Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-08 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held December 8, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. LSD 97-22.00: Staff/Mark II 2. CU 97-19.00: Clay Bass 3. RZ 97-22.10: Shahryar Khajehnajafi 4. RZ 97-23.10: Shahryar khajehnajafi • 5. RZA 97-24.00: Wanda Sims 6. RZ 97-25.00: Wanda Sims • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA John Forney, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, and Bob Estes. Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Removed from agenda Removed from agenda Approved/fwd City Council Approved/fwd City Council LSD 97-22.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (STAFF/MARK II) STAFF/MARK-302 EAST MILLSAP ROAD Mr. Forney asked the applicant if they wished to pull the item from the consent agenda to discuss the conditions of approval. Mr. Norman stated they did not wish to pull the item from the consent agenda. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the conditions of approval • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 2 included the requirement for the utilities to be placed underground. There was an additional condition that no signage other than what had been shown on the plat would be allowed. The development could be approved subject to the conditions of approval The applicant could appeal items in the conditions of approval at a later date, (on an item by item bases). The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS CU 97-19.00: CONDITIONAL USE (CLAY BASS) CLAY BASS- 327 WEST MEADOW STREET The conditional use was submitted by Clay Bass for property located at 327 West Meadow Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately .48 acres. The request is for a conditional use to allow multifamily (five dwelling units) in an R -O District. RECOMMENDED MOTION: CU 97-19: Staff recommended approval for a four -unit apartment and one single family home subject to the following: 1) Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. • 2) Granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment for the location of the proposed four unit apartment building and 80' lot width for three or more dwelling units. • 3) The project shall be constructed as shown on the Phase I site plan distributed at the Planning Commission meeting 12/8/97. 4) The conditional use approval shall be limited to a total of five dwelling units on this lot. The existing single family home shall not be converted into additional dwelling units. Mr. Conklin stated the Fire Chief had no problems with the project being constructed as shown on the site plan. Adequate emergency service could be provided. Mr. Forney explained the Commission had been concerned about access to the units located toward the rear of the site. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Conklin stated he had informed the applicant's architect, Bob Kelly, of the Planning Commission's concern about the location of the dumpster. Mr. Kelly had worked with the Solid Waste Division in efforts to solve the problem. Mr. Bob Kelly presented a master plan of the site. The applicant was seeking approval of Phase I, the addition of two units. The request was for a R-3 use, high density residential, in an R -O zoning district. He noted Phase I was the only phase feasible to construct at this time. He noted the dumpster location was directly across the alley from the existing dumpster. Ms. Zotti had suggested moving the dumpster closer to the corner. • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Forney read the conditions of approval, noting condition #4 would make the proposed master plan impossible to fulfill. Mr. Kelly stated the house was in character with the surrounding neighborhood, although it was not as substantial as other homes in the area. He added the proposed master plan for the site would look and be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Forney asked if the applicant had any questions regarding the first three conditions of approval Mr. Kelly stated the applicant was willing to accept the first three conditions of approval. He noted the house did not conform with the city's current setbacks. Variance would have to be granted from the Board of Adjustments. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney noted if the Planning Commission were to approve the staff's recommended motion, then the proposed master plan provided would be made invalid. He noted the master plan showed a total of eight dwelling units. Mr. Kelly replied the proposed master plan was in compliance with R-3 zoning requirements. Mr. Forney questioned how the new scheme would affect the character of Meadow Street. Mr. Kelly replied applicant was planning to keep the character of the street. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Conklin stated the original request had been for a four unit apartment complex. The eight unit complex shown on the master plan had not been discussed. Mr. Kelly stated the master plan was for eight units, however, the first phase was only for four units. Mr. Conklin clarified the request for this Planning Commission meeting was for four units, plus the existing single family home. Mr. Forney noted the conditional use allowed the Commission to add additional stipulations, such as the number of units. • Ms. Johnson expressed concern that two units would over crowd the lot. She noted the site had no frontage on a public street and that an alley was being forced to function as a street. • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Watkins asked for additional information on the actual location of the alley right-of-way. Mr. Conklin replied he did not have any additional information on the alley. The applicant had tried to find information by checking adjacent property's deed. Mr. Kelly explained the legal description of the applicant's property referenced the east boundary of the alley. Parcel# 1868 described all of the property less a 10' alley. Both legal description referenced the alley. The city plat showed the alley, however there was no other record of the alley. Mr. Conklin noted parcel # 1868 did not reference Alex Molar, but referenced the applicant. In response to comments from Mr. Watkins, Mr. Kelly stated the alley was constructed on the applicant's property and not in the right-of-way. Mr. Forney noted the applicant owned both of the properties to the east. He questioned if the Commission should approve a plan establishing the location of the alley with out the property owner to the south being represented. Ms Johnson stated if the area was being used as a parking lot, then it did not read as an alley. She noted it was not usual for an alley to be relocated on a large tract, (such as this one) if the owners were wanting to expand. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Conklin stated he had a copy of the deed describing the lot with a less than except description of the alley. In response to questions from Mr. Estes, Mr. Kelly replied the house was a single family unit. Phase I would add a four unit apartment, for a total of five units to the lot. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Kelly stated there were four bedrooms in the existing house. A considerable amount of fill would need to be added to provide adequate parking. However, no fill would be added to the center of the yard near the large tree. He added the building would stair step down the hillside. Mr. Tucker questioned the two parking places to the south. Mr. Kelly explained the two spaces were compact spaces. He added solid waste had requested the dumpster pad be made level. • Mr. Forney stated the Commissioners had expressed concern about the location of the dumpster and the parking spaces because of the off-road driving on the east edge of the alley. He Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 6 cautioned if a fence were installed there could be circulation problems. Mr. Watkins expressed concern about the only access being off an alley. He questioned the wisdom of allowing this high of a development on this lot. Mr. Forney asked if there were other projects in Fayetteville that were accessed off an alley. Ms. Little replied there were several redevelopments in town, (where no other access had been available) where the only access to the development was off an alley. She referenced the development off of Eagle Street, near the university, and a development west of Leveret. Mr. Forney noted there had been a few new subdivisions which had designed alleys for car parking. He asked if there would be any problems with addressing. Ms. Little replied the properties would be addressed off Meadow. Ms. Johnson noted Phase I only had access off of a 10' alley. She asked if conditional use limited phase I to two units. Mr. Kelly replied it was his understanding that the conditional use would be for an R-3 use in an R -O district, which would allow the proposed density. Mr. Forney noted R-3 did allow the density requested. However, the staff was not recommending that high of a density. Mr. Watkins noted the property was not being rezoned. The applicant was requesting a conditional use, on which the Planning Commission could place restrictions. Mr. Forney questioned the new information. It had been his understanding the existing house would remain. However, the master plan for the site had planned to remove the existing house. He asked if the existing house should be saved to keep the character of the street. Mr. Ward noted the parking requirements would be the same for two two-bedroom duplexes as for four one -bedroom apartments. He stated the conditional use should be for Phase I only. Any additions could be addressed with another request. MOTION Mr. Ward moved to approve the conditional use subject to all staff comments, disregarding the last sentence of condition #4, which prohibited the existing home from being converted into additional units. The approval would be for four one -bedroom units. Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Forney clarified the motion would limit the development to a total of five units for the lot. The project was to be constructed as shown on the Phase I site plan. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman suggested an amendment to the motion making the conditional use contingent upon the assurance that the Molar property to the south contained the entire width of the alley. There needed to be legal proof. Ms. Little noted there was also a question on the extension of the alley to the south between Meadow and Center Street. Ms. Hoffman noted the alley extension was not shown from the church parking to the edge of the property. She suggested the amendment read the existence of the alley to be determined to be 10' wide located on the property east of subject tract and being in existence between Meadow and Center Street. Mr. Ward and Mr. Forney accepted the amendment. Mr. Estes asked if the applicant was willing to accept the conditions of approval, limiting the use of the existing home to one family. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little replied the Commission could not require that the unit be occupied by an owner. The definition of a single-family was people related to one another or three people who are unrelated. A single family home was more narrowly defined as a home with one kitchen. The staff did not believe it was advisable for the home to be converted into apartments, because it would affect the parking and the traffic related to the area. Mr. Forney asked if the applicant could remove the existing home and construct a five unit apartment in its place. Mr. Conklin replied one of the conditions of approval was that the applicant had to construct what was presented on the submitted site plan. Another unit would not meet the conditions of approval Mr. Ward add if the applicant were to change Phase I, then they would have to apply for another conditional use. In response to comments from Mr. Forney, Mr. Ward amended his motion to include the last sentence in condition #4, limiting the number of dwelling units to five. • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Reynolds expressed concern about the alley running into the back of the church. Mr. Forney noted the motion was conditioned upon the location of the alley. Ms. Hoffman noted if the alley was not located on Mr. Molar's property then the plan would not work as it was presented. In response to comments from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Kelly explained the paved alley was not located in the actual right-of-way, which ran parallel to the property lines. Ms. Little expressed concern about the location of the alley. She believed the applicant might have to have an abstract to clarify the alley issue. She noted the abstract would be the responsibility of the owner. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3-0. Johnson, Watkins, and Reynolds voting nay. nki • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 9 RZ 97-22.10: REZONING (SHAHRYAR KHAJEHNAJAFI) SHAHRYAR KHAJEHNAJAFI- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF RUPPLE RD RZ 97-22.10• Rezoning was submitted by Lew Steenken on behalf of Shahryar Khaiehnapfi for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 5.61 acres (east side of Meadowlands Drive contains 2.97 acres and the west side of Meadowlands Drive contains 2.64 acres). The request is to change the zoning from A-1 to R -O, Residential Office. RZ 97-23.10: Rezoning was submitted by Lew Steenken on behalf of Shahryar Khajehnajafi and Fred Rehat for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.24 acres. The request is to change the zoning from A-1 to R -O, Residential Office RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: RZ97-22.10: Staff recommends approval of the requested R -O zoning. RZ97-23.10: Staff recommends approval of the requested R -O zoning. No representative was present. The item was removed from the agenda. 4' Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 10 RZA 97-24 00: ANNEXATION (WANDA SIMS) WANDA SIMS- 4015 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The annexation was submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wanda Sims for property located at 4015 East Huntsville Road. The property contains approximately 1.68 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. The order of annexation was signed by Washington County on April 7, 1997. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RZA97-24.00: Staff recommended approval of the requested 1.68 acre annexation. Mr. Bill Greenhaw represented the item. There was no public comment. Ms. Johnson stated she was not aware of any problems or controversy with the annexation. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the annexation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1997 Page 11 RZ 97-25.00: REZONING (WANDA SIMS) WANDA SIMS- 4015 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The rezoning was submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wanda Sims for property located at 4015 East Huntsville Road. Subject to annexation, the property will be zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 1 68 acres. The request is to change the zoning to R-1, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RZ97-25.00: Staff recommended approval of the requested 1.68 acre rezoning from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Low Density Residential. There was no public comment. Ms. Johnson noted there were no problems or controversy with the rezoning. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0.