Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 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, Mark Robertson, Jett Cato, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES Mr. Springborn stated he had a correction to the May 13, 1991 minutes. He stated at that meeting he had made a comment regarding digging a big enough hole to plant trees and pack with gravel so that there would be some percolation from the surface into the underlying strata. He stated Mr. Sargent had agreed with him, that gravel did a better job of percolating water than asphalt. He stated he believed Mr. Sargent was agreeing to the fact that, if the landscape planting went deep enough to get through the common surface clay, that there would then be percolation down through the surface. He explained that, if the clay in this area was exposed to traffic, it would be compacted to the point where it would not make any difference what type of surface covered the clay, whether it was asphalt or gravel. He further explained that, if they could get through the clay and expose some of the rock under it, a lot of water would be disposed from the surface. He requested these remarks be added to the record. The minutes of the May 13, 1991 meeting stood approved as corrected. CONDITIONAL USE 91-11 - DUPLEX NEIL BARNES - 1702 LEWIS AVENUE The second item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use to construct a duplex at 1702 Lewis, submitted by Neil Barnes for property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. John Merrell pointed out the staff report noted the lot width requirement for two family dwelling units in an R-1 zoning district was 80 feet but this property only had 75 feet. He explained that, if the conditional use was granted, Mr. Barnes would have to either purchase five feet from an adjoining property owner, go the Board of Adjustment, or simply construct two detached dwelling units. He explained that staff did not believe this conditional use would adversely affect public interest. He stated there were apartments on the other side of Lewis Street, but Lewis had been a good dividing line between areas of low and high density. Mr. Merrell stated the ingress and egress appeared to be adequate, there were no parking or traffic problems. He recommended approval. Ms. Britton stated she did not understand why they were discussing this item, since it did not meet any of the requirements. She explained the lot size was only 9,000 square feet instead of the required 12,000. She further explained the proposed building was 3,800 square feet which was over 40% of the lot size. Mr. the and Bunn explained only one floor of the duplex would be figured, thereby making coverage 25%. He explained the lot size was approximately 9,000 square feet the house was approximately 2,000 square feet. 194 • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 2 Ms. Britton pointed out the lot size still did not meet the 12,000 square feet requirement. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Bryant explained the applicant would have to request a variance on both the lot size and the frontage issue. Mr. Merrell explained the conditional use was a much easier way to have a on the lot rather than considering a rezoning to the east of Lewis. Ms. Britton stated the request was so far from the requirements, it was making fun of the ordinance, saying that none of the rules counted. duplex almost Mr. Merrell stated the applicant was briefed on his options, and he selected the conditional use. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the request for conditional use. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion failed 5-0-3 with Mr. Springborn, "yes" and Mr. Robertson, Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. voting "no". MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments and approval by the Board of Adjustment of all required variances. Ms. Britton, Allred, Mr. and Mr. Hanna voting Cato, and Mr. Nickle Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-3 with Mr. Robertson, Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Allred, Mr. Cato and Mr. Nickle voting "yes" and Mr. Springborn, Ms. Britton and Mr. Hanna voting "no". VARIANCE REQUEST - PARKING PHI MU SORORITY - 10 ARKANSAS AVENUE The third item on the agenda was a request for a parking variance submitted by Dottie Wood, representing Phi Mu Sorority, for property located at 10 Arkansas Avenue and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Ms. Bryant explained Phi Mu Sorority had requested they be allowed to substitute off-site parking for on-site parking. She explained they were renovating and adding to an existing house at the corner of Arkansas and Reagan Streets. She stated the sorority would be short approximately 24 on-site parking space; however, the sorority could lease a lot across the street which would allow more than 23 parking spaces. Ms. Bryant further explained there was a clause in Section 160.117(G)(1) that allowed the Planning Commission to grant this type of substitution. She recommended the Commission grant the variance. Ms. Britton stated there was a building at the site shown on the map. After discussion by the Commission and staff, it was determined the map was incorrect. The correct legal description was the south 30 feet of lot 2 and all of lot 3, Block 1 of Gregg's Addition. /26 • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Allred expressed concern that should the lease not be renewed, the sorority would be back to parking on the street. Me. Bryant stated that had also been a concern of the staff, but they believed the situation could be monitored, and if that should happen, the sorority would be in violation of the ordinance and would receive notification. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Wood stated the term of the lease was five years with an option to purchase. She explained the owner was not interested in selling the property immediately nor was the sorority in the position to purchase the lot at this time. Mr. Allred suggested that, if the Commission approved the variance, they could stipulate that the variance would revert should the sorority vacate the property. Ms. Britton pointed out that by that time the house would be built and have residents. Mr. Springborn stated the staff recommendation noted there would be recourse should Phi Mu be in violation. He asked what type of recourse there would be. Me. Bryant pointed out that, should the sorority be in violation of the zoning ordinance, they would receive notification. If they still failed to come into compliance, they would be taken to court and they would be forced into compliance by finding another piece of property elsewhere. Mr. Hanna stated parking for all of the sorority and fraternity houses was real tight. He further stated that was not a real concern of his. He stated if there was not enough parking, it might encourage some of the students to not bring a car Ms. Wood stated they could not renovate and add to the house unless they had additional parking. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the parking variance as requested. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion peened 8-0-0. FINAL PLAT - BROOKHOLLOW SUBDIVISION, PHASE III JERRY SWEETZER - W OF OLD MISSOURI RD, OFF OF FRAZIER TERRACE The fourth item on the agenda was Brookhollow Subdivision, Phase III, Jerry Sweetzer for property located Terrace. The property is zoned R-2, and 19 lots. a request for approval of final plat on presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of west of Old Missouri Road off of Frazier Medium Density Residential with 5.81 acres Don Bunn explained that while the zoning was R-2, the development was being restricted to single family residences only. He stated there were no staff comments at the plat review or subdivision meetings. He further stated the utility companies had requested new easements which had been granted by the owner. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to the plat review and subdivision comments, execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements in the subdivision, submittal of the Subdivision Covenants, construction of sidewalks per city ordinances, and payment of parks fees per city ordinance. 196 J • • Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to accept the final plat subject to the city engineer's comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - DON'S DON NELMS - 94 E. TOWNSHIP WHOLESALE The fifth item on the agenda was a development for Don's Wholesale. The Township, west of College Avenue (94 E Commercial. request by Don Nelms for a large scale property is located on the north side of . Township) and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Mr. Bunn explained the development consisted of a used car lot with a 12 by 60 foot building on 1.74 acres. He further explained the utility companies did not have a problem with service to the area, but there was considerable discussion with the power company in regard to their lines and existing easements across the property. He stated the final plat shows all of the existing easements. Mr. Bunn stated Township is a state highway (180) and will probably be widened in the next five to ten years. He explained the plat indicated a 30 foot road right-of-way plus a 10 foot utility and roadway easement on the north side. He stated he believed this should be sufficient for the improvements to the highway. He further stated there had been two non-binding recommendations made by staff: 1) more landscaping be provided to reduce heat and glare, reduce runoff, and for aesthetic purposes; and 2) installation of an additional fire hydrant. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments, granting of all easements required by the utility companies by separate instrument, and construction of sidewalks per the City's Master Sidewalk Plan. Mr. Cleghorn stated at the subdivision committee meeting there had been considerable discussion regarding what the state would be doing in regard to widening the highway. He explained that it would not matter since the applicant would be setting everything back far enough that, even if the highway were widened, it would not bother anything. Mr. Nelms asked about the sidewalks. He explained there were no sidewalks on either side of Township nor had he made any plans for a sidewalk. Mr. Bunn explained the property was on the master sidewalk plan and a sidewalk would be required unless the requirement was waived by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bunn explained the sidewalk could be put on the back side of the roadway easement. Mr. Hanna suggested asking for a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk to be built after the street was widened. Mr. Nelms pointed out the sidewalk would run into a wall. Mr. Merrell stated the Commission could require a Bill of Assurance. He pointed out that numerous comments on The Fayetteville Vision expressed concern over the absence of sidewalks throughout the city. 197 • • Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 5 In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated the State Highway Department had not yet scheduled the widening of 180. Mr. Nelms stated he has asked the state that on numerous occasions and no one seemed to know when it would be scheduled. Ms. Bryant pointed out there were sidewalks along part of Township. She stated it was not continuous, but there were sections of sidewalk. Ms. Britton stated she had seen people trying to walk along Township, and it was very dangerous. Mr. Cleghorn asked if, once the state widened the highway, the current businesses would have to construct sidewalks. Mr. Bunn explained that sometimes, if the city asked, the state would construct the sidewalk; existing property owners would not have to build a sidewalk. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Bunn stated the city would request the state include a sidewalk on the bridge. Mr. Springborn pointed out that, if there were a sidewalk on the bridge there would be justification for continuing the sidewalk in both directions from the bridge. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained, if there was an existing sidewalk that was removed when the state widened the highway, the state would be asked to replace it. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the large scale development for Don's Wholesale subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments and the granting of all easements to the utility companies. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. Ms. Bryant asked if the intent of the motion was to include construction of the sidewalks. She pointed out the Planning Commission did not have the authority to waive the sidewalk requirements. Mr. Nelms stated a Bill of Assurance would be acceptable. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Hanna amended his motion to include the granting of a Bill of Assurance by Mr. Nelms. Mr. Cato seconded the amended motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MMILROY BANK ADDITION McILROY BANK - 1947 N. COLLEGE AVENUE The sixth item on the agenda was a request by Mcllroy Bank, represented by Kim Fugitt, for a large scale development to be located at 1947 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Bunn stated the large scale development consisted of additional parking and the installation of a drive-through money machine. He stated none of the utilities had any comments. Staff comments were that none of the trees on the city right-of-way could be cut and an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Green Acres Road. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to those conditions. Mr. Cleghorn stated at subdivision committee meeting there had been some concern regarding the location of the trees but that had been resolved. Mr. Fugitt stated none of the trees in the right-of-way would be cut. In response to a question from Mr. Fugitt, Mr. Bunn explained the additional 5 feet for right-of-way would be 5 feet from the existing property line. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the large scale development as recommended. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - KIRBY'S RESTAURANT KIRBY WALKER - R OF FRONT, N OF SAIN The seventh item on the agenda was a request by Kirby Walker for a large scale development for Kirby's Restaurant. The property is located on the east side of Front Street, north of Sain Street and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development was planned to be located on Lot 12A which would be created by the approval of the Vantage Square Lot Splits, provided the Planning Commission approved them. He explained the next item on the agenda was three lot splits for lot 12 of Vantage Square. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the granting of easements requested by the utility companies by separate instrument and subject to approval of the lot splits. Mr. Cleghorn stated they had discussed the flood plain at the Subdivision Committee meeting but had found this property was built high enough to avoid problems. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Fugitt stated he did not know what type of outdoor lighting they would have, they had not gotten that far in their planning. He stated it would be typical parking lot lighting with accent lighting on the building. Mr. Nickle asked if the lighting was going to be metal halo, high pressure sodium, or a different kind. Mr. Fugitt stated that had not been specified as yet. Mr. Nickle stated staff needed to review the types of lighting allowed. He explained there were vast differences between various lighting systems which could affect adjoining properties. Mr. Merrell agreed with Mr. Nickle and stated they did need to become more sensitive to this issue because the spillover of light did affect other property. He stated a secondary reason was that several astronomy enthusiasts had expressed l99 • 0 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 7 concern because there was a direct correlation between light emanating from the surface of the ground and how well they can see out of their telescopes. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the large scale development subject to the lot split being approved. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1, #2, #3 TOM HOPPER - E OF FRONT, N OF SAIN ST The eighth item on the agenda was a request by Tom Hopper for the property located on the east side of Front Street, north of Sain Street (Lot 12, Vantage Square) to be split into three parcels. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the applicant was proposing to make three splits, creating four lots, noted as Lots 12A, 12B, 12C, and 12D. He further explained Lot 12A was 2 acres and the other three lots were approximately 0.8 of an acre each. He stated the owners had agreed to contact all the utility companies and grant whatever easements required by the utilities to serve the properties. He recommended approval of the splits. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve lot splits #1, #2, and #3. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #3 LINDA LILLY - 5 OF HWY 45, E OF HENSON RD The ninth item on the agenda was a request by Linda Lilly for Lot Split #3 on property located south of Highway 45, on the east side of Henson Farm Road. The property is outside the city limits. Mr. Bunn stated this was the third split on property owned by David Henson, being requested by his daughter, Linda Lilly. He explained the property proposing to be split off had an existing house and consisted of 1.25 acres. He stated the original tract was approximately 60 acres. He further explained sewer was not available but the house had a well. Mr. Bunn explained since this is the third split from the property, any further split of that property would require a formal subdivision. He recommended approval of the lot split, subject to county approval. 'MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split subject to county approval. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. zoa • Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS The Fayetteville Vision Mr. Merrell explained that staff completed the public meetings on The Fayetteville Vision and were in the process of compiling the information received from the Goal Summit meeting, the "Mayor for a Minute" survey, and the neighborhood meetings. He stated they had received input from 650 to 700 people. He stated the steering committee meeting was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on May 29. He further stated they had received some positive input from the citizens of Fayetteville. Bill of Assurances Mr. Springborn stated that at the City Board meeting prior to the last Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Merrell had commented that a Bill of Assurance was not worth the paper it was written on. Mr. Springborn asked Mr. Merrell to elaborate. Mr. Merrell stated there were numerous occasions when people had defaulted on a Bill of Assurance. He explained staff would be doing some updating of the zoning and subdivision regulations and would try to come up with a better system for assurances on completion of work. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. 20/