Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-27 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 27, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn, Gerald Klingaman, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Charles Nickle and Joe Tarvin J. David Ozment John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-17 WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU - 3389 WEDINGTON DRIVE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-17 submitted by Washington County Farm Bureau and represented by Joe Rodman for property located south of Wedington Drive and west of Betty Jo Drive (3389 Wedington Drive). The property contains 1.43 acres. The request was to rezone from R -O, Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this was on the Planning Commission's agenda about a month ago. There was a public hearing and the Planning Commission agreed with the staff that this is not a zoning issue and recommended to refer it to the Board of Sign Appeals. Farm Bureau then went before the Board of Sign Appeals, which voted 6-1 to recommend several variances but not a variance to allow both a free-standing and a wall sign. They were granted variances on location and display area. He noted that this property is bordered by A-1, R -O, or R-2 zoning on three sides. The staff sees this as a sign issue and feels that Farm Bureau has several different options to accommodate some sort of a sign there. The staff recommends denial of this request. Joe Rodman stated that this is a question of sign usage, so they shouldn't have been before the Planning Commission the first time. He advised that the reason they originally petitioned for a rezoning was that they were given wrong information by mistake from the Inspections staff. He further stated that they came out of the Board of Sign Appeals meeting with less than what they had when they went in. Therefore, they are pursuing the rezoning again. The question is still one of sign usage, but it is also a zoning question, since rezoning appears to be the only way to get any relief. Mr. Rodman stated that he has had several discussions with the staff and thought they had worked out a solution, until he received a copy of the staff report. One of the meetings with the staff took place on the property where they discussed the location of the proposed free-standing sign. Although, it was not the most desirable location, it simply had to be put there to comply with all the • • • Planning Commission August 27, 1990 Page 2 necessary setbacks. The staff then recommended another location on the northeast side of the property and a smaller sign. He explained that the original request was for a free-standing 4' X 6' T -mounted sign. They had given no thought to a monument type sign with smaller dimensions(3' x 4'), until the other location was pointed out by the staff. They were informed by the Farm Bureau headquarters in Little Rock that a 3' x 4' sign would be available. The only difference in it and the sign originally requested is that there is not any writing on it (only the Farm Bureau logo). He noted that they were not made aware of any problems with the existing lettering on their building from the staff, until he received the staff recommendation in the mail about 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the Board of Sign Appeals meeting. The staff's letter pointed out that the existing sign was illegal. The sign on their building is simply lettering that says "Farm Bureau". The sign ordinance is somewhat vague on how the signs are supposed to be measured. He was told that the space between the word "Farm" and the word "Bureau" would have to be included in the total square footage, which puts them over the 16 square feet required. The Board of Sign Appeals passed a motion for a variance which allows them to put up a sign on the front of the property, but requires that they take the words "Farm Bureau" off the building. In view of what has taken place out there, they have a problem with that. He quoted from the staff report and stated that the information regarding them having to buy a sign instead of using one of the larger free signs distributed by the national headquarters isn't correct. He also rebutted the statements from the staff that three quarters of the surrounding property is zoned residential -office, agricultural and medium density residential and that much of the actual development occurring along Wedington Drive is residential in character. He noted that in the strip between Betty Jo Drive west to Rupple Road, he counted four residences and eight business locations (counting Betty Jo Corner as one business location). He added that, at the Board of Sign Appeals meeting, he did state that he felt the Board of Directors of the Farm Bureau would be very receptive to dropping the pursuit of a rezoning and would accept the monument sign on the northeast corner, if they were not required to remove the letters "Farm Bureau" from the building. He noted that Mr. Davis and Mr. Waldren of the Board of Sign Appeals had indicated that they felt this is a commercial area. Mr. Rodman commented that they aren't asking for anything that would be nonconforming as compared with what is already taking place out there. He advised that they don't intend to change their business operations. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Rodman stated that their present zoning, leaving the sign aspect out, accommodates all other aspects of their business there. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Rodman stated that they would be happy with a monument sign and keeping the sign on the building. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell advised that the Board of Sign Appeals' decision can be appealed to the City Board of Directors. An amendment to the sign ordinance would also have to go through the Board of Directors. Bob Hatfield, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Farm Bureau, stated that they definitely need a better sign to accommodate their 4,000 members in Washington County and others from out of the county. He added that the property owner just west of this property couldn't be here tonight but doesn't object to a rezoning to C-1. There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hanna advised that Mr. Rodman commented at the previous meeting that they didn't expect the location or the nature of their business to change within • • • Planning Commission August Q7, 1990 Page 3 the next ten to twenty years. They are only interested in identification to help people find their office. At that meeting, all of the ramifications of the rezoning request were discussed and the Planning Commission recommended that their problem be taken through the sign appeal route. Commissioner Tarvin stated that, in view of the existing zoning in that area and of the steps that Mr. Rodman has taken in an attempt to resolve the issue, he believes that rezoning it would be compatible. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the rezoning as requested, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn stated that he can't agree that the Planning Commission should be undertaking solutions for problems that ought to go to the Board of Directors. The route of appealing relative to the sign hasn't been exhausted so it seems that, by acting on this rezoning petition, the Planning Commission is getting in the way of both the sign ordinance and the Board of Directors. Commissioner Allred stated that, when they approved a rezoning of Bob Davis' property -across the street from this property, it was his understanding that commercial zoning would be kept on the east side of Salem Road. If so, shouldn't this property be commercial, since it falls within that boundary. Mr. Merrell stated that there could be an argument made for that, but the Farm Bureau property is properly zoned for the existing use. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he feels it is absurd that Farm Bureau can't have the sign they are requesting. However, it isn't right to rezone land for a sign. The motion failed 4-4-0 with Allred, Hanna, Tarvin & Cato voting "yes" and Cleghorn, Springborn, Rlingaman & Nickle voting "no". Chairman Hanna advised that there are five positive votes necessary to approve a rezoning. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the request of leaving the sign on the building (as it is) be allowed plus the smaller sign as recommended by the Sign Appeals Board, seconded by Cleghorn. Chairman Hanna advised that the motion is to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the sign that has been approved by the Board of Sign Appeals be approved and the sign that is on the building be allowed to stay. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised that the rezoning was not approved, but the Board of Sign Appeals decision can be appealed to the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Board approve the signs that were requested. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF BIO -TECH PHARMACAL, INC DALE BENEDICT - W OF SHILOH, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The third item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Bio -Tech Pharmacal, Inc. submitted by Dale Benedict and represented by Carl Russell of Smith & Russell Architects for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, north of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, containing 10 acres. to\ • • • Planning Commission August 117, 1990 Page 4 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that none of the utility companies had a particular problem with serving this location with the exception of water. Most of the discussion on this plan has been about the water situation. The nearest water is located on Old Farmington Road, which is about a quarter of a mile south of this location. The developers had planned to drill water on the property for domestic purposes. The problem is that the State Fire Code requirement is that all structures except single-family and duplexes must be within five hundred feet of a fire hydrant. Since there isn't a water line here, water wouldn't be available for a fire hydrant. It is the opinion of the Fire Chief that the development should not be approved without the fire hydrant. This means extension of the water line. At the Subdivision Committee meeting there were several alternatives discussed including the possibility of a tank located on the property from which water could be drawn in case of a fire. That possibility was discussed with the Fire Chief, but it was still his opinion that a fire hydrant is required. It is the staff's recommendation that the large scale development plan be approved subject to: 1) the Plat Review and Subdivision comments; 2) a Bill of Assurance for sidewalk construction on the south part of the property with actual construction of the sidewalk on the balance of the property(the exact location of the sidewalk will be determined between the developer and the staff); and 3) the provision that fire protection be provided to the facility in accordance with the Fire Chief's recommendation. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee had a problem with compliance of this development with the City Code and were unable to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Chairman Hanna advised that the City Attorney has advised him that the City Code does require that a fire hydrant be within 500 feet of any commercial structure. Carl Russell, who was representing the owners, stated that they have attempted to meet all the requirements that the City has for development on this property and have matched all the requirements with the exception of the water main. Mr. Russell noted that, regarding the Bill of Assurance on the sidewalk, it was brought to his attention by Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, that this piece of property doesn't in fact fall within the City Sidewalk Master Plan. Therefore, construction of a sidewalk is not required there. Mr. Bunn stated that he is correct, the sidewalk would not be required. Mr. Russell stated that their only problem is the requirement of a fire hydrant within 500 feet of the property. The owners have no problem with that requirement. But, there is about one half mile of intervening properties between this property and the closest source of City water. They have explored different alternatives for interim fire protection. The developers would be more than happy to do what they can to get interim fire protection until such time as water mains can be developed in the area. They have looked at the idea of developing a contract with the City of Farmington for fire protection. They have also proposed the idea of static storage water either in a pond, a swimming pool type structure, or enclosed tanks buried or above ground. At this point, they are asking the Planning Commission if they can be allowed to proceed with their development with some sort of a temporary alternate water source. Chairman Hanna advised that he discussed this development with the City Attorney and the Planning Director. It was pointed out to him that, when a developer pays for the installation of utility lines to service a piece of property, he can charge the property owners that are intermediate between your water tap and the water main, when they develop their property. Mr. Bunn advised that the staff has set up contracts like that in the past. Chairman Hanna noted that this is one alternative and would probably be cheaper in the long -run. He added that he had asked the staff why the water problem wasn't pointed out when the rezoning • • • Planning Commission August a7, 1990 Page 5 came up, and it was noted that the rezoning is the stage in the process where the utilities should be addressed. Mr. Russell stated that he had talked to the City Engineer about the possibility of a contract with the other property owners, and he doesn't think the developers would have any problem with extending a water main as long as there was a mechanism established whereby the owners of this property wouldn't shoulder the entire burden of an expensive water main installation, which benefits a number of other property owners. He added that they would like to have approval of the large scale development plan contingent upon the provision of water to the site, giving them the opportunity to explore with the City a contract as mentioned. Commissioner Klingaman asked how the drop in contour (approximately 15') from the southwest corner of the property out to the northeast corner of their property is going to be accommodated with the parking lot. Mr. Russell stated that the parking lot will generally follow the contours, but they have no plans to level it off. Commissioner Springborn stated that this development is essentially well-planned with only one major obstacle, compliance with the City Code relative to a fire hydrant. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to staff's comments, Plat Review comments, and compliance with the City Code relative to a fire hydrant, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION MADELYN SKELTON - 729 WEST 6TH STREET The fourth item on the agenda was discussion of a revocation of a conditional use which was previously granted by the Planning Commission for Madelyn Skelton on property located at 729 West 6th Street. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff has had a tremendous number of complaints over the way this property is being maintained. There have been in excess of one hundred complaints from neighbors and the general public questioning how the City can allow this property to maintained in this way. He advised that a conditional use was granted in September of 1988 on this property for the purposes of being an antique store. This approval was based on a provision that the business would only be open two days per week which is not the case. He noted that the staff has reviewed this with the City Attorney, who has stated that the Commission has the power to revoke the conditional use. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing for the second meeting in September whereby this can be further discussed with consideration of a revocation. Chairman Hanna explained that the reason the Skeltons came to the Planning Commission in 1988 was because a City Inspector had informed them that their business was not in compliance with the current zoning of the property. Therefore, they came before the Planning Commission with a rezoning request. It was then determined by the Planning Commission that a conditional use would be more appropriate than a rezoning for their purposes. However, the ordinance doesn't address a conditional use for yard sales, so they granted a conditional use for an antique store. He added that the applicants didn't actually request approval for an antique store. Commissioner Allred stated that he recalled discussion that conditional use approval be based on all merchandise being kept inside the house. Mr. Merrell IC V • • • Planning Commission August fl, 1990 Page 6 21 noted that point did come up in discussion and there are items being left out in the weather twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Chairman Hanna advised that, since the bid has been let on widening the overpass near here in anticipation of the widening of 6th Street, this house may have to be removed within a year and one half. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell stated that it had been determined that the City staff didn't have the authority to administratively revoke this conditional use without the help of the Planning Commission. He added that the staff would have the power to administratively renew a conditional use that is granted for a home occupation in an R-1 zone but not to revoke a conditional use. Commissioner cleghorn clarified that discussion at this meeting is only on whether to hold a public hearing. Mrs. Skelton indicated that there were certain people calling and complaining about their business because of personal problems. Chairman Hanna advised the Skeltons that they only discussion at this meeting is to decide whether or not to have a public hearing. Therefore, discussion will not be opened to the public at this meeting. Commissioner Allred stated that he feels there is enough just cause to ask for a revocation hearing. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved that a revocation hearing on this conditional use be scheduled for the second meeting of September, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised that, when this is brought before the Planning Commission in September, he would like to be provided certain information such as the nature of the complaints. He would like to know if the callers remain anonymous and if not, what their addresses are. Also, he would like the staff to provide information as to what it would take for the Skeltons to comply with their conditional use permit and be allowed to keep it in view of the fact that they will probably not be able to operate at this location much longer with the widening of the street. He added that construction on the widening of the overpass is going to begin within four to six weeks with the road being widened to four lanes in the future He commented that he sees a number of road side type ventures along this street where people are operating out of trucks and tents, which isn't too much different from the Skeltons' business. In answer to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Mr. Merrell stated that the staff wouldn't necessarily be required to notify the adjoining property owners of a public hearing on the revocation of this conditional use permit. But, as a matter of curtesy, the staff will do that notification. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.