Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-07 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, March 7, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room on the Second Floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Fred Hanna, Joe Tarvin, Gerald Rlingaman and Jett Cato OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, John Merrell, Don Bunn, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R90-7 - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE NW OF HWY 71 BYPASS,N OF MOORE LN & LARGELY TO THE E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD The first item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning appeal R90-7 submitted by City of Fayetteville for property located_northwest_of-_Highway_71 Bypass, north of Moore Lane and largely to the east of Deane Solomon Road for the proposed new industrial park. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial. Chairman Hanna advised that the agenda shows the request to I-2, Heavy Industrial, but the staff of the City have decided that it would be better suited to request I-1. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the city staff has had a series of discussions about what they envision as the most appropriate zoning for this property assuming that the industrial park is developed. He commented that, basically, the City has an option to purchase five tracts of land in this area with a total acreage of about 290 acres. The Economic Development Coordinator of the City, Richard Shewmaker, worked very closely with the owners of these various pieces of property to obtain the option to purchase. He noted that there is one perspective industrial tenant who is very much interested in tract A of this property which is located on the west side of Deane Solomon Road. The entire property is primarily zoned A-1 with the exception of tract A which is zoned R-1. The surrounding properties in the area are zoned I-1, C-2, R- 1, R-2 and A-1 and the surrounding development consists primarily of light industrial and commercial uses south and east of the subject property. The Razorback Golf Course is west of the subject property and there is some undeveloped land to the north. The property is relatively level with a small stream, Clabber Creek, that converses a portion of it. Mr. Shewmaker is going to pursue the overall development of this property in terms of doing a site plan layout of the entire project. Also, Mr. Shewmaker has had discussions with • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 2 the Washington County officials and the Arkansas Highway Department relative to the proposal to extend Trucker's Drive in a western direction from Highway 112 over to Deane Solomon Road. The draft of the proposed year 2010 General Plan does indicate that the City should consider creating a new industrial park close to the northern side of the City, so the staff feels this request is in harmony with the recommendation of that report. The General Land Use Plan map that is contained in that report designates a good amount of this property for future industrial development and a portion designated for commercial development. He advised that the staff is recommending that this rezoning be approved for the following reasons: 1) the property is located at a major highway interchange, 2) most of the property is designated for future industrial uses in the proposed year 2010 General Plan, 3) the property is adjacent to several other existing developments which are zoned I-1 and C-2 or which can be accommodated by that type of zoning, 4) the property is relatively level which is one characteristic that prospective industries usually look for, and 5) I-1 zoning allows Use Unit 22 which is entitled "Manufacturing" and does permit quite a wide range of industrial products from musical instruments to electronic equipment. Mr. Merrell advised that I-2 zoning is the heavy industrial zoning district and is designed to accommodate "uses which cause the greatest adverse environmental affects because of odor, noise, unsightliness, air pollution and explosions." The consensus of the staff is that they feel more comfortable with the I-1 zoning than they do the I-2 zoning for this park. The way the current zoning ordinance is structured, the old-fashioned approach is used whereby light and heavy industrial zoning are distinguished by the product that is manufactured. The staff preference, however, is that industrial growth be viewed more from the processing aspect to determine the type of industry more than the product. Mr. Merrell noted that I-2 has some disadvantages such as: 1) it is designed to encourage, by definition, uses that could have a negative affect on the surrounding properties. For example, some of the uses allowed are paper mills, chemical plants, slaughter houses, animal fat rendering plants, auto salvage yards, explosive manufacturing, junk yards, etc. (See attachment listing the differences between what is allowed by right and by conditional use in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts.) He added that Mr. Shewmaker has advised that he is interested in developing some restrictive covenants in the proposed industrial park which would further address how each individual parcel in that area would be developed. Typically, restrictive covenants address things such as the visual appearance of the property, screening, landscaping and other things that aren't necessarily addressed in the zoning ordinance. The staff does feel that restrictive covenants should not conflict or contradict what is stated in the zoning ordinance in terms of what kind of uses are allowed and prohibited. Mr. Merrell advised that there has been some discussion as to whether or not to allow business uses which are not industrial in the proposed park. The staff would like to recommend that a staff study be conducted on the whole issue of industrial zoning in Fayetteville. He added that it might, however, be advisable • • • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 3 to the staff to fast-track their thinking on the industrial districts and present a report to the Planning Commission some time in April outlining the staff's feeling for distinguishing differences and ideas as far as creating a new industrial district. Mr. Merrell added that Mr. Shewmaker has submitted, to the Planning Commission, a press release which he recently prepared on the industrial park and a copy of a recent newspaper article by Phyllis Rice of the Northwest Arkansas Times addressing the proposed industrial park. Commissioner Klingaman asked Mr. Merrell if he is recommending that they delay a decision on this until the staff comes forth with the report that he referred to being presented in April. Mr. Merrell answered, no. The staff feels comfortable enough with the I-1 zoning to recommend it to the commission now. Commissioner Springborn stated that applications such as this are generally required to be submitted by the owners of the property. He asked if the City is duly authorized by all the owners of this land to request this rezoning. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, it has been the policy to allow someone with an option to buy to apply as long as the staff knows the present owner has no objection. Commissioner Springborn stated that this is a curious situation because, if the Planning Commission turns this down, the City can undertake an appeal all by itself and approve it anyway. It would have been much more in order for the actual owners to make the application. And then, if it is turned down, they could follow the normal procedure of appealing it to the Board. Mr. Merrell stated the staff discussed it and this seems to be the best way to handle the application. It is a valid application. Commissioner Cleghorn asked if there has been any research on the soil in rainy weather to see if it is economically feasible to develop this land. Mr. Merrell stated that the property is traversed by Clabber Creek, but it is not in the floodplain. This property, like any property, is going to have certain development problems associated with the construction of individual buildings, roads and utilities. The consensus of the city staff and the utility companies is that the problems are not as severe as they might be with another site. The staff does recommend that, as the property is developed, a sensitivity be shown toward the creek. Richard Shewmaker, Economic Development Coordinator, addressed some of the issues brought out. He noted that the existing industrial park includes approximately 800 acres with approximately 250 acres left available for sell. It has lacked some public improvements, but the City has obtained three grant agreements from the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission which will solve some of the traffic flow problems. There are people looking at property in the existing industrial park. He read from a Press Release which addressed and compared the the two industrial parks. It noted that the new proposed park would offer visibility, major highway access and covenants to ensure a quality appearance not available in the existing industrial park. The second industrial park • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 4 would give some of the industries in the existing industrial park that are reaching capacity the choice to relocate to the new industrial park and not go elsewhere. Lands sales in the new park would help provide revenues for land costs in the existing park, thus, decreasing the need for so much public financing. The lighting permitted in the proposed industrial park would not glow but force the light downward on whatever it would be protecting. Therefore, the residents looking down on the park would see only that in the evening. He advised that the proposed property is not in the floodplain. It is a piece of property with a water shed behind it of approximately two square miles so there would have to be a great flood on a watershed of two square miles to really pool anything. There have been five core drillings made, and the engineers are saying there is nothing to be concerned about. There will be protective covenants that limit the kinds of lights that can be used in the proposed industrial park, plus a prohibition of junk yards, garbage, rubbish, trash dumps, commercial incineration and residential construction. Outside storage will be prohibited unless it conforms to certain standards. Commissioner Springborn asked if they could give the Planning Commission an assurance that some kind of plan for the land use will be followed so that they have assurance that it will be attractive. Mr. Shewmaker stated that he couldn't give them anything today. However, he has a set of covenants that the Industrial Development Commission has given him. Mr. Merrell has an example of a set of covenants for industrial development from Danville, VA, and there isn't any significant differences between the two. The City will be a party to the covenants, and with these covenants, the City will be proud of what is developed there. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the ownership of the new industrial park will be the City or the Fayetteville Development Corporation. Mr. Shewmaker advised that it would be owned by the City of Fayetteville. The public hearing was opened. Jim Bob Wheeler of 2481 Deane Solomon Road stated that he is opposed to this rezoning and development of the industrial park at this location. Some of his reasons were because it would be an extremely poor usage of the land and there are other areas that are so much better suited than this one for an industrial park. He suggested that a local citizens committee be formed to study the needs, to establish the criteria, and to recosu'nend various alternatives because this present proposal seems to be ill-conceived, poorly thought out and suddenly sprung on the citizens of this city. He stated that he is opposed to the proposed park because it will devalue the land, which is presently owned by many people in this community. It will no longer be a desirable place to live. Al Zaccanti stated that he owns and operates chicken houses on 80 acres 1/4 mile northwest of the proposed site. He asked how this rezoning would affect his operation. Chairman Hanna stated that he didn't think it would presently • • • • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 5 affect his land at all. The use of his land could be continued as it is currently being used. Harley Brigham of 1801 Fax Hunter Road was concerned about the fact that the request had been changed from I-2 to I-1 without the public's knowledge. He had many questions for Mr. Shewmaker regarding the financial aspects of the proposed industrial park, such as how it would be paid for and what the cost would be. He was interested in Mr. Shewmaker's duties and salary as Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Fayetteville. He was concerned that he only found three rezoning request signs on the property with total acreage adding up to 120 acres more or less. He was informed that there were five signs on the property which totaled approximately 288 acres. He asked what the difference was between a law and a covenant. He was advised by Chairman Hanna on several occasions that he should keep his questions pertinent to the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Allred advised him that the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to deal in the financing of the petitioner's rezoning. Mr. Brigham was concerned about the flooding problem in the area of the proposed new industrial park. He was concerned because all details hadn't been made public regarding the proposed CTA large scale development plan in the new industrial park. Chairman Hanna again advised Mr. Brigham that he is getting off of the issue. They are here to discuss the rezoning of the property. only. There was a consensus of the Planning Commission, that if Mr. Brigham didn't have anything to say that had a direct bearing on the rezoning of this property, he should return to his seat and allow others to speak. Mr. Brigham stated that he is opposed to a new industrial park being developed. Virginia Fedosky, who lives north of the subject property stated that she is very much opposed to this, because Fayetteville is a university town and not an industrial town. She noted that they need to fill the existing industrial park, and if more space is needed, there are areas that would be more conducive to an industrial park. An industrial park in this location would spoil the beauty of it. Bob Waldren, a resident of that area, stated that he thinks Fayetteville needs an industrial base and needs the jobs this would bring. However, he isn't sure, at this point in time, they can afford it. He feels that they need to development the rest of the existing park first. He commented that there is a flooding problem on the land, and he is opposed to this rezoning. Jim Simon, who lives on Highway 112 just north of this proposed rezoning, stated that the subject property isn't fit for an industrial park because it is swampy. He advised that he is opposed to this and he feels that the Planning Commission should table it allowing the city go back and decide if they even need another industrial park. Jim Vawter of 2503 Elizabeth stated that his mother owns a farm about 1/2 mile north of the proposed site where he plans to retire. He noted that this proposal • • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 6 would create more traffic, water pollution and noise pollution, so he is opposed to it. Ed Fedosky, who lives north of this proposed rezoning, stated that he is concerned about the natural beauty of this part of Fayetteville being destroyed with this project. He added that there are flooding problems, and he is opposed to it. John Ken with Arkansas Western Gas Company stated that he is a resident along the Bypass and is concerned about what it will look like in the future. However, there are upscale industries looking for high visibility and access to a major thoroughfare. He noted that they are owners of property adjacent to the existing industrial park, and they recognize the fact that it doesn't meet the needs of many industries. Therefore, some lands outside of that area need to be provided to attract quality types of businesses to come into our area. He advised that they are in favor of a new industrial park and would like to see this rezoning approved. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Klingaman asked if they are being asked by the City Board to make the decision on whether or not another industrial park is needed or is this a decision that the Board should make. Chairman Hanna stated that the City has requested this rezoning which he would assume is with the knowledge and request of the Board of Directors. Commissioner Allred advised that this area was designated as an industrial park in the proposed 2010 Unified Development Plan. It appears that this isn't encroaching on residentially zoned areas according to the map. He stated that he envisions that this area is going to develop in some fashion and will not remain in its natural state over the next 20 years with the growth projected for this area. Commissioner Springborn stated that the fact that the City has requested this rezoning troubles him because there isn't a lot of point in the Planning Commission considering it, because the City can do what they want to in any event. He noted that he would prefer to look at a finalized 2010 Land Use Plan for this general area before they consider this as an application. The staff has indicated that they could update the ordinance with respect to this in relatively short order. He doesn't see where there is a time crisis that they take action at this time. He advised that these comments are not intended as prejudice against a new industrial park. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that the issue before them goes a little beyond whether or not they should rezone a piece of property. The trend of the mood of Fayetteville from day one has been that this is a nice place to live with the outskirts of town being nice and clean. With this proposal, they would be • putting in 288 acres of industrial uses at probably the busiest interchange in Arkansas someday. This will be changing the tone of the path the City has taken for years. They have discussed not striping the Bypass with commercial • • • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 7 business, but this would be a visible chunk of industrial uses. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned that the City could be in the same bind its in today with the incinerator issue, if the land is approved for a zoning change. When the citizens rebel against the new industrial park, there. would be 288 acres of land rezoned industrial in which the private landowners could do with what they want. He added that, if this is approved, he would like an override so that it would have to go as a package as an industrial park. Commissioner Ozment asked if the Planning Commission would have the authority to approve a rezoning contingent on the City purchasing this property. Mr. Merrell stated that the Planning Commission does have the authority to make a recommendation to the Board and they would have the authority to agree to rezone or not rezone it based on that recommendation. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this application until such time as the new 2010 Land Use Plan is complete, seconded by Cleghorn.; ,The motion did not pass. The vote was 3-4-1 with Springborn, Cleghorn & Klingaman voting "yes", Ont, Allred, Hanna & Cato voting "no" and Tarvin "abstaining". MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the rezoning as requested with the contingency that, should the sell to the City not be completed, the zoning would revert back to the present zoning, seconded by Cato. The motion did not pass. The vote vas 4-3-1 with Ozment, Allred, Hanna & Cato voting "yes", Cleghorn, Springborn & Klingaman voting "no" and Tarvin "abstaining". Chairman Hanna advised that a rezoning has to have five favorable votes to pass. Mr. Merrell stated that as with any rezoning, the final decision does rest with the Board of Directors, and there will be a public hearing on the evening of March 20th to consider final action. He added that the issue of whether or not five votes are required on a rezoning is in the Planning Con,,,ission bylaws. However, as it stands now, the Commission consists of only eight people due to he resignation of Ernie Jacks. With this situation, it would be wise for the staff to discuss this with the City Attorney to see if this vote is valid. • • • Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 8 • LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CTA INDUSTRIAL PROJECT (MANUFACTURING) CHESTER DEAN - W OF DEANE SOLOMON RD, N OF MOORE LN The second item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for CTA Industrial Project (Manufacturing) submitted by Chester Dean for property located on the west side of Deane Solomon Road, north of Moore Lane and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. This was tabled from the last meeting. Chairman Hanna advised that, if approved, this large scale development would have to be approved contingent upon the rezoning of this property by the Board of Directors. Richard Shewmaker advised that the City has been given a production deadline to try to get this manufacturing company in operation. He noted that the 60 day option expires on March 21, 1990, and the closing date is April 1, 1990. He advised that this does pose a problem, because they are working with people who are trying to meet construction deadlines. Their product is something that moves in the summertime so they do not want to miss summer production. Jim Bob Wheeler, who lives in this area, stated that if the City is in that much of a rush situation, they have done some pretty poor planning. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that this large scale development could be referred to the City Board to be reviewed, since it can't be approved if the rezoning isn't. He added that the Planning Commission didn't vote on this at the last meeting, so they didn't prejudice anyone. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, John Merrell advised that the Planning Commission reviews a large scale development. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to remove the large scale development from the table, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 8-0-0. Mr. Merrell stated that there is a section in the City's subdivision regulations which addresses the approval of a large scale development. The gist of what it states is that normally the Planning Commission has the final word on a large scale development proposal. However, there is a provision whereby an appeal of the decision of the Subdivision Committee can be made to the full Planning Commission and the ordinance also states "The developer or the owners of any property adjacent to the proposed large scale development or any member of the Board of Directors may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board by filing such notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days from the date of such decision." He noted that the Board of Directors shall hear all persons desiring to be heard and will decided whether or not the findings and decisions of the Planning Commission were in error. Following that public hearing, the Board of Directors may affirm, modify or reverse any finding and decision of the Planning Commission or may refer the proposed large scale development back to the Planning Commission for additional findings. Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 9 MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved that the large scale development plan be approved contingent upon the City Board's action approving the rezoning request of that property and subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman noted that they don't know much about this manufacturing company, such as what will be produced. He advised, if the Planning Commission was being asked to approve a conditional use for a home occupancy and weren't given the facts, they would be very cautious. Commissioner Springborn stated that approval of the large scale development prior to a decision on the rezoning could prejudice the rezoning. Richard Shewmaker asked what would happen to the large scale development if this plan is denied by the Planning Commission and the Board approves the rezoning. He asked if the Board could address it at that time. Chairman Hanna stated that it could be brought back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Merrell agreed that it could be appealed by an adjacent property owner or a Board member as set by the criteria set forth in the ordinance. Mr. Shewmaker advised that if this is denied by the Planning Commission at this meeting, then it would result in the City losing their option on it since it couldn't be brought back before the option expires. The motion passed 5-3-0 with 0zment, Allred, Hanna, Tarvin & Cato voting "yes" and Cleghorn, Springborn & Klingaman voting "no". Chairman Hanna reiterated that the rezoning will be heard by the City Board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m. USE UNITS ALLOWED BY RIGHT Unit 1 - City - Wide Uses By Right Unit 3 - Public Protection and Utility Facilities Unit 4 - Cultural And Recreational Facilities Unit 6 - Agriculture Unit 7 - Not Allowed Unit 12 - Offices. Studios. and Related Services Unit 13 - Eating Places Unit 17 - Trades and Services Unit 18 - Gas Service Stations and Drive -In Restaurants Unit 20 - Not Allowed Unit 21 - Warehouse and Wholesale Unit 22 - Manufacturing Unit 23 - Not Allowed Unit 25 - Professional Offices Unit 27 - Wholesale Bulk Petroleum Storage Facilities With Underground Storage Tanks Unit 28 - Not allowed I-1 1-2 Same Same Not Allowed Same Unit 7 -Animal Husbandry Same Not Allowed Not Allowed Same Commercial Recreation Large Sites Same Same Heavy Industrial Not Allowed Not Allowed Center for Collecting Recyclable Materials USE UNITS ALLOWED BY CONDITIONAL USE 1-2 Unit 2 - City Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit Unit 19 - Commercial Recreation Unit 20 - Commercial Recreation -Large Sites Unit 28 - Center for Collecting Recyclable Materials JFM/ca Same Not Allowed Allowed by Right Allowed by Right