HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-12 Minutes•
•
•
41.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 12,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred,
Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Cleghorn
John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members
of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and Board of Directors meeting of
July 9, 1991 were approved as distributed.
REZONING REQUEST R91-18
ELAM & MARY DENHAM - W OF PORTER RD., S OF MT. COMFORT
The second item on the agenda was a request by Elam and Mary Denham on behalf of
Sterling Anders to rezone property located on the west side of Porter Road, south
of Mt. Comfort Road (2167 Porter Road) and contains .85 acres. The request is
to rezone R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Merrell explained Ms. Bryant would present the staff report since he had been
out of town for the last three weeks. He stated he had viewed the subject
property and agreed with Ms. Bryant's recommendation.
Me. Bryant explained that Me. Denham had offered to purchase the three-quarter
acre tract contingent upon its successful rezoning. She stated Me. Denham's
immediate plans were to convert the existing residence into a real estate office.
Me. Bryant explained that Ms. Denham had originally stated she would be satisfied
with R -O, C-1 or C-2 zoning but she now preferred C-2 so she could install A
large, free-standing sign visible from the highway.
Me. Bryant explained the tract was bordered by Shiloh Drive and Porter Road and
was influenced by three factors: (1) the proximity of the bypass, (2) the
deteriorating adjacent residential area, and (3) its location on a curve with
poor sight distance from either direction. She further explained that, because
the possible future use as a shopping center was speculative, because most of the
surrounding land was zoned and used residentially, and because of potential
traffic safety problems, staff was recommending against commercial zoning at this
site. She recommended granting R -O zoning. She explained that, if at some
future time Mrs. Denham is successful in obtaining more acreage for a shopping
center, staff would reconsider their position on commercial zoning.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Denham stated there was frontage
on both Shiloh and Porter. He explained the property extended beyond the
existing fence to the south.
Mr. Denham explained the structure faced the short segment of Porter Road next
to the bypass. He further explained on the other side of 71 bypass was the
University of Arkansas Experimental Farm. He stated to the north of the subject
property were three rental properties zoned R-2, to the west was a strip of land
with a mobile home park, immediately to the south was a R-1 zone then an I-1
zone. He stated he believed the character of the area would be best suited by
221
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 2
granting commercial zoning because of the industrial use to the south and the
deteriorating rental properties in the immediate area. He explained there would
not be excessive noise or objectionable signs, odors or nuisances from this
change in zoning. The property was to be used as professional offices. He
further explained there would be no more than three or four automobiles there and
the office would close at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Denham then presented the Commission with a petition signed by three of the
adjoining property owners in favor of the change in zoning.
Me. Britton explained that, while this sounded like a site that would be
permissible for change of zoning, there was an extremely dangerous curve. She
stated she believed this was a poor location for any kind of increase in use
unless it was a larger piece of property so there would be no ingress and egress
on the curve.
Mr. Hanna suggested the Denhams consider putting at least one of their exits or
entrances off of Shiloh Drive rather than Porter Road.
Mr. Denham stated they had talked to the Highway Department regarding such a
change and the Highway Department had approved the idea.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Denham stated they wanted C-2
zoning.
Mr. Allred stated the Vision recommendations had requested more neighborhood
commercial areas and this was an opportunity to do more zoning for the future
instead of reactionary zoning. He stated the Commission needed to make a
decision on how they wanted to handle this type of situation in the future. He
further stated it appeared a perfect opportunity to satisfy one of the Vision
requests.
Me. Britton stated that such a small site would be spot zoning. She explained
it would be different if they had wanted to rezone a larger area.
Mr. Merrell stated it was his understanding that the Denhams' plans included
occupying the residence and turning it into an office. He explained that,
because of the strategic location, because of traffic problems and because of the
spot zoning issue, the Commission should be conservative. He explained Mrs.
Denham had requested commercial zoning so she would be able to have a sign that
could be seen from the bypass. He recommended rezoning the property to R -O.
Mr. Springborn stated he sympathized with Mr. Allred's views on this issue to a
degree but he found himself also in the p sition of not having an updated land
use plan. He stated he understood that staff was getting closer to having such
an update, but at this point in time, he believed staff had more input, and
therefore, he would be inclined to go with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Nickle stated he was not for a commercial development of a speculative nature
at this time. He stated the request appeared to be an upgrade an existing
residence for a real estate office. He stated R -O zoning would accomplish that.
He stated that, if the Denhams desired to come back at a later date when they had
a plan for a shopping center or other commercial use, it should be considered on
its own merit.
Me. Britton stated she would concur with that as long as the driveway was
relocated. She explained its present location was a hazard.
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 3
(2
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the request for R -O zoning.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE C091-15 - AIR STRIP
JIM & JUDY HAZEN - E OF RUFFLE RD., S OF MT. COMPORT
The third item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use submitted by Jim
and Judy Hazen for an air strip. The property is located on the east side of
Rupple Road, south of Mt. Comfort Road (2160 Rupple Road). Part of the property
is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and part is outside the City Limits
Ms. Bryant explained the subject property was a 76.6 acre tract previously owned
by Floyd and Madelyn Harris. She reminded the Commission that in June, 1990 the
Harrises' were granted a conditional use for a period of one year to cover their
strictly personal use of an air strip. She further explained that Jim and Judy
Hazen had recently purchased the property and were living on the land. Ms.
Bryant stated the Hazen° worked out of San Francisco and planned to use the air
strip once or twice a week to travel to work.
Ms. Bryant explained the Commission must make written findings or refer to
written findings of the staff that certify satisfactory arrangement had been made
for the seven considerations detailed on the staff report. She stated staff had
reviewed all of the considerations and believed satisfactory arrangements could
be made if the number of enplanements were limited.
Ms. Bryant stated the neighboring property owners had valid complaints. The air
strip was constructed and used illegally; numerous people used the air strip when
it was owned by the Harrises; recreational flying was a nuisance to adjacent
property owners. She explained the Hazens were new owners with different needs
and plans. She further explained there were two possible compromises: first,
they could grant the conditional use subject to certain conditions, such as no
more than 12 enplanements per month, restricting the use to its "as is" condition
with no improvements, and renew the conditional use periodically; or second, no
more than 12 enplanements per month, allow the Hazens to construct the hangar as
long as it was well away from the future site of any Salem Road extension, and
provide for the renewal of the conditional use in 10 to 15 years (a fair
amortization period).
Mr. Jim Hazen appeared before the Commission and stated the staff recommendation
explained what he and his wife desired to do. He explained one of the reasons
they had purchased the subject property was the air strip. He further explained
it took him and his wife 8 to 10 hours to commute to San Francisco.
Mr. Hazen assured the Commission he would never do anything to compromise his
safety or the safety of the neighborhood. He explained he was aware that the air
strip had a limited life due to expansion of population to the area. He stated
there was limited use to the air strip since it did not have night lighting and
could only handle a small aircraft. He further explained he would like to
construct a hangar in order to protect the airplane. He stated that, after the
air strip was no longer in use, he planned to use the hangar as a hay barn. He
further stated they would need the air strip in order to stay in the Fayetteville
area.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Hazen stated 12 enplanements per
month would be satisfactory. He explained the only use for the air strip would
222
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 4
be so he and his wife could go back and forth from work.
Mr. Robertson asked if Dr. Harris would also be using the air strip.
Mr. Hazen explained that, when they had applied for the conditional use, Dr.
Harris still owned the property. Since that date, Mr. and Mrs. Hazen have
purchased the property. He stated Dr. Harris would not be using the air strip.
Mr. Erwin Davis, an attorney representing some of the neighbors in the area,
appeared before the Commission and reminded them that approximately a year ago
Dr. Harris had appeared before the Commission requesting a conditional use for
the air strip. He stated that the Commission had granted the conditional use,
and since that time, there had been a number of complaints from the residents of
the area. He explained the neighbors were concerned about their safety, increase
in insurance premiums and the noise. He asked the Commission to deny further use
of the air strip or, in the alternative, limit use to a certain number of
enplanements. He further requested that, should the conditional use be granted,
that it not be granted for more than one year intervals and not to allow Mr.
Hazen to construct a hangar.
Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, 3310 Mt. Comfort Road, appeared before the Commission and
explained the reasons given against the air strip at the meeting a year ago were
still valid reasons. He stated he did not believe airplanes should be allowed
to fly at low altitudes (sometimes as low as 75 feet) over an R-1 area. He
further stated he was encouraged about limiting the number of enplanements;
however, he was bothered by the construction of a hangar. He stated he was sure
the Hazens had friends with their own planes and, even if they did not land on
the strip, they would often "buzz" the air strip.
Mr. Kimbrough stated there was already an airport in the city limits and
construction around the airport had not closed it. He explained he was not
reassured by the staff report that growth of population in the area would
eventually close the air strip. He pointed out areas around the air strip that
were already populated.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Kimbrough stated he believed the
air strip had been constructed in the spring of 1989.
Mr. Uptegraft, a property owner in the area, appeared before the Commission and
explained he and his brother-in-law had purchased a tract of land in order to
build homes for their retirement. He stated the approach and departure of the
planes would be directly over the proposed houses. He stated the citizens paid
for the Fayetteville Airport on the south side of town, a 10 minute drive from
the subject property and currently housing 40 private airplanes. He further
stated he was strongly opposed to the conditional use.
Mr. Gerald Jones, representing the land bordering to the south of the subject
property, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not opposed to the
conditional use.
Mr. Hazen stated he understood the neighborhood's concern. He stated they
planned to leave the property as it was for the next 15 years and then subdivide
the tract for housing.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated the Commission had
the option to make the conditional use for any time period.
Mr. Robertson asked if an enplanement was defined as one takeoff with the landing
being a second enplanement.
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 5
Mr. Hazen stated he thought an enplanement would be one cycle of a takeoff and
landing.
Mr. Tarvin stated he believed it only fair and proper that a compromise be
sought. He explained he found it hard to understand how they could enforce a
given number of enplanements. He suggested restrictions of personal use only,
no air shows, no night landings.
Mr. Springborn stated he endorsed Mr. Tarvin's thoughts. He explained he
believed the last time this item had come before the Commission their objective
was to limit the air strip to personal use. He stated they could limit it to use
by the applicant's personal aircraft only.
Ms. Britton stated the use was not favorable when it was put in and this would
be a good opportunity to eliminate it. She stated that, should the Commission
agree to the conditional use, she did not want it to continue for 15 years. She
suggested a maximum of five years.
Mr. Nickle stated he saw this as an opportunity to allow the Hazens to continue
with a personal use, strictly limited to only their aircraft going to work and
back. He stated he believed this would be phased out in a few years, because the
value of the land would be enough to develop it. He stated he would not be in
favor of a lengthy time period. He further stated that, even though they might
not be able to regulate the number of enplanements, he preferred having a limit.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Hazen stated he would be willing
to present his log to prove the number of enplanemente per month.
Mr. Nickle stated he would be in favor of continuing the conditional use with the
further restrictions.
Mr. Robertson stated he would like to see enplanements defined as a cycle and
believed 12 cycles was not unreasonable. He stated he believed the hangar would
be a modest structure and, if the applicant was willing to accept the risk that
the conditional use might be denied in the future, he would have no objection to
a structure to protect the aircraft.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the conditional use for the air strip for the use of the
Hazen's private plane only, not to exceed 12 takeoffs per month, for a period of
five years, with the Hazens being able to build a hangar or storage barn.
Mr. Hanna stated that, if at anytime during the conditional use period that the
neighbors feel the conditional use was being violated, they can ask the Planning
Department to see if there are violations. He explained that, should there be
violations, the conditional use would be brought back to the Planning Commission•
for re -hearing.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Hanna agreed that at the end of
5 years the Hazens could come back before the Planning Commission for an
extension of the conditional use.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 6
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARADISE VIEW ESTATES PHASE II
TOM HOPPER - W OF CROSSOVER RD., S OF JOYCE ST.
The fourth item on the agenda was the presentation of the preliminary plat for
Paradise View Estates, Phase II, submitted by Tom Hopper on behalf of the Lindsey
Family Trust. The property is located on the west side of Crossover Road, south
of Joyce Street and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The property contains
10.02 acres with 21 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained this was Phase II of Paradise View Estates and tied into
Paradise View Estates immediately to the north. He stated there was an entrance
and exit on Highway 265. He further stated there were no significant comments
at the Plat Review meeting however there were questions at the Subdivision
Committee meeting regarding how the new Excavation and Grading Ordinance would
apply to this development.
Mr. Bunn explained the ordinance would apply in two ways: first, in the
construction of the subdivision, the developers would have to follow the
ordinance. He stated the application for the preliminary plat was made prior to
the time the ordinance became enacted so there was no preliminary plan but they
would be required to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. He stated the
second way the ordinance would come into play was that, when houses were
constructed on lots within the 100 year flood plain, grading permits would have
to be applied for.
Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the plat review
and subdivision committee comments; the approval of water, sewer, streets and
drainage plans by the city engineer; construction of sidewalks in accordance with
City ordinances; donation of land approximately 1/4 acre in lieu of parks fees;
and a notation on the plat indicating that those lots in the flood plan would
require a grading permit at the time of development.
Mr. Nickle stated the comments at the subdivision committee meeting related to
the fact that this is the first subdivision under the new excavation and grading
ordinance. He stated they had recommended approval subject to plat review
comments and staff comments.
Mr. Robertson clarified the Parks Board had recommended accepting land in lieu
of the money, provided they could negotiate the .26 acre. He stated this
property bordered Sweetbriar Park and they could add the additional acreage to
the park.
In response to a question from Mr. Hopper, Ms Bryant explained the Parks staff
would determine where in the subdivision the land would come from.
Mr. Hopper explained that, while the developer desired to cooperate with the
city, he would prefer payment of parks fees in lieu of the land.
Ms. Britton stated it was nice to have the park adjoining the subdivision but
they needed pedestrian and cyclist access from the subdivision. She stated she
would like public pedestrian access between lots 7 and 8 or lots 8 and 9.
Mr. Hanna stated he wouldn't want a path down along the side of his lot. He
further stated he would be opposed to requiring such access.
Me. Britton stated she was just requesting it, not requiring it.
Mr. Hooper stated he would review her request.
zz3
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Springborn stated he did not know of any precedent or any such requirement
in the ordinance. He stated the Planning Commission could not impose such a
requirement on the developer.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat of Paradise View Estates, Phase
II subject to staff comments, plat review and subdivision comments.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion pass 8-0-0.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 AND #2
PETER ROE - S OF REBECCA, E OF COLLEGE
The fifth item on the agenda was two lot splits submitted by Peter Roe and
represented by Marsha Brinton. The property is located on the south side of
Rebecca, east of College Avenue and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained the proposed split was of 3.64 acres into three tracts, two
of which would be approximately 0.80 acres with the remaining tract being 2.84
acres and front on Davidson Street. He stated all of the proposed lots would
meet the size and frontage requirements for R-1. He further stated water was
available to all lots. A 10 -inch sewer line crosses the two proposed lots facing
Rebecca Street from east to west approximately 100 feet south of Rebecca. He
stated the other utilities were assumed to be in close proximity to the property.
Mr. Bunn stated the existing sewer line might interfere with the location of
houses on the two lots. He recommended approval subject to a survey of the
property; the granting, by separate instrument, of a 15 -foot easement on the
existing sewer line; construction of a sidewalk on Davidson Street in accordance
with the Master Sidewalk Plan; payment of parks fees; and the extension of any
other utilities that might be required for servicing of the lots.
Mr. Nickle asked what was located on the two properties zoned R -O, west of the
subject property.
Mr. Merrell explained the R -O properties were at the rear of Doc Murdocks. He
further explained Doc Murdocks was zoned C-2.
Ms. Brinton stated the lot splits were to provide single family dwellings.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Brinton explained the large estate
house faced on Davidson and the other houses would face on Rebecca.
Ms. Britton questioned why sidewalks were not being required on Rebecca.
Mr. Bunn explained it was not on the Master Sidewalk Plan.
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot splits subject to staff comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
z 2 4
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1991
Page 8
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1:
Mr. Allred stated under Item #1 of the Agenda they had approved only the minutes
of the Joint Board of Directors Meeting. He explained they also had the minutes
for the regular Planning Commission of July 9.
The minutes were approved as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
225