Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 9, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato Fred Hanna and J. E. Springborn Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the August 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. FINAL PLAT - NORTH POINT SUBDIVISION DOUG HEMINGWAY - N OF HALL, E OF HWY 71 BYPASS The second item on the agenda was a request by Lindsey for approval of a final plat for North is located on the north side of Hall Avenue, consists of 5.82 acres with 8 lots proposed. Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated there were no comments in the plat review and subdivision committees. He explained all improvements were in place and staff recommended approval of the final plat. Doug Hemingway on behalf of Jim Point Subdivision. The property east of Highway 71 Bypass and The subject tract is zoned C-2, MOTION Mr. Nickle moved the final plat for North Point Subdivision be approved. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE CU 91-17 - CHILD CARE ROSEANNE LEVERICH - 537 E. LAFAYETTE The third item on the agenda was request for a conditional use to allow child care on the premises of 537 E. Lafayette by Roseanne Leverich. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Becky Bryant, Planning Department, explained Ms. Leverich had been operating a licensed child care facility out of her home for approximately one and one-half years in violation of the city zoning ordinance. She stated Ms. Leverich was now requesting a conditional use for a home occupation. She further stated there were a number of code requirements for a home occupation (as listed in the staff report) and gave as an example that the applicant could keep no more than six children instead of the ten for which she was licensed. Ms. Bryant pointed conditional use was historic district. underlying zoning. out that some of the neighbors were concerned that, if the to be granted, commercial uses would creep further into the She clarified that the conditional use would not change the She further stated it was her belief that, with 230 • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1991 Page 2 Fayetteville's increasing priority on historic preservation, there would be no further commercial encroachment into the area. Ms. Bryant stated the main concern of staff was the potential traffic hazard to the children and other motorists. She suggested that as a compromise the conditional use be granted for no more than six children and subject to all ordinance requirements. She further suggested the Planning Commission review the conditional use in one year at renewal time. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the conditional use would remain with the property, not the applicant. It was suggested that the conditional use be tied to both the applicant and the property. Ms. Bryant explained the Planning Commission could make any conditions as along as they were not arbitrary or capricious. Mr. Tarvin explained one of the neighbors had contacted him expressing concern that, while he was not opposed to Ms. Leverich having the conditional use, someone else might not be as conscientious as she was. Ms. Bryant stated that, unless they placed a restriction on the conditional use limiting it to Ms. Leverich only, someone else could have a child care facility on the premises should Me. Leverich move. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the only complaints received were regarding the zoning violation. Ms. Leverich appeared before the Planning Commission and explained the parents of the children she cared for could not park on Lafayette because it would block traffic. She stated they used her driveway. She presented the Commission a schedule of time the children were delivered and picked up, pointing out the times were staggered. Me. Susan Gessler, 318 E. Lafayette, showed the Planning Commission pictures of the homes in the historic district area and a picture of the applicant's home. She explained residents of the area had spent a great deal of money to renovate their homes. Ms. Gessler stated there were two homes for sale on Lafayette - one for $115,000 and the other for $137,000. She explained that, when people were trying to sell their homes, the child care facility would degrade the street. She expressed fear that the conditional use would deter people from improving Lafayette Street. She stated approval of the conditional use would open up the floodgates for several other businesses. She stated the traffic department had given her figures showing 10,770 cars drove daily within one-fourth of a mile of the proposed day care center. Ms. Kathy Harper, 521 E. Lafayette, appeared before the Commission and stated Helen Durrane, 518 E. Lafayette, had been unable to attend the meeting but had requested Ms. Harper read a letter in opposition to the conditional use. Ms. Harper then gave as reasons for her opposition the heavy traffic and noise caused by children at play. She stated some of the parents used her driveway to drop off and pick up children. She explained there was only 17 feet between her house and the applicant's house. She stated they could not use the east side of their home during the day because of the noise from the children next door. She stated she did not understand, when a homeowner spend a great deal of money on their home, how the city could allow a renter to change the homeowners' lifestyle. Ms. Leverich explained she had been doing child care for ten years, she had a degree in early childhood education. She further explained it was not a hobby but her job. She stated the children were never in the front yard, they were never allowed to bother the neighbors. She further stated she had presented a • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1991 Page 3 petition to the Commission, signed by her neighbors, in favor of the conditional use. She explained she had not talked to people two or three blocks away from her house. Mr. Allred explained they were not discussing a zoning change but a conditional use. He further explained the zoning would not be changed. He further stated that historically, when a zoning change was being considered, conditional uses did not impact a zoning change. He explained the applicant was applying for a home occupation in a residential zone. Ms. Gessler suggested contacting the historic commission for their recommendation. Mr. Allred stated it was his understanding that even in historic districts there were provisions for home occupations. Me. Bryant agreed with Mr. Allred. She further stated she believed contacting the historic commission for their recommendation would be reasonable if the Planning Commission felt like that was information they would like to have. In response to a question from Mr. Robertson, Me. Bryant explained the property was near the National Registry District but not included in it. Mr. Allred stated it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to make the decision, not the Historic Commission's responsibility. He further pointed out the property was near the historic district not in it. One of Me. Leverich's clients spoke in favor of the conditional use. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, staff stated the complaints they had received on the property did not relate to noise or traffic. Mr. Cleghorn asked who owned the property. Ms. Leverich explained Mr. Robert Parker owned the property and had signed the application for conditional use. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Bryant explained the conditional use was renewable annually. She further explained that, should staff receive complaints regarding the child care, the matter would be brought back before the Planning Commission in one year. Mr. Allred suggesting making an automatic review by the Planning Commission in one year. An unnamed resident at 521 E. Lafayette requested that a privacy fence be one of the restrictions placed on the conditional use. She stated the noise level from the adjoining house was terrible. She further stated she could not use the west side of her home without hearing the cries of children. She gave examples of noise problems that had occurred in the past. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Leverich explained there was already fencing between the properties. She stated the Commissioners were welcome to come to her home and view the facilities whenever they wished. Ms. Gessler once again stated she was concerned about additional traffic, additional people and the safety of the children. She further stated she believed approval of the conditional use would open the flood gate for other commercial establishments in the area. • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Robertson explained staff recommendation limited the number of children from 10 to six. He asked Ms. Leverich if it would be feasible for her to continue child care. Ms. Leverich stated she would continue with the day care with only six children. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Leverich stated she would have to move if the conditional use were denied. She further explained she had lived at the property for approximately two years, she was licensed with the State of Arkansas and had been taking care of the children for the last two years. She further explained that her clients parked in her driveway, not the street. Mr. Allred stated he believed the traffic stated it was not an ideal situation but unrealistic. He stated he was in favor of year with some stringent restrictions for the end of the one year period. MOTION would be insignificant. He further he did not believe the request was granting the conditional use for one review by the Planning Commission at Mr. Robertson moved to grant the conditional use based on staff recommendations as listed for one a period of year to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the end of the one year and further, that the conditional use be designated for only Me. Leverich so if Ms. Leverich should move, the conditional use would be revoked at that point., Mr. Cato seconded the motion. It was agreed that Ms. Leverich could, by ordinance, take care of only six children and further, that any complaints would be kept on file and presented to the Planning Commission at the end of one year. The motion passed with Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Britton, Mr. Allred, Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Cato voting "yes" and Mr. Sickle voting "no". FAYETTEVILLE - SPRINGDALE TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR FISCAL YEARS 1993 - 1996 LARRY WOOD - NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING The fourth item on the agenda was a presentation of the Fayetteville - Springdale Transporation Study for Fiscal Years 1993 through 1996 presented by Larry Wood of Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning. Mr. Wood explained the Regional Planning Commission began a relationship with the Arkansas Highway Department back in the late 1960's in terms of transportation planning. At that point in time there were no units of government in Northwest Arkansas that qualified for any direct federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration, leaving all highways in the area needing improvements subject to the State Highway Commission activities. He further explained that in 1982, as a result of the 1980 census, Fayetteville - Springdale was designated as an urbanized area and with that designation came the possibility for direct federal funding through the transportation planning process. He stated the governor designated a metropolitan planning organization as the regional planning commission. He explained that further requirements called for the creation of a technical advisory committee and a policy committee to oversee the transportation activities. He further explained the process required a transportation plan be developed and approved by the Federal Highway Administration before funding activities could begin for transportation purposes. In 1973 a transportation plan was adopted and the Highway Department (from 1973 to 1982) gave the region a portion of their state planning funds to undertake the zz9 • • • Planning Commission September 9, 1991 Page 5 planning activities. He explained that in 1982 the area was eligible to receive transportation funds for improvements. He stated the process for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was begun in 1983 and has been ongoing every year since then. Mr. Wood explained he was presenting the 1992 Transportation Improvement Program in order that the Commissioners might know the proposed transportation plan. He explained that Mr. Allred had asked that Mr. Wood only review the Fayetteville portion of the plan with the Commissioners. He stated the Highway Department submits to the Regional Planning Department the proposed improvements within the urbanized area and then each city submits their planned improvements. The information is processed through the committees and on to the Federal Highway Administration. He stated the following routes were either to be under contract or completed within the next year (subject to finances being available): Wedington (Highway 112 Spur) from US 71 Bypass to Garland to be widened to four lanes; State Highway 180 (Sixth Street) from Garland to US 71B to be widened; and reconstruction of the retaining wall on Highway 71B just south of North Street. He pointed out the projects slated for the 2 to 5 year time span. He explained those projects would be reviewed again before they were placed in the annual program. Mr. Wood then reviewed the annual element (FY1992) for Fayetteville: reconstruct four lanes on North Street between Gregg and the railroad tracks; expansion of Razorback Road to Cato Springs Road at the bypass; replacement of bridge on Double Springs Road at Owl Creek; widen to three lanes Poplar Street from Leverett to Gregg; improve Old Wire Road from Township to Hwy 265 and from Township to Hwy 45; widening of Joyce Street from Old Missouri Road to Hwy 265 to four lanes; improving Stubblefield from Old Missouri to Harold; and widening Township from College to Old Wire to four lanes. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Wood stated he was not sure of the proposed improvements to Old Wire Road. He explained they had discussed widening the road to three lanes or improve two lanes with shoulder sections added. He stated he did not believe they planned on curbing and guttering those sections. Mr. Bunn stated they were reviewing Township at the present time and did not know the exact improvements they would make. He explained there was a study under contract and public hearings would be held at the end of the month. He further explained that all of the projects listed were not necessarily going to be highway projects. He stated some of the streets had already been started as city projects. Mr. Woods stated that was part of the problem with this process - there was only a limited amount of money and there could only be one project going at one time. He explained the city had indicated under the capital improvement program they would do some of the projects on their own and not wait for the federal funds. Mr. Cleghorn asked if the city coordinated projects with the state. Mr. Woods explained there was coordination regarding the projects however very little coordination in terms of timing. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the city did not have to meet state specifications on city construction. Mr. Allred stated he believed the information presented by Mr. Woods would be extremely beneficial to the Commission in showing the areas that were problem areas as far as planning. J • • Planning Commission September 9, 1991 Page 6 OTHER BUSINESS Visions Project Mr. Cleghorn asked about the progress on the Visions goals. He asked if anything was being done about the proposed recommendations. He requested a report from staff. Ms. Bryant explained the city manager had directed the division managers to report on the cost of each recommended item, whether it would replace existing programs, would additional staff be necessary, and their recommendations. She further explained the report had been compiled and then had been sent out for further review. She stated the intention was to have a document that would come to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Board of Directors. Mr. Cleghorn stated he would like to know when the report would be submitted to the Planning Commission. He explained that, because so much time had gone into the Vision Project and many good ideas had come from the meetings, he wanted to be sure that it proceeded. Money Magazine Report Mr. Cleghorn noted that Money magazine had determined the City of Fayetteville was number seven in a list of the best places to live. He stated he would be interested in having the list of questions the magazine used to make their determination. Ms. Britton suggested that would make a good educational package for the Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. zit