Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held August 25, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS ACTION TAKEN 1. CU 97-14.00: Counseling & Psychiatric Assoc Approved 2. RZ 97-16.00: Carlon Bassett Denied APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. CU 97-14.00: CONDITIONAL USE (COUNSELING & PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION) JOHN RYAN & SHARLA VAUGHN- S OF SUNBRIDGE DR & E OF NEW SCHOOL The conditional use request was submitted by John M Hooker of J.M. Hooker Construction, Inc. on behalf of John Ryan and Sharia Vaughn for property located south of Sunbridge Drive and east of New School Place ( Lot 12B at Sunbridge Center). The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains .67 acres. The request is to allow seven additional parking spaces. Recommendation: staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted by the applicant. Ms Little noted the letter explaining the applicants need for extra parking. Mr. Morgan Hooker represented the applicant. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 2 PUBLIC There was no public comment. In response to questions by Mr. Tucker, Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was showing a future cross access to the east. At this time the applicant was not proposing to build the cross access, however, when it was constructed it would eliminate three of their parking spaces. The applicant did not intend to build additional parking with the future expansion (which would bring their parking into compliance). The addition was planned for five to ten year. MOTION Mr. Ward moved to approve the conditional use for seven additional parking spaces. Ms. Johnson seconded motion. Mr. Tucker requested the motion include a maximum of 17 spaces with the expansion. • Mr. Watkins commented Block Buster had included landscaped islands to break up the asphalt. He suggested additional landscaping in the parking lot. Ms. Little noted there were two proposed islands with trees. The elm tree would be removed. It was located in the driveway area. Mr. Watkins added he would like to see another landscaping island. Ms. Hoffman suggested additional trees at the end of the parking lot, where the proposed turnaround was shown. AMENDMENT Mr. Tucker moved to amend the motion for 18 useable spaces, including the proposed expansion and provision for cross access. He encouraged additional landscaping. The motion fail for lack of a second. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant was concerned about loosing three spaces when the cross access was constructed. • Mr. Conklin stated he had asked the applicant that question. The applicant stated they did not intend to enlarge the parking lot with the expansion or with the addition of the cross access. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Johnson did not see the need to provide more parking than what had been asked for. She felt the motion on the table was sufficient. Ms. Hoffman asked the applicant if he would be willing to install extra trees at the south end of the parking lot near the turn around. Mr. Hooker stated they would be willing to install additional trees. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 4 RZ 97-16.00 REZONING (CARLON BASSETT) CAROLN BASSETT- 614 N. COLLEGE AVE. The rezoning was submitted by Alan Reid of Alan Reid and Associates on behalf of Carlon Bassett for property located at 614 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains .67 acres. The request is to change the zoning from R -O to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr Conklin stated at Agenda Session the commissioners had discussed placing a condition on the rezoning, which would eliminate all access to Rebecca Street by constructing a curb along the entire existing property line to the west. The item was represented by Alan Reid. Ms. Johnson explained the discussion at the Agenda Session had consisted of requiring a curb and gutter along Rebecca Street to protect the residential neighborhood to the east of this property. The curb was to make the property function as a piece of commercial property fronting College. Mr. Reid stated part of the property was currently zoned commercial He added the all of the property should have been zoned commercial, however, the R -O zoning had been applied arbitrarily to this section of the property. The owners were not changing the use of the property. They were trying to bring the zoning into conformance with how the property had always been used. PUBLIC There was no public comment. Ms. Little stated the staff had received a letter from an adjoining neighbor, Ms. Davis. Ms. Hoffman noted the Ms. Davis had expressed concern about the disrepair of the existing fence and the need for more screening. Mr. Odom asked if there were ordinances requiring screening between commercial and residential. Ms. Little replied all commercial uses were required to be screened from residential areas. She noted if the current zoning was left screening would be required through the middle of the building. If the property were rezoned the screening would move to the eastern edge of the property. Ms. Davis's letter had noted the need for the existing fence to be repaired. She added )16 • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 5 there were a number of ways to screen, such as fencing and/or vegetative screening. Mr. Watkins asked if screening had been a requirement for the lot split. Mr. Conklin stated Ms. Davis had expressed the need for screening at the subdivision committee meeting. Ms. Little stated the ordinance required screening between commercial uses and residential zoning. Ms. Johnson asked what type of screening the staff would recommend. Ms Little stated the staff would recommend vegetative screening because it was easier to maintain and it improved over time. Fences were harder to maintain. She added the ordinance allowed for a fence or vegetative screening. If the owner had a preference for fencing the staff would not oppose it. Ms. Johnson asked if the commission could require curb and gutter along the entire property length of the Rebecca. She questioned if the commission would be land locking the property. She noted the property's only access to College was through another lot. Ms. Little replied the plat the applicant had presented illustrated permanent access to this property. However, she had not seen a deeded document to insure the access. Ms. Johnson noted there was a 30' easement from College to this property and another 24' easement from Rebecca off the west side of the property. Mr. Reed stated he was not sure the easements would run with the property. He was under the impression the easement agreement was between the two current owners. He added the owner did not want to shut Rebecca Street off. Historically it had been the entrance to this property. Mr. Forney stated some of the commissioners had expressed concern about rezoning the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, with the primary frontage on Rebecca. They felt the interpretation could be made that Rebecca could become a Thoroughfare. He felt C-2 zoning was associated with North College. He added any access to a C-2 property should be from a thoroughfare. He noted this was not a rezoning for a car lot. It was a rezoning for C-2 and all of the uses allowed in C-2 zoning. He reiterated there should not be commercial access to Rebecca Street. • Mr. Watkins expressed concerns about commercial uses encroaching into residential areas. He asked if the Planning Commission could make this a conditional use. • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little stated the commission had also discussed correcting the zoning on the building, making only the building C-2. The parking, in the R -O zone, could be handled as a conditional use. Mr. Reid stated the property had always had a commercial use. It had not been zoned properly. He questioned how people would access the property without the Rebecca entry. He noted Rebecca had been the primary access for this building for the past 40-50 years. In response to questions from Mr. Watkins, Ms. Little replied a conditional use would not be allowed for this applicant proposed use. She explained the way the zoning ordinance was set up that each zone had uses by right as well as uses upon appeal to the Planning Commission. Unless the use was specifically listed in the use units the applicant could not apply for the conditional use. She clarified when she had mentioned a conditional use earlier she was referring to the parking. Parking lots for C-2 uses were allowed in R -O zoning district with a conditional use. Ms. Hoffman asked if there was a lesser zonings than C-2 that would be appropriate for this site. • Ms. Little stated there were lesser zoning for this site that would be appropriate, however, none of the lesser zonings would accommodate the intended use or historical use of the site. Mr. Sugg commented the commission wanted the access to this property as far from the residential area as possible. Mr. Reid commented no one in the neighborhood had opposed the rezoning. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the rezoning impacting the Rebecca Street residents. She suggested curb and guttering the entire length of the property along Rebecca up to 30' from the westernmost property line. It would move all the incoming traffic as far away from the residents as possible. Ms. Little suggested requiring curb and gutter along the property currently zoned R -O and only allowing access on the property currently zoned C-2. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve rezoning with the requirement of the construction of curb and gutter on the Rebecca Street boundary of the property along the existing R -O distance. • Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Johnson asked how wide a drive on Rebecca should be. Ms. Little replied the standard entry was 24', the minimum was 18'. Ms. Hoffman asked if it could be shared with the adjoining property. Ms. Little stated it could be. Ms. Johnson asked if they could require joint access with only one property owner before them. Ms. Little stated the commission could require the access to Rebecca be restricted. They could designate the entry to be the westernmost 12' of this property. Ms. Johnson asked if the commission could be sure the property owner to the west would not do anything to limit the access onto Rebecca on his portion of the entry drive. Ms. Little stated the commission could not be sure of that, but the plat presented to them was clear that the applicant had planned to share access. She noted without the access shown on the plat this building did not have frontage to Collage. Ms. Johnson amended her motion for the entrance off Rebecca to be the westernmost 24' of the street frontage. Mr. Sugg agreed to the amendment. Mr. Forney questioned if the commission could enforce the lack of access. Ms. Little replied a bill of assurance, which would travel with the land, would ensure the lack of access. Mr. Forney stated he would not vote for the motion. He expressed concern about making a C-2 frontage onto Rebecca Street. He thought the entire building should be zoned C-2 and the parking lot R -O with a conditional use for a parking lot. Ms. Hoffman noted a conditional use for the parking lot could run with this tenant. If the tenant changed then the Planning Commission could look at the use of the building again. Ms. Johnson asked if the property had always been used as C-2 property and when it had been rezoned to R -O. Ms. Little replied the property had always been used as C-2 property and had been rezoned R -O 4� • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 8 when the land use plan had been prepared in 1970. Ms. Johnson asked if it was common to zone a property used as commercial to R -O. She questioned how the R -O zoning enforced. Ms. Little explained the planners did not have the information necessary during the 70's to adjust the zoning for individual buildings or lot lines. Ms Johnson commented the R -O zoning had been placed on the property arbitrary and had never been related to reality. Ms. Hoffman stated the pervious businesses had not been intensive or high traffic uses. She was concerned about adding C-2 commercial traffic to Rebecca Street. Mr. Watkins commented retaining some of the R -O zoning was the only way to balance the competing interest between the owner, who needed the C-2 rezoning, and the encroachment of commercial development into the neighborhood. He suggested rezoning only the building to retain as much of the R -O zoning as possible for a conditional use, which would allow more control over the future development of the lot. Mr. Ward asked if the commission could limit the use of the land if they were to rezone it. Mr. Reid asked if the lot would go through LSD if it were to redevelop. Ms. Little replied the property would have to meet certain criteria before coming through large scale such as one acre size or 25 parking spaces, etc. Mr. Reid stated the owners were not changing the current use of the property; Mr. Odom explained it was the Planning Commission's job to consider the future impact of the rezoning. He noted the property was close to residential and there was no guarantee how long this business would be there. He explained R -O was more restrictive than C-2. Mr. Reid stated the property looked like a commercial site. The impact on the site was as they saw it today. Ms. Johnson did not believe Mr. Forney's suggestion to only rezone part of the property was fair to the owner, in light of the historic use of the lot. • Mr. Forney stated the commission needed to look at the historic intention of C-2 zoning. Thoroughfare commercial was designed to encourage businesses catering to highway travelers. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1997 Page 9 He could not vote for commercial frontage on Rebecca Street. Ms. Hoffman commented the majority of adjacent zoning east of College was primarily R-2. She did not believe the C-2 zoning should be expanded. She stated she would support a motion not to rezone the entire property, but to rezone the building with a conditional use for the parking lot that would run with the tenant. The motion failed by a vote of 3-5-0. Sugg, Watkins, Hoffman, Forney and Johnson voting nay. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to rezone the footprint of the existing building to C-2. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson expressed concern for the owner having one property with two zoning. She felt the Planning Commission was setting up the property to be constantly be seeking conditional uses. Mr. Forney stated he would vote for the rezoning only if the access was off the thoroughfare. He was tring to eliminate any increase of C-2 along the frontage of Rebecca. Mr. Reid commented most of the traffic came from the commercial area. Very little traffic came through the neighborhood. The motion failed by a vote of 4-4-0. Odom, Tucker, Ward and Johnson voting nay. Mr. Odom stated the applicant could appeal the item to City Council. Meeting adjourned at 7:00. e,D