Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 9, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 02-39.00: Administrative Item (Graham) Page 2 RZN 02-41.00: Rezoning (Moulden, pp 599/638) Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Bob Estes Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Lorel Aviles Donald Bunch Approved Forwarded to City Council MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT David Whitaker Kit Williams Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Shelli Rushing Matt Casey Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 2 Aviles: Welcome to the December 9, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have an abbreviated agenda this evening. We only have two items. The first item of business is to call the roll. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner and Commissioner Church being absent. Aviles: This is our only meeting in December so we will assume in January we will have a more full schedule. I would like to entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes for the November 25, 2002 meeting. Shackelford: So moved. Aviles: Is there a second? Ward: Second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the November 25, 2002 meeting was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 3 ADM 02-39.00: Administrative Item (Graham) was submitted by James Graham for property located at 1245 N. 5161 Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. Aviles: Thank you Commissioners. I will go onto the Consent Agenda. This is an administrative item that was submitted by James Graham for property located at 1245 N. 51st Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. Is there any member of the Planning Commission that would wish to remove this from the consent agenda? Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and entertain a motion on this item. MOTION: Shackelford: I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda, ADM 02-39.00. Aviles: Thank you very much. Hoover: I will second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-39.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 4 RZN 02-41.00: Rezoning (Moulden, pp 599/638) was submitted by Norman Moulden for property owned by Saw Nail Construction and located at 1504 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Aviles: The second item on our agenda this evening is RZN 02-41.00 that was submitted by Norman Moulden for property owned by Saw Nail Construction and located at 1504 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Shelli, would you give us the staff report please? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. This property is located on the north side of Cato Springs Road. It is on the east side of Razorback Road. It is approximately .33 acres. Right now there is a condemned house on the lot. The property to the west is vacant and the properties to the east and along the north side of Cato Springs Road contain single- family residential uses and there is a public utility facility across the street. The applicant does have a contract for sale of the property contingent upon this rezoning request. The buyer is proposing to construct an eight unit apartment building and they are requesting the R-2 in order to permit the eight unit apartment building. Staff is recommending denial of this requested rezoning. A couple of reasons for that are that number one the proposal is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. It shows this area as mixed use. The proposed development is not a mixed use development. Further, it does not compliment the surrounding single-family uses that are on either side of this property. Second, the surrounding land uses are all one story single-family uses and the proposed two story multi -family development would significantly change the character of this neighborhood. Third, the property does need to remain a C-1 zoning at this time. There is very little C-1 zoning in this portion of the city. We identified only three other areas where as there are numerous areas of R-2 zoning in this particular portion of the city and we do find that this particular rezoning isn't warranted at this time. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is the applicant present? Moulden: Yes. Aviles: Would you like to make a presentation? Moulden: Yes. Aviles: Come forward and tell us your name please. Moulden: My name is Norman Moulden and I have contacted to the east, west, and north all the owners of the property. To the north of the property is all zoned R-2 right now. There is a large parcel of land. The only part, as you can see on your map, is right along Cato Springs. The lots that I am asking to be rezoned are not corner lots. Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 5 There are two and a half lots between me and the corner bordering Razorback Road. There is R-2 behind it, a large parcel right now that will more than likely be residential apartments. Realistically with the cement plant close and the sewer and water department across the street the property that I am wanting to build on has a burned out house that has been sitting for quite some time on it that has been a problem with the city. The house next to it Mr. Fields owns. His mother lives in the house next to him and neither one of them have any reservations about it going R-2 or about there being apartments there. Mr. and Mrs. Watson own the property to the north and it is R-2 and they have no reservations. Razorback Road, between it and some rental property on Razorback Road. Realistically, it is not a place that anybody is going to build commercial that is going to add to the tax structure of the city because of the low traffic and the location. There is no visibility from main roads and it does fit with our Land Use Plan in that it would be ideal for student rental is what I am trying to stay with. I do have some student rental now and I have real good luck with students. Students are the politest renters you can find. They might try to do something but if you tell them not to they don't. They are as good of renters as you can find that I have found. That is my plans for it. My wife and I take care of all our own property, we have very few rentals. We mow our own, keep it up, landscape it. When other people are sitting and watching T.V. we drive by our rental property and make sure there are no problems going on I think it would be an asset to the city but I realize that is your decision. I also talked with Mr. Eoff that has the property to the north, Robert Eoff, and he has no problems with it being R-2 either. As far as the people that live in the area, they have no problems with it and as far as it being good for commercial there is really not a whole lot that could go in there that would benefit anybody. I appreciate it. Are there any questions? Aviles: Thanks Mr. Moulden, we will bring you back up after we have taken public comment. Shelli, did we have any comments from any neighbors regarding this rezoning proposal? Rushing: We did not. Aviles: Ok, thanks. Is there any member of the audience that would wish to address us on this rezoning this evening? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back then to the applicant and to the Planning Commission. Ward: I know that the staff recommends denial but I have been down there. The property is definitely an eye sore now. I definitely do not see this property ever going C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, or it won't be in a long time. I think the best use for this property at this time is R-2. I don't see Commercial being developed down there at any time real quick because of the way it is set up. Maybe even Industrial is not real good either. That is my take on it. I will go ahead and make a recommendation that we approve RZN 02-41.00 and do the rezoning with the idea that there will be eight units on this .33 acres. I think it is a very small piece of land Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 6 that we are actually talking about here. It is not like we are rezoning 30 acres R-2. It is a very, very small piece of property I think it is something that will improve the looks of the property down there and I definitely don't see C-1 being viable for the near future. Aviles: I have a motion for approval and recommendation of the rezoning by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Estes: Madam Chair, I like Commissioner Ward, take staff recommendations very seriously and study those recommendations very carefully. However, within these circumstances, although single-family residents do exist within close proximity of the property the C-1 zoning will not accommodate additional R-1 and it is not probable that the property would develop as C-1. The proposed rezoning will result in redevelopment of a deteriorating area. It is for these reasons that I would second Commissioner Ward's motion. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Estes. Is there further discussion? Bunch: As far as the findings of fact that we must make, finding number one says multi- family is not compatible with surrounding land uses and does not meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. I have a little difficulty with that since the piece of property that adjoins it to the north is R-2 and the request is to change to R-2, which would be compatible with the property to the north so as we make the motions and second them do we need to reflect the findings of change and the findings of fact? Aviles: I think that is appropriate since we are not in the habit of going against the staff's recommendation but would more rather clarify the position and possibly for the edification of the City Council members as they review this rezoning request. Williams: I don't think you would change the findings of staff because that is still the findings of the staff. You certainly should address them and say why maybe you disagree but I don't think you really can change the findings of staff. That is still their findings. Aviles: Commissioner Bunch, did you have anything to add to that? Bunch: Not at this time. Aviles: I will weigh in on the mixed use issue. In our Land Use Plan I found it very helpful to refer to that in our deliberations on the Planning Commission. As far as setting a precedent on the waiver or going without the General Plan, I think that we are following in line with our general view of rezonings that we hold commercial to the primary intersections, we step that back to multi -family and then step that back again to single-family. I would echo the other Commissioners thoughts along those Planning Commission December 9, 2002 Page 7 lines and say that the finding of the General Land Use Plan would be in line with previous rezoning approvals. Is there anybody else that would like to weigh in this evening? I have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-41.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you, the motion carries unanimously. Tim, is there any further business? Conklin: There is no further business. We will see you next year. Aviles: Ok, thank you. I would like to wish everybody a Happy Holiday Season and with that we are adjourned.