Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-10 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 10, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as corrected. NEW BUSINESS: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Bob Reynolds, John Fomey, and Mark Sugg. Lorel Hoffman Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. RZ97-1.00: REZONING FOR WILLIAMS WILLIAMS AND LANE- SW CORNER OF SYCAMORE AND GILES RD. The rezoning request was submitted by James and Daniel Williams on behalf of Gary Lane for property located at the southwest corner of Sycamore and Giles Road. The property is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural) and contains approximately 0.6 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The staff recommended denial of the rezoning as requested, but supported a rezoning to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential which would be a less intensive use than the requested R-2, Medium Density Residential. The R-1.5 would allow two and three family dwellings as a use by right. The recommendation was consistent with the General Plan 2020. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated R-1.5 would allow duplexes and triplexes as a use by nght, while R-2 would allow apartment buildings. The allowed density in R-1.5 was 12 families per acre. In R-2 the density was 24 families per acre. The applicant intended to build a four plex, however, the staff recommended R-1.5 which would only allow a triplex. Mr. Daniel Williams, applicant representative, stated they had originally requested R-2 because they were wanting to build a four-plex, but would agree with the staff recommendation to rezone to R-1.5. v3 • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page 2 There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 8-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page 3 RZ97-2.00 REZONING FOR ROMANS FREELAND ROMANS- 230 EAST TOWNSHIP The rezoning request was submitted by Lynn Farrell on behalf of Freeland Romans for property located north of Township and west of North College at 230 East Township. The property is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural) and contains approximately 5 acres The request is to rezone the property to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial). Staff recommended denial of the rezoning as requested, however, the staff supported a rezoning to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial based on the designation of this area in General Plan 2020 as Community Commercial. The purpose of community commercial development is to provide a "defined activity areas primarily serve the residents of the community". A C-1 zoning would accomplish this objective as there are established residential areas to the north (both multi -family and single-family) that have access to this location. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Lane stated Lakeside Village was located to the north; there were no single family homes directly around this site, but there were single family homes south of Colt Square. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any accesses to this site from the multi -family homes to the north. Mr. Lane stated the accesses were from Township and Gregg Street, there was no direct access to the site. Mr. Tucker noted the existing businesses along the street were more compatible with the C-1 zoning although they were zoned C-2. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little stated the staff recommendation was based on the land use plan and noted the site was in between two nodes. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated by definition the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial was designed to primarily provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, was designed to encourage the functional grouping of commercial enterprises catering primarily to the highway travelers. Neighborhood commercial provided for 40% lot coverage by buildings while Thoroughfare Commercial allowed 60% lot coverage by buildings. Lot coverage was important on this location because of the proximity to a stream and floodplain ( greater lot coverage equates to greater runoff) and the presence of slope (greater lot coverage equates to greater cuts in order to site bigger buildings). She added it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to decide if the increases in traffic, the additional amount of runoff and the cutting • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page 4 that would be caused by C-1 or C-2 would be in compliance with the general plan. Mr. Harbison commented the category used in the 2020 plan was a category that did not exist during the zonmg code. There was not a code named Community Commercial. He noted the 2020 plan was inconsistent with the zoning code. Ms Little stated the staff had provided the definitions from both the general plan and the zoning code so the commissioners would be able to make a determination. Mr. Allred asked if the drainage would be covered during the large scale development process and if the Planning Commission could restrict the site development to 40% in an C-2 zoning. Ms. Little stated zoning requirements needed to be the same from one site to the next. Everyone needed the same rights within the same zone. Limiting the site coverage would be restricting their rights. Mr. Allred asked if the site was zoned C-1 and a strip center was built, how would the City monitor zoning compliance. Ms. Little responded the City required a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for all new businesses. Mr. Sugg expressed concern about site coverage, runoff, and traffic Mr. Allred stated he believed they could only discuss the use on rezoning. Ms. Little stated they were making a decision on density and use of the land. Mr. Allred asked if the Planning Commission could ask for an assurance that only 40% of the site would be covered. Ms Little replied the City should be consistent with their zoning requirements from one site to another. She added keeping track of such conditions would be difficult for both staff and potential future owners. Mr. Lynn Farrell, applicant representative, felt the request was consistent with the existing zoning stating this was the only parcel on Township between College and Gregg that was not zoned C-2 (with the exception of one I-1). He explained the property had been on the market for nine years and there was currently a offer on the land. The potential owner wanted to relocate his business there. He added more restrictive zoning would have an adverse effect on the property. He did not feel the location lent itself to neighborhood commercial. There were no adjacent Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page 5 neighborhoods. He added the potential buyer would not impact traffic. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to rezone the 3.2 acres from A-1 to C-2. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Forney stated there were two principles in conflict: the principle to be consistent with the surrounding zoning and the position of the general plan 2020 not encourage strip commercial. He was concerned about the different uses allowed in C-2. He noted the different units allowed in C-2 and not in C-1. He added the uses that were allowed in C-1 were substantial and most of the uses along 71, which was zoned C-2, were C-1 uses. He noted there was a school near by and questioned some of the uses that would be allowed in a C-2 such as a tavern or nightclub. Mr. Reyonlds asked if the potential buyer was currently located on Township. Mr. Farrell stated the business was compatible with the current uses along the street. Mr. Sugg asked the difference in the traffic impact. Ms. Little stated the additional traffic would be 3,500 additional vehicle trips per day, a 31% increase on the current traffic load. Under C-1, the 2,250 additional vehicle trips per day represented 20% increase in current traffic. Mr. Fomey stated there was plenty of C-2 in the City. He was in favor of C-2 zoning at nodes, but he did not support it along strips. Mr. Harbison noted the majority of the properties along Township were zoned prior to the 2020 plan. He thought this location was more suitable for C-1. There was a strong policy in the general plan against C-2 unless necessary. There was a lot of C-2, undeveloped, in the city approximately 80% of the commercial zoning in the city was C-2. He thought the policies against locating additional C-2 in areas other than traffic nodes were clear directions from the 2020 plan. He added the only thing that encourage C-2 zoning was the surrounding property. Mr. Sugg commented his concerns about drainage, traffic and site coverage were swaying him toward C-1 zoning. Mr. Forney asked if the staff had any information on the amount of acreage rezoned to C-1 • • Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page 6 versus C-2 over a period of time. Ms. Little stated all of the C-1, C-3 and C-4 added together made up Tess than 80% of the total acreage zoned C-2 in the City. Fayetteville had an overwhelming amount of property zoned C-2. There was an overwhelming number of acres vacant zoned C-2. Mr. Farrell did not believe the C-2 zoning generated more traffic than the C-1. The motioned failed by a vote of 4-4-0. Sugg, Harbison, Tucker, and Forney voting nay. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to rezone the item from A-1 to C-1. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms Johnson asked Mr. Farrell if he would prefer to appeal to the City Council with the current vote or if would he like the Planning Commission to vote on the C-1 rezoning. Ms. Little stated if the Planning Commission recommended approval, the item would be forwarded to City Council. If the Planning Commission recommended denial the item would stop, unless the applicant was to appeal to the City Council. Since C-2 had been denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant could not apply for C-2 rezoning for another year. Mr. Farrell stated he would appeal to the City Council. Mr. Forney withdrew his motion. '9)