Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 25, 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: Alett Little, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Mr. Allred introduced the new Planning Management Director, Ms. Alett Little, to the Planning Commission. MINUTES The minutes of the November 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. ADOPTION OF AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS Mr. Hanna, Chairman of the By -Laws Subcommittee, stated the committee had reviewed the previous by-laws and clarified some of the articles. The changes included the chairman appointing a three-member committee to serve as a nominating committee each year (Commission members would also be able to nominate officers from the floor) and an officer of the Planning Commission could serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. He asked if any of the members had any questions. There were none. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to adopt the bylaws as presented. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - WOODVIEW ESTATES LARRY HAINES - W OF SASSAFRAS HILL RD., N OF HWY 45 The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Woodview Estates Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Larry Haines for property located west of Sassafras Hill Road and north of Highway 45. The property is outside the city limits and contains 31.85 acres with 11 lots. Ms. Little stated both the subdivision committee and staff recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the final plat as recommended by staff. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 25-9 • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 2 REQUEST FOR REHEARING - R91-25 PETE ESTES - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR. AND GARLAND The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a rehearing for a change in zoning from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, for property located on the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland, presented by Pete Estes on behalf of Carolyn Parsons and Mike Hopkins. Ms. Little stated staff recommended the Planning Commission rehear the petition for rezoning on the basis that the current request was for two lots as opposed to the entire parcel, as previously presented, and that the subject property was in accordance with comprehensive planning in that the area was becoming commercialized. Mr. Allred explained the request for rehearing was not open for public discussion but was a Planning Commission item. He further explained that, should the Commission choose to rehear the item, they would then have a formal hearing. Mr. Cleghorn stated the applicant had made only a minor change in the application He expressed concern that they would be setting a precedent by rehearing the subject request. Mr. Allred stated he believed the Commission needed to review these requests on a case by case basis. He explained that was why the applicant had to go through the re-application process for the staff to review and make recommendations. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, recommended that the item was a rehearing, not a Mr. Allred stated staff had new hearing. Mr. Springborn stated he was aware of staff's recommendation but the Commission was the entity making the decision. Mr. Allred stated he believed they needed to decide whether they wanted to hear the application or not. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to rehear the request for the rezoning. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-4-0 with Commissioners Hanna, Britton, Cato, Allred and Tarvin voting "aye" and Commissioners Cleghorn, Robertson, Springborn and Nickle voting "no". REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING - R91-25 PETE ESTES - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR. AND GARLAND The final item on the agenda was a request for a public hearing for a change of zoning from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, for property located at the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland, submitted by Pete Estes on behalf of Carolyn Parsons and Mike Hopkins. Ms. Little explained the City Planning Commission had last heard the subject request on January 14, 1991. She further explained that at that time the Planning Commission's recommendation was approval of the rezoning of the property to C-1. She stated that on May 7, 1991 the Board of Directors denied the rezoning by a vote of 1-6-0. Ms. Little stated the subject rezoning request had been submitted by Pete Estes on behalf of Mike Hopkins, the owner of a restaurant in the area and a potential z60 • • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 3 buyer of the subject property. She recommended the Planning Commission rezone the subject parcel from R-1 to C-1. Ms. Pete Estes then appeared before the Planning Commission and explained he represented both Ms. Parsons and Mr. Hopkins. He expressed his belief that one of the most difficult jobs the Planning Commission and Board of Directors had was to provide consistency in the planning of land use and zoning for the City through the decades with different Commissioners and Directors. He expressed his belief the only way to accomplish the consistency was to establish a long range plan, which the city did in 1970. He explained they had approved a Comprehensive General Land Use Plan. Mr. Estes stated the Plan provided that real property located on the corners of major intersections should be commercial. He stated this was for the purpose of preventing spot zoning or strip zoning of commercial properties in residential areas or throughout the town. He explained that at the intersection in question three of the four corners were now commercial. He stated the only property still residential was that owned by Ms. Parsons. Mr. Estes explained that when the original rezoning request had been made in 1989 the request encompassed the additional lots between the corner and the school. He further explained they were not making that request this time. He stated they were only requesting the corner be rezoned because it was a commercial intersection. He also directed the Commission's attention to the Master Street Plan, accepted in 1970 and amended in 1983. He handed out copies of a map containing a portion of the Master Street Plan. He pointed out the circled area as being the intersection of Garland and Wedington. He explained the widening of the intersection was on the 1991-1992 work project for the State of Arkansas. He stated the plan since 1970 had been to make the subject intersection a major arterial intersection for the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Estes stated he had reviewed John Merrell's recommendations from January, 1991. He stated it had disturbed him that the plan for widening the intersection had not been brought to the Commission's attention in January. He stated Mr. Merrell had also stated that to rezone the property would cause traffic congestion. He submitted that with 11,500 cars currently using the intersection daily, rezoning the property would have a very insignificant effect on the intersection. He further stated the widening of the intersection would adequately disburse any congestion and aid in the traffic flow. He stated the other concern expressed by Mr. Merrell was should the property be rezoned, it would jeopardize the property value and destabilize it. Mr. Estes stated the other three corners were commercial enterprises, and if C-1 devalued the property, that had happened a -long time ago. He stated the rezoning of the subject property would have a very insignificant effect. He also pointed out that to the west of the property was a 20 -foot alley which separated the subject tract from any residential land to the west. He stated there was an ordinance, S160.188(D)2, which provided that the owner of property that was zoned commercial would be required to place a fence or vegetative barrier along the property. He stated they would place such a fence. Mr. Estes once again expressed his belief that the intersection of Wedington and Garland was now a commercial and very major intersection within the City of Fayetteville. He stated the problems that used to exist were no longer pertinent. Mr. Cato stated there had been agreement to dedicate some space on the west side of the property as a walkway and buffer in the original request. He stated the original request had also contained an offer to dedicate land on the south side of the property for drainage purposes. He asked the current status of those dedications. • • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Estes stated he did not Mr. Hopkins to assist in original rezoning they had in this instance they were know. He stated he had been asked by Ms rezoning the property. He explained requested that the entire tract of land only requesting the corner property be . Parsons and that in the be zoned but rezoned. Mr. Cato stated he believed one of the major concerns by the residents was the provision of the walkway for the school children. Mr. Estes stated the intersection was extremely busy but he believed the school felt comfortable with the steps it had taken. He further stated there was also a possibility that the 20 -foot alley on the west side of the property could be utilized. He explained these were his personal viewpoints. Mr. springborn stated another consideration in January was the matter of no alcoholic beverage being served anywhere on the property. He explained that subsequent to the Commission's decision, the banning of alcohol had been withdrawn. Mr. Estes stated Danny Wright, the General Counsel for the Hathcock Trust, had told him that, when it came before the Commission in January a Bill of Assurance had been discussed but by the time the request was heard by the City Board the exact terminology became in dispute. He explained both sides agreed that, until the wording was proper, that they couldn't sign a Bill of Assurance. He explained it came down to technical wording. Mr. Estes stated he was not in a position to recommend to his clients to sign a Bill of Assurance. He stated that it was unfair for Ms. Parson's property to be encumbered by something the other three corners were not asked or required to do - to limit the use or the potential purposes for that property. He stated he believed it was unfair to impose the burden upon Ms. Parson's property when the others had not been requested or directed to sign Bills of Assurance. He further expressed his belief that Bills of Assurance were not valid. He explained that contract zoning was a type of zoning which was frowned upon from the standpoint that it got away from the idea of consistency. He further explained it got into the realm of making or imposing conditions when the city, under ordinance 111.049 (B), had allowed C-1 property to sell beer or wine in restaurants when it was more than 200 yards from a school or church. He further stated that the State of Arkansas, through section 3416 had likewise approved the sale of beer and wine in restaurants. He stated to ask Ms. Parsons to carry that obligation and to have her sign a Bill of Assurance would not be fair to her. He stated that, as a result, they were not offering such a Bill of Assurance. He expressed his hope that would not be a reason to deny the rezoning. Mr. Estes further stated it was very easy to get into the particular uses of a piece of property as a tool for zoning. He gave as examples permitting a bookstore but not allowing it to sell paperback books, or rezoning for a gasoline station but refusing to allow it to sell diesel. Mr. Estes stated he represented Mr. Hopkins who had run a restaurant for 8 years approximately 150 feet north of the intersection. He stated there had been no problems with the restaurant. He further stated nothing new was being interjected at the intersection. He explained it was just the relocation of an establishment that was already there. • Ms. Little stated the city code required no sale of beer or wine within 200 feet rather than 200 yards for restaurants. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Estes explained per state statute there could not be a liquor store within 200 yards (or 600 feet) of a school or church. • • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Allred stated a retail liquor store would not be a consideration since city code prohibited it. He further explained that they would be considering only the rezoning of the subject property. He further explained that, before the property could be developed, the owner would have to request approval of a large scale development which would address drainage, ingress, egress, etc. He asked the audience to keep their comments to the land use only. Ms. Jackie Currington, a resident of the Leverett School District, stated her children attended Leverett School, she was the president of the Parent-Teacher Association at Leverett and she also taught school there. She urged the Commission to not let a bar or restaurant be located on the subject property. She requested they add a stipulation to the rezoning that would disallow bars and restaurants. She stated the children walked by the area every day. Mr. Scott Starr stated he had children attending Leverett School. He also requested there be a restriction upon the sale of alcoholic beverages should the property be rezoned. He further stated they had been encouraging abstinence of alcohol and drugs. He expressed concern regarding the exposure of those partaking of alcohol or to the purchase of alcohol on property closely adjacent to the school. He strongly urged they deny the rezoning. Mr. Tom Williams, a teacher at Fayetteville High School, appeared before the Commission. He explained he taught a class called "Students for Wellness" which taught abstinence. He further explained the federal government had provided grants and loans to teach abstinence. He stated Mr. Estes had presented the Master Land Use Plan allowing commercial properties on the corners of major intersections. He further stated Mr. Allred had told Mr. Cleghorn that they needed to review rezoning requests case by case. He requested they view this rezoning on a case by case basis. Mr. Kim Smith, a resident of Hall Avenue, appeared before the Commission and mentioned the uniqueness of the corner. He stated there were no businesses west of Garland or south of Wedington Drive. He explained the corner was part of a large, established residential neighborhood. He argued they should be trying to maintain a residential neighborhood rather than trying to make the corner lot commercial. He also stated he was against rezoning of the property so the property owner could make a profit. He stated he would be happy if they constructed houses on all of the lots. Ms. Pat Green, 962 Hall, stated she understood rezoning was done based upon need. She reminded the Commission of both vacant and undeveloped commercial property in the immediate area. She explained she was familiar with the long range plan because she had been in attendance at some of the meetings. She pointed out a number of the plans made in 1970 had not and would not come into being because circumstances had changed. She stated there were only eight elementary schools in Fayetteville. She further stated it was up to the mature citizens of Fayetteville to protect the school children. She pointed out the city would not consider putting a restaurant that served alcohol within the same block with any other elementary school. She further stated crime and automobile accidents had increased because of the commercialism in the area. She further stated the residents of Hall Street had invested a lot of money in improving the area. She stated they had constructed their homes there because they felt like they were in a school neighborhood and the city had always protected their school neighborhoods. She stated there was a certain element of stability that was needed. Ms. Katie Featherston, a member of the Ozark Headwaters Sierra Club, stated the membership of that club supported the zoning of the subject property remaining R-1. She stated she did not see why the fact that the three other corners of the intersection were commercial should have any bearing on their decision. She further stated it seemed to her the fact that most of the property was • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 6 residential was more important. She also pointed out this area would be a major entrance into the city, a good reason to keep the intersection quieter and more scenic. She urged them to deny the request. Mr. Cecil England appeared before the Commission and stated he had lived across the street from the property for approximately 30 years. He asked if there was not a section of city code that required, whenever there was a certain percentage of opposition, the rezoning had to be taken under consideration. Ms. Bryant explained the code Mr. England was referencing pertained to the City Board of Directors rather than the Planning Commission. Ms. Little stated the section Mr. England was referring to was 160.156 which read: "When a proposed amendment affects the zoning classification of property, and in case a protest against such change is signed by the owners of 20% or more either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending 300 feet from the street frontage of such opposite lots, then such amendments shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of the City Board of Directors." Mr. England stated he would like to see the Planning Commission honor some of the things that had taken place. Mr. Mike Faupell stated a citizens group had been formed when the rezoning request had originally been made. He explained the group, named The Northwest Arkansas Trust for Public Lands, was formed for the purpose of looking at different alternatives to protect the subject property. He further explained the property contained one of the largest stands of mature hardwood trees within the City. He stated the value of the property was as forest land and not commercial land. He stated it was his belief that, should the subject property be rezoned to C-1, the adjoining property would also be rezoned. He asked the Commission to deny the rezoning or, should they decide to rezone the property, he requested they add stipulations banning alcohol sales on the premises. He also requested they have some type of stipulation regarding tree preservation on the subject premises. Ms. Barbara Fraley, the mother of three children attending Leverett School, stated her children were on the safety patrol. She expressed concern for her children's safety while, they were helping other children due to the excessive traffic at that intersection. She stated she did not want the children to walk home down the alleyway behind a bar. She asked the Commission to consider that when making their recommendation on the rezoning of the property. Ms. Ann England, 904 N. Garland, expressed concern regarding the rezoning. She reminded the Commission that several Vision Project meetings had been held earlier in the year for the specific purpose of letting citizens express their desires and wishes for development in Fayetteville. She stated citizens had talked of parks, green areas, recycling, and protection of school children. She expressed hope that the City Fathers would consider those prioritized items and would honor the trust invested in them to protect the grade school children. She expressed her belief that it was most important that they not make additional hazards for Leverett School students. She stated the area residents wished to preserve the beauty and sanctity of their neighborhood, the quality of life. She explained Dr. Hathcock purchased the property as a buffer zone for the residential area. She stated strip commercialism was a blight on any community. She expressed her belief that rezoning of the subject property was an extension of strip commercialism. Mr. Don Eubanks, who lives directly behind the subject property, appeared before the Commission. He stated he did not want a commercial enterprise that threw their garbage and refuge out their back door into his back door. He further • • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 7 stated if the Commission was not willing to leave the area a residential area, then he would ask they grant the surrounding the area the same privilege as they were granting the applicant by making the entire area commercial so the residents could enjoy the advantage of selling at a higher price. Mr. Allred asked if the school had addressed the problem of a school crossing after the intersection became a four -lane crossing. Ms. Little stated she did 'not have that information. Mr. Estes stated that, if the Commission would be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the property was proper to zone commercial. He stated they were not considering the adjoining property but just the corner tract. He further explained that Ms. Parson's was not asking for the rezoning to gain a large profit but that her property be given some reasonable use. He expressed his belief that the property was no longer residential -- that no one would purchase the property in planning a home because of the proposed four -lane major arterial intersection. He stated that all Ms. Parson's was asking was that the subject property be given some reasonable use. He stated he believed the reasonable use would be commercial. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Little explained that a meeting had been attempted on the 21st but neither party could find a convenient time for such a meeting. Mr. Robertson stated he lived in the vicinity and was familiar with the intersection in question. He further stated he believed it was inappropriate to rezone the property commercial. He explained there was a tremendous traffic problem and changing the zoning would intensify the problem. He stated that, until the city could do something to alleviate the circulation problem that already existed, they should not compound the problem by adding additional commercial property. He stated he would not support a change in zoning. Mr. Nickle stated his opinion had not changed since the last time the Commission had considered the rezoning. He further stated he was not opposed to a residential -office development on the corner but he was not in favor of a commercial establishment. Mr. Allred expressed concern regarding following the 1970 guidelines and, at the same time, complying with the concerns of the neighbors. He stated he believed the Commission needed to look at alternative uses of the subject property since it would not sell as residential property, but at the same time the neighbors and school needed to be considered. Mr. Cleghorn stated he didn't believe it was the city's responsibility to help somebody to find the best use of their land. He further stated the land was there and zoned residential. He explained that the area was a great greenspace. He stated the Vision Project pointed out the citizens of Fayetteville wanted more greenspace. He explained he had not changed his position from the previous hearing. Mr. Springborn stated the last time they had considered the rezoning they had considered the entire tract of property, not just the impact of the corner property. He explained commercial property was buffered to protect the residential areas. He stated that, should the Commission undertake a C-1 without giving consideration to how it was going to be buffered, they would be opening the door to the extension of C-1 or R-0. He stated they were making a decision about an isolated C-1 zoning. He explained the surrounding property was R-1 with the exception of the corners. Mr. Allred asked if there was any possibility of the applicant and neighbors trying to work out a solution. • • • Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Estes stated he did not see any possibility of a compromise. He further stated he believed it would be unfair to prolong the matter if it would not accomplish anything. MOTION Mr. Springborn introduced the motion by referring to the action by the Board of Directors in May 1991 when they denied the change in zoning. He moved to deny the request. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioners Cleghorn, Robertson, Springborn, Tarvin and Nickle voting "aye" and Commissioners Hanna, Britton, Cato and Allred voting "no". Mr. Allred explained the decision Mr. Cato asked if it would be out Ms. Little explained they would requesting R-0 zoning. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. could be appealed to the Board of Directors. of order for a motion to approve R -O zoning. have to have a petition from the applicant