HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-13 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 13,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E.
Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Jett
Cato, and Charles Nickle
OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members
of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the April 22, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed.
THE FAYETTEVILLE VISION
Mr. John Merrell, Director of Planning, stated staff had received great support
from numerous civic clubs and organizations they had spoken with concerning The
Fayetteville Vision. He stated they had received both compliments and criticism,
all of which would lead to a new master plan for the city. He encouraged public
input. Mr. Merrell also stated they had been to each of the industrial plants
in town, distributing materials, and offering to speak to the employees. He
further stated they had made a special effort to target the black community
through a couple of ministers and Jessie Bryant, active in some of the anti-
poverty efforts. He stated they were hoping to get some good representation from
the black community.
Mr. Merrell advised
of The Fayetteville
were in debt to Mr.
department, for all
the Commission the Open Channel would air a revised version
Vision video on Sunday, May 19 at 7:00 p.m. He stated they
Bill Ames and Norma Davis, a city employee in the finance
of the hard work they had done on the video.
He further stated school children were even getting involved. The third grade
class room of Suzanne Miles at Asbell School had built a town and discussed
planning. The children did a presentation for Mr. Merrell and Ms. Bryant which
Open Channel filmed. Further, five or six of the schools will have drawings for
the neighborhood meetings with their vision of the future.
Mr. Merrell reminded the Commission that the series of neighborhood meetings
started that evening at Root School and the meetings would be Monday through
Thursday night of this week and Monday through Thursday nights of next week from
7:00 to 9:00 p.m. He explained a. resident did not have to go to the neighborhood
meeting in his School district, they could go to any neighborhood meeting. He
stated they hoped to get a good response. He explained they had distributed
3,000 brochures, hundreds of posters and flyers in order to get the word out.
Mr. Merrell also stated they were very pleased with the Goal Summit on May 1 at
Mount Sequoyah. He explained they had approximately 110 people share some of
their visions about the future of the city. He stated there was an incredible
diversity of people. He further stated the Steering Committee had received a
summary of major issues citizens had suggested. He explained they hoped for a
lot of citizen input through the Goal Summit, eight neighborhood meetings. and
the Mayor for a Minute mail -out survey. He further explained the citizen input
would be the foundation of The Fayetteville Plan.
/17
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Merrell announced that he and Ms. Bryant would be leaving the meeting early
in order to set up for the neighborhood meeting at Root School.
CONDITIONAL USE 91-9 - CHILD CARE
WYNSTON BENHAM - 1307 CRESTWOOD
Ms. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, explained that Mr. Benham had withdrawn his
application for a conditional use prior to preparation of the agenda. She
explained she was making this announcement on behalf of the people in the
audience who were present for that item.
An unnamed member of the audience presented a petition to the Commission in
opposition of the conditional use. He stated the business was still in
operation.
Mr. Merrell explained that staff would investigate any complaints received. He
stated that, if investigation found the business was still operating, a violation
notice would be issued to the owners of the property. If the business did not
shut down, then the case would be given to Terry Jones, City Prosecutor, who
could take the property owners to court.
Mr. Allred explained that this item had not been tabled but had been withdrawn.•
In order for it to appear on an agenda, the applicant would have to reapply for
the conditional use and notification made to adjoining property owners.
ANNEXATION
DR, BEN ISRAEL - N OF HWY 45, E OF CROSSOVER RD
The second item on the agenda was a request for annexation by the City of
Fayetteville for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Crossover Road
and submitted by Jim Lindsey on behalf of Dr. Ben Israel. The property adjoins
the City Limits of the City of Fayetteville.
Mr. John Merrell stated this was an annexation and rezoning. He explained that
in the past the Commission had not heard annexation requests but staff believed
the Commission would appreciate an opportunity to review annexations, which were
an urban type issue. He stated, while they were making a recommendation to the
Board on the rezoning, they might also want to make a recommendation on the
annexation. He explained the annexation and rezoning went hand in hand.
Mr. Merrell explained the annexation and rezoning were being requested by Dr. and
Mrs. Ben Israel and involved a 28 acre tract of land on Highway 45E. He
explained an application had been made several years ago for the annexation and
rezoning but had been withdrawn. He explained that, when property was annexed
into the city it originally came in zoned A-1, Agricultural. Dr. Israel wished
to have this property rezoned to R-1, Single Family Residential, for development
of a subdivision on the property.
Mr. Merrell stated Ms. Bryant's report gave the Commission the background and
staff analysis of the property. He noted the utility situation was not perfect,
but staff did not see any serious, unsolvable problems. He stated that, with
this property being immediately adjacent to the City, annexation of the property
would not be encouraging any type of "leap -frog" development. He explained the
surrounding property was either open space or single family residential
development.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had found no firm policies on annexations and
believed the city needed to establish guidelines. He noted that Ms. Bryant had
pointed out in her report that staff would like to see, as an outgrowth of The
Fayetteville Vision project and the Fayetteville Plan, an annexation plan for the
�fl
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 3
city. He recommended approval of the rezoning and recommendation to the Board
approval of the annexation. He further stated the annexation had been approved
by the County.
Me. Karen Dutton, Lindsey & Associates, appeared before the Commission stated the
engineering study had been completed and a preliminary plat with 58 lots was
complete.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to recommend the annexation to the City Board as presented
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R91-12
DR. BEN ISRAEL - N HWY 45, E CROSSOVER ROAD
The third item on the agenda was Rezoning Request R91-12 submitted by Jim Lindsey
on behalf of Dr. Ben Israel. The property is located north of Hwy 45 and east
of Crossover Road. The request is from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Single Family
Residential.
Mr. Robertson questioned the installation of a sewage system in the area.
Ms. Dutton stated there was a note in the engineering plan that a lift station
might have to be used.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to recommend to the Board a rezoning from A-1 to R-1 for the
proposed tract.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
Mr. Merrell and Ms. Bryant left the meeting.
FINAL PLAT - WATERMAN WOODS SUBDIVISION
GERALD TOMLINSON & BILL BROOKS - S OF CLEVELAND, E OF SANG
The fourth item on the agenda was a final plat for Waterman Woods Subdivision for
property located on the south side of Cleveland, east of Sang. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 11.5 acres with 23 lots. Mr.
John Mahaffey represents Gerald Tomlinson and Bill Brooks.
Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated there were no significant comments at the
plat review; however, there had been a suggestion by the utility companies that
the drainage and utility easements be separated and that had been done. He
stated the easements appeared to be sufficient. Mr. Bunn further explained there
were several lots that could be accessed either on Sang Street or Cleveland
Street. Staff had recommended access be limited to the subdivision only. Mr.
Bunn explained the third problem related to drainage and runoff from the proposed
parking lot adjacent to College Avenue.
Mr. Bunn stated staff recommended the plat be approved subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments restricting lot accesses to within the
subdivision, execution of a contract with the city for all the uncompleted public
��9
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 4
improvements within
developer's share of
the construction of
city ordinances.
the subdivision,
cost in improving
sidewalks and the
execution of a Bill of Assurance for the
one-half of Sang Street to city standards,
payment of parks fees in accordance with
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff recommendations.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
DAVID SARGENT - 224 N. EAST AVENUE
The fifth item on the agenda
Episcopal Church for property
Thoroughfare Commercial and
represented the church.
was a large scale development
located at 224 N. East Avenue
R -O, Residential -Office. Mr.
for St. Paul's
and zoned C-2,
David Sargent
Mr. Don Bunn stated the large scale development consisted of the addition of
parking and approximately 10,552 feet of parish hall and classroom space. He
stated there were several questions from the utility companies regarding service
loads within the development, which would need to be worked out as construction
proceeds.
He explained there were three major issues raised by city staff: parking,
building setbacks and drainage. He stated that, on the first issue of parking,
there was a question regarding the number of parking spaces required, and whether
they were to be provided on site or off site. He explained staff would consider
some off-site parking to make up the required number of spaces.
Mr. Bunn explained the second concern came about because the new addition did not
meet the zoning setbacks on East Street. He stated that the required setback for
R -O zoning was 30 feet, which could be reduced to 25 feet under certain
circumstances. He stated the church was asking for a setback of 18 feet. He
stated application has been made to the Board of Adjustment.
The third question concerned runoff and drainage from the parking lot applicant
planned to pave adjacent to College Avenue.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the plat
review and subdivision committee comments, resolution of the parking issue, the
setback issue and city engineer approval of the final drainage plans.
Mr. Hanna stated he believed that several years ago it had been agreed that
setbacks in older areas of Fayetteville could be varied to conform with the
existing setbacks in the neighborhood. He further stated it appeared that would
apply in this case. He further stated he thought the Commission had the
authority to approve setbacks in this type of case without going to the Board of
Adjustment. He pointed out the entire area did not meet current zoning setbacks.
Mr. Bunn stated he was not aware that approval of setbacks could be done
administratively. He stated he would presume the planning staff would be aware
of that possibility. He further stated it was his understanding that the
setbacks would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Allred stated they could sent a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment.
/90
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 5
Mr. Bunn stated the Planning Commission had made recommendations to the Board of
Adjustment before.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, in the subdivision committee meeting, they had discussed
the requirement for variance on the setback requirement. He explained the church
proposed to build a mirror image wing so that the entrances would be similar. He
pointed out the entrance would detract from the structure if the variance weren't
allowed. He stated subdivision committee recommended to the planning commission
that the Board of Appeals be encouraged to grant the variance.
Mr. David Sargent, of Witsell, Evans & Basco, appeared before the Commission and
showed the proposed plans for the church. He explained the church recently
demolished a motel on College and now uses that as a gravel parking lot, giving
the church a total of 87 on-site spaces. He stated he had calculated they needed
a total of 89 total spaces but Ms. Bryant had revised his figures and increased
the number needed. He explained he had calculated the figures only for the
sanctuary because, when the children were in the classroom wing, they rode with
the people in the sanctuary. According to city staff, the church does not have
enough on site parking. Mr. Sargent explained the church has agreements with two
adjacent lots for Sunday use to add to a total of 129 parking spaces. He pointed
out both lots were within 300 feet of the church in order to be counted as off-
site parking.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding drainage, Mr. Sargent
explained they proposed to re -grade the alley. He stated he was aware that the
asphalt parking lot would cause more runoff than a gravel lot but, prior to it
being gravel, it was asphalt and all of the water came through in one
concentrated location to a catch basin. He further stated the final plans would
be based on the final review by the engineer.
Me. Britton stated she was concerned about the drainage because, as a gravel lot,
it allowed for some percolation and would not have as much runoff. She stated
she would prefer leaving the lot gravel.
Mr. Allred pointed out that was against city code.
Mr. Sargent stated that prior to the lot being gravel, it had been asphalt and
all the water came to the alley.
Ms. Britton pointed out there had also been a building all the way around the
lot
Mr. Sargent stated that all runoff had dumped into the alley.
Ms. Britton pointed out that just because it had been draining totally into the
alley, did not mean that was a good solution. She stated she preferred that less
of the property be paved. She further stated they were basically paving the
whole piece of property.
Mr. Sargent stated they were trying to met the city's parking requirements.
Mr. Allred stated that, unless the city started requiring less parking, the
entire area could turn into one big parking lot. He pointed out there was a
county parking deck across the street from the church that could handle the
overflow.
Ms. Britton stated another concern was the appearance of College Avenue. She
pointed out that one of the concerns coming out of The Vision Plan was to
preserve the beauty of the city. She stated parking lots were not all that
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 6
beautiful. She further stated she would prefer the petitioner reduce the amount
of pavement on the parking lot, particularly on the College Avenue side.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton regarding placement of the islands in
the parking lot, Mr. Sargent explained there was an existing curb cut on College
that was in the center of the lot and they had an opportunity to do landscaping
on each side.
Ms. Britton stated she was not talking about the College end, but 7 spaces from
the alley. She suggested putting the island at the alley so the alley would be
defined.
Mr. Sargent explained the parking lot went across the alley to the church but the
islands could be located elsewhere in the lot. He stated the city had
regulations of no more than 15 spaces without an island, so they had tried to
space the islands out in three equal spaces.
Mr. Britton stated she understood what they were doing but she was concerned
because the alley was a public space and the parking lot was a private space.
She stated the real issue, however, was so much pavement.
Mr. Sargent stated they would like to add a couple of islands at the alley but
were trying to meet the parking requirements.
Mr. Hanna suggested they could propose a parking plan with only two-thirds as
many spaces and more landscaping.
Mr Sargent stated two-thirds would be too much of a reduction, that the church
bought the lot to get additional close parking. He stated losing a couple of
spaces with another island would not hurt, but drastic reductions would hurt the
church and what they envisioned. He further stated they were trying to maximize
the amount of parking for the church and still make it attractive.
Ms. Britton asked what percentage of the parking lot was paved and what
percentage was open. She stated she believed it would be more agreeable if the
lot was 25% open.
Mr. Nickle pointed out the location of the new addition had been a water
collection area for the rain water runoff. He explained that the alley that used
to come through and allow the water to pass directly on to the east is now
blocked off. He encouraged the city engineer to take a hard look at the drainage
plan because, in his opinion, it would require some storm drainage and some catch
basins to get the water off without impacting the project and the adjoining
property owners to the north.
Mr. Sargent stated that Greg Bowen, McCormick Engineers, did a study of the
existing drainage and the proposed drainage. He stated everything east of the
alley drained to the alley and then due north to Dickson Street. He further
stated that everything to the west of the alley drained down a swale down the
alley directly to North East Avenue or the area on the green space percolated and
slowly drained into North East Avenue. He explained they were keeping the
drainage pattern basically the same in that everything east of the alley would
still drain down the alley to Dickson and everything west of the alley was put
in a storm drainage system and discharged onto East Avenue.
Mr. Allred stated it was the recommendation of staff that the City Engineer
approve the drainage plan. He further stated he would yield to the City
Engineer's expertise and judgment on a drainage plan.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Springborn stated that, since past activity had resulted in compaction of the
area, he doubted there was much difference between gravel and pavement. He
suggested that, in order to accomplish more drainage, the tree islands could be
filled with gravel before planting the tree. He explained, if there was a large
hole in the ground packed with gravel, there certainly would get a lot more
percolation than with compacted surface.
Mr. Sargent agreed with Mr. Springborn. He stated gravel did a better job of
percolating water than asphalt.
Mr. Tarvin stated the city was trying to systematically get all gravel lots
paved, using the approval process as leverage.
Mr. Bunn stated that, under the present regulations, the lot could not remain a
gravel lot. He stated the minimum requirement was a double chip and seal for the
surface.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved they approve the large scale development as submitted with the
staff and subdivision comments and consideration being given to the tree
plantings as suggested by Commissioners Britton and Springborn.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
There was discussion regarding the parking. It was agreed that the motion
included the acceptance of off-site parking as discussed in subdivision committee
meeting.
The motion passed 8-0-1, with Commissioners Nickle, Tarvin, Hanna, Allred,
Robertson, Springborn, Cato, and Cleghorn voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton
voting "no".
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST ARKANSAS SURGICAL & REHABILITATION CENTER
KIM FUGITT - W OF PARK VIEW DR., N OF JOYCE
The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development by the
Northwest Arkansas Surgical & Rehabilitation Center submitted by Kim Fugitt for
property located on the west side of Park View Drive, north of Joyce. The
property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Bunn stated this property was Lots 13, 14, and 15 of Vantage Square
Subdivision, containing approximately 1.43 acres. He pointed out that an
additional fire hydrant was required because of the sprinkler system and that the
location of the hydrant would need to be determined after the sprinkler system
was installed. He explained that a water line would need to be extended from the
north end of the property to provide for the fire hydrant. He stated staff had
suggested additional landscaping within the parking lot and that the radius of
the drop off and pick up drive be reduced. Mr. Bunn explained the drainage was
being relocated because of the construction and a drainage plan would have to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. He recommended approval of
the large scale development subject to the plat review and subdivision comments,
the drainage and water line plan approval, and construction of sidewalks in
accordance with the master sidewalk plan.
Mr. Kim Fugitt appeared before the Commission and stated all suggestions made in
the plat review were completed. He explained landscaping had been added to the
parking areas, the radius in the drop off zones had been changed.
17/
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 8
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
1ST NATIONAL BANK OF SPRINGDALE - SW CORNER OF 6TH & RAZORBACK RD
The seventh item on the agenda was a request from First National Bank of
Springdale for a lot split on property located on the southwest corner of 6th
Street and Razorback Road, 1417 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained this was the first split of property at that location. He
stated there was approximately a 2 acre tract of land with the Speedy -Mart
located on a 1.13 acre tract and the remaining tract containing approximately
9/10'e of an acre. He stated the lots created by the splits were of legal size
for C-2 zoning. Water was available to both tracts, however there was a problem
with the sewer access to both tracts. He recommended that the split be approved
subject to the provision of sewer service to the .9 acre tract.
Ms. Britton asked if the split was along Highway 62 or along Razorback Road.
Mr. Bunn explained the split would be west of the Speedy Mart entrance on Highway
62.
The applicant was not present.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the lot split as requested.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1, #2, AND #3
JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER RD., S OF JOYCE
The next item on the agenda was a lot split submitted by Jim Lindsey for property
located west of Crossover Road, south of Joyce. The property is zoned R -O,
Residential Office.
Mr. Bunn explained the agenda showed three splits, however there were actually
only two. He explained tract "D" was the tract that Paradise View Apartments
were located on, which had been approved as a large scale development. He
pointed out that tract "C" was not included as a split but was part of the golf
course property. He explained Mr. Lindsey was actually asking for two splits
which would divide the property into three tracts, tract "A" containing a couple
of holes on the golf course, tract "D" being the apartments, and tract "B" being
adjacent to Highway 265. He recommended the first and second split be approved
subject to the construction of sidewalks along 265.
19z
•
•
Planning Commission
May 13, 1991
Page 9
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve lot splits 1 and 2 contingent upon staff
recommendations and construction of sidewalks.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLIT #1
DON WARD - 2015 HUNTSVILLE ROAD
The last item on the agenda was a request for a lot split by Don Ward for
property located at 2015 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained this was the first split of property located at 2015 E.
Huntsville, located east of Happy Hollow Road and south of Huntsville Street.
He explained the proposal is to split the east lot into two tracts, each
containing approximately 0.35 acres. He further explained there were setback
problems with an existing house and, in order to avoid that problem, there was
to be a property line adjustment from tract 1, which would give enough property
to the tract that the side setback would not be a problem. He explained the
utilities were in place to serve both lots. He recommended the split be approved
subject to a survey of the property and that survey being submitted to the
planning office, subject to sidewalks being constructed adjacent to Huntsville
in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan, and payment of parks fees.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the lot split subject to staff recommendations of
completion of a survey, construction of sidewalks and payment of park fees.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion passed 9-0-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Britton stated there had been a lot of chaos over R-1.5 zoning in recent
weeks and suggested considering readjusting R-1.5 to allow lesser density.
Mr. Allred stated he believe that would be a good suggestion to give to staff
when they started reviewing the zoning master plan.
Mr. Springborn stated that when the City Board of Directors took up the matter
of the R-1.5 zoning, Mr. Merrell had observed that the city staff had recently
determined that Bill of Assurances were not worth the paper they were written on.
He stated he believe they needed to put this off for further discussion until the
next meeting so Mr. Merrell could brief the Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
173