Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-24 Minutes• • • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 24, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Gerald Rlingaman, Joe Tarvin, and Charles Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutee of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - FOR A REHEARING OF REZONING PETITION #R90-19 STEPHEN DAVIS - N OF SYCAMORE, W OF COLLEGE AVE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rehearing of rezoning petition #R90-19 submitted by Stephen Davis and represented by Steve Gunderson, Attorney, for property located north of Sycamore and west of College Avenue (34 E. Sycamore). The property contains 1.00 acre. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, advised that this petition has been before the Planning Commission previously and failed with a 4-2-0 vote(five positive votes are required to pass a rezoning). He noted that there was a rezoning granted recently on the McCandless property, which is immediately to the east of the subject property and across the street from the Medi-quik Clinic, However, the staff feels that a boundary line has to be drawn somewhere as far as the encroachment of non-residential zoning on Sycamore westerly from North College Avenue. They feel that the boundary of the McCandless property and Medi-quik is a good line. The staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning petition. It is apparent that the only reason for this rezoning is to enhance the sell of the property. He clarified that the subject property isn't across the street from Medi-quik; it is across the street from an undeveloped City park, Gregory Park. He further stated that the staff report does point out a possible compromise position which would be a recommendation of an R-1.5 rezoning. This would allow a somewhat greater density of residential development in this location. Steve Gunderson, attorney for the petitioner, stated that he wanted to make a couple of clarifications as far as the turn of events. The vote was 4-2-0 in favor of the rezoning at the initial Planning Commission meeting. It did go to the City Board who chose not to act on it but to send it back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at its next regular meeting tabled it. Now, it is before them once again. He advised that the property in question is on West Sycamore and is almost an acre in size with one house on it. It is across the street from Gregory Park. He noted that he takes exception to the staff's comment that they want to rezone just for enhancement of his client's position. They feel that the property needs to be rezoned in order to get the best possible use out of it. He added that the property in question is currently zoned R-1, and they feel that a rezoning to R -O would be in the best //3 • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 2 interest of the City and be the best zoning for the way the land is situated. As far as the impact on the community, they feel that a small office complex buffered properly on the west boundaries and on the south boundary if necessary would be more appropriate and would cut down on traffic in that area. Don Mills, who lives on Yates Street, stated that she frequently drives by Sycamore and down Woodland on to Yates Street. She feels that the R -O zoning would be more appropriate because of the heavy traffic on Sycamore. Also, the topography of the land lends itself more to an R -O zoning. She added that she disagrees with the R-1.5 zoning proposal because of the traffic that would be generated with apartments. She noted that a good boundary line would be the houses that are facing Woodland. She further stated that there wouldn't be a problem with having R -O zoning across from Gregory Park. In her opinion, no one would build a single-family residence on this property because of the topography. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mrs. Mille stated that she feels there would possibly be more traffic with R-0, but she can't see that it would ever be used for a Bingle -family residence. Jim Wisman, of 1923 Woodland Avenue, stated that he would like to speak against this proposed zoning change because of the invasion into their residential area. Also, access to the property is hazardous because of the way it elopes to the north. Any commercial zoning would be a much greater hazard to the traffic on Sycamore. He explained that Sycamore is a designated main cross artery for the City and is pinched down to two lanes in this location with heavy traffic. Secondly, the school system has built new facilities and anticipate up to 400 more students at Woodland Junior High School. As a result of the installation of a traffic light on Sycamore and College Avenue, the buses are now using that as their main access to get to the school. He added that he had a conversation with Mr. Davis, the petitioner, who indicated that they don't have any plans for the property now. As a resident of the community, he would be more inclined to consider the possibility of a rezoning if they knew what the property might be used for. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that R-1.5 zoning allows for duplexes and triplexes with a density of up to twelve units per acre. Commissioner Allred stated that one of the problems he sees with this is the potential for a lot split if it was zoned R-1.5 which would create a multiple housing situation. In that case, it looks like R -O would have less traffic impact that multi -family housing. Mr. Merrell stated could grant an R -O few apartments, or families per acre. assurance limiting that there are several different options open to them. They rezoning, grant a rezoning to R-2 which would allow quite a grant a rezoning to R-1.5 which would allow up to twelve There also is the option to grant an R-1.5 with a bill of the number of units. Commissioner Cato stated that he agrees with Commissioner Allred that a zoning for apartment use would create more congestion in the area. He added that he doesn't believe the property is practical for R-1 zoning either. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to recommend a rezoning of the property to R -O, seconded by Allred. The motion tied 4-4-0 with Cato, Klingaman, Hanna & Allred voting "yes" and Sickle, Tarvin, Springborn & Cleghorn voting "no". Therefore, the motion failed because five positive votes are needed to pass a rezoning. • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 3 DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION ARTHUR & MADELYN SKELTON - 729 W 6TH STREET The third item on the agenda was discussion of a conditional use revocation submitted by the staff for property located at 729 West 6th Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, advised that there was a conditional use approved for this property in 1988 for the operation of an antique store. The staff's position is that it has never operated as an antique store and that it has been in violation of the terms of the zoning ordinance and the conditional use virtually since the day they began operating. He noted that there have been quite a number of complaints on this property. He added that it has been alleged that the people complaining are dealing in drugs or have an ax to grind with the Skeltons perhaps owing them money. He stated that he can't say that no one who has some sort of business arrangement with the Skeltons has called, but he can comfortably say that the vast number of calls that they have had are from concerned citizens all over town. Typically, they have worded their inquiries by asking how the City can allow a mess like this to exist. The staff simply tells them that they are doing their best and will take it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. This is a land use planning issue. He referred to the map that he presented to the Commission before the meeting. It shows the proposed right-of-way along west 6th Street which has been obtained from the Highway Department. He stated that the railroad underpass will be enlarged and the street will be widened westward to 71 business. The proposal for the house in question will take all of the front portion of the house. He added that the staff feels that the situation is serious enough to warrant a hearing on the revocation on the conditional use. He noted that the staff went by the property today and saw that the merchandise which has been exposed to the weather for as much as two years has evidently been moved off the premises or moved inside the house. Chairman Hanna asked what the proposed new land use plan suggests for the use on that property on West 6th. Mr. Merrell stated that he isn't sure, but the staff has some problems with some of the recommendations on that proposed land use. Chairman Hanna stated that, as he recollects, the Skeltons were told by a City inspector that their use of that property was not in conformance with the City plan. Subsequently, the Skeltons requested a rezoning of their property. At that time, it was pointed out to the Planning Commission that the ordinance didn't address flea markets, and it was the Planning Commission's idea to give them a conditional use for an antique store instead of rezoning the property. The Planning Commission was fully aware of the fact that it wasn't actually an antique store. An antique shop was not what the petitioners requested. Mr. Merrell stated that is his recollection of the events as they transpired. The public hearing was opened. Arthur Skelton stated that Ernest Jacks was on the Planning Commission at the time they were granted a conditional use. At that time, Mr. Jacks commented that he didn't want to see the City of Fayetteville penalizing the elderly who were trying to supplement their social security. The Commission then voted to grant a conditional use. At that time, they asked him if he had any objections to a conditional use rather than a C-2 rezoning. He added that he accepted it and thought it was gracious of the Commission to try to make an arrangement for them to supplement their income. He stated that their social security has a shortfall of about $200. He added that in the last two weeks, they have obtained fifty-seven signatures from the people who own and rent property both north and south of 700 6th Street. They signed an affidavit which states that they are /Y • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 4 a property owner or renter situated between Hill & Duncan Streets bordering 6th Street, and that they have not objected and do not object to the Skelton° continuing to operate as they have in the past. Also, that they prefer the zoning not be changed. Mr. Skelton advised that he went up to City Hall on the 3rd of September and asked for a copy of the records of complaints that Mr. Merrell had. After coming back a second time and waiting around, he was informed by the staff that Mr. Merrell didn't have any written records of the complaints on their conditional use. Mr. Skelton quoted from Article 14 of the City Code entitled Complaints Regarding Violations which states "Whenever a violation of this ordinance occurs, or is alleged to have occurred, any person may file a written complaint. Such complaint stating fully the causes and basis thereof shall be filed with the Planning Administrator. He shall record properly such complaint, immediately investigate, and take action thereon as provided by this ordinance." He noted that this doesn't mention complaints by phone calls. He stated that he would like to ask this Commission to dismiss this until it is done right. He stated that they have pictures and other information showing that there is ingress/egress and showing what the surrounding properties look like. Commissioner Tarvin noted that he has observed that the merchandize that was sitting out in the yard has been moved to inside or taken away. He asked Mr. Skelton if he intends to keep the outside cleaned up should they continue the conditional use. Mr. Skelton stated that he sold all the stuff that was outside. He added that they can't have a sign big enough to draw any attention. Therefore, they need to be allowed to set something outside during the days that they are open to draw in customers. Otherwise, it just looks like a residence. He advised that they don't plan to leave anything out overnight anymore. Commissioner Klingaman the one in Huntsville. have some old pictures asked if they do any of the traveling flea markets like Mr. Skelton noted that he hasn't done that, but he does in another flea market here in Fayetteville. Chairman Hanna clarified that if the conditional use is leave merchandise out when they aren't open for business. that they will not leave merchandise in the front yard. of lumber in the back that he doesn't want to get rid of. extended, they won't Mr. Skelton agreed However, he has a lot A member of the audience commented that she has the Skelton° house listed for sale and would like to see them allowed to operate there because they need to supplement their income. Also, the highway is being widened Boon so the house will have to be moved or torn down. She added that she doesn't think the Skeltons understood when they received this conditional use that there were certain stipulations on it such as keeping it cleaned up. Now that they understand, she thinks they will work with the City and keep the yard clean. She noted that they have an ingress/egress established so that traffic can turn around without backing into the highway. She commented that she is in favor of the conditional use being continued. Madelyn Skelton stated that she has a Certificate of Occupancy for "Peggy Skelton's Flea Market" and she has a sign permit. All of the neighbors and people who have stopped by have told her that they do not object to the way the property looks. The property around them has looked a lot worse and she hasn't said anything about it. She noted that they received a notice from the City that they had to clean up their property. Some of the properties around them need to be cleaned up, especially in the Anderson Trailer Park. Mr. Merrell advised that the section of the zoning ordinance that was read by Mr. Skelton could or could not be applied to this situation. He added that the staff reserves the right to bring an item to the attention of the Planning Commission if complaints are received no matter what the source or the method. • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 5 He further stated that the Planning Commission does have the option, if they choose to continue this conditional use, to put certain conditions on it. For example, they could prohibit outdoor sales or prohibit outdoor sales in the front yard. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Klingaman noted that farther out on Highway 62, there are other road side sales. He questioned how they fit into the ordinance. Mr. Merrell advised that the underlying zoning of the that property is C-2, but the staff is going to keep their eye on it. He added that there is another location in town on 15th Street which has also generated an incredible number of complaints, and the staff has issued a violation notice on that one also. Commissioner Tarvin asked if there was anything prohibiting the Skeltons from putting up a sign to advertise the flea market. Mr. Merrell stated that any type of sign would have to be in conformance with the sign ordinance. The underlying zoning is R-2 which severely limits signage. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to allow Allred. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE - HOME OCCUPATION JOE KELLY - 1940 OLD WIRE ROAD the conditional use to continue, seconded by (CAR DETAILING) The fourth item on the agenda was a conditional use - home occupation (car detailing) submitted by Joe Kelly for property located at 1940 Old Wire Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that Mr. Kelly is currently operating a car detailing business at his home. He added that the way the staff first became aware of this while working with a violation of the Sequoyah United Methodist Church property next door. One thing that impressed the staff when they went to the site is that there are no signs of a business going on at this location. It is a very quiet and clean operation and no complaints have been received. This property is well -screened from adjoining properties. Also, the fact that he is adjacent to a non-residential use was a factor as well. The staff is recommending that a conditional use be approved for Mr. Kelly to continue to operate his -business subject to compliance with the home occupation regulations in the zoning ordinance with the further stipulation that no more than two additional vehicles be parked on the property at any time(this doesn't include any vehicles that are owned by the family). In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Merrell advised that nothing other than a professional name plate sign is allowed in an R-1 zone. Apparently, Mr. Kelly has successfully operated the business with no signs. Joe Kelly stated that he runs a clean business. He stated that none of his neighbors have any objections to his business. He added that the only problem he has ever had with Sequoyah Methodist Church was when he asked them to help pay for a fence between his property and theirs after they constructed a driveway next to his property. They chose to put in shrubbery instead, so he put a fence up. He added that the City Code allowed them to just plant shrubbery for screening. He added that his neighbor on the north side paid for half of the cost of the privacy fence there. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Kelly stated that he isn't employed anywhere else, so this is a full-time job sometimes. //S • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 6 Commissioner Sickle stated that he has noticed a car advertised for sale on this property. Mr. Kelly stated that every now and then he has parked a car out there. He added that the City staff had informed him that he could not have a car with no license plate parked in his yard. He advised that some of the cars he details for car dealers don't have license plates on them. He was told that he could store one car without a plate in his garage. He noted that he advised the staff that he wouldn't ever put another car in his yard for sale. Curtis Nebben, a representative of the Sequoyah United Methodist Church who is also the chairman of the board of trustees, stated that they have very real concerns about Mr. Kelly's business being next door to their church. First of all, there is a nursery school at the church that operates three days a week. The children are well supervised, but they are concerned for their safety. They are also concerned about the increased traffic. He noted that he lives on Azalea Terrace and drives by Mr. Kelly's property at least twice a day. It is usually the exception that there are only two or less cars not owned by Mr. Kelly on the property. He has seen cars on several occasions for sale. Also, the church believes it has a problem with Mr. Kelly parking some of his cars in their north parking. The church has a real concern about the increased activity and his Mr. Kelly running his business there because of the impact it has on their church. Mr. Kelly stated that he has never parked cars on their parking lot, although he has had people visit him that parked there. Madelyn Skelton, 832 Stone Street, stated that she lives near Emanuel Baptist Church. This church has no objections to university and high school students park in the parking lot. She noted that she has been told that church parking lots are public property. Therefore, she sees no reason why Mr. Kelly's clients could not park on the church's parking lot. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to approve the conditional use as requested, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE - TRANSITIONAL HOME ST FRANCIS HOUSE INC - 258 S CHURCH ST The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use for a transitional home represented by Karl Friar on behalf of the owner, Sam Mathias, and St. Francis House, Inc. for property located at 258 South Church Street. The property is zoned R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that they are requesting a conditional use to establish a transitional home on this property. The project property also includes the Mathias property just to the west which extends through to Archibald Yell which is already zoned C-2. Therefore, it is not a part of this application since it is appropriately zoned. The property in question is 226 South Church and consists of two buildings: a ten -unit apartment building and a three -unit building. He added that there is some significant opposition to this particular application. From his experience, it is always an uphill battle to get a facility like this approved because there is a lot of misunderstanding about the type of people who would be staying there. Essentially, there are neighborhoods all over the City with a lot of elderly people and children. The staff feels that this is about as close to an ideal site for this type of facility as they could possibly find in Fayetteville. It has been established that there is a severe need for this type of facility in Fayetteville. This property is bordered by property that is already commercially zoned and it is in close proximity to quite a number of facilities /� • • • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 7 that the residents would need. Furthermore, the property is already used for multi -family purposes. It would not be a change in use, but a change in residency. The property is less than one block from the Fayetteville Police Station. Some of the neighbors think the wool is being pulled over their eyes which isn't the case. A sign has been posted in the yard, notification was sent out to adjoining property owners, and a legal ad was placed in the newspaper. This application was handled according to procedure. Further, it is the staff's understanding that the representatives of this application have tried to go out of their way to speak to some of the people in the neighborhood. He added that the representatives have informed the staff that the staff's recommendation that this be approved for a one year conditional time period would severely limit their building to purchase the property and also to operate the property. However, the staff thinks it is important to the neighborhood to feel that they have the right to come back to the Planning Commission if they feel that there has been an abuse in some way of the terms of the approval of this if it is approved. Two letters of opposition from residents in the neighborhood have been submitted to the staff. Also, there are several letters of support of this application: 1) from a resident of the neighborhood of St. Francis House in Little Rock who indicates that they have never had any problems whatsoever, 2) from Kathleen Randall, executive director of the Washington County EOA, 3) from Judge Waters indicating the need for this program, 4) from Lee R. Owen who is the chief U.S. probationary officer, a resident of Fayetteville, and works for the federal court system, 5) from Bishop Donovan of the Episcopal of Arkansas, 6) from Jonathan B. Coffey, Jr., director of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Fayetteville and 7) from Reverend William E. Spain. He advised that the Planning Commission has four options: 1) approve the application with no conditions, 2) approve the application with conditions, 3) deny the application, or 4) hear testimony at the public hearing tonight and schedule it for a decision at the next meeting, October 8th. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he understands that the staff's recommendation is that it be approved with a review in one year's time which the petitioners say would severely hamper their ability to purchase the property. He asked if the staff recommends approval without the reconsideration in one year. Mr. Merrell advised that they would not support the application with no probationary period. Karl Friar stated that he petitioned for the conditional use on behalf of Sam Mathias and St. Francis House. He introduced the administrative director of St. Francis House in Fayetteville, Jill Micka. Jill Micka stated that she is the program director of St. Francis House Northwest here in Fayetteville which is a satellite of St. Francis House, Inc. The executive director, Lloyd Halsey, is present and the Board Vice -President, Richard Lawrence, is present. She noted that their purpose is to request this conditional use of the property so that they can continue the current services that they offer to people in northwest Arkansas. Also, that they have the potential to appropriately respond to the need for additional services as they come. St. Francis House Northwest, which is located at 229 North College Avenue (formerly the Sands Motel), has been providing services to the community in Fayetteville for over a year. They have a tradition and a history in Little Rock which is entering its thirtieth year of service to that community. They developed the program focusing, not only on issues of homelessness, but on a comprehensive approach to try and prevent homelessness. What they provide currently is a residential transitional housing program for homeless families, individuals who are being served by agencies in the area. This is a comprehensive, individualized approach to screened applicants who are in need of permanent housing. They also identify areas in which that will enable them to prevent homelessness reoccurring such as continuing education, obtaining counseling services, and obtaining jobs. Thus far, they serve thirteen families in this area. They have a very good relationship with the EOA of • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 8 Washington county and work in a cooperative program that is trying to develop housing resources in this area. They work with Ozark Guidance Center, the Project for Victims of Family Violence & the Ministerial Alliance, which is made up of many churches in this area. Also, with the northwest Arkansas community free health clinic. The current building that they are in is going to be demolished. That is the reason they are looking for a new location. The property that they want to purchase is ideal. It is a safe environment that will be able to enhance the quality of the neighborhood. Some of the concerns that have come to her attention are that they are going to make people homeless to provide a program for homeless. She advised that they are not going to kick someone out to provide these services. Their plan is, as residents of these apartments move out, to phase in qualified people for the transitional housing program In answer to a question from Commissioner Sickle, Me. Micka stated that they want to continue their current program in the new location. They would like to make the distinction that transition being different than transient. They are interested in getting people into permanent housing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Ms. Micka stated that there would be 15 potential units available, and it is large enough to accommodate their needs. They currently only have four families because of the structural problems in their current building. What they are concerned about is that they keep the load where they can responsibly handle it, supervise the people involved, and be able to really attend their needs and the needs of the community. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Ms. Micka stated that it is their intention to move from their current location and close it down. She added that they have thought about purchasing property and building a facility, but it is just too costly. They are a non-profit organization with limited financial resources. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Ms. Micka stated that their present service is primarily families. They do screen the applicants because the demand is greater than what they can supply. Commissioner Springborn stated that he would presume that they are screening to find people who have the potential of becoming productive residents. He asked if the screening also deals with the people who would be living in the facility with respect to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Micka answered, yes. The people they are helping are not drug addicts; most of them are holding jobs and wanting to continue being productive citizens in the community. They aren't going to have people in the program that will put the community in jeopardy. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Ms. Micka stated that their current service is an expansion and a continuation of a housing program that was being done by the outreach committee of St. Paul's Church for over a year. She stated that they haven't had any incidence in that time that should concern the citizens who are concerned because of safety reasons. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the memo in the agenda states that St. Frances House also plans to bid for a re-entry program for prisoners. He would like to know more about that. Lloyd Halsey, executive director of St. Frances House, stated that they have been in existence for over 20 years operating out of Little Rock. They were approached by people of northwest Arkansas requesting help in providing services and to assess what the needs are in the community. The most serious need was in the area of the homelessness. The St. Paul's Church had a program called the Sanctuary House in the Sands Motel. They starting operating that aspect of it. • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 9 The program has been very successful, but they don't have enough personnel, staff or money to take care of all the needs. They have provided traditional services in Little Rock such as emergency food & clothing, helping with utilities and housing. One of the components of the program is a contract that they have had for almost fourteen years with the Justice Department to house people for the Bureau of Prisons. They get this contract on a competitive basis. They have also been housing veterans who are either homeless or needing transitional housing to get re-established. Presently, they have thirty to forty residents of the BOP and approximately fifteen veterans. They have served residents of this area from the Little Rock facility, but many haven't been able to utilize all the services available to them because of the distance. On November 1, 1987, the "new sentencing guidelines" was passed which has had an immediate impact the United States Bureau of Prisons. It has set mandatory sentences and guidelines no matter what. The federal sentencing continues to get higher which is causing a lot of persons to be placed in jail that would not have been before. What has happened is that persons with families are being sent away from their community to serve their time. This is why they are proposing a facility in this community. The Bureau of Prisons has done a study which indicates that there is a need for approximately fourteen bed spaces in northwest Arkansas to provide this type of services. During the next three months, they will come up with solicitation for bids which are about 220 pages long. They are very rigid with rules, regulations and standards that have to be met. The key on this is that this does not guarantee them that they are going to be the contracting agency. Dealing with the Federal Government is slow so it would probably be 9 months to a year before they would be housing federal prisoners if they get the contract. It is important to realize that probably half of the people in the program will have never been in jail, but sent there as a condition of their probation, sentence, or as a community correction center. They will be allowed to go out to work, a four-hour visit per week outside the facility if their behavior warrants it, and to attend worship service. There will be some that are out on bond and as one of their conditions of bond, they would be required to reside there. When they are finally released, they will have a job and a place to live. It costs about 1/2 to do it this way than it would to send them to an institution. About $17,200/year to house them in a prison and about $9,000 to house them in St. Francis House. They can even reduce the cost more because part of the guidelines require all residents who are there that are employed, pay 25% of their gross earnings toward their upkeep. He added that there is someone on duty 24 hours/day 7 days/week. There is a manual with regulations to follow and they inspect the facility twice and can come in up to three other times per year unannounced. He noted that they could possibly find another piece of property, but this location is ideal for them. From his experience, it is much easier to work with a federal prisoner than a 16 year old kid. There have been people from a broad spectrum in this program, including doctors, lawyers, county judges, chiefs of police, sheriffs, dentists, ministers, millionaires, poor people, bank vice-presidents, males, and females. They have no intention of trying to do something that is going to damage the community or harm anyone. Their intent is to help the community. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Halsey stated that it is best to combine the homeless and the prisoners at the same facility because of the cost factor. Commissioner Springborn asked, if the present program can't satisfy the demand, why bid for the additional program Mr. Halsey stated that the money has been a factor in not being able to provide enough services for the housing of the homeless. There would be funding for the BOP program Commissioner Springborn asked that, if they get such a contract, what happens to the screening. Mr. Halsey stated that both programs have the intense screening. Commissioner Springborn stated that they would then need to be careful with the load on the person doing the screening because, if they screened out too many of the people • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 10 under contract, they wouldn't be getting the money. Mr. Halsey stated that has never been a problem, because the Bureau has their own screening session. Mr. Halsey stated that the facility they are requesting will have a much larger capacity. Commissioner Springborn stated that his concern is whether there will be a total transition as a consequence of them getting the BOP contract of which they don't have total control over. Mr. Halsey stated that their first commitment is for the homeless, but they also have a commitment to people who are in trouble with the criminal justice system. Commissioner Nickle asked if they foresee the commitment with the BOP eventually taking over in the future. Mr. Halsey answered, no, they are here to provide services, and they have target populations. But, there is also a tremendous need for this BOP. However, they will not let one override the other. It is good to have the BOP to off -set some of the costs. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Halsey stated that the homeless program would run without the outside funding but not on as large a scale as he would like. Richard Lawrence, board vice-president of St. Francis House in Little Rock, stated that the majority of the services of St. Francis House up to now has not included the BOP. They have been fortunate enough to meet a need for the BOP in the last few years, because no one else was meeting that need. The current location in Fayetteville is owned by St. Paul's Church and is due to be torn down at some point in the near future. The church has given them funds to go toward the purchase of another building. They have been very fortunate to receive quite a large funding from several different sources and to have found these pieces of property which meets their needs. Their funding sources have come from different places, including the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas, the Episcopal Churches in Arkansas, United Way, private individuals, and other churches. They haven't found it economically feasible for them to come up and buy a piece of property and construct a building especially when they are able to find one that is already producing income. They will continue on providing for the homeless and the other services while the BOP contract is in the making. Their contract to purchase includes receiving the proper zoning. This was a condition of their purchase, because they thought it might be a controversial issue. They wanted to be up front with their whole concept that, while the homeless is a major factor, basic services is another factor and there is a potential for providing this need for the prisoners. Regarding the staff's recommendation to have a one year condition, it would be at least nine months before the BOP program would happen, if it happened at all. Therefore, a one year time frame from today would not give any information that they don't already have now. What they urge the Planning Commission to do is to grant the conditional use permit based on what they have asked for. Then, if they get complaints a few years down the road, they have a procedure that can be used, a revocation hearing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Halsey stated that less than one- half of the Little Rock budget comes from the BOP program Steven Seals of 258 South Church Street stated that he recently encountered an individual who was homeless in Fayetteville. He realizes that there is a great need for these facilities in Fayetteville. Springfield, where he is from, had a couple of facilities for the homeless. He stated that he is a tenant of that building in question, and he doesn't want to be evicted from his home. With regard to the people that now live in the building and pay rent to Mr. Mathias or to St. Francis House, would there be renovations? Mr. Lawrence stated that there wouldn't be any changes other than the rent would be coming to St. Francis House, and they plan to keep the property up. Mr. Seale wanted clarification of what changes will take place. Chairman Hanna stated that it has been explained to them that it will be a combination of homeless, people on federal contract, and for a time being, renters that live there now. He assumes that, if they don't have enough people who meet their requirements, they will continue to rent out the apartments. Mr. Seals stated that his neighbors are people who • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 11 often live alone. Although, they live close to the Police Station, will the police be patrolling the area more often to help the elderly people feel more secure. Chairman Hanna stated that he is sure the police would patrol more often, if the neighbors requested it. Also, if they see the potential for a problem, the police would patrol it more often. Right now, they are only interested in whether or not a conditional use should be granted. Mr. Seals stated that he is in favor of any group of people who want to promote an alleviation of homelessness in this community, but he would like to. have something in writing the fact that they aren't going to be evicted. Also, the elderly people should have something that would make them feel more secure about the situation. Maybe the Police Department would come patrol around the neighborhood more often. Phillip Moon stated that he is an attorney in town, but he is appearing totally unsolicited. This first came to his attention when he had two clients(husband and wife) that he represented in federal court, who were convicted and sentenced to eight months in prison. From the outset when Judge Waters sentenced his clients to either a community treatment facility or halfway house, he started inquiring around the state of Arkansas for such facilities. He found out that St. Francis House is the only facility in the entire state which is equipped or has the experience or track record that would be able to house his clients. He immediately became concerned, because he has taken it upon himself for the last two years to accept appointments in federal court to represent persons who can't afford counsel. He stated that he has had several clients in that process that end up going to Pennsylvania, Florida or Louisiana. That is one thing about the federal prison system, you go wherever there is a vacancy. You may be totally removed from your environment. The newspapers have mischaracterized the issue. In the federal prison system, there have been federal sentencing guidelines since November 1, 1987. This has taken away discretion of all trial judges because of their sympathy for that particular individual. In that regard, you're not going to have a cold-blooded killer that is going to come through the federal system on the first instance. He gets there on his appeal process and would be sentenced under the state criminal provisions and would be housed in some state facility. If he is sentenced, they will have the background that they have accumulated in what is called a pre -sentencing report. That talks about family history, ties to the community, the previous criminal conduct of the individual. Ultimately, there is a chart which is a sentencing table, and the individual is scored based upon certain criteria set in the guidelines. It is based upon the type of offense, the criminal history, and their responsibility in the incident. There is a very special need in northwest Arkansas for this type of facility. The screening aspect of the federal system assures that people in the BOP will be people who have committed some type of crime involving a money transaction and such - someone who committed an error or mistake in judgment. Not the type of cold blooded individual that has committed some horrible crime. The drug dealers wouldn't be in this, because they are going to be kept locked up. These people should not be penalized to the extreme that they lose everything by being sent away to other areas of the country ultimately ending up bankrupt. Then a homeless person is created in and of itself by not allowing these people transitional housing back into the community. He added that he doesn't feel they would be putting the area into jeopardy by granting a conditional use for this facility. Sam Thornton of 227 South Church stated that his residence is directly to the west of the proposed site. His concerns centered on the financial aspect of this. They have admitted that they lack money for their housing project. There is a need for the homeless, but instead of creating housing, they are taking over housing that is existing. The potential for housing federal prisoners there scares him and his family. He is opposed to it. Chairman Hanna asked that anyone else wanting to speak to please limit their • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 12 comments to why this location would or wouldn't be a good place for transitional housing. Comments regarding what a good program it is are not needed. Kathleen Randall, director of EOA, stated that they have a housing program at EOA that is working with St. Frances House to develop housing for homeless people. She added that they have been very pleased with how St. Frances House has run the program. They have been extremely careful about how the money is spent and in trying to spot the people who need it the most. Paul Davis of 217 South Block stated that the 10 unit building is just beyond his back yard fence. He is opposed to it because of the safety aspect for his child. Mrs. Betty Dovell of 225 South Church stated that she has worked with the Area Agency on Aging and EOA for years to help the homeless. She has no objections to a facility in that location for the homeless, but the thought of prisoners scares her. She is concerned about the safety of the women living alone on Church Street. Nancy McBay of 7 Greenbriar stated that she spearheaded a drive in opposition of allowing the Youth Bridge Home coming into their neighborhood when she previously lived at 517 Hawthorn. Now she is ashamed that she was part of that movement because the Youth Bridge Home went in and there was never a bit of trouble in the neighborhood at all. All their fears were unfounded. She is strongly in favor of the granting of a conditional use for this facility. Randy Howard stated that he owns AAA Appliances which is one of the Mathias properties. His main concern is that it will only be a matter of time after St. Frances House buys the property that he will be evicted from that location. He added that he doesn't think there is anything definite enough for the Planning Commission to go on to approve a conditional use for this facility. Mark Risk, real estate broker and appraiser, stated that he owns the residence at 229 South Church. He noted that he has been asked to appraise the property in question for St. Frances House. These are efficiency apartments made of concrete block. These apartments have a history of management problems and vacancy problems. When he inspected the property last week, there were 3 vacancies of ten units. He noted that someone was arrested in the one of the units when he was on the site. His point is that he doesn't see the St. Frances Home changing this property a lot from what is going on now. He is inclined to support this conditional use. However, from the standpoint of a property owner, he would like to see what ramifications this may have on his property and the future rentability of that property. He would like to hear from someone who owns property next to their existing facility in Little Rock. Jan Simco, a resident and a employee of the City of Fayetteville, stated that she has been active in the target area of the City for the last two years. They have put a lot of money in housing rehab to help revitalize this area. She stated that she supports this conditional use and feels it would be an asset to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission took a five-minute break and then resumed the hearing. Charles Hutchens of 258 South Church stated that he is a resident of the apartments in question. He noted that he was sentenced to a federal penitentiary about five years ago and he did his time in Cedarville, Texas. He came out and went to a halfway at St. Frances in Little Rock. He advised that the prisoners that go there aren't hardened criminals. He is in favor of this conditional use. • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 13 Carolyn Burns stated that she lives in the rental property across from these apartments. There are a lot of people on this street that are terribly concerned about their property values. She is opposed to this conditional use. The person residing at 238 South Church stated that it is all good intentions to have a place to house the homeless. It is our responsibility to take care of these people as part of the community, but it isn't their responsibility to take care of someone who has been convicted of a crime. She stated that there is already a problem in the neighborhood with a prowler, a convicted sex offender, who lives in the apartment complex. He is a peeping tom, but the police have said they can't do anything until he hurts somebody. She stated that she understands the intentions of the organization is to protect both the people in their facility and the neighborhood, but she doesn't see any remedy for a problem like this. She is opposed to this conditional use. Joyce Kemp, who lives on West South Street, stated that she babysits four young children in her home. If this is approved, their lives will change drastically. She may become one of the homeless, because the parents of these children are not going to bring them to her house, if there are prisoners living in the neighborhood. This is located close to the police station, but there are not always officers there. She recently called the police to report a man abusing a child in the neighborhood, but by the time they arrived on the scene, the man had disappeared with the child. The street is extremely dark. She will not be able to walk through the neighborhood after dark, like she does now, if this is approved. She is also concerned about the property values dropping. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tarvin stated that this is a noble cause and it has well been demonstrated that there is a great need for these types of facilities. However, the question before them isn't whether or not this is needed or justified. He added that he has a problem with the use of apartments in an R -O zoning although they can't do anything about that now. Now they are being asked to consider transitional housing in this same complex which worsens the situation. The problem is that, in his opinion, this is not the proper location for type of use. If the need is strong enough, a proper place will be found. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to deny the conditional use. The motion died for the lack of a second. Commissioner Allred stated that this is a complex issue which would affect many lives for the next 10 years. He doesn't think they can make a decision that is in the best interest of the community in a two-hour deliberation. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table this request until the next meeting to give them all time to think about. The motion died for the lack of a second. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell advised that this type of use (use unit 4) would be a use by right in the C-2, C-3, C-4, I-1, & P-1 zoning districts and a conditional use in the R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R -O, & C-1 zoning districts. Commissioner Springborn stated that at one point he was reasonably comfortable with a continuation of the present services in this community. But, the more discussion he heard, the more uncertain he became about the final outcome of this undertaking in this particular area. • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 14 MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the conditional use as a continuation of the present service with the standard one year review excluding the Bureau of Prisons contract entering into that service, seconded by Klingaman. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, a representative of St. Francis House stated that they can't even apply for the federal program if they don't have the use. Commissioner Cleghorn clarified that, if this motion is approved, there is no program. The representative agreed and requested that rather than this motion being voted on, this be tabled or they will withdraw it. Chairman Hanna advised that they have a motion on the floor and have to vote on it. Commissioner Klingaman withdrew his second. Commissioner Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-5-0 with Tarvin, Hanna, & Springborn voting "yes" and Nickle, Cato, Klingaman, Allred, & Cleghorn voting "no". Commissioner Cleghorn stated that the area needs a facility like this and there isn't anything one place in the City that they could place it that there would not be any opposition. As a Planning Commission they have it in their power to have a say where this is to be located. The staff has stated that there are certain areas of the City where they could do it as a use by right without permission from the Commission. There are plenty of places in the City that are already properly zoned for this use that are completely surrounded by single- family homes. This is something they need to take into consideration, because this facility will prevail. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that there had not been any proposal to the staff as far as exterior lighting, fencing and screening. Mr. Halsey stated that if the neighborhood would feel more secure with a privacy fence up and security lighting, they have no problem with that. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the conditional use with the stipulation that decorative screening and security lighting be implemented and with the standard one-year review, seconded by Nickle. Mr. Merrell advised that his interpretation of the zoning ordinance is that the provision of one-year is found in the home occupation in an R-1 zoning section of the ordinance. The one-year provision, in his opinion, is not automatic. The Planning Commission or the staff can at any time ask the Commission to review a conditional use that has been granted if there is a violation of any conditions. Commissioner Allred stated that the Commission could revoke this conditional use if things got out of hand in the future. Mr. Merrell agreed. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he disagrees that there are no places a facility of this kind could be placed that no one would object to. If they vote to allow this, they are taking away some of the rights that the zoning has given the citizens that live in this area. If they choose to place it in a C-2 zoning, they could do that, and if someone happens to live next to it, that is the consequences of purchasing property adjacent to C-2. The question is whether to allow this facility to go in at this location. The idea of security lighting is an undefined term, and he doesn't see the advantage to it. Would the City be putting in street lights along the dark streets in this area? This is glossing over the whole thing. • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 15 Commissioner Klingaman asked what the security provisions required for these prisoners. Mr. Halsey stated that the prisoners would be allowed out into the community and there would be no bars and barbed wire fences. Commissioner Springborn stated that his growing concern is that they are now conditioning this with the provision that there is added security, lighting, etc. If that is required, he is even more concerned. He agrees that there are places in this community that are wholly compatible with this sort of an undertaking. The motion tied 4-4-0 with Nickle, Cato, Allred, & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Klingaman, Tarvin, Hanna, & Springborn voting "no". Chairman Hanna stated that the motion fails because there are five positive votes required to pass a conditional use. After questions from the Commission, Mr. Merrell advised that an appeal on a conditional use is directed to the Circuit Court and not to the Board of Directors. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 REBECCA MATHIAS - 100 SYCAMORE STREET The sixth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Rebecca Mathias for property located at 100 Sycamore Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is Lot 1 in Block 2 of Greenvalley Second Addition to the City of Fayetteville. The lot contains approximately .4 acre. The proposal is to split it into two lots containing approximately .2 acre each. All utilities are available to each lot. The split would require a dedication of 10 additional feet of street right-of-way on Sycamore. Also, the Master Sidewalk Plan calls for a sidewalk along Sycamore Street. He noted that it was brought to the staff's attention this afternoon that the subdivision covenants of the Greenvalley Second Addition prohibits lot splits within the subdivision. The City of Fayetteville isn't a party to the covenants, so they are not enforced by the City. They are enforced by a Property Owners Association. Because the proposed split does meet the requirements of the City of Fayetteville, the staff recommends approval. Rebecca Mathias stated that she has no immediate plans for this lot. She asked when the sidewalk needs to be built. Mr. Bunn stated that the staff would request that the construction of the sidewalk be done when the property is done right away. Edward First stated that he lives on Greenvalley and is an adjoining property owner. He reiterated that the protective covenants for this subdivision prohibits subdividing. He is opposed to this on those grounds. Also, a splitting of this lot would create two lots that are smaller than any other lots in that subdivision now. So, it would be out of character with the rest of the properties in that subdivision. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to deny this lot split, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CLAUDE & FRANCES LANGHAM - 2140 N COLLEGE AVENUE The seventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lots /77 • • • Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 16 split #1 submitted by Claude & Frances Langham for property located at 2140 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that original tract is .95 acres and they are proposing to split off approximately .15 acres. There are two structures on the tracts now and this would split off one structure from the rest of the tract. Both have frontage on North College and the staff recommends approval of the split. Claude Langham stated that they have requested this lot split to allow them more options to sell the property in the future. In answer to questions from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn advised that there is not a minimum lot size requirement for commercial property. Mr. Merrell stated that when the new zoning ordinance is developed, there needs to be a standard minimum lot size for commercial property. He added that the parking requirement would be 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area so the parking requirement for the building being split off would be three spaces. Mr. Langham stated that they have five or six parking spaces existing. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the lot split, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Nickle, Cato, Tarvin, Hanna, Allred, & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Klingaman & Springborn voting "no". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #2 MAXIE'S RESTAURANT - S OF W 6TH ST, E OF ARBUCKLE LN The eighth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #2 submitted by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Maxie's Restaurant for property located south of West 6th Street and east of Arbuckle Lane and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this property is located next door to the "Parts Store". Water and sewer is available to the site. The staff recommends approval of this split subject to provision of public sewer to both of the lots. Curtis Wray, standing in for Kirk Elsass, was present but had no comments. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #3 LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST - NE CORNER OF JOYCE ST. & PARK OAKS DR. The ninth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #3 submitted by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Family Trust for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Street and Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is part of the Park Apartments property. He noted that there have been two lot splits approved administratively on the property. Tract C which is presently 4.08 acres is proposed to be divided into two lots containing 2.25 acres and 1.83 acres. There are apartments existing on the most northern part of tract C. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn stated that there /ig Planning Commission September 24, 1990 Page 17 is an access road running along these properties. Tom Hopper stated that there is a public street that runs from Joyce Street to the apartment complex and a private drive runs along the side of the complex. Therefore, they would not be creating a tandem lot. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned that future property owners may decide they don't the persons owning the back tract using their road. In that case, they would be landlocked. Mr. Hopper stated that there will be an ingress/egress easement filed for the owners of all the tracts. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the lot split, seconded by Tarvin. The motion passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner J. David Ozment•s Resignation Mr. Merrell advised that J. David Ozment has resigned from the Commission. Since he held the office of secretary for the Planning Commission, a new secretary needs to be appointed. Chairman Hanna appointed Commissioner Jerry Allred as the secretary. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.