Loading...
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