125 year old structure and they want to
preserve it the way it is.
MOTION
Commissioner Seiff moved to approve the conditional use, seconded by Springborn.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH
EDWARD COWAN - 1629 STONE STREET
The sixteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use for a church submitted
by Edward Cowan for property located at 1629 Stone Street and zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residential.
Mr. Merrell stated that this request is actually to be allowed to continue church
services at 1529 West Stone in a small frame house on a small lot. This is a
situation where something is already occurring and rather than taking subordinate
action, they offer the applicant an opportunity to have their conditional use
considered by the Planning Commission. Churches are listed as a conditional
use in Use Unit 4 of the Zoning Ordinance under R-2 zoning. The surrounding land
use is a mixture of primarily single and two-family residences with some
apartments in the near vicinity. He advised that Mr. Cowan has stated that the
congregation right now consists of about 15 people and this group recently split
from a larger church in Fayetteville. The church would like to buy the property
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 29
if the conditional use is granted to either continue to use as a church or use
as a parsonage and construct a new church building elsewhere. The staff
recommends denial of this application for the following reasons: 1) this is
a predominantly residential area which is characterized by small houses on small
lots which the staff feels are inappropriate for conversion to churches, 2) the
City's building code will require extremely extensive renovation to the house
because churches are regarded as places of assembly and the purpose of the
building code is to protect people from fire, overcrowding, etc. and 3)
although there is room for a few cars in the rear yard, there really isn't
sufficient room for on-site parking if the congregation does grow and the zoning
ordinance would require paved parking. The staff realizes that this is a well
intended effort on the part of Mr. Cowan and members of his congregation, but
they don't think this is a very good solution providing for facilities for
churches in the City.
Commissioner Hanna asked if the applicant was requested to come for this
conditional use request because of complaints. Mr. Merrell asked the City
Planning Secretary how this application was initiated. Mrs. Cattaneo stated that
she wasn't sure what initiated it.
Edward Cowan of U101 Carlson Terrace, Razorback Road, stated that he is presently
a student at the U of A and is also the pastor of the church in question. He
advised that the house was rented as a house in his name and they have received
permission from the owner to use it as a church. He noted that they have only
been there since October 16th and didn't start services there until the 1st of
November. They were using it for a place to assemble until they find a larger
facility, but they haven't made it a public assembly yet. He added that they
were wanting to get permission to use the facility for a limited period of time
until they find one larger that could encompass a larger congregation. He
stated that if they do grow, they are considering using this as a parsonage but
not for establishing a permanent church. They are planning to establish a
church at another facility that is established for church use.
Commissioner Hanna asked if there were complaints from the neighbors about this.
Mr. Cowan answered, no, and that he submitted addresses of the neighbors
surrounding the facility with his application. He advised that before they ever
rented the property, they went to all of the surrounding residences and everyone
seemed to be in good agreement that it would be fine. Also, since this is a
lower income area of town, they felt that it would be a good area for church
activity.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Cowan noted that they would
like to be out of this house within a year and they are continually looking.
Commissioner Allred advised that should this be approved, the cost of bringing
the property up to code and paving the parking may not be cost effective for
them. Mr. Cowan stated that he has noticed several churches here in this city
do not have a paved parking area such as the church on College Street and there
is a church in a mobile home park with no parking area what -so -ever.
Chairman Jacks noted that the building codes are a very serious matter and he
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 30
isn't sure with 15 people it would fit under a "place of assembly" in the code
because it varies according to number. Mr. Merrell noted that he did refer the
matter to the Inspections Superintendent.
Mr. Cowan noted that the rear yard would encompass approximately eight cars.
He commented that the rear of the house is on a cul-de-sac and he has talked to
the neighbors with no one having any problem with people parking along the side
of the road. Chairman Jacks noted that when you get into an official action on
this, they would have to conform to all the city regulations although everybody
around this may not be conforming to city regulations themselves.
Commissioner Nash commented that it might be less expensive for them while their
group is still small to rent a room in an existing building such as Ozarks
Electric, the library or Headquarters House. Mr. Cowan noted that he had talked
to several realtors for six weeks before they found this residence and most of
them don't want a church in their buildings. The owner of this house, Arlie
Staggs, who lives in Cleburn, Texas was very happy about his property being used
for a church.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Cowan stated that this
house is a two bedroom home with one bath and has seven rooms with two exits
which could hold a congregation easily of thirty people. He added that they were
wanting to go out and knock on doors and• ask people to come to their church, but
they wanted to do this legally without someone raising a fuss so they brought
this to the Planning Commission voluntarily.
Commissioner Allred noted that he is concerned about the safety of that many
people with a house that small. Mr. Cowan noted that they could equip the house
with fire extinguishers, etc. Chairman Jacks noted that if the Planning
Commission approves this, it would then be up to Mr. Cowan to meet all the
building codes.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Cowan noted that they have
services Sunday at 10:00 a.m. & 6:00 p.m. and Wednesday night at 6:30 p.m. so
people are only in the facility about three times per week.
Commissioner Springborn noted that he appreciates the staff's recommendation but
in this instance, he is happy to rely on the annual review and grant this
request.
MOTION
Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the conditional use, seconded by Hanna
and followed by discussion..
Commissioner Hanna noted that he has a hard time being too concerned about 15
mostly adults getting together about four hours per week. Commissioner Klingaman
stated that they would probably be doing a small congregation a disservice to
give them an easy out with something that isn't really going to be satisfactory
for even a short time. He added that he has no objection to a church, but he
•
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 31
thinks that it would be too easy for them this way.
Commissioner Allred stated that as long as they are aware that this building
would have to be brought up to Code, one of the positive sides is that after they
outgrow this house, there will be a house that meets codes that they don't have
right now. The point is that the property would be upgraded. Chairman Jacks
stated that it would meet code for a church.
The motion to grant was tied 4-4-0 with Allred, Springborn, Jacks & Hanna voting
"yes" and Ozment, Nash, Seiff & Klingaman voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised
that the motion does not pass because five positive votes are required for a
conditional use.
CONDITIONAL USE FOR MULTI -FAMILY (THREE UNITS)
PATRICIA O'LEARY - 352 ROLLSTON
The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use for multi -family (three
units) submitted by Patricia O'Leary on behalf of Tony & Carrie Carswell for
property located at 352 Rollston and zoned R-0, Residential -Office.
Mr. Merrell stated that the applicant has requested a conditional use on behalf
of the owners, Tony & Carrie Carswell, to allow the establishment of three
apartments in a residence at 352 Rollston. The zoning otdinance under Use Unit
9 lists multi -family dwelling - medium density as a permissible conditional use
on appeal to the Planning Commission. The small neighborhood between Dickson
Street and Lafayette in this area contains a mixture of land uses although one
and two-family residences are still somewhat predominant. However, there are
houses that have been divided into more than two apartments. The staff
generally believes that a lot of the tenants in this neighborhood are connected
with the U of A due to the close proximity to the campus. The site plan
attached to the agenda shows that this is a double frontage lot that extends from
Rollston through to Thompson and there is room for approximately five or six
parking spaces in the rear yard. The lot is only 37.5' wide which makes it non-
conforming under the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Merrell commented that the staff is recommending denial of this request for
several reasons: 1) an application for a somewhat similar request was submitted
by Claud Prewitt for a house just down the street last year which had significant
opposition and the Commission voted to deny that request which has established
something of a precedent to discourage the further division of these residences
into additional apartments, 2) the non -conforming narrowness of the lot width
and the narrowness of both Rollston and Thompson to the staff are indicators that
efforts to further divide the residences into additional units perhaps ought not
to be encouraged. The residence can be used as single-family or two-family
under the R-0 zoning., 3) the division of this property into more apartments
arguably runs somewhat counter to the on-going efforts of the Community
Development Division of the city which is operating an owner occupied
rehabilitation low-interest loan program in this area and this neighborhood is
part of the target area and 4) although, theoretically there is enough room in
•
•
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 32
the rear yard to accommodate six vehicles, the staff is somewhat concerned that
there is really not enough room to maneuver around and there may be instances
where people will be backing out into the street which could be a potential
safety problem.
Commissioner Hanna noted that the drawing shows angled parking in the back and
it doesn't seem like angled parking on a 37' wide lot would work.
Patricia O'Leary stated that she believes there would be enough for a driveway
and pull -in for parking, although they would have to back out. She noted that
since that drawing was made, she has decided that it could be moved up closer
to the building and a back-up space could be provided next to Thompson Street.
She added that she is an architect and an educator and is representing her
daughter and son-in-law who desire to move here from California and they will
be occupying this property. They envisioned an old-fashioned dwelling that
could be revitalized, but after getting started, they felt like it wouldn't be
feasible to renovate and that the house will have to be torn down. Therefore,
they would have to build a new building and given the goals and the cost of
building, an additional unit would be very helpful. She added that this is an
aging neighborhood and she would guess that at least half of the dwellings have
been abused to the point that they won't be standing much longer which will cause
pressure to change. The owners would live in the front of the building and it
would be carefully designed to fit back into the neighborhood. She stated that
it is hard to purchase properties in this area of town and make them financially
feasible. They can meet all of the building setbacks and she doesn't see a
conflict with the low-income housing. The owners hope that they might be able
to participate in that program because they are not anticipating making much
money in Arkansas. Ms. O'Leary stated that she thinks the parking can be worked
out so that they don't have to back into the street.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Ms. O'Leary advised that they
will be putting a whole new structure in with three units but from Rollston
Street it will look like a single-family house. Commissioner Allred asked Mr.
Merrell if the fact that they are planning to tear it completely down and start
over alters his recommendation. Mr. Merrell asked Ms. O'Leary if she feels that
a new building in her opinion would be architectural compatible with most of the
structures in that area. Ms. O'Leary answered, yes.
Commissioner Allred suggested that they table this until they could get some
architectural information to make sure it is compatible. Mr. Merrell stated
that might be a good idea. Ms. O'Leary noted that they would not be meeting
again until January which is a long time and she has plans drawn with estimated
costs at home.
Commissioner Allred stated that this would be one way to clean up that area.
He asked if the applicant would have to obtain a waiver in order to build on a
non -conforming lot of record. Mr. Merrell stated that he believes that the Code
indicates that as long as the standard setbacks can be met and the other aspects
of the zoning ordinance, building can take place on a non -conforming lot.
4
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 33
MOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve the conditional use, seconded by Springborn.
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Allred, Springborn, Ozment, Jacks, Nash, Seiff &
Hanna voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no".
REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR ON ZONING MAP AND RELATED ASPECTS IN
RELATIONSHIP TO AL RABY'S REPORT:
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that Al Raby has recently
delivered an amended draft of the Unified Development Ordinance to Mr. Jacks and
to him. He noted that his initial impression is that it is much better organized
than the earlier draft that they have. One problem that they ran into a few
months ago was that some members of the Board of Adjustment felt that Mr. Raby
was pushing this project a little too fast and that they had not had an adequate
amount of time to review the General Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance.
He commented that he would like to recommend that each and everyone of them make
a fairly concerted effort to complete their own individual reviews of both of
those documents for the balance of December. He added that he is proposing to
submit to Mr. Jacks, the chairman, a schedule that will address several points
of the required public hearings and the possibility of public meetings not public
hearings at which time the public could come and look at the proposed Land Use
Plan map.
Another matter is the whole question of whether or not they need new zoning
mapping. He noted that he has always been a little uncomfortable with the way
this project was structured in one respect; the new draft from Al Raby contains
several new zoning districts. No one will not be able to accommodate the new
zoning districts as far as where they are and how to deal with them if there
isn't a new zoning map done. He noted that because of the shortage of the
Planning staff, it will be very difficult for the staff to do the zoning mapping.
It wouldn't be a good policy for the City to ask Mr. Raby or any other consultant
to do zoning mapping because it is a very labor-intensive activity. In order
to do it properly, they would have to do "windshield surveying" which is going
out and physically driving up and down every single street, alley and cattle path
in the City and record notations as to existing land use. He commented that he
was part of a two -person team that did zoning mapping in the city that he came
from and it took them about 2 1/2 to 3 months to do a city approximately the size
of Fayetteville. If it is done intensively, non -conforming uses, etc. would
need to be recorded. Perhaps to move this project forward and to accommodate
the zoning mapping, he could simply do a broader brush zoning by mapping without
concentrating on identifying the non -conforming uses in the same degree that he
might otherwise do with adequate manpower and time. If things work out, they
might be able to move this project to completion during the winter and hopefully
have everything in order by the end of winter. He stated that if he is going
to undertake to do the zoning mapping, he expects that he will do it during the
Christmas holidays. Chairman Jacks advised that before Mr. Merrell launches this
project, he may want some feedback from the Planning Commission on how they feel
about 21 zoning districts versus 11.
w
Planning Commission
December 11, 1989
Page 34
Mr. Merrell advised that the other remaining question is the Master Street Plan
which Larry Wood of Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning, his committee and the
Highway Department are working on. There seems to be a problem with the staff
of the Highway Department which will have to be worked out one way or the other
and he will discuss it further with Mr. Wood.
Chairman Jacks advised that the original contract with Raby didn't anticipate
changing the zoning districts and the contract with him calls for an existing
zoning map, a new draft of how it is right now including all the zoning changes
that have been approved, etc. The question of changing the current 11 or 12
zoning districts to 21 zoning districts made a new zoning map necessary. He
noted that Mr. Raby has asked that he (Chairman Jacks) and John Merrell clean
up any other problems with the latest draft before it is presented to the
Planning Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
•