Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-29 Minutes• MINUTES OF A METING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 29, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Fred Hanna, S.E. Springborn, Jett Cato, Gerald Klingaman and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Jack Cleghorn, Joe Tarvin and J David Ozment John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Traci Stokes, members of the press and others The minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R90-11 . LINDA EATON - NW CORNER OF CLEBURN & COLLEGE AVE • The second item on the agenda was a public hearing - rezoning petition R90-11 submitted by Linda Eaton for property located on the northwest corner of Cleburn and College Avenue (901 North College). The request was to rezone from R-0, Residential -Office, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that a conditional use application was recently approved for a wallpaper store at this location. This was formerly used as an auto parts store and a automobile dealership. He added that a wallpaper store has began operation in the building, but there was an apparent misunderstanding over the question of signage for the building. The staff feels that in order for her to keep the signs that she has recently installed on this building, it will need to be rezoned to C-2. The conditional use does not allow a sign on the building that is in violation of the sign ordinance. He further stated that the sign ordinance and the zoning ordinance interrelate to some degree, but they really aren't separate ordinances. Under the R-0 zoning, the building could accommodate a maximum of 16 square feet of sign on the wall facing North College and another 16 square feet on the wall facing Cleburn. This is about the only remaining stretch of R-0 zoning along North College with the rest of it predominately zoned C-2. The R-0 zoning for this area was established in 1970; prior to that all the zoning in this area was C-2. In another words, it was downzoned from C-2 to R-0. There was a rezoning request for this area a couple of years later which was denied. The land across the street is zoned C-2 and is adjacent to the R-1 zoning district farther to the east. He noted that there are some places where a C-2 district adjoining an R-1 district are unavoidable. However, the City is experiencing some problems with this type of situation farther down on North College with some • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 2 complaints regarding parking problems associated with a couple of nightclubs. The staff is recommending that the property not be rezoned. It is the staff's opinion that the land uses in that stretch of North College are quite a bit different than those in the area north of the hospital. The staff's preference would be to maintain the R-0 zoning. They feel that the signs that Ms. Eaton has put up are not in harmony with most of the other signage in that part of North College. Her position is that the staff informed her that those signs would be allowable. Therefore, she went to the expense of purchasing the signs. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that everything in that particular block is R-0 as well as the block to the south down to Trenton Street on the west side of the road. Mr. Merrell advised that, when the "Cakes By Design" business was moved across the street, it was handled as a conditional use as opposed to a rezoning. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated the applicant does have the option of requesting a variance from the sign ordinance from the Board of Sign Appeals. He added that, if the Planning Commission prefers that route, the staff would look into it. Commissioner Springborn stated that a solution to a sign problem should be pursued through normal channels on appeal to the Board of Sign Appeals rather than being brought before the Planning Commission as a rezoning request. Mr. Merrell stated that, if it is the consensus of the Planning Commission to go that route, the staff would study it. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Merrell stated that there is provision for an appeal of a decision of the Board of Sign Appeals to go to the Board of Directors. Chairman Hanna clarified that Ms. Eaton could table this request until the staff gave her an answer on the sign appeal route. William A.(Bill) Lazenby, the owner of the property, stated that this is a commercial building and doesn't lend itself to be used for anything other than commercial. He noted that there have been several people inquiring about leasing that building for retail sales and couldn't because of the zoning. Regarding the sign that Ms. Eaton is wanting to put up, the signs previously up there were of this same caliber. He added that there are several commercial properties from Trenton Street including a couple of doctors offices, a motel, a service station, and a machine shop. On the other side of the street, there is a floor covering business, a restaurant, liquor store, and retail sales. He advised that he owns the property on the opposite end of that street (North Street and College Avenue) which they tried to rezone in the past. He noted that practically every property owner along the street from Evelyn Hills to the old original Safeway building were in favor of it, but it was turned down because the people in the Wilson Park area to the west were concerned that it would bleed down into that area. He stated that they are bound to have a sharp contrast in some zoning in this area. It seems logical to him that the zoning along a state highway (thoroughfare) should go commercial. • • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Allred asked the staff what they envision this area becoming, if the doctors move out of their offices into the new North Hills Medical Center. Mr. Merrell stated that he would want to be a little more assured that transition would happen, although it is a given fact that there would be a migration of some of the medical community out there. He added that there are some uses in this area that are more of a C-2 use, particularly on the east side of the street. There are some problems related to the zoning districts backing up to each other. In the staff's opinion, this would be a spot rezoning. He advised that this is one of the areas that the staff needs to take a close look at in the new zoning and the new plan. He advised that he would rather see it done in a coordinated effort rather than focusing in on one piece of property. Commissioner Allred stated that he would hate to see the businesses fail because the Planning Commission refuses to rezone anything. He added that no one could utilize the buildings, and they would deteriorate which causes a very unsightly situation. He noted that the Planning Commission needs to be cautious about what they do there. Mr. Lazenby advised that there are a lot of little businesses around this area that would like to have retail sales but can't because of the zoning. Mr. Merrell advised that they need to keep in mind what uses could be allowed under C-2 zoning. This wallpaper store is a quality operation with no problems. But, once the property is zoned to C-2, anything allowed in C-2 could go in. If the Commission as a whole feels supportive of the rezoning, the staff would be more comfortable with a Bill of Assurance, which would address what type of uses would be allowed in this building. Mr. Lazenby stated that the size of the land itself would govern itself from becoming a nightclub because of the parking situation. The size of a sign allowed in the R-0 zoning on a building that small isn't very effective. Commissioner Springborn stated that it seems that they are getting into a discussion of rezoning an entire block rather than the problem that they are facing at the subject property. There being no one else in the audience wanting to address this petition, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Hanna advised that what they are addressing is the rezoning of this building at the corner of Cleburn and College Avenue and the discussion should be limited to this. He noted that any appeals to the Sign Appeals Board will come subsequent, if necessary, but don't need to be addressed at this time. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this petition to give the applicant the opportunity and time to pursue other avenues relative to her sign problem. The motion died for the lack of a second. • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 4 Chairman Hanna stated that he has looked at that two block area very closely and about 50 percent of the businesses are non -conforming uses. He added that the Planning Commission has granted some non -conforming uses, but most were in operation before the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the owner of the property definitely has a problem that isn't confined to the wallpaper business. He added that he would be in favor of this rezoning. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that the applicant could offer a Bill of Assurance, limiting the use of this building to retail sales only. The staff would be more comfortable with this petition, if such a Bill of Assurance were offered. The applicants would have to offer it either before or at the Board of Directors meeting. The Planning Commission could recommend a rezoning subject to a Bill of Assurance being offered. Bill Lazenby stated that he would be happy to offer a Bill of Assurance that this building would be limited to retail sales. Commissioner Klingaman asked if a wallpaper store is a permissible use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning. Chairman Hanna stated that Use Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping Goods, is a permissible use in C-1 zoning and it permits hardware stores and home furniture stores. Mr. Merrell advised that he would interpret Use Unit 15 to be flexible enough to accommodate a wallpaper store. Commissioner Klingaman stated that, if this were zoned C-1, the liquor store and the nightclub would be the only non -conforming uses that are there currently. Mr. Merrell stated that those would be two examples, but there would be some other examples that might have more of a potential negative impact such as car repairs and transmission shops. He added that these uses are not permitted in C-1 but are permitted in C-2. Chairman Hanna stated that the only problem he sees with this being zoned C-1 is that zoning district is designated neighborhood commercial as opposed to C- 2, thoroughfare commercial. This is on a thoroughfare. Mr. Merrell advised that a C-1 rezoning would accommodate limiting the use of the property and, by the same token, would restrict uses such as nightclubs or car repair. Chairman Hanna noted that the Bill of Assurance limiting the use wouldn't be needed if it were rezoned to C-1. Commissioner Allred asked if the sign ordinance was the same in C-1 as in C-2. Mr. Merrell stated that he wasn't sure. Commissioner Nickle stated that it appears that the use of the building for some period of years is more fit for C-1 than the R-0 even though the area was down zoned in 1970. He stated that he would personally like to see some protection against the kind of C-2 development that exists across the street and down the street. NOTION • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 5 Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning from R-0, Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, seconded by Cato and followed by discussion. Chairman Hanna asked Mr. Lazenby if the C-1 would be acceptable to him. Mr. Lazenby stated that hopefully the sign would work in the C-1 zoning. Chairman Hanna advised that, when the Planning Commission rezones less intensely than requested, the applicant has the option to bring the original request back to the Planning Commission. AMENDMENT TO MOTION The motion was amended to state that, if there is a difference in the sign size, the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Sign Appeals that the larger sign be accepted. The motion with the amendment vas passed 5-1-0 with Klingaman, Allred, Hanna, Nickle & Cato voting "yes" and Springborn voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R90-12 WILLIAM SHERWOOD - S OF WEDINGTON DR, W OF 46TH ST The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition - R90- 12 submitted by William Sherwood for property located south of Wedington Drive and west of 46th Street containing 1.29 acres. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the applicant's purpose for the rezoning is to sell automobiles and farm machinery. He advised that this area can be considered either as a single-family or an agricultural area. The closest commercial land uses of any significance are at the intersection of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The Planning Commission approved a rezoning about a year ago at the convenience market there. Also, farther east at the intersection of Wedington and Rupple Road there is a the new Spe-dee Mart. A small clock repair business which was grandfathered in as a non -conforming use is located to the west of the subject property . The surrounding properties are mostly single-family residential and agricultural. The Land Use Plan for the property in this vicinity is low density residential. The staff is recommending denial of this rezoning for several reasons: 1. The rezoning would not be in harmony with either the surrounding land uses or the surrounding zoning. 2. The rezoning would constitute a classic example of a "spot zoning strictly for the benefit of the applicant. No legitimate public purpose would be served. 3. The City Planning Commission has established and firmly backed up a planned growth policy for the Wedington Drive corridor. This policy provides that commercial development (and commercial rezonings) are 2" • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 6 to be encouraged only at the intersections of Wedington and: a) the U.S. 71 Bypass; b) Rupple Road; and c) Double Springs Road. This policy has also been backed up by the Board of Directors. They are trying to avoid a situation with a lot of spot zonings and strip zoning which would result in one long commercial corridor. 4. The approval of spot or strip commercial rezonings along Wedington (except in the three specific locations mentioned in item 3 above) would not be in the best interest of the City or of the many citizens who have invested in their properties based on the City's policy. 5. Several months ago the Commission unanimously denied an A-1 to C-2 rezoning request for land practically across the street from the subject property. He added that the staff has received a letter from a neighboring property owner, Gertrude Cathey, who wishes to voice a strong objection to the proposal. Commissioner Springborn stated that, under the current A-1 zoning, he has seen a number of agricultural areas and farms that have a good collection of used farm machinery and, in some instances, used cars. He asked to what extent that sort of use is permitted under A-1. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's feeling on the car issue is that a C-2 rezoning is needed. New car dealerships and used car lots are pretty much restricted to the C-2 zoning district. The A-1 district allows Use Unit 6 (Agricultural) and Use Unit 7 (Animal Husbandry). These allow for farms, livestock and livestock services, guest ranches, rifle ranges, rodeo grounds, agricultural uses, raising of crops, etc. William Sherwood of 4847 West Wedington Drive stated that he is trying to rezone his property so that he can make a living. He added that there are several businesses within a short distance from his property including a Spe-dee Mart, nursery, nursing home and a clock repair shop. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Sherwood stated that the subject property is to the east of his existing house. He advised that the rezoning sign was placed in the wrong place with the subject property being about 50' to the east of the sign. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Commissioners. Commissioner Springborn asked the staff if there was any misunderstanding on the location of the property being petitioned for rezoning. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is aware of the location of the property, although the sign was placed in the wrong location. It would not change the staff recommendation. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that the selling • • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 7 of automobiles and farm machinery would not be a conditional use in the A-1 zoning. Commissioner Klingaman stated that Wedington Drive is one of the more attractive approaches to the City and he would hate to see that approach deteriorate. Commissioner Allred stated that the A-1 zone is a holding zone, but it doesn't appear that it has very many holding capacities He stated that he doesn't think rezoning this property is the answer. But, they need to look at the A- 1 zone as a holding zone. He asked if there is any way to provide a few more uses in the holding zone until the proper zoning is determined for that area. Mr. Merrell stated that one function of the A-1 zone is as a holding zone, but it has several functions with the primary purpose being to allow the outerlying areas to continue to be used for agricultural uses after they are annexed into the City. He noted that Commissioner Allred does have a point, but it does not affect the staff's recommendation. NOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to deny the rezoning petition, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised Mr. Sherwood that this decision can be appealed to the City Board of Directors. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KEATING ESTATES RICHARD & GEORGE KEATING - N OF TOWNSHIP, W OF PRIMROSE LN The fourth item on the agenda was the preliminary plat of Keating Estates submitted by Richard & George Keating for property located north of Township Road, west of Primrose Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains .78 acres with 3 lots. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, advised that the Subdivision Committee did not meet last week. John Merrell stated that Don Bunn is taking a vacation so he isn't present to give the staff report. He stated that the utility companies didn't have any major problems with serving this property. He advised that, in the past, the Planning Commission has taken a firm look at residential development along Township Road for a number of reasons, primarily the traffic situation. The staff is recommending that the preliminary plat be approved subject to: a) the Plat Review comments, b) approval of the plans for the water and sewer construction, c) driveway restrictions (It is the staff's recommendation that access be allowed to Township for these three lots provided the driveways are constructed to allow vehicles to turn around and enter Township without having to back out of the drive.), and d) the payment of the parks fees as required by City ordinance. Mr. Merrell noted that the subject property backs up to property in the future Gulley Park. Given the fact that the City will be (91 • Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 8 developing a park back there, the only access would be to Township Road. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Keating advised that this is property that was split off from the Winwood Baptist Church property. Chairman Hanna stated that, when that part of Township was being approved, there was a lot of concern about driveways onto Township. He stated that he understood that, if that property was developed, it would go out ane driveway. Jim Cramer, of C & F Surveyors, was present to represent the Keatings. He stated that they are requesting three entrances onto Township for this development. He added that the stipulation of enough room to turn around so that cars would not be backing out into Township could be stated in the covenants. Richard (Dick) Keating stated, it was his understanding, that the church was granted four driveway accesses onto Township. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 6-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WALNUT HEIGHTS ADDITION SAN ROGERS - W OF SALEM RD, N OF WEDINGTON DR The fifth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Walnut Heights submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Sam Rogers, for property located west of Salem Road and north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, containing 11.75 acres with 42 proposed lots. John Merrell stated that, although this is zoned R-2, most of the development will be single-family. There were no major problems with utilities. There is an easement requested on the back lot lines of lots 33 through 44. The staff is recommending approval of the plat subject to: a) the Plat Review comments, b) approval of water, sewer, street, and drainage plans; c) the payment of parks fees as required by City ordinance; d) no direct access to Salem Road from any of the lots except 4, 5, & 6; and e) designation on the plat as to which lots will be developed as single-family and which will be multi -family. Harry Gray, the representative, stated that they are proposing to develop all the internal lots with single-family homes. Lot 4 would be developed with a duplex. Lots 5 & 6 would be developed with duplexes, if there is room. He advised that the developer is agreeable to the staff's conditions. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 5-0-0 with Klingaman leaving Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Page 9 before the vote. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT U1 THOMAS WARFORD - NE CORNER OF CREEKWOOD AVE & SUSAN DR The sixth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split lit submitted by Thomas Warford for property located on the northeast corner of Creekwood Avenue and Susan Drive (Lot 1, Cedar Creek Subdivision). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains .58 acres. John Merrell stated that Mr. Warford is proposing to divide this lot into two pieces of property with one tract containing .25 acres and the other containing .33 acres more or less. There is no problem with any of the utilities. The staff did receive one telephone objection to this lot split from Gary K. Wiles, who lives at 1789 Susan Drive. Mr. Wiles feels that, if the lot split were approved, it would mean the development of small houses there and would devalue his property and that of the neighborhood. Mr. Merrell reminded the Planning Commission that the two pieces of property would be .25 and .33 acres, which isn't out of line with the lot sizes in that subdivision. The staff respects Mr. Wiles opinion, but they do recommend that the lot split be approved subject to the payment of the parks fee. Thomas Warford of 561 Lake Sequoyah Drive stated that he plans to build an 1,800 square foot spec house on the .25 acre tract. Also, he plans -to -build -his own personal home, which won't be small. He stated that the covenants for this subdivision stipulation that homes have to be at least 1,500 square feet. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the lot split subject to the payment of parks fee, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 5-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 64