Loading...
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