HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-27 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 27,
1992 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, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Sickle,
Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill, and Jerry Allred
Jana Lynn Britton and Jett Cato
Alett Little, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 13, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-23
JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD., S OF ZION RD.
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R91-23 on property
located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road, presented by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee. The request is to
rezone 25.61 acres from is A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained the subject rezoning request first came to the Planning
Commission in October, 1991, at the same time the developers presented their
first preliminary plat for subdivision development. She further explained the
developers wished to subdivide the 25 -acre tract into approximately 17 lots and
had been working with the Planning Division for approximately six months to
achieve a mutually agreeable solution to circulation concerns (provision for the
extension of Stearns Street) raised during the October review of the planned
subdivision. She noted that, without rezoning, a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres
would be required; and, as planned, the developers wished to have smaller lots
adjacent to Old Missouri Road and their southern property boundary, with larger
lots located on the eastern side of the development.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the rezoning as requested.
Mr. Jorgensen reminded the Commission the preliminary plat had been approved at
their last meeting.
Ms. Susan Sissom, 4031 Old Missouri Road, appeared before the Commission to
express concern regarding drainage and traffic. She pointed out that run-off
went downhill and if the hill had concrete, the run-off went downhill more
rapidly. She informed the Commission the entry drive to the subdivision was
placed directly across from her house and, should there be an ice storm, either
she or her neighbors would end up with a car in their house.
She also questioned why the city needed another east -west arterial from 71B to
Crossover Road when there were already two streets performing that function:
Zion Road and Joyce. She pointed out that, while the city was planning to widen
Old Missouri Road, it would not solve the traffic problems. She stated people
were speeding on Old Missouri Road and, if it were widened and carried more
traffic, the problems were going to get worse.
l33
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 2
Ms. Sissom advised the Commission the residents of Brookhollow Addition were not
anti -growth. She asked the Commission, the developers and city staff meet with
the residents of Brookhollow to work out an agreeable entrance to the subdivision
and a drainage plan to reassure the residents they wouldn't be flooded. She
advised the residents had relied upon the City when Brookhollow was built that
they would not have drainage problems, but they did. She explained they had
taken it upon themselves to look out for themselves. She stated they wanted to
protect their interest and vocal assurances had done them no good in the past.
Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission had approved the preliminary plat for
the subdivision. She pointed out that, after a preliminary plat had been
approved, a drainage and grading plan had to be submitted to the city and
approved by the city engineer.
Mr. Jorgensen informed Ms. Sissom her concerns were well taken and he was aware
the drainage situation had to be addressed. He stated he believed this
subdivision would be an improvement because of the density -- average size of
lots was one acre. He explained they would be directing drainage in the same
path it was now going with adequate drainage being provided at the entrance. He
stated drainage would continue to go on the south side of Old Missouri Road,
generally in a southerly direction. He stated he would show particular attention
to the drainage.
•
He noted the City had believed it would be a good idea to have the access should
the need arise for another east -west corridor.
Mr. Jorgensen confirmed Mr. Suchecki's recollection that the houses in the
subdivision would not be facing Old Missouri Road. He stated there would be no
access to Old Missouri Road except at the entrance to the subdivision. He also
pointed out the lots were quite deep -- from 205 feet to 311 feet.
Mr. Suchecki pointed out the topography of Old Missouri Road would not be
changing except for the addition of the entryway.
Mr. Springborn stated it appeared the traffic problem was receiving consideration
and the engineer was working on the drainage problem.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the rezoning.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-22
DANNY VILLINES - S SIDE OF MISSION BLVD , W OF CROSSOVER RD.
The next item on the agenda was a request for rezoning property located on the
south side of Mission Boulevard, west of Crossover, presented by Danny Villines.
The request is to rezone 3.11 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the subject tract was currently vacant land which was
adjacent to Park Place Subdivision. She pointed out that to the east was
Johnson's Motor Service, which had a single-family home located to the rear of
the business; to the north, across Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard), land was
vacant extending to the east; to the north and immediately west, land had been
developed as duplexes.
139
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 3
Ms. Little further explained that review of the zoning map showed a very clear
pattern of development, substantiated by actual growth patterns in the area. She
noted areas to the west were growing residentially, with intervening buffering
areas of residential office uses, progressing to the east and the major
intersection of C-1, followed by C-2 properties. She advised the Commission the
subject property was currently zoned R-1 and, if it developed in accordance with
that classification, it would not be incompatible with the current uses in the
area. Recognizing that large portions of the areas currently zoned C-1 had
either not developed or had not developed intensively, she noted the potential
for uses incompatible with single-family residential homes did exist.
Ms. Little recommended denial of the requested rezoning. She explained the
classification of C-2 was overly intense and allowed uses highly incompatible
with the surrounding development. She noted staff did not find the current
zoning classification of R-1 incompatible with the current growth patterns;
however, if the land currently zoned C-1 developed intensively, commercial uses
might adversely impact development potential for single-family homes. She
advised the Planning Commission might wish to consider the buffering zone of R -O,
Residential Office, for the subject tract, making the zoning patterns compatible
with current zoning in the area and recognizing the future potential for
additional commercial development which might be incompatible with the current
R-1 classification.
Mr. Villines appeared before the Commission stating he wanted to emphasize that
the entire 10 acres was not being rezoned. He pointed out that 7 of the acres
to the south would remain as R-1 property and would be developed residentially.
He stated he would prefer to have C-2 zoning since it fronted on the state
highway but would be satisfied with R -O zoning.
Mr. John Willett, 2398 Victoria Lane, appeared before the Commission to represent
the residents of Park Place Subdivision. He explained he was the current
president of the Homeowners' Association. He requested the Commission deny the
request for rezoning. He further stated there was concern that, should the front
property be rezoned, there would be no access to the back seven acres. He also
pointed out there would be additional noise, perhaps lowering of property values,
and increasing traffic. He presented a petition containing signatures of 80
residents of Park Place in opposition to the rezoning.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Willett stated the property to the
south of the 7 acres was being developed by Jim Lindsey.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the plat had been approved for the property to the south.
Me. Little stated it had been approved. She stated she believed there was access
provided for the subject property. She pointed out the city rarely left any
vacant property without access.
Mr. Allred and Mr. Springborn agreed with Ms. Little stating they were certain
the plat had provided access to the adjoining property.
Me. Melissa Lee, 2253 Camelot Place, pointed out there were three ways to get
into this area -- Highway 265, Highway 16, and Highway 45. She noted the
motorist was surrounded by neighborhoods (the only business area being at the
intersection of Highways 265 and 45) and that gave a good impression of
Fayetteville. She stated she would not want to see a lot of businesses on
Highway 45.
140
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 4
MOTION
Mr. Cleghorn stated the area was residential and he did not believe in moving
commercial enterprises into areas that were not designed commercial. He moved
to deny the rezoning request.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-23 AND REZONING R92-24
NELSON CURTIS & GLENN OLDHAM - N OF W. 6TH, W OF ONE MILE RD.
The next item was a request for the rezoning of 5.25 acres located on the north
side of West 6th Street, west of One Mile Road, presented by Mike Price on behalf
of Nelson Curtis and Glenn Oldham, from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial; and 1.34 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density
Residential.
Ms. Little explained the
changed to rezone 3.2
Commercial, and R92-24
Agricultural, to R-1.5,
were in accordance with
petitioner had downgraded the request -- R92-23 had been
acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-1 Neighborhood
had been changed to rezone 3.39 acres from A-1,
Moderate Density Residential. She stated these changes
her memo of July 8, 1992.
Ms. Little further explained the subject tracts were undeveloped and had
approximately 373 feet of frontage on West 6th Street and extended 500 feet to
the north with approximately 411 feet of frontage on Old Farmington Road.
She noted current development in the area consisted of a single-family residence
with a shed to the east (this property is zoned C-2 and is currently for sale)
and a single family home to the west. She explained property to the south was
vacant and undeveloped; however, property to the north and surrounding the
subject tract to the east was fully developed as a single-family subdivision.
She further noted the tract was surrounded by A-1 zoning on three sides with the
exception of two smaller parcels of R-1 zoning on the north side of Old
Farmington Road and was bounded to the east by two zones, R-1 to the north and
C-2 adjacent to West 6th Street.
Ms. Little advised the surrounding residential development north of Old
Farmington Road and in Stapleton`s Addition along Sandra Street appeared to be
a stable neighborhood, with moderate homes on relatively large lots. She stated
a portion of the large lot development could be attributed to the current zoning
of A-1 which required a two -acre minimum in the absence of a subdivision.
Ms. Little noted the 1970 Land Use Plan showed two uses on the subject property:
R-1 adjacent to Old Farmington Road, and R-2 adjacent to West 6th Street. She
advised the area along Old Farmington Road had developed as single-family
residential in accordance with the plan. She further stated West 6th Street had
been subject to intense development pressure within the last five years,
resulting in strip commercial development, much of it low quality. She note the
land use plan showed the area to develop as R-2, Medium Density Residential. She
stated that, since the highway was a major entrance to the city, the Planning
Commission should consider the effects of zoning on development and the overall
impression the entrance created for the remainder of the city.
Ms. Little noted she had recommended denial of the original requested rezoning.
She noted that, within the tract, the petitioner had requested a disproportionate
amount of the total acreage to be rezoned for commercial purposes (80%). She
o
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 5
further explained the depth of the requested commercial rezoning exceeded that
of the adjoining parcel and extended 182 feet into the established residential
district which abutted the property to the northeast.
On R92-23 staff recommended the Planning Commission consider a zone of a maximum
of C-1, neighborhood commercial for the subject tract with strong consideration
given to a classification of R-0, Residential Office. She noted staff further
recommended the depth of the rezoning be compatible with the adjoining parcel to
the east, currently undeveloped commercially zoned property (approximately 280
feet north from West 6th Street).
On R92-24 staff recommended the Planning Commission consider a zone of R-1 for
the area. She noted the classification would continue the current development
trend along Old Farmington Road and would not adversely impact those residents
who had established their neighborhood. She explained the maximum staff would
recommend would be R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, which would permit up to
12 families per acre. In addition, she recommended the area proposed for
residential development be expanded southward to a boundary compatible with the
existing residential development (a depth of approximately 285 feet).
Mr. Springborn asked if notification was consistent with the change in the
acreage and rezoning requests.
Ms. Little explained the notification remained in effect for the entire parcel
and the Planning Commission always had the option to recommend alternative
zoning.
•
Mike Price explained the property owners desired rezoning of this tract in order
to do something with it.
Ms. Katherine Corey, property owner to the north of the subject property,
commended city staff for the recommended changes. She expressed her concerns
regarding additional traffic on Old Farmington Road since there was already a
traffic problem. She explained she was representing many of her neighbors in
expressing their concern. She stated they would like to maintain the character
of the neighborhood. She further stated they would prefer the property remain
R-1. She presented a petition to the Commission signed by approximately 40
people in opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. James Gilbert, 3295 Old Farmington Road, stated the owners had recently had
a survey of the property and the survey came over 12 feet onto his property at
the southwest corner. He expressed concern that they were taking 12 feet of his
property. He also noted there was quite a bit of traffic on Old Farmington Road
and the street was narrow.
Mr. Nickle explained the Planning Commission had no authority regarding the
ownership of properties. He advised him to contact the surveyor.
Ms. Little explained for their information the next item on the agenda was the
request for lot splits of the subject property wherein staff had recommended at
least 25 feet of right-of-way on the south side of Old Farmington Road be
dedicated as a condition of the lot splits.
Mr. Larry Lames, 3047 Sandra, reiterated the traffic problem in the area due to
numerous access roads and told of a dangerous intersection at One Mile Road and
Old Farmington Road. He stated there were no curbs or sidewalks and the street
was very narrow. He also noted there was a problem with a commercial enterprise
in violation of city code. He stated the residents of the area preferred the
property be rezoned to R-1.
ly2
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Allred asked how Ms. Little believed the area to the west and south of Old
Farmington Road would develop in the future.
Ms. Little stated she believed it would develop either as C-1 or R -O. She
further noted the area to the north of Old Farmington would develop as R-1.
Mr. Allred pointed out that, if this rezoning were granted, it could act as a
buffer for the R-1 property.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, if they rezoned the subject property R-1, there
would be more land to the west to act as a buffer and it could alleviate some of
the traffic problems.
Ms. Little stated she did not believe the traffic problems would be alleviated
until Old Farmington Road was improved but agreed that, by not allowing the
property to develop as R-1.5, it might alleviate a small amount of traffic
generated by the three lots.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little stated R-1.5 allowed 12
units per acre, as opposed to R-2 which allowed 24 units per acre. She further
noted R-1 allowed 4 units per acre and the lot area for single family was 8,000
square feet.
Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Price how the owner would feel about having the property
rezoned to R-1.
Mr. Price pointed out that with the size of the lots on Old Farmington Road he
did not believe R-1 zoning would be feasible. He explained they planned on
putting two or three duplexes on each lot.
Ms. Little stated the lots were 305 feet in depth.
Mr. Price pointed out that size of lot needed more than one development.
Mr. Allred suggested a conditional use limiting the number of duplexes per lot.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out at the present time, if the lot splits were granted, they
could build 6 duplexes per lot.
In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Little explained that, if the
property were zoned R-1 there could be 4 units per acre for single family or 7
units per acre for two-family residences. Ms. Little further explained that, if
all setbacks and frontages were met, two single family homes could be built on
one lot but the lot could not be divided.
Mr. Pummill asked if a conditional use could be granted at this meeting.
Ms. Little stated it could not since notification had not been given.
Mr. Sickle stated his preference would be to rezone the property to R-1 instead
of R-1.5.
Mr. Allred suggested the petitioner might want to request this item be tabled
until he had time to consider his options.
Mr. Price requested that R92-24 be tabled.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to table Item 5.
14)
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve Item 4, the rezoning request from A-1, Agriculture,
to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Little informed the Commission they would also have to table item 6 because
the lot splits would be non -conforming since the property remained A-1.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to table Item 6.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R92-25, R92-26, & R92-27
DR. MAE NE TLESHIP - S OF GREGG, N OF TOWNSHIP
The next three items were requests for rezonings on property located east of
Gregg, north of Township Road; presented by Dave Jorgensen, submitted by Jim
Lindsey on behalf of Dr. Mae Nettleship. Rezoning R92-25 is a request to rezone
51.34 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential; Rezoning
R92-26 is a request to rezone 8.21 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R -O,
Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; and R92-27 is a request to
rezone 19.65 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office.
Ms. Little explained the subject
frontage along Gregg Street but
property, zoned from west to east,
and Township.
tract of land totaled 79.20 acres and had
not on Township as there was intervening
C-2, I-1, and C-2, between the subject tract
She explained Tract A, the northernmost tract, consisted of 51.34 acres and was
currently an undeveloped, wooded area, zoned A-1. She stated the tract abutted
other property zoned R-1, R-1.5, and A-1 to the north; and R-2 to the east and
west. She further stated the adjoining parcel to the south was a portion of the
rezoning request and was presently zoned A-1. She noted this parcel represented
approximately 2/3's of the land which was the topic of the rezoning request. She
explained since this property was surrounded on three sides by similarly zoned
properties, a zoning classification of R-2 would be considered to be appropriate.
She also noted a tract this size would be subject to a large scale development
review, requiring review by the Plat Committee, Subdivision Committee and the
Planning Commission prior to development. She stated items which should be
addressed during the developmentphase of this area were plans for the widening
of Gregg Street, possibly requiring dedication of street right-of-way;
development of Drake Street (as shown on the Master Street Plan) at the northern
boundary of the tract to provide an east -west access from Highway 71B (College
Avenue) to the By -Pass; floodplain considerations along Schull Creek; and the
provision (or maintenance of a portion of the existing trees) for a buffer for
the residential development.
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 8
Me. Little further explained that Tract B, the central and westernmost tract,
consisted of two parcels and a total of 8.21 acres. She stated that, of the two
parcels, the northernmost parcel consisted of 3.99 acres and was being split from
the 51.34 acres (Tract A). She explained the second of the two parcels consisted
of 4.22 acres and was currently zoned R -O. She noted the requested zoning change
was to rezone the two parcels as one with a classification of C-1, neighborhood
commercial. She pointed out the 8.21 acres represented approximately 1/10 of the
subject land. She stated these parcels had frontage on Gregg Street, which had
been discussed for widening and was currently classified as a minor arterial.
She also pointed out land across the street and immediately south of the tract
was currently zoned and partially developed as C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. She
noted if the subject tract was rezoned, it would adjoin C-2 property on the
southern boundary.
Ms. Little then stated Tract C, the easternmost tract, consisted of 19.65 acres
and was currently zoned A-1. She stated this parcel represented approximately
1/4 of the total parcel. She explained this tract did not have frontage (and
none was required) on either Township or Gregg. She advised the Commission this
tract adjoined two other parcels currently zoned R -O to the south and east.
There is also a parcel of approximately 25 acres of R-2 property located to the
northeast. Ms. Little explained that, because of the lack of frontage, the
subject property was not well suited to intense commercial development. She
further stated that, because much of the land around this parcel had already
developed as zoned, R-2, a classification of R-0 to provide a buffer from
existing and proposed commercial development was deemed appropriate.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested rezoning, and commended the
petitioner for addressing the large parcel as a whole, taking into consideration
adjoining properties and their current zones.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin,
for R-2 was 24 units per acre. She stated
in this area but the majority of it had
have.
Ms. Little stated the maximum density
there was a great deal of R-2 property
not developed as densely as it could
Mr. Nickle pointed out that immediately to the north of the subject property
there was a large tract of R-1.5.
Ms. Little stated that area had developed as single family homes.
Mr. Nickle asked if she had considered recommending R-1.5.
Ms. Little stated she had not, that R-2 was compatible with the area.
Dr. Mae Nettleship explained the pressure of development around her had become
so great that she decided to develop her property. She informed the Commission
she had squatters living on her land, vandalism on her property, and even a fire
in her barn. She stated the property hadbeen owned by her husband's great-
grandfather and had been in the family for over 150 years.
Mr. Jorgensen explained Dr. Nettleship had asked him to apply for rezoning of the
property on her behalf. He further explained he believed it was a prime
opportunity to rezone according to a master plan; a chance for the planners of
Fayetteville to rezone large tracts of property rather than an acre at a time.
He stated he believed their request was in line with surrounding use. He pointed
out the portion on the south which bordered Drake they requested C-1 because it
was in the vicinity of the intersection of Township and Drake.
Ms. Little reminded the Commission there was a letter in their agenda packets
from Neal Pendergraft.
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page •9
Mr. E. J. Ball then appeared before the Planning Commission and gave the history
of the property. He reminded the Commission that at one time the City had
acquired right-of-way in order to extend Drake Street to Highway 71. He informed
the Commission he had recommended to Dr. Nettleship that she contact Jim Lindsey
to develop the property. He also stated there were two sewer easements running
across the property.
Mr. Jorgensen stated there was a projected street connecting Villa to the west.
In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Ball stated there were proposed
outlets both for the new school and the nursing school.
Ms. Little explained the exact location of the proposed street would be reviewed
at the time a large scale development or subdivision was filed.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they planned on extending Drake Street.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that was planned.
Me. Little stated it was on the Master Street Plan. She explained she had met
with the State Highway Department the previous week and it had been agreed that
right-of-way on Highway 180 to the north of Gregg Street from North Street to the
Bypass would be exchanged to the State for their maintenance.
Mr. Tarvin asked if it was normal to rezone a tract of this size without a
concept plan.
• Ms. Little stated it was not abnormal; that this was the proper procedure for a
total tract rezoning.
Mr. Tarvin noted they could build 1,230 units on the portion they requested to
rezone to R-2. He stated he wanted to get a feel for traffic, etc.
Ms. Little stated the City had considered the widening of Gregg Street and the
extension of Drake.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve Rezoning R92-25 (Agenda Item 7).
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve Rezoning R92-26 (Agenda Item 8).
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve Rezoning R92-27 (Agenda Item 9).
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 10
PDRLIC REARING - REZONING R92-28
CLIFFORD & MARY CLEVENGER - W SIDE OF 54TH, S OF WEDINGTON
The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R92-28 submitted by Clifford and
Mary Clevenger for property located on the west side of 54th Avenue, south of
Wedington. The request is to rezone 2.97 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2,
Medium Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained the tract had 221 feet of frontage along 54th Street and was
deep, extending to the west 825 feet. She noted that currently the tract was
vacant and was void of vegetation other than grass. She advised the parcel was
surrounded on all four sides by A-1, Agricultural, land. She stated that
adjacent to the property to the north was a large single-family home and there
were single-family homes along 54th Street to the east. She further stated there
were duplexes along Clevenger Drive, a private drive.
Ms. Little advised that current regulations required a minimum of 2 acres for
development of one single-family home on property zoned A-1. She pointed out the
current lot size would support only one single-family home.
Ms. Little recommended denial of the requested rezoning. She explained that,
although Clevenger Drive was immediately to the west of the subject parcel and
had developed as duplexes, the character of the area was single-family in nature.
She noted residential development of the lot was not incompatible with the
surrounding uses; however, high-density residential development was not deemed
to be appropriate. She stated that, as an alternative, staff would support
rezoning to a classification of R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little stated the staff had received earlier this date a Petition, addressed
to the Fayetteville Planning Commission, as follows:
"I have received official notification of a request for rezoning submitted by
Clifford and Mary Clevenger which is Petition Number R92-28. This property is
located on the west side of 54th Avenue south of Wedington Drive. Their request
is to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Medium Density
Residential. It is my understanding that they intend to place duplexes on that
property.
"Enclosed is a plat showing the location of the Clevenger property. Our property
is adjacent to the Clevenger tract and is located immediately to the North of it.
We purchased our tract in June of 88. We purchased with the knowledge that our
property and the property now owned by the Clevengers which was purchased
approximately at the same time was zoned A-1. We relied upon hat zoning in
making our acquisition in as much as we did not expect anything but a single
family dwelling to be placed on that tract.
"As each of you are very much aware, the location of duplexes next to otherwise
low density residential has a dramatic effect on property values, i.e. we believe
and real estate agents that we have talked to agree with us that our property
will decline in value anywhere from twenty to thirty thousand dollars. This
dramatic decrease in property values is a serious concern to us.
"Additionally, immediately to the south of the Clevenger property there has been
a recent development which is a low density residential development.
"Immediately to the north of our tract, the property has been rezoned low density
residential. This was accomplished two or three months ago. As can be
demonstrated by these recent events, the trend in the neighborhood is for single
family dwellings to be encouraged not that which would occur with R-2 zoning.
147
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 11
"There are certainly other areas in the City of Fayetteville where planning has
encouraged R-2 zoning. But, on 54th Street, the request of the petitioners is
out of character with the development in the neighborhood. Lastly and perhaps
most importantly, the land use plan developed by the City of Fayetteville does
not indicate R-2 zoning to be appropriate in the location requested by the
Clevengers. For all of the reasons stated herein, the petition to rezone should
be denied."
She stated the letter was signed by Wes Smith with an accompanying petition
signed by nine property owners.
Mr. Jerry Silvis, a neighboring resident, stated he would represent Mr. Clevenger
since Mr. Clevenger had a hearing problem. He explained Mr. Clevenger wanted to
construct two duplexes on the lot, containing 1200 square feet per unit. He
pointed out the subject lot had numerous duplexes around it. He asked how that
property was zoned.
Ms. Little stated the property to the east was zoned A-1 with the duplexes being
developed prior to being annexed into the City. She stated she was not certain
on the duplexes to the south. She further stated the property immediately
adjacent to the north was zoned A-1 but property north of that tract, adjacent
to Wedington Drive was zoned R-1. She explained the petitioner did have the
option of offering a Bill of Assurances limiting the density of development. She
further explained that Assurance would remain for the life of the property.
Ms. Little stated a rezoning classification of R-1 would allow a development of
up to four families per acre but under common ownership. She explained the
property had exceeded the number of legal lot splits allowed so it would have to
go through subdivision procedure if the owner wanted to split the property in two
or more pieces.
Mr. Silvis stated Mr. Clevenger wanted to retain ownership of the property and
construct two duplexes.
Mr. Charles Harwell, representing Mr. & Mrs. Smith, appeared before the
Commission. He stated the petition presented earlier represented most if not all
of the property owners along 54th Street and two property owners on Wedington
Drive who would be impacted by additional traffic. He reminded the Board they
had recently rezoned property located at 54th Street and Wedington to R-1, which
indicated they had a sensitivity to the make-up of the neighborhood. He
encouraged the Planning Commission to deny the request for an R-2 designation.
He pointed out there were nice, single-family homes in the area. He showed the
Commission pictures of the area.
Other reasons Mr. Harwell gave in opposition of the rezoning included no fire
protection for the area and they had received no assurance from the property
owner that he would construct only two duplexes on the subject property. He
stated he believed R-1 single family homes was the only designation compatible
with .the neighborhood.
Ms. Sandy Jordan also appeared in opposition to the rezoning.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki stated he believed the neighbors had some good points and he would
move to deny the rezoning request.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 12
CONDITIONAL USE - BREW PUB
C. THOMAS PRARSON, JR. - 426-428-430 W. DICKSON
The next item was a request for a conditional use to operate a brew pub to be
located at 426-428-430 W. Dickson, submitted by Richard Shewmaker on behalf of
C. Thomas Pearson, Jr. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the property consisted of three lots developed as a part of
the County Court Addition to the City of Fayetteville. She noted that, if the
three lots were combined, the area represented would total one-fourth acre. She
explained that, in order to meet the needs of the potential buyer, several
changes to the current buildings were anticipated which would require action by
the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission and the City Board. She further
explained the petitioner had arranged the joint request by goal so that each of
the involved entities would have equal information from which to make decisions.
She noted her report to the Commission would address the requests in the same
order as requested by the petitioner; however, Planning Commission action was
required on only two of the six items requested.
She explained the two items that required Planning Commission action was a
request for a waiver of parking and second, a two-pronged request -- to determine
whether brewing beer would be considered a manufacturing operation and, if so,
consideration of a conditional use to allow that activity in a commercial zone.
Me. Little informed the Commission the Board of Adjustment had met at its
regularly scheduled meeting on July 20 and following were the results of that
meeting:
1.a. Petitioner requested a variance from the five foot setback on Dickson
Street, if necessary. The current face of the three buildings is located 7.6
feet from the existing Dickson Street right-of-way. There is in existence a six
foot box culvert which runs under the sidewalk in that location the length of the
400 block, passing at times under other buildings. There is no easement of
record for the box culvert; therefore, no variance is required for the buildings
facing Dickson Street to meet the front setback requirement.
1.b. Petitioner further wishes to add a balcony 9.5 feet in width to the front
face of the building. As planned, the balcony would have support poles. The
balcony required a variance of the full five feet of required front setback from
the Board of Adjustments and would further require approval from the Board of
Directors to construct supporting poles for the overhead balcony two feet within
the public right-of-way.
Me. Little stated the Board of Adjustments denied the required variance by a vote
of 3-3-0. She noted further action to approve the location of the supporting
balcony poles in the public right-of-way would be required by the Board of
Directors.
2. The current building located at 430 W. Dickson Street is located on the
property line along West Street, and is therefore non -conforming. The petitioner
requests a variance of five feet (this is a corner lot and therefore the property
must meet two front setbacks) to bring the current buildings into conformance.
The petitioner also requests that an additional variance be granted to allow
expansion of the building northward.
The petitioner also requests a variance from parking requirements. Staff
recommended that any variance granted as a part of Goal #2, be conditioned upon
the waiver of the parking requirement by the Planning Commission.
•
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 13
Me. Little stated the Board of Adjustments denied the requested variance by a
vote of 3-3-0.
3. At the rear, or north, property line an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line has been
installed within a 14.5 foot easement. Approximately five feet of this easement
is located on subject property. The bulk and area regulations of the zoning code
for C-3 properties require 10 feet setback from the centerline of a public
easement or alley. Petitioner requests a five foot variance to allow siting of
the building at the edge of the existing easement. Petitioner has consulted with
the city staff responsible for maintenance of the sewer line in the area and has
been assured that five feet will be adequate to provide maintenance, particularly
since the sewer line already has been placed and there is no danger of it not
being located precisely within the easement, and the area to the north is open
parking lot area which would provide adequate service area for vehicles.
Ms. Little stated the Board of Adjustment approved the requested variance by a
vote of 6-0-0.
4. Petitioner requests that an alley shown on the survey and a sewer line which
has been abandoned be vacated by the City. Review of files and in-house
documents do not show the existence of an easement for either of these uses.
This item does not require action by the Board of Adjustments or the Planning
Commission; but must be resolved prior to the issuance of any building permit.
If legal documents are found which show any recorded easements, then Board of
Directors action would be required to vacate or abandon these areas by the City.
5. In expanding the building to the north along West Street, the petitioner will
take in the five parking spaces which currently exist. Petitioner is requesting
a variance from the Board of Adjustments for this item. As the Board of
Adjustments is charged with deciding questions of bulk and area regulations, this
matter is more appropriately a matter for decision by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Little advised Planning Commission action was required on this item. She
recommended the granting of a waiver of the parking requirements due to
construction of the parking lot immediately to the rear of this structure (one
of the lots constructed by the City to serve the Walton Arts Center). She
explained the City intended to support additional commercial developments along
Dickson Street and believed the peak use times for the parking lot would be
different that the peak use times by the Walton Arts Center.
6. Petitioner requested a conditional use, if necessary, for the brewing of beer
in a commercial zone. Ms. Little stated this was a question for the Planning
Commission to decide on two issues. She noted that if they believed the brewing
of beer for resale on premises would be considered manufacturing, the Planning
Commission needed to decide on a request to grant a conditional use under the C-3
zone to permit the activity.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained there were
currently five parking spaces on the subject property which the petitioner was
asking to delete and grant use of the parking area to the north.
Mr. Nickle asked if they could not waive a portion of the parking requirements
but still require the petitioner to maintain the five spaces. He pointed out
parking spaces were expensive.
Ms. Little stated they could require the petitioner to keep the five spaces. She
further stated the parking lots had cost the city 2.377 million dollars.
Mr. Springborn asked how many total parking spaces would be required for the
business.
(w
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 14
•
Ms. Little stated it would depend upon the uses which had not been totally
decided at this point. She explained it was a retail establishment which
normally required 1 space for every 200 square feet. She noted the building
would contain 20,000 square feet, requiring 100 parking spaces.
Mr. Pummill pointed out that, if they did not give the waiver, it would kill the
expansion to the north.
Mr. Allred asked how many spaces had been constructed in the downtown area.
Ms. Little stated there was a total of 530 parking spaces.
Mr. Richard Shewmaker stated this project could be the initiation of some of the
many plans for renovation of the Dickson Street area. He explained Mr. Pearson
was selling the subject buildings to a woman in New York; there were no
conditions upon the sale other than approval of their requests by various city
boards. He pointed out that of the 20,000 square feet which would be in the
building, only 1,500 to 2,000 square feet would be devoted to the brew pub. He
further stated the remainder of the building was to be used for retail shops
which was needed in order to keep Dickson Street viable. He explained they had
to have a variety of things to attract people.
Mr. Shewmaker also pointed out he believed people would walk in this area rather
than drive. He stated they had discussed narrowing Dickson Street and other
streets in the area and widening the sidewalks. He stated in turn, they would
not need as many parking spaces.
He further expressed his opinion the City was dealing with requests coming forth
prior to the adoption of the new city plan. He stated he believed there needed
to be a different zoning for the Dickson Street area similar to C-4 which allowed
for the development of the Square.
Mr. Allred asked if the renovations to the buildings would architecturally match
the existing buildings.
Mr. Shewmaker stated it would. He further stated there were no plans to demolish
the buildings.
Me. Little explained the City was working with the Dickson Street Improvement
District as far as the width of Dickson Street. She explained the City would
like to see a 36 foot width along Dickson Street but had compromised in some
areas down to 24 foot width. She stated the existing width was approximately 33
feet. She further stated the plan proposed by the Dickson Street Improvement
District proposed planners in the street but the City was concerned that it would
restrict the turn radius and line of sight for several of the streets.
Me. Little then read the section of District C-4 which related to off-street
parking: "Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, off-street
parking requirements stated in the use units provisions of Sections 160.055
through 160.059 may be waived in whole or in part on appeal to the Planning
Commission for any property in the C-4 District, upon the following standards and
conditions. For each required parking space waived, the property owner or
developer may:
"(1) Dedicate to the city an equivalent amount of property elsewhere in the C-4
District or within 1,000 feet of the property to be developed; provided, however,
that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed dedication is suitable for
off-street parking for the general public; or
1
«71
J
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 15
"(2) Provide off-street parking facilities within 1,000 feet, measured by the
shortest walking distance from property line to property line."
She pointed out what the petitioners were requesting was more drastic than
allowed in a C-4 District.
Mr. Springborn asked if the potential of providing off-site parking had been
discussed with the developer.
Me. Little stated it had not. She explained that was not the request made by the
developer.
Mr. Shewmaker stated he had brought up the C-4 issue primarily due to setbacks.
He explained that if every building being remodeled had to provide additional
parking, they could pave the majority of Dickson Street. He stated there was not
enough land to provide the parking required by the code. He reminded the
Commission of Dave Crain at the charette jointly provided by the University of
Arkansas and the City. He stated Mr. Crain had discussed the need for activities
in order to create life. He expressed his opinion that had to be addressed or
Dickson Street would not be revitalized.
Mr. Springborn asked Mr. Shewmaker what parking area he perceived that would
provide for the traffic and parking necessary to support the activity on Dickson
Street.
Mr. Shewmaker stated he believed that instead of each property owner dealing with
it, they would have to deal with it as a community. He expressed his opinion
that the pattern of people and activities of individuals would change for this
particular area.
Mr. Springborn stated he was a strong supporter of development along Dickson
Street but he was trying to be objective. He asked if the City could afford to
support community development of that area in order to support the businesses.
He pointed out the city was spending 2.4 million dollars just for 500 parking
spaces. He further pointed out that additional parking would rapidly expand into
a substantial tax burden to the residents.
Mr. Pummill asked if it had been the plan for the Arts Center to use the parking
spaces from daylight to dark, every single day. He stated it was his opinion
that, during the negotiations for the parking lots, it was for the utilization
of the revitalization of Dickson Street. He stated he agreed with the petitioner
that if they had to provide an additional 100 parking spaces, they were looking
at one building in the middle and going straight up. He stated he had never
seen the parking lot more than a quarter full. He expressed his opinion that the
City should be utilizing the parking spaces that existed rather than requiring
someone to build another 100 parking space.
Mr. Springborn stated he was not trying to kill the project. He expressed his
belief they needed to have an understanding of what the petitioner was after.
He stated the parking lots were designed to meet a required 500 spaces to support
the Arts Center.
Ms. Little stated the 500 parking spaces was the required amount for the Walton
Art Center. She further stated that as a City and a reasonable Board, they
realized the hours of operation would lend itself to shared parking, particularly
retail spaces which normally operated during the daylight hours. She pointed out
the primary activity at Walton Arts Center would be during the nighttime hours.
She stated the Planning Department supported shared uses.
Cl
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 16
Me. Little also pointed out the three subject lots totaled one-quarter of an
acre. She stated if they required the 100 parking spaces, they would need an
area of a half acre in size. She agreed with the petitioner there was not enough
land in the area nor did the Planning Department want to see acres and acres of
parking lots developed in that area.
Mr. Allred pointed out that, should the parking areas be full, the city would be
able to afford more land for parking expansion from the tax dollars generated
from the people spending money in that area.
Ms. Little stated they had also discussed gating the parking areas and charging
a fee, which would be another route for additional revenue.
Mr. Dan Bennett, School of Architecture of the University of Arkansas, requested
they grant the petitioner the waiver. He stated numerous cities across the
nation had created districts similar to the area in question where parking
requirements were waived. He stated those cities had learned the downtown areas
could not play by the same rules as the shopping malls and be successful. He
also pointed out the parking requirements were developed for peak shopping times
such as Christmas, for shopping centers. He pointed out the Northwest Arkansas
Mall parking lot was full only at such peak times.
Mr. Bennett also recommended creating a special corridor of Dickson Street,
connecting College Avenue to the University campus, providing a visual space that
would draw people. He stated having a great deal of parking would lose the
character of the area. He further stated it appeared they were looking at
compatible uses - a restaurant for dinner before or after a performance at the
Arts Center. He also agreed the tax revenues generated by this project would pay
for additional parking, sidewalks, curb and gutter tenfold.
Me. Little stated the ordinance required 1 parking space per every 200 square
feet in a restaurant and 1 parking space every 150 square feet in a retail
establishment.
Ms. Billie Starr, Vice President of the Arts Center Council, explained that when
Dickson Street had originally been chosen as the site for the Walton Arts Center
it created numerous problems that they had managed to get through. She stated
they were concerned about parking because they had promised their patrons there
would be adequate parking space. She further stated they wanted to be good
neighbors on Dickson Street and knew the reality of seeing it revitalized meant
businesses had to come and settle on the street. She also expressed hope the
City could find additional areas for more parking in the future as the Arts
Center and Dickson Street grew. She stated the Council did want to see the area
revitalized and have businesses established on Dickson Street.
Ms. Starr pointed out there was another parking lot on School Street. She
complimented the City for the landscaping on the parking lots.
Mr. Springborn asked Ms. Starr for a recommendation to the Commission regarding
the waiver of the parking as requested by the petitioner.
Ms. Starr stated they knew the area had to be revitalized and as businesses came
to the area they would have to share the parking spaces. She recommended waiving
the parking requirement.
Mr. Springborn asked if that represented the viewpoint of the Council.
Ms. Starr stated she believed it did. She stated they understood this would
happen. She explained she did not believe they had a choice -- that the
revitalization was part of the package.
15 3
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 17
Mr. Springborn expressed concern that it would impinge upon the required parking
for the Arts Center. He asked Ms. Starr if she believed waiving the requirement
would impinge on the Arts Center.
Me. Starr stated she did not believe there were any guarantees but they could
compromise. She stated Dickson Street could not stay as it was now and
compliment the Center.
Mr. Springborn asked if it would be appropriate to have this action endorsed by
the Arts Center.
Mr. Tarvin stated if they drove down Dickson Street they would see an area with
a great potential. He stated they could let it happen or they could sit back and
continue to let it go the other direction. He further stated if they wanted to
see Dickson Street revitalized and have it turn into something really positive,
they needed to overlook some of the minor things such as this. He expressed his
opinion that they did not need resolution from the Walton Arts Center. He stated
the developer was taking the risk -- that if there was not enough parking spaces
the business owner would be the one that lost. He stated if the developer was
willing to take the risk, the city was willing to make the recommendation and the
Arts Center was willing to agree to it, he saw no problem with waiving the
parking requirements.
•
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to waive the five parking places together with the parking
requirements for the development.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
Mr. Allred reminded the Commission the Dickson Street Improvement District levied
taxes and if there were additional parking spaces needed, the Improvement
District would step in and increase the taxes to provide parking. He stated if
the area became congested, there would be some solutions made.
Mr. Nickle stated Jose's had expanded their building over existing parking
spaces.
Ms. Little stated they had expanded the building to the front and put in an open
air garden at the rear. She further stated they had parking in excess of the
required amount. She noted they were still meeting their parking requirements.
She pointed out Jose's was also utilizing the parking lot to the north of their
building.
Mr. Nickle expressed hie belief that everyone had been aware the parking spaces
would be shared spaces. He further stated he believed other businesses, as their
buildings were being renovated, would also request such waivers. He stated he
believed they were setting a precedent.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Nickle stated the next question was whether or not a brew pub was a
manufacturing operation.
Ms. Little stated the Commissioned need
be of such a scope as to be considered
a magnitude such as the preparation of
to decide whether the proposed use would
manufacturing or whether it would be of
food for serving in a restaurant.
Mr. Tarvin asked if this would be part of a restaurant or just a pub.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 18
Mr. Shewmaker stated he believed it would primarily
sandwiches.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they would manufacture
it would be served on premises.
Mr. Shewmaker stated it would be served on the premises.
beer for
be a pub which might serve
shipment out for sale or if
Mr. Tarvin stated he did not believe this would be any different than brewing
coffee. He pointed out that if they were manufacturing it for marketing and
distribution, that would be manufacturing.
Mr. Springborn pointed out they had required a conditional use for a bakery in
a home.
Ms. Little stated she had visited a brew pub in Fort Smith and noticed the
parking area was quite full but there did not seem to be that many customers.
She asked how many employees it would take to brew the beer.
Mr. Shewmaker stated he did not believe it would take very many. He explained
most of the brewing would be a chemical type process. He stated the developer
had mentioned catering.
Mr. Tarvin stated he believed that would still fall under restaurants -- they
would not be distributing the product.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he was in favor of revitalizing Dickson Street but warned
that the developer might run into some problems with the State as far as
catering. He asked if the safety standards would have to be approved by any one.
Ms. Little stated the State Health Department and the Inspection Department would
both inspect the facility.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to adopt the position that this was a use by right under the
present zoning.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
MARY JANE HALEY - 1000 KINGS DRIVE
The next item was a request for approval of a lot split at 1000 Kings Drive
submitted by Jeff Caudle on behalf of Mary Jane Haley. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little stated this was a request for a first split of the subject property.
She noted the original tract was 2.16 acres and the lot proposed to be split off
was 0.5 acres, more or less, leaving 1.66 acres for the remaining tract. She
advised both lots had frontage on Kings Drive. She explained the size of the
smaller lot appeared to be generally compatible with other lots in the area.
Me. Little reminded the Commission the same tract came before the Planning
Commission for a split in August of 1991 but at that time the proposed split
showed the remaining tract would not have enough frontage to be a legal lot. She
explained the item had been tabled to allow the owner to work out that problem.
The split as now proposed does create two legal lots with frontage on Kings
1,5
•
Planning Commission
July 27, 1992
Page 19
Drive.
•
Ms. Little advised both water and sewer were available on Kings Drive. She
pointed out the sewer might not be available to the subject lots by gravity and
individual grinder pumps might have to be utilized. She stated septic tanks
would not be allowed on either lot. She noted other utilities would be available
on Kings Drive.
Ms. Little stated staff recommended the split be approved subject to payment of
one parks fee; construction of sidewalks as called for by the Master Sidewalk
Plan; and a property survey by a licensed surveyor.
Mr. Nickle asked how many houses were going to be constructed.
Ms. Little stated there was an existing home and an additional home would be
constructed.
Mr. Caudle stated the existing house was on the larger of the two lots and
another home would be constructed on the smaller lot.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated the adjoining
property owners had been notified.
WYPION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve Lot Split #1.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
(S(o