Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 24, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Joe Tarvin, Ken Pummill, Jerry Allred, and Jana Lynn Britton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary R. Head, Charles Nickle, and Phyllis Hall Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. CONSENT AGENDA: A. FINAL PLAT - OWL CREEK MIKE PENNINGTON - E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD, S OF HWY 16 Final Plat of Owl Creek submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 10.22 acres with 33 proposed lots. B. FINAL PLAT - PINE VALLEY PHASE III BMP DEVELOPMENT - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF SHILOH DR N Final Plat of Pine Valley Phase III submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of HMP Development for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Shiloh Drive North. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 8.7 acres with 26 proposed lots. C. FINAL PLAT - MASTERS SUBDIVISION DALLAS & DEE WRIGHT, ELDEN & DRYDEN PENCE - E OF CITY LAKE RD, S OF W 29TH Final Plat of Masters Subdivision submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Dallas Wright, Dee W;,ight, Elden Pence, and Dryden Pence for property located east of City Lake Road and south of West 29th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 20 acres with 15 proposed lots. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. 0 Mr. Tarvin advised a rezoning petition must have five positive votes to be • approved and pointed out that three of the Planning Commissioners were absent from the meeting. He explained that, if a rezoning petition was denied, it could not be brought back before the Commission for a period of one year unless there was a material change to the request. He advised the petitioner he had the option to table his request so that it could be reviewed by more of the Planning Commission members. The representative of the rezoning petition requested that the request be heard at the subject meeting. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R94-52 AND CONDITIONAL USE DAVE MERSEY - 40 N CROSSOVER ROAD The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Appeal R94-52 and a Conditional Use request to allow an eating establishment within the R -O zone submitted by Dave Mersky for property located at 40 North Crossover Road. The request was to rezone 3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-0, Residential/Office. Mr. Tim Conklin advised of amendments to the staff report with a notation that Deerpath Subdivision, a single-family subdivision, was to the east and a rental house was located to the south of the proposed rezoning location. He added the staff also would request that parking should be located in front, or west, of the house, within 200 feet of Highway 265, and that any outdoor lighting provided be shielded with valances. Harriet Neiman, a representative for the applicant, advised they had understood when they were before the Planning Commission in 1992 that any objections from the neighborhood would constitute reevaluation. She noted there had been no objections to her knowledge, so they were now requesting a rezoning because • currently there were only two people doing all the work. She advised with all the various things to do in running a home business, assistance was needed and they would like to be allowed to hire extra help when necessary. Mr. Dave Mersky advised the main thrust of the business was catering, but noted they also had a small area for private gatherings. He stated they wanted to promote the business by providing an area for seminars, etc. He pointed out they had not been informed about the parking amendment. In answer to a question, Mr. Conklin clarified the staff was suggesting there not be any parking other than in the front. He noted the concerns were, based on the nature of the business, additional parking could be developed east of the house behind where the new subdivision was going in. He added the understanding was that parking would be provided along the loop drive with additional parking provided in the front. Ms. Little advised that was the area they were requiring to be paved. Mr. Mersky stated they had worked hard to improve the property and had hired a landscape architect to help with the aesthetic aspects. Ms. Neiman advised their whole point was to bring to the neighborhood things that could be enjoyed within the neighborhood. Mr. Reynolds asked if they would be willing to provide a Bill of Assurance that no outside amplified music would be allowed at the establishment. Mr. Mersky contended there was a big difference in a loud rock and roll band and a small amplifier for a violin or classical guitar. Ms. Britton noted the issue was a value judgment as to what was considered appealing music and what was considered noise. 0 Planning Commission Meeting • October 24, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Suchecki pointed out there was a noise ordinance in the City of Fayetteville to handle noise disturbances and penalize violators. Mr. Mersky advised they would be glad to guarantee they would not have any rock and roll bands with loud amplified music. Mr. Allred asked for clarification on the second condition listed in the staff report which, by his interpretation, stated there be no kitchen area. He suggested the second condition be changed to disallow any additions on to the building which would change the architecture integrity, but allowed the applicants to use whatever space was needed in the interior of the house. Me. Little advised the upstairs was serving as a bed and breakfast. She agreed the kitchen was located to the rear and would have to be counted as a third room to be used. She suggested that, for clarification, they limit the restriction to the first floor since that would accomplish their intent. Mr. Suchecki contended that, instead of not allowing outdoor music, it should be policed by the City Noise ordinance. Mr. John Beckmann, 430 Crossover Road, expressed concern that a catering business and a motel (bed and breakfast) was allowed in an R-1 zoning and noted others in the neighborhood were in opposition as well. Mr. Suchecki pointed out they had approved a Conditional Use at the subject location in 1992 and had not heard any complaints. • In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Beckmann advised aesthetically it had caused problems since there balloons up all the time and thirty to forty cars parked in the driveway. He expressed concern that approval of the rezoning would lead to a more commercial type usage. Ken Stahlman, the developer of Deerpath Estates, expressed concern that providing approval of the request would escalate into problems in the future. He referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting in 1992 which stated Ms. Little had recommended against approval of the Conditional Use with the contention that the location was not suitable for a commercial use. He pointed out she had also stated the "home occupation" term in the ordinance was intended to permit residents to operate small scale, low intensity businesses from their residence, primarily as a way of allowing them to start small and then grow into a commercial use which would then be moved to a more suitable location. He provided photographs to show such things as a horse trailer, a truck, a shed near the entrance to his subdivision as well as all the cars parked on the site. He noted he was installing 700 feet of fencing on both sides of the entrance to minimize anything which might be damaging to the subdivision entrance. He further stated, he did not believe refurbishing the house gave the applicants the right to change the zoning. Dick Seddon of Happy Hollow Road advised he could view the subject property from his home. He stated he had been immensely impressed with the way the owners had developed the property. He pointed out the subject property used to be an eyesore like the rental property just south of it. He contended if there was a car problem there, there was also a car problem at the churches both north and south of it. Ms. Neiman clarified they ran a bed and breakfast there which was not for transients. She noted she understood the concern that the property might be used for something similar to Mr. Underwood's property across the street, but gave • assurance it would not be. She contended the establishment did not put an extra Planning Commission Meeting • October 24, 1994 Page 4 burden on traffic because the guests were their at prescribed times. She noted they displayed balloons because it helped with visibility for special events. She advised they were proposing a tree buffer and landscaping. In response to a request for clarification, Mr. Conklin advised the R -O zoning allowed professional offices including doctors, dentists, and engineers; barber and beauty salons; and single-family and duplexes. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the potential for other businesses being established at the subject location if it were rezoned. Mr. Tarvin suggested they consider approving the rezoning with the stipulation that it revert back to R-1 if the owners changed the form of business. Ms. Little advised that would not be an option unless it was voluntarily offered by the owners. She contended the real decision would be whether those types of office uses would be objectionable in the neighborhood. She pointed out the Planning Staff was opposed to the granting of the conditional use in the beginning mainly because of the financial investment it would take to make the building a viable business. She advised the applicants had proven they could do that, but pointed out this was an older home which would need a lot of maintenance. She noted the staff did feel those type offices allowed in R -O would fit in the area compatibly. NOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the rezoning to R -O subject to staff • comments with one exception: the outdoor music issue be handled by city ordinance. The motion died for the lack of a second. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Me. Little explained the reason the petitioners were back before the Commission was because the Commission had originally approve the business as a home occupation and one of the conditions for a home occupation was that no employees outside the home be allowed. She noted it was the staff's understanding the applicants were asking to be allowed to hire kitchen help for special events. She explained they were not asking to be allowed to have a full-time staff. She noted the conditional use to allow a restaurant was mainly intended for foods picked up and taken off the premises. She advised the rezoning was the only option, since home occupations were not allowed to hire employees outside the home. 70 0 Zl Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve R94-52 and to follow the recommendations of the City Planning staff allowing conditions 1, 2, and 3 to stand. Mr. Conklin advised the conditions were attached to the conditional use and should not be included in the rezoning motion. Mr. Allred stated he would like to explore the question of requiring the rezoning to revert back if the current business were to cease. In response to questions from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Mersky stated the only objection he would have to giving an assurance in regard to it reverting back was potential problems of getting a good appraisal in relationship to refinancing. • Mr. Allred stated the conditional use should take care of that problem. btb Planning Commission Meeting • October 24, 1994 Page 5 Ms. Little reiterated the applicants could offer a bill of assurance voluntarily, but the City could not request one. Mr. Allred contended that, from the photographs and other information submitted, there was no evidence of detrimental value to any surrounding neighborhoods because of what had taken place on the subject property and contended an appraisal would confirm that. He suggested it be tabled for two weeks to let everyone regroup. In response to a request for clarification by Mr. Mersky, Mr. Tarvin explained a bill of assurance would insure that the property be used only for the current purpose or revert back to R-1 in the event that the business ceased. AMENDED NOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to amend Mr. Reynolds motion, with Mr. Reynolds' agreement, to state that the rezoning be approved subject to the staff's recommendation with the inclusion of an offer that it revert back to R-1 if the current use was discontinued. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Mr. Mersky stated they would voluntarily offer assurance. Mr. Tarvin clarified the petitioners would allow the property to revert back to R-1 should it not be used as a Bed and Breakfast situation. • The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0-0. AMENDED NOTION Ms. Britton seconded the original motion. Mr. Tarvin clarified the motion was to approve the rezoning subject to the staff's recommendations. In response to questions from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin advised only the first floor of the structure would be used for the restaurant. Ms. Britton pointed out they were still discussing the rezoning, not the conditional use. Mr. Conklin agreed the conditions should go with the conditional use. In response to a question from Mr. Mersky, Mr. Tarvin stated the motion was that it be restricted to the existing structure with no addition being allowed. Mr. Mersky advised they were trying to attract the Continuing Education Unit business but the rooms were very small with only enough room to dine, so they would like to glass in the porch on the north side to allow space for instruction or meetings. Mr. Tarvin clarified again the motion was that the rezoning be approved subject to staff comments and that the business establishment be restricted to the area as it currently existed. Mr. Allred pointed out that should be discussed with the Conditional Use instead of the rezoning. 140 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 6 The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to grant the Conditional Use subject to the staff's comments and the condition that the area to be used for the conditional use only encompass the first floor as it existed and the porch area. Mr. Tarvin explained with this motion the applicants could expand the outside wall to enclose the deck. In response to a question, Ms. Britton advised the parking issue was in the staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Allred expressed concern that they were encouraging the applicants to alter the building which he contended would change the integrity of the property. He suggested they not allow enclosure of the porch. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Allred moved to amend the motion to state the existing use was restricted to the building in its present state without altering it. • The motion to amend was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The amendment to the motion carried with a vote of 5-1-0 with Suchecki voting "now', Mr. Tarvin clarified the motion was to approve the conditional use subject to the building not being altered. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 7 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - STERLING ANDERS OFFICE STERLING ANDERS - W OF SHILOH DR N, S OF POINT WEST ST The next item was a Large Scale Development Plan of Sterling Anders Office submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Sterling Anders for property located west of Shiloh Drive North and south of Point West Street. The property is zoned I-1. Heavy commercial and Light Industrial, and contains 1.13 acres. Mr. Don Bunn advised the staff had no further comments. Al Harris of Northwest Engineers, representing the applicant, advised the application was for a simple commercial building to be located in Point West Subdivision and it would match all the existing surrounding buildings. NOTION I Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the large scale development plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. • 10 • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 8 I I: •' I' •.I :.' N' The next item was a Large Scale Development Plan for Glenwood Shopping Center submitted by Lahleh Amirmoez on behalf of Keith Cearley for property located on the southeast corner of Highway 45 and Highway 265. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contained 14.74 acres. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had received some additional drainage calculations that afternoon which he had not had time to thoroughly reviewed. He explained the original drainage study was based on a rational method analysis on flows and the latest study was a flood routing analysis. Ms. Lahleh Amirmoez, representing the applicant, advised all the accesses onto Highway 265 had been approved by the State Highway Department. She further advised they had requested a joint driveway be shared between Mr. Cearley's property and the existing liquor store property. She advised they were going to negotiate with the liquor store owner for joint access. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the number of curb cuts because of the potential for traffic problems with persons stopping in the middle of the Highway at all of the driveways waiting to make a left-hand turn. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Amirmoez advised the last curb cut to the south was a one-way service access for trucks coming off of Highway 45 and exiting out the service access. • Me. Britton expressed concern for all the traffic going along the back of the property next to the existing residences. She contended that, since it was the easiest and quickest access with the least conflict, it would be used most. Ms. Amirmoez advised they had provided some stack space to alleviate some of the problem along the property line by providing room for cars turning left without stopping other traffic. She noted the turn lane would not be in the middle of the highway, but adjacent to the property. Ms. Little advised a northbound right -turn lane was being proposed. She noted it would provide a turn bay. She pointed out, however, that was one of the low points on the property which was still being looked at in regard to drainage related to the site. She noted that particular entrance might be precluded from development if there was a need for a detention base which meant there was still some drainage concerns which might affect the location of the building or the curb cut. Mr. Tarvin contended the more entrances provided, the less chance of stacking of traffic on the highway. Ms. Britton reiterated her concern was there would be traffic stacked at every one of the entrances into the property. Mr. Allred contended the question should have been addressed before it was brought before the Planning Commission and taken care of either by the state or the city staff. Ms. Little advised the staff had discussed entrances with the developer and they had moved them at least once. She added she had talked to a representative of the Highway Department in regard to the entrance locations and noted the City was • coordinating with them. • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 9 In response to a question from Fran Alexander of Fox Hunter Road, Ms. Amirmoez stated the slight hill at that location would not be graded down. Ms. Alexander expressed concern in regard to preserving the large trees on the property, specifically a very large elm. Ms. Little advised a tree preservation plan had been received by the staff which reflected a plan to save that particular tree. Mr. Suchecki noted the Subdivision Committee discussion included the developer's plan to save as many trees as possible and to do extensive landscaping. Dave Jorgensen, speaking on behalf of Danny Villines and Gordon Wilkins of the Crossover Storage project immediately to the west of the subject site, expressed concern in regard to the drainage crossing from the east to the west onto the storage facility. He stated his clients' wish was to cut off as much of the drainage as possible and divert it up the east side of Highway 265 directly to the north. Mr. Suchecki stated it was his understanding that, when the storage buildings were approved, they were required to be built to a certain level to protect them against floods. Mr. Jorgensen advised the storage buildings were out of the 100 -year flood plain, but there still was a lot of water coming from the east onto their property. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding the requirement to pave the area in front of the storage buildings, Ms. Little stated there was an outside storage area enclosed with fence and barbed wire which was unpaved. She advised there was also a gravel drive into that area which was not permitted by the City's regulations. She noted it appeared to be located in the area that was to have been developed as retail and not a part of the mini -storage. She further stated the staff believed the activity was something outside the scope of the large scale development which had been approved by the Planning Commission. Danny Upchurch expressed concern in regard to the traffic problems, the proposed lighting (since the development was located very close to their homes), preserving the existing trees along the south property line, and the amount of distance between the driveway easement and the property line next to their residences. He expressed opposition to the development because of the potential for a detrimental affect on their properties. Ms. Little advised down -lighted, high-pressure sodium lights were being required because they did not cast outward as much as other lighting. She noted the lighting would primarily be on the parking area so the building should intervene between some of the existing homes and the lighting. She advised they had not discussed whether the trees would be left along the south property line. She added screening was required between any commercial and residential areas which gave a choice of either vegetation or a view -obscuring fence. She added there was 36 feet between the closest building and the south property line. Mr. Upchurch expressed concern that trash bins would be located behind the building with the potential for noise from garbage trucks at night and for rats. Ms. Little advised the four dumpsters were shown to be located on the eastern side. She noted staff had discussed moving two of the dumpsters to the north so they would not be concentrated in one area. • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 10 Ms. Wilson of Pointer Lane expressed concern in regard to screening and the potential for noise during the night from truck traffic unloading merchandise. She asked for some type of buffer to cut down on the noise. Mr. Upchurch requested the merchants in the center limit delivery times to cut down on noise at night. Ms. Little advised the staff had discussed a possible provision for the screening of the mechanical equipment located on top of the buildings and noted the Planning Commission might wish to consider that as a condition. She pointed out to the Commission that large scale developments were not required to come back to the Planning Commission unless there were substantial changes made after approval. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised they could require a brick wall (sound dampening to help minimize the noise) be built behind all the residences. Ms. Britton contended, the more texture something had, the more sound dampening it was and noted a masonry structure would tend to magnify the sound and reflect it in a certain direction. She noted thick plant material was the highest recommended buffer. Mr. Allred pointed out the mechanicals (heating and air supply) would have more of a detrimental noise problem than trucks at night and suggested those units have some sound deadening as well. . MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to the staff's comments, screening of the mechanicals, and a sound dampening wall around the residential areas to the east and south. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton contended again they should limit the curb cuts to help traffic flow. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Britton voting "nowt. • M I* Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 11 • I: ky .- : M .- .. 1:1OVA The next item was a Large Scale Development Plan of Kee Corner Plaza and Preliminary Plat of Kee Corner Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located south of Zion Road, west of Highway 265. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood commercial and contains 3.82 acres with four proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments. Mr. Jorgensen, representing the applicant, advised they were in agreement with all staff comments. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development Plan of Kee . Corner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. • I* Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 12 The next item was a Large Scale Development Plan for Ridout Lumber submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of Ross Ridout for property located west of Gregg Street and north of Elm Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and contains 4.68 acres. Ms. Britton requested information on the access. Mr. Albright advised it would access old Gregg Street which ran in front of the County Shop on the west side of the railroad track. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development Plan for Ridout Lumber. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Little advised there was a request for a parking waiver which was not shown in the staff report. She explained the request was to waive the requirement of parking spaces primarily because it was a contractor service business and noted the staff was in agreement with the waiver. • MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the request for a waiver of the parking variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously, Abd • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT - KANTZ COMMERCIAL E J BALL - S OF KANTZ AND W OF HWY 265 The next item was a preliminary plat for Kantz Commercial submitted by Tom Hopper on behalf of E.J. Ball for property located south of Kantz and west of Highway 265. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains 15.22 acres with 7 proposed lots. The representative for the development advised they would concur with the requirements and staff comments. NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried unanimously. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the #6 condition in the staff's comments was to make sure it was clear to the developer that all requirements in the subdivision regulations were required even though not everything was listed in the staff report. 0 • 1 02 • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-27 (COUNSELING OFFICE) MICHAEL LOOS - 109 W NORTH ST The next item was Conditional Use CU94-27 submitted by Michael Loos for property located at 109 west North Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was to operate a counseling office. The staff had no further comments. Mr. Loos was present to answer any questions. He stated his office was on the south side of North Street between Park and Woolsey Streets. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve Conditional Use CU94-27. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried unanimously. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 15 VACATION V94-8 - ALLEY CECIL CHAPPELL - 527 S BLOCK ST The next item was a Vacation V94-8 submitted by Obert Undem on behalf of Cecil Chappell for property located at 527 South Block Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request was to vacate 75 feet of an east -west alley. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn advised it was not an improved alley. Mr. Obert Undem was present to answer any questions. NOTION Mr. Britton made a motion to approve the Vacation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried unanimously. • • Ed • Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1994 Page 16 VACATION V94-9 - ALLEY JOHN P & FRANCES L REED - N OF 11TH ST BETWEEN SCHOOL ST & LOCUST The next item was a Vacation V94-9 submitted by John P. and Frances L. Reed for property located north of 11th Street between School Street and Locust Street. The request was to vacate 375 feet of a north -south alley. Mr. Bunn advised the alley was only 12 feet in width, but the staff had requested a 20 foot utility easement to maintain the existing sewer line. He further stated if that was undesirable, they would accept the 12 feet to be used to maintain the sewer line. Ms. Britton asked if they were sure there were no any structures infringing in the easement. Mr. Bunn advised he was not sure. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to approve the Vacation with the stipulation that a 12 - foot utility easement be retained for the existing sewer line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Mr. Tarvin asked what the purpose was for the vacation. • It was explained by the staff that the applicants were proposing to do a lot split in the future and had been encouraged to vacate the alleyway by their attorney. Mr. Allred asked if the applicants were aware of the request for the sewer easement. The staff explained they were sent copies of the staff report. The motion carried unanimously. •