Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-25 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 25, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the January 11, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-3 PRESTIGE PROPERTIES - N OF HUNTSVILLE, W OF SHERMAN The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-3 for property located north of Huntsville Road and west of Sherman Road (Sequoyah South Subdivision), submitted by Bill Watkins on behalf of Prestige Properties. The request is to rezone 5.04 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission that Sequoyah South, Phase I, was partially developed as a planned unit development. He noted the development consisted of 26 lots on 5.04 acres which included 3.84 acres of common area. Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission staff had required the applicant to petition for a rezoning as part of a condition of approval to amend the Planned Unit. Development covenants which would convert the existing structures from condominiums to apartments and eliminate the P.U.D. status. He explained staff had requested this to be a condition of approval to eliminate the problem of having apartments located within an R-1 zoning district. He advised surrounding land uses included vacant land to the west and north and residential development to the south and east. He further noted the site was surrounded by R-1 zoning. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning from R-1 to R-2. He explained granting the rezoning would eliminate the creation of nonconforming uses and allow development of the remaining parcels as apartments. Mr. Conklin stated rezoning the subject property to R-2 would provide a natural extension of the existing R-2 zoning south of the site and would also provide the opportunity to develop more affordable housing for the City. He recommended approval of the request. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin stated he had not calculated the density. He advised there would be some setback issues which would have to be dealt with by the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Little explained there were currently three or four buildings on site which were developed. She reminded the Commission they had amended the covenants for Sequoyah South to remove the development from a Planned Unit Development status. She noted approximately half of the site was still undeveloped. 00 • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 2 There was discussion regarding rezoning the property R-1.5. Mr. Conklin advised four-plex units were not allowed in an R-1.5 zone. Ms. Britton stated she was not as concerned with this development as she was by others wanting to construct R-2 property in the area in the future. She noted this development would not be constructed to R-2 density. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Me. Little explained that, on the covenants for Sequoyah South, the City had been named as a third party to the covenants and therefore the City was required to approve any changes to the covenants. Mr. Watkins noted they were requesting the change in zoning to fit what was existing. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning request. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU93-3 - PRIVATE LODGE BENEVOLENT BUILDING CORPORATION - SE CORNER ZION & CROSSOVER The next item was a conditional use request to establish a private lodge on the southeast corner of Zion and Crossover Road, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of the Benevolent Building Corporation. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains 9 acres. Mr. Conklin advised the site was currently undeveloped with surrounding land uses including large lot residential development and other vacant land. He noted the zoning to the north, south and west was A-1 and to the east of the site was R-1, Low Density Residential. He explained access to the site was from Highway 265 and Zion Road. He advised the Commission that, if the conditional use request was approved, the developer would be required to submit an official plat to the City which would be subject to the Large Scale Development regulations. Mr. Conklin stated Zion Road was not constructed to city standards and was 20 feet wide and paved with gravel. He noted the City would require that Zion Road be brought up to City standards by the developer. He explained that, under the zoning code, cultural and recreational facilities were permitted as a conditional use (Use Unit #4) within A-1 zoning districts. Mr. Conklin advised that, in order to approve the request, the Planning Commission would have to make the finding that granting the conditional use would not adversely affect the public interest and the use would be compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within the district. He stated staff believed the requested use could be compatible with many of the other uses permitted by right in A-1 zoning, such as, agricultural uses, hospitals, convalescent homes, farms with livestock, and single and two family dwellings. He further noted staff believed the proposed use would be more compatible adjacent to the land zoned R-1 than some of the permitted uses by right within A-1 zoning, such as, cemeteries, crematoriums, or mausoleums; animal farms for show, breeding, and training; rifle ranges; and egg production. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use to allow the establishment of a private lodge within an A-1 zoning district. �1 • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 3 In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated the lodge would be allowed as a use by right in C-2, C-3, C-4, I-1, and P-1. She advised she had placed at their desks, prior to the meeting, a memo of a telephone conversation she had received earlier in the day. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the Elks Lodge, advised there were members of the Elks Lodge present to answer any questions the Commission might have. He explained the Elks Lodge was a fraternal organization and was concerned about the needs of the community. He noted he had contacted Mark Hanna, Fayetteville Police Department, had found there had been no problems whatsoever with the Elks Lodge. He pointed out this project would require a large scale development and screening requirements could be reviewed at that time. Mr. Nickle asked where they planned on locating the building on the nine acres. Mr. Gray stated that would be decided at the time of large scale development but he anticipated it would be on the west side. Mr. Bill Parrette, an officer of the Elks Lodge, appeared before the Commission and explained they were involved in youth activities and fraternal endeavors. He stated he had never known of any member creating problems. He further advised they did not plan to go onto Zion Road; that the entrance would be the highest point on Crossover Road for visibility. He pointed out they would not be using the entire tract of property. He stated the development would be an asset to the community. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Parrette advised the former facility started out with 20 acres but, after giving easements and rights-of-way, they ended up with approximately 16.4 acres. Mr. Nickle asked how many vehicles they expected to be using the lodge. Mr. Parrette stated the maximum would be 200 vehicles, but that would only happen once or twice a year. He further stated an average day would be 20 or 30 vehicles. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the Elks Club was not a private club similar to Club West. Mr. Parrette stated there was no similarity; that the Elks Club was a fraternal organization similar to a country club. He further stated it was a family orientated operation. Ms Little advised that to accommodate parking 200 cars would take slightly lees than one acre. Mr. Bob Graham, a member of the Elks Lodge, explained the difference between a lodge and club and how an individual became an Elk. He advised there had been no trouble from lodge members in this area as long as he had been a member. Mr. Bob Hasenbeck, 3281 East Zion, expressed concern that the establishment of the Elks Lodge in the neighborhood would devalue his home. He also noted there could be sewage and drainage problems caused by construction the Lodge at the subject site. He presented the Commission a petition signed by some of the residents of the area. Mr. Bunn stated that it was anticipated the sewer would be extended to serve the property. as • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little explained conditional uses for home occupations were granted for one year but conditional uses for other uses were granted for the life of the use. Me. Michele Harrington, a neighboring resident, presented another petition from residents of the area in opposition to the conditional use. She stated the area. was totally residential. She expressed concern that the traffic would increase and there was already problems with heavy traffic. She stated this project was incompatible with the neighborhood. She advised the Commission that two of the conditions that had to be met in order to approve the conditional use were not being met -- ingress/egress to the property and not being compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Britton asked how many homes could be put on 9 acres if the property remained A-1. Me. Little explained the minimum lot size in A-1 districts was 2 acres so there could be 4 homes. She noted, if the property were zoned to R-1 at 4 units per acre, there could be 36 homes. Me. Elizabeth Thomas, an adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of the conditional use. She pointed out the intersections along Highway 265 have slowly become commercial. Ms. Alice Kimbrough, a neighboring property owner, presented a letter from her husband who could not be present due to jury duty, in opposition to the granting of the conditional use. Mr. Lyle Crider stated there was a traffic problem during rush hour on Highway 265 but the Elks Lodge traffic would be in the evenings, after rush hour. He pointed out Charter Vista, a commercial venture, was across the highway from the subject property. He suggested the adjoining property values could increase if the Lodge were established in the neighborhood. Mr. Harold J. Perry, Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Elks, noted the Elks spoke in terms of duty, honor, country, community, help. He told of various projects the Elks perform for the youth of the area. He advised the cost of the building they were planning would be approximately $500,000 and would be a facility equivalent to area country clubs. He explained the Elks Lodge had sold their property and had to move. Ms. Little asked if the swimming pool and tennis courts were going to be developed on the subject property. Mr. Perry explained that, at this time, they did not have the money to construct a swimming pool. Dave Jorgensen, a neighboring resident, stated he was not necessarily opposing the project but was concerned there would be people driving through the neighborhood after drinking alcoholic beverages. An unnamed member of the audience asked, if the conditional use were granted and at a later date the Elks Lodge were sold, would the conditional use transfer to the new owner. Me. Little explained it would transfer only if it were for the exact same type of use. Mr. Gray offered a Bill of Assurance from the Elks Lodge that the property would be used only for an Elks Lodge and the use could not be transferred to a new • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 5 owner. He further pointed out the subject site would have less impact on traffic on Highway 265 than any other site along the highway. He agreed with Ms. Thomas that typically at major intersections the property was zoned commercially. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the conditional use CU93-3. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. After discussion, it was agreed approval was subject to a Bill of Assurance from the Elks Lodge. Mr. Springborn advised he had lived in another City with an Elks Lodge in the neighborhood and there had been no problems. He noted, on the other hand, he had a problem approving a conditional use with the residents of the area opposing the request. He pointed out the property could very easily be considered for something more dense than R-1 at the subject location. He stated he believed there was a lot of problems with approving a conditional use; that he would have preferred the request came as an application for rezoning. Ms. Britton stated she preferred the request as a conditional use because, if it had been rezoned, there would be no control over the property, that it could be resold as any use. She further stated that, with 9 acres, the Elks Lodge could be developed so it would not affect the neighbors, particularly if a certain amount of green space was put on the perimeters. Mr. Springborn asked if the building would be a single -story structure. Mr. Perry stated they did not know yet but they did not believe it would be a 2 - story building. Mr. Reynolds asked if they had control over the members of the lodge as far as the consumption of alcohol. Mr. Perry stated they did. He advised they probably did better than any other organization in the area. Ms. Britton noted she had been on the Elks Lodge premises several times for family gatherings and evening dinners and had never seen any behavior that was less than exemplary. Mr. Cato stated he agreed the intersection where Highway 265 intersected Zion Road to the west was a commercial area but this site was some distance from that intersection. He stated this was a residential site. Mr. Allred expressed his belief that within the next 5 to 10 years the demands for commercial development in the area would be coming before the Commission. He stated they needed to plan how they wanted the area to develop. He stated he did not believe it would develop as residential with frontage on Highway 265. He asked what impact the subject request would have on the area. He pointed out they kept approving subdivision after subdivision and did not seem to be willing to allow any commercial development to support any of the residences they had been approving. He stated this created more and more traffic problems in other areas of the city. He further stated they needed to start looking at the growth in the area and providing some commercial support. Mr. Pummill stated it was his understanding that, in the near future, Highway 265 from Huntsville Road to Highway 45 would be a 4 -lane road. He further stated the QLJ • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 6 plans were eventually to proceed northward. He agreed with Mr. Allred that the commercial pressure in that area would intensify. Me. Britton noted that not only was it logical that commercial zoning would be in demand but it was also logical that the Planning Commission would grant the requests because it serviced the community. Mr. Pummill stated it would also be logical that the residences would move back from a four -lane highway. Mr. William Kimbrough stated he had been in jury duty and had just been able to come to the meeting and asked to speak. He was advised the public segment of the meeting had been closed. The motion carried 8-1-0, with Commissioners Tarvin, Pummill, Sickle, Allred, Suchecki, Springborn, Reynolds and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioner Cato voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE CU93-4 - ROME OCCUPATION MARYS K. VINES - 607 WILSON AVENUE The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow operation of a Child Care Home Occupation at 607 Wilson Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the site currently was developed with a single-family home and the surrounding land use was residential development. He stated the applicant currently was taking care of three children. He noted all of the children were under the age of three and were kept inside most of the time. He advised the applicant had been operating a day care center for the past three years and had been unaware of the conditional use requirement. He stated no complaints regarding the day care center had been received by the Planning Department. He stated the applicant would be allowed to take care of up to six children of the conditional use request was approved. Mr. Conklin further advised that existing on -street parking was a concern because Wilson Street was only 40 feet wide with parking allowed only on the west side. He stated the applicant had responded to this concern by stating that delivery and pickup of children was by use of the driveway and turn -around located in the back yard and that each child was picked up at different times. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use to allow the establishment of a day care center as a home occupation within an R-1 zoning district. Mr. Jim McCord, representing the applicant, stated Ms. Vines was licensed to take care of five children. Mr. Reynolds asked if the property had to be fenced in order to have a day care center. Mr. McCord pointed out the children were kept inside at all times. Mr. Conklin stated there was a code requirement that there be a minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child. He noted there would be a requirement of a screening wall. • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 7 In response to a question from Mr. McCord, Ms. Little stated the code they were referring to was Section 160.082(b). Mr. Nickle explained conditional uses for home occupations were made for one year and could be re -issued by administrative decision or could come back before the Planning Commission for review after one year. Mr. McCord stated he believed the interpretation of Section 160.082(b) was incorrect; that it referred to nursery schools. He again stated the children were kept inside at all times. Mr. Conklin stated the definition of Home Occupation read: "The term "Home Occupation" shall include a child care facility handling not more than six (6) children at one time." He pointed out they used the words "child care" in the definition. Mr. McCord stated, if it was required, it would be met. He further stated they might appeal the interpretation but he had not had time to research it. Me. Vines stated she had been a licensed pediatric nurse for 26 years and had done child care in her home for the last three years. She advised she only took care of babies; she did not take care of children over three years of age. She further noted they did not go outside without either the parent or her being present. She further stated she was meeting all the requirements for the State's licensing procedure. Ms. Young, a resident of the Wilson Park area, expressed concern regarding people parking on the street to drop off or pickup their children. Mr. Nickle stated there was a requirement the parents park off-street. Mr. Cato asked which board would hear a variance on the fencing question should the applicant request such a variance. Ms. Little advised him the variance request would be heard by the Board of Adjustment as would any interpretation question. Mr. Fred Stephen, a neighboring resident, stated Ms. Vines was an excellent neighbor but had not been aware she had been taking care of children. He reminded the Commission Ms. Vines' neighbor to the south had requested a conditional use for a home occupation 2 - 3 years ago and had been denied because of concerns of traffic and parking. He stated he did not want the area to have numerous home occupations but wanted it to remain a strictly residential area. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated he often used Wilson Street and had never noticed the day care center had caused any traffic problems. He further pointed out it must not be obtrusive on the neighborhood since the neighbors did not know anything about it. He moved to approve the conditional use subject to review at the end of the year together with a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that the screening and yard requirements be removed and limiting the age of the children to three years and under. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. a(o • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE IV DR. JAMES MOORE - N OF WEDINGTON DR., W OF RDPPLE RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Northwest Acres, Phase IV, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dr. James Moore for property located north of Wedington Drive, west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential (proposed R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential - R93-4) and contains 10 acres with 23 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained there was an intent to rezone the subject property to R-1.5 and develop the subdivision as multi -family. He pointed out, however, the subdivision currently would fit in an R-1 zone. He reminded the Commission this was the same tract of property that been denied R-2 zoning at the last meeting. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives other than some additional easements asked for and agreed to by the owners. He stated there had been one off-site easement required and it would have to be granted by separate instrument. He stated staff comments concerned sidewalks, a name for the east -west street, and the need for a grading and drainage plan. He further stated there had been no significant comments at Subdivision meeting other than the developer would petition to rezone the property even though the plat was sufficient for R-1 development. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; the submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; and naming and location of cross streets shown. Ms. Little advised the plat was sufficient for single-family development as presented. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained the applicant would be seeking a rezoning of this property at the next meeting. Mr. Nickle stated the applicant was asking for approval of the preliminary plat with the dimensions shown. Mr. Dave Jorgensen explained the plat had been drawn for duplexes and the applicant was in the process of requesting a rezoning. He reminded the Commission they had requested R-2 zoning on the property but it had been denied. He stated the present application for rezoning was R-1.5. Mr. Nickle asked, if the rezoning were denied, would the developer continue to develop the property as single-family residences. Mr. Jorgensen stated he did not know what would happen if the rezoning were denied. Mr. Nickle asked why they were considering a plat that might not be developed as presented. Mr. Jorgensen explained they were requesting approval of the plat subject to the rezoning. • Mr. Nickle stated he believed it was a waste of the Commission's time to consider the plat if the developer was presenting the rezoning at the next meeting. a7 • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Bunn stated he would recommend tabling the plat until the next meeting and considering it after the rezoning was heard, if appropriate. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to table the plat. Me. Britton seconded the motion. Mr. Nickle explained a rezoning required notification that a preliminary plat did not. Mr. Bunn advised a preliminary plat did require notification. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 W. J. BROOKS - S OF HUNTSVILLE, E OF MALLY WAGNON The next item was a request for a lot split presented by Katherine Browne for W. J. Brooks for property located south of Huntsville Road, east of Bally Wagnon Road. The property is located outside the City Limits. Mr. Bunn explained the original tract contained 51.5 acres with a request to split off 1.01 acres. He stated the property would be accessed by a 30 -foot permanent access easement. He further noted water, as well as other utilities, were available on Highway 16. He explained sewer would not be available since the property was outside the City Limits. He stated it would be necessary to provide for on-site sewage disposal. Mr. Bunn recommended the lot split be approved subject to the approval of Washington County and the ability to obtain a permit from the County Health Department for septic tank installation. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Brooks stated it was for a single- family home. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Appointment of Nominating Committee. Mr. Nickle appointed the Nominating Committee: Jett Cato as Chair and J. E. Springborn and Ken Pummill as members. He advised they would present their nominations for election of officers for 1993. Notice of Appeal: Ms. Little advised she had presented a Notice of Appeal of a rezoning which had been denied at the last Planning Commission. She stated the appeal would be heard by the City Council. as/ 41. • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 10 Tree Ordinance: Me. Little advised the tree ordinance had originally been placed on the next Planning Commission meeting. She explained that, since it was a long agenda and a number of people wanted to discuss the tree ordinance, it had been suggested they schedule a separate meeting. After discussion, it was determined there would be a special meeting on Tuesday, February 16 at 4:30 p.m. Planning Commission Tour: Mr. Nickle asked the plans of staff regarding the Planning Commission tour. Ms. Little advised they planned for tours p.m. She noted, however, with a 20 item need to start the tour at 3:00 p.m. She City Administration Building. on Thursday afternoon, normally at 4:00 agenda for the next meeting, they would stated they would meet in front of the Mr. Springborn stated the tours were being conducted as public meetings and open to the public. Discussion of Complaints & Future Plans for 621 E. Maple Ms. Michelle Winkler, 620 E. Lafayette, explained the neighbors were concerned with property located at 621 E. Maple. She stated the gas company had been located at the site with the understanding that, should they move locations, the property would become residential. She advised the gas company had moved out but trucks from Lindsey Construction had started moving in. She expressed concern regarding the setbacks and lighting. She stated the lights were taller than the normal street lights and were so bright the light came through her windows. She stated other neighbors also had complained. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised this site was an island currently zoned industrial. She explained that, in 1975 the city sought to rezone the entire area R-2 but the gas company was left with the only industrial zoning in the area. She stated they currently used the larger building, at the east end of the site, for storage of some office equipment. Ms. Little further advised the minutes of the 1975 meeting did state the gas company would notify the city at the time they sold the property. She further stated the gas company was in the process of talking to Lindsey Construction regarding whether they would sell the property, lease with an option to buy, or simple lease it. She explained they had not come to the City. She further stated she did not see the City had remedy to the situation if the gas company decided not to work with the City. She stated she had discussed the neighbors' concerns with both the gas company and Lindsey Construction. Mr. Reynolds stated he had received a petition from neighboring residents expressing concern regarding the lighting. He noted the candle power was so bright the light came into their houses even with the curtains pulled. Mr. Allred stated he had just been driving down the street and noticed how intense the lights were. Mr. Reynolds suggested requesting shields be placed on the lights to lower the candle power. Ms. Winkler stated they were also concerned regarding the setbacks and screening. • • • • Planning Commission January 25, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Nickle suggested giving the gas company written notice to either appear before the Planning Commission to address questions and concerns or satisfy the staff. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.