P.C. Minutes 03-05-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2013
The Van Buren Planning Commission held its monthly meeting Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 5:30 P.M. in the City Council Room of the Municipal Complex. The following items were on the agenda:
Approval of minutes from the last meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CONVENES:
Variance request by John Lyon from rear yard setback of 20’ to 7.5’ on property located at 2010 Pevehouse Road, Van Buren, Arkansas
Conditional use permit request to for Ms. Emily Falleur, 510 North 12th Street, Van Buren, Arkansas, represented by Van Hale of Hoffman Associates, Inc. Request is to operate daycare
at this address.
Conditional use permit request by Justin Michael to create/produce metal art at residence located at 907 North 7th Street, Van Buren, Arkansas
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ADJOURNS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENES:
Any other business that comes before this commission
PRESENT: Andrew Dibble, Chairman
Philip Bagby, Vice Chairman
Jay White
John Symonds
Sue Moore
Jason Myers
Mark Evans
David Martin, Chief Bldg. Inspector
Candice Settle, City Attorney
ABSENT: Scott Morgan
OTHERS
PRESENT: Stanley Clark
John Lyon
Emily Falleur
Justin Michael
This meeting was called to order by Andrew Dibble at 5:30 P.M. First order of business was approval of minutes from February meeting. John Symonds made a motion to approve minutes
as written, motion seconded by Mark Evans and motion carried unanimous vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CONVENES:
Next item for consideration was variance request by John Lyon from rear yard setback of 20’ to 7.5’ on property located at 2010 Pevehouse Road. The variance request is to add carport
to already existing shed for storage of RV. Mr. Lyon would also be eliminating an existing portable shed that is back to the property line. After some discussion a motion was made
by Philip Bagby to approve this variance, motion seconded by Sue Moore, and motion carried with votes for and one vote against by Mark Evans.
Next item for consideration by Board of Adjustments was conditional use permit request Ms. Emily Falleur to operate a day care at 510 North 12th Street. Van Hale of Hoffman Associates
was to represent Ms. Falleur, but he was not present and Ms. Falleur could not reach him. Ms. Falleur commented she planned on caring for 5 children, with one of them being her own.
She commented fire inspection had been completed. She commented that her back yard is fenced in. Motion was made by John Symonds to approve this request; Mark Evans seconded this
motion and motion carried with unanimous vote.
Next request considered by board of Adjustments was conditional use permit by Justin Michael to create/produce metal art at 907 North 7th Street, Van Buren, Arkansas. Mr. Michael explained
his set up for production of this art to the commission, which includes all welding done over bed of water so all sparks fall in water, and also fire extinguisher is on hand. Chairman
Dibble asked Mr. Michael about sales, and Mr. Michael confirmed there would be no sales from this residence. Sales would be at gun shows and arts and crafts shows, and he also rents
a booth for display and sales. Jason Myers asked where materials are stored and Mr. Michael confirmed he stores all materials inside, not outside. Stanley Clark commented the fire
extinguisher size needs to be increased to 10 lbs. Jason Myers made a motion to approve this conditional with the understanding that a 10 lb. fire extinguisher must be in garage at
all times and the metal must be stored inside at all times, Philip Bagby seconded it, and motion carried with a unanimous vote.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ADJOURNS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENES:
Under any other business, Candice Settle addressed the commission about a rezone request that was opposed by surrounding property owners, Dechard Street project. Candice commented at
this point we are holding certificate of occupancy until developer puts up a fence that he agreed to at a meeting with the property owners. The developer is saying he did not agree
to put up fence unless the property owners did not object to the project, and that they did object, therefore he is not fencing the property. City attorney asked the commission for
their recollection on this matter. Chairman Dibble said he did indeed recollect this matter. Planning Commission met on this rezone, there was opposition, commission tabled it and
asked the developer to meet with the property owners and work out some of the issues. There was a questionnaire where the developer answered concerns of the surrounding property owners,
and there were three different places in that set of questions where the solution was addressed to issues by placement of a privacy fence. Chairman Dibble said that, personally, one
of the reasons he voted to approve this rezone was because the developer specifically addressed those
problems for the surrounding property owners, and in his opinion the developer committed in writing to fence this property. Candice said her concern is where we stand legally on this
matter because the ordinance does not reflect this information that is provided by the questionnaire. Philip Bagby commented he pulled his notes on this matter, and he recalls Ron Brixey
being present, and it was not going well on the rezone request due to the opposition. Philip Bagby asked Mr. Brixey if he wanted commission to vote on the matter at that time, as it
looked as though the vote would not go in favor of the rezone, or would he rather table the matter, meet with property owners and try to work through issues, and come back the following
month and look at it again. Mr. Brixey agreed they would rather table it and meet with property owners to work on issues. Mr. Bagby commented it was tabled and brought back the following
month and one of the things agreed upon by the developer was a six foot privacy fence to take care of several of the concerns property owners had. Attorney Settle commented developer
said those terms were only to be met if the property owners did not object to the rezone, and they did, so agreement was off, that nullified it. Mr. Bagby commented as far as the planning
commission and the agreement with the commission by developer, that is not so. Mr. Bagby commented they made a representation to the planning commission and if they don’t stay with
that, he feels that this could be considered fraud. Mr. Bagby commented he would hold up the certificate of occupancy until the fence is put up, and if developer does not comply, then
let them take this to court. He commented he was ready to be called to testify in this matter. Mr. Bagby and Mr. Dibble agreed that the fence was a condition to which they agreed to
the rezone in the first place. Mr. Dibble commented when everyone came back after the meeting between developer and property owners, they had addressed the reasonable concerns, and
while there was one woman who still had reservations, he thought, in good faith, that the document that was provided to the commission from the property owners and developer was the
basis of this planning commission approving the rezone. At this time Candice Settle asked the commissioners if they all agreed that this was their recollection to which all commissioners
replied yes. Attorney Settle asked if any of the commissioners did not agree with this, to which the reply was no. David Martin commented the reason none of this agreement shows up
in the ordinance is because this did not move on to City Council. Planning commission reviewed the rezone, and from that made a recommendation to City Council. City Council votes on
whether or not to approve recommendation. David Martin commented City Council never heard this argument, and would have never had a recommendation to approve the rezone if it had not
been worked out in planning commission.
At this time Philip Bagby moved to adjourn, Sue Moore seconded motion and motion carried with a unanimous vote. This meeting was adjourned.
____________________________________ _____ ______________________________
Andrew Dibble, Chairman Cami L. Brown, Recording Secretary