HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-26 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26,
1992 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, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, Kenneth
Pummill J E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin, Jack Cleghorn, and
Jerry Allred
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jett Cato
OTHERS PRESENT: ALett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the
press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 11, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
. PUBLIC REHEARING - REZONING R92-1
RICHARD MAYES - 1641 N. LEVERETT
•
The next item on the agenda was a rehearing of Rezoning R92-1 for property located
at 1641 N. Leverett (southwest corner of Leverett and Sycamore), presented by
Lamar Pettus on behalf of Richard Mayes. The request is to rezone from R-2,
Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little noted the rezoning had been heard at the last meeting and the petitioner
had requested it be tabled for two week.
Ms. Little read a letter she had received from the petitioner earlier in the day, "Dear
Commissioners: Mr. and Mrs. Mayes are willing to enter the following covenants if
the parcels are Rezoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial, to -wit: 1. Mr. and Mrs.
Richard Mayes will not allow the property to be used as an establishment which
distributes or offers for sale alcoholic beverages of any kind. 2. Mr. and Mrs.
Richard Mayes will not allow the property to be used for the operation of a night
club, private club, or dance hall. Should Mr. and Mrs. Richard Mayes elect to sell
the property at some future date and the prospective purchasers desire to utilize the
property for the "prohibit purposes", then such future use would require the prior
approval of the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, E. Lamar Pettus".
Ms Little stated her original recommendation of not rezoning still stood.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained the difference
between C-1 and C-2 zoning.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they could continue with a non -conforming use.
sm
•
•
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 2
Ms. Little stated the property was now a non -conforming use. She explained the
petitioner could offer a Bill of Assurance that only a garage would be constructed on
the site.
Mr. Tarvin stated he was trying to understand the background. He further stated
it was his understanding that when the garage first went into operation it was zoned
industrial and then in 1970 it was rezoned to R-2.
Ms. Little explained that a map dated 1960 showed the property in question to be R-
2.
In response to a request from Mr. Springborn, Ms. Little presented a copy of the
1960 map and a copy of the building permits issued.
Mr. Springborn asked if a Bill of Assurance would be valid in connection with a
zoning matter.
Ms. Little assured him it would be valid because it was offered on a voluntary basis
by the petitioner.
Mr. Allred asked if the city would acquire the entire tract of property or lust the
front 30 feet.
Ms Little stated the city would acquire 30 feet from Sycamore which would take 16
1/2 feet of Mr. Mayes' building. She explained that was why Mr. Mayes was
requesting two lots be rezoned. She noted the city would be leaving approximately
47 feet of land, making the lot 160' x 47'.
Mr. Allred pointed out that with the setbacks the building pad would only be 127' x
14' which was an unbuildable lot.
Ms. Little noted the lot would meet the bulk and area requirements and she believed
the Board of Adjustment would be fair in granting a variance.
Mr. L. B. Gilbow appeared on behalf of Mr. Mayes and stated the garage was a
service to the neighborhood.
Also appearing on behalf of Mr. Mayes were Mr. Bob Wright and Bradford White.
Mr. Suchecki asked if it was the petitioner's intention to rebuild the garage.
Mr. Pettus stated the petitioner planned on constructing a new garage but did not
want to be restricted to selling the property only as a garage at some future date.
Mr. Springborn noted the owner had been aware for at least 22 years (and perhaps
33 years) that the property was zoned R-2. He stated he did not understand the
owner's reluctance to give a Bill of Assurance (as agreed to in January) that the
type of business currently operating would continue to be the only type of business
at that location.
•
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Cleghorn stated the business had been in the same location for a long time and
the owner had offered a Bill of Assurance. He noted it might go against good
planning to approve the request but the Commission had to consider the
neighborhood also.
Mr. Springborn stated he did not disagree with Mr. Cleghorn's observation but he
believed this would "open the door" to other uses under C-2 zoning excepting those
places serving alcohol.
Ms Britton stated she had a slightly different concern. She asked if there would
be several other pieces of' property along Sycamore losing 30 feet of property. She
noted they, too, would be asking for a rezoning.
Ms. Little stated the City had a similar situation on 6th Street due to the State
Highway Department widening Highway 62. She noted one property owner had
already appeared before the Board of Adjustment. She explained they could not
handle these cases individually and she had, therefore, scheduled a meeting on May
28 with the property owners along 6th Street. Ms. Little stated City ordinance did
not, at the present time, allow a way to give special exceptions.
Ms. Little also pointed out the other property along Sycamore were not non-
conforming structures.
Mr. Allred stated he did not believe commercial zoning would encroach to Oaklawn.
He further noted he would be more comfortable if the property were rezoned to C-1.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to recommend the rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurances.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion passed with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, Tarvin, and
Cleghorn voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Britton and Nickle voting
"no".
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ADDITION TO GARLAND GARDENS
JOE FRED STARR - E OF GARLAND, N OF MELMAR
The next item presented was a large scale development for an addition to Garland
Gardens, submitted by Kim Fugitt on behalf of Joe Fred Starr, for property located
ont he east side of Garland Avenue, north of Melmar Avenue. The property is zoned
R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 5 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained the development will consist of 5 apartment buildings with 12
units each for a total of 60 units. He stated there were no significant comments by
any of the utility representatives however there had been some discussion as to the
location of a fire hydrant and a request by the Fire Chief for a fire lane along the
east side of the apartments. He noted the owner had agreed to install such fire lane.
He stated there were no issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
�S�
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the Large Scale Development subject to
Subdivision and Plat Review comments; submittal and approval of a grading plan;
approval of the detailed plans for drainage, water, and sewer; payment of parks
fees; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City's Master Sidewalk
Plan.
Mr. Fugitt stated he was present to answer any questions._
Rev. Tom Bramlett, Pastor of Calvary Assembly of God Church, appeared before the
Commission to express his concern regarding the grading and drainage of the subject
property. He explained the church was to the north of the property and was very
low. He further explained that, without proper grading and drainage, the church
property would become a swamp.
Mr. Bunn stated that, when he reviewed the grading and drainage plans, he would
take into account the adjacent property.
Mr. Fugitt stated it was a low area but the proposed drainage was to the west to a
culvert under Garland. He noted it would be surface drainage.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the large scale subject to the drainage plan being
approved by the City Engineer that the drainage would be adequate and not
adversely affect adjacent property and subject to staff comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PROVIDENCE PLACE ADDITION
JERRY & CINDY McARTOR - NW CORNER OF SALEM RD. W & SALEM RD. N.
The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Providence Place Addition
presented by Al Harris on behalf of Jerry and Cindy McArtor for property located
at the northwest corner of Salem Road West and Salem Road North. The property is
outside the city limits and contains 8.01 acres with 5 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments at either the Plat Review
meeting or the Subdivision Committee meeting. He noted the Fire Chief had
encouraged the installation of fire hydrants, however they were not required.
Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments.
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Harris stated the owners had not yet
determined whether they would install fire hydrants.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 5
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Britton commented regarding the street names and noted the names would cause
confusion.
CONCURRENT PLAT - JIM BLACKSTON SUBDIVISION
JIM BLACKSTON - S OF WYMAN RD. , E OF FOX HUNTER'S RD.
The next item was a concurrent plat for the Jim Blackston Subdivision presented by
Marty Powers on behalf of Jim Blackston for property located south of Wyman Road,
east of Fox Hunter's Road. The property is located outside the city limits and
contains 5.02 acres with three proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments by any of the utility
representatives at the plat review meeting. He noted Tract B, which was sold off
several years ago without approval, was not large enough to satisfy the City's
minimum lot size for septic tanks. He explained that a waiver would require City
Board approval. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee voted to recommend
approval of the concurrent plat subject to the Board of Directors' waiver of the
minimum lot size.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the concurrent plat be approved as a final plat subject
to the plat review and subdivision committee comments and of Board of Directors'
waiver of the lot size of Tract "B".
Ms. Little noted the Board would hear the request for a waiver at their June 2
meeting. She also noted she had received a letter from the State of Arkansas that
the .85 acre tract was sufficient to support a septic tank which would negate the
city's requirement of 1.5 acres.
MOTION
Ms Britton moved to approve the plat as a final plat subject to staff comments and
subject to the granting of a waiver by the City Board.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Little stated she was in the process of asking that the requirement for one and
one-half acre minimum lot size be amended to allow an administrative decision
whenever there was proof, via percolation tests, that the soils met the requirements
of the State and a permit for the septic system had been obtained.
•
•
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 6
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 411 AND #2
JACK FIRMIN, JR. - 3017 INWOOD LANE
The next item was a request for two lot splits presented
property located at 3017 Inwood Lane. The property is
Residential.
by Jack Firmin, Jr., for
zoned R-1, Low Density
Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for a first and second split of Lot 8 of
Glenwood Addition, Fayetteville. He further explained the proposal was to divide
Lot 8 into 3 lots with Tract 1 fronting on Lovers Lane (containing 0.54 acres), Tract
2 fronting Lovers Lane (containing 0.70 acres) , and the remaining tract fronting on
Inwood Lane (containing 1.17 acres) . He stated the remaining tract had an existing
house. He noted neither of the tracts fronting Lovers Lane had direct access to
water or sewer mains and there could be an access problem for other utilities. He
stated it appeared that both the water and sewer could be accessed from Inwood
Lane, however, there would have to be private easements from the remainder of Lot
8 for that purpose.
Mr. Bunn recommended the splits be approved subject to payment of two parks fees
and the granting of utility easements to serve the two lots facing Lovers Lane.
Mr. Firmin stated he was willing to give whatever easements that were necessary.
He explained it was his intent to build a house for one of his children and another for
himself on the subject property. He noted the value of each home would be $150,000
to $175,000.
Mr. John Storey, 2865 Inwood, presented a petition in opposition to the lot splits.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Storey explained the subject
property was in two subdivisions and he had not researched to see if there were any
covenants prohibiting lot splits.
Mr. Bunn pointed out that the City could not enforce covenants but did honor them.
Mr. Allred pointed out should the lot be split it would not be in context with the rest
of the neighborhood.
Ms. Britton agreed that it would affect the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Firmin explained he would do nothing that bothered the adjoining property
owners. He further explained his plans for drainage and noted the new houses
would not front on Lovers Lane. He stated he had been unaware the neighbors were
unhappy with his plans.
Mr. Bill Brunner, 9 Lovers Lane, spoke in opposition to the lot splits.
MOTION
• Mr. Springborn stated that in similar situations his sympathies had always been with
the present residents and therefore he moved to deny the request.
gd
Planning Commission
May 26, 1992
Page 7
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Land Use Committee:
Mr. Nickle stated two Commissioners had been selected to serve on the Land Use Plan
Committee - Commissioner Britton and Commissioner Tarvin.
Visions Project:
Mr. Cleghorn asked for a report on the Visions Project.
Ms. Little explained the report was being reviewed in house at the present time.
Skillern Property:
Mr. Cleghorn stated he had been contacted by property owners along Skillern Road
with a letter they had received from Washington County with a proposal for surfacing
of Skillern Road.
Ms. Little noted the annexation and rezoning requests were on the June 2 City Board
agenda.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
tzk