HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-04-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The City Planning Commission met in a regular meeting at 4:00 p.m., April 16,
1968 in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
• Members present: Roy Clinton, Clark McClinton, Morton Gitelman, Wade Fincher,
James Mashburn, Allan Gilbert, and Walter Brown.
Members absent: Ernest Jacks and Byron Boyd.
Other present: Dean Newlin, Mrs. Wanda Yoe, Haskell Utley, Gerald Fox, 0. U.
Green, R. E. Markley, Jim Vizzier, Harold Lieberenz, Bernard
Shamblin, Wayne Bailey, Ed Gibble, James Powell, Jim Ferguson,
Margaret Young, Seth Young, and other interested persons.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Clark McClinton. The first item
of business was discussion with Mrs. Wanda Yoe and Mr. Bernard Shamblin for develop-
ment of property located at the intersection of State Highways 45 and 265. Mr.
McClinton explained the circumstances of the rezoning of this large tract of land to
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had
acted on their faith in Mr. Yoets integrity to develop the property in a manner which
would be an asset to the growth of the City. Since Mr. Yoets death there has been much
concern expressed over the development of the property. The primary concern is that
if the property is sold to someone out of state, they might develop the property too
fast for the residential saturation of the area.
Bernard Shamblin spoke as representative for Mrs. Yoe and pointed out that she is one
of the largest property owners in this area and it is as much or more to her benefit
than anyone else to see that this commercial property is developed in the highest and
most restrictive manner possible. He explained that she has made financial comnit-
• ments based on the zoning and has had expenses of Engineering fees. A two acre tract
at the East end of the property has been sold to Dr. Edwin Whiteside who is planning
to build a office building on this property which will be completely in keeping with
the development of the area. Mr. Shamblin went on to say that in his opinion this is
one of the best things ever done in Fayetteville concerning zoning. He pointed out
that this is the first time that a tract of land this large has been set aside for
commercial use in advance of complete residential development of the area and he feels
Mrs. Yoe will be as restrictive or perhaps more restrictive on the development of this
property than Mr. Yoe would have been.
Walter Brown asked if any plans had been made for traffic control in this area.
Mr. Shamblin answered that Dr. Whitesidest property includes 181 feet of frontage on
Highway # 45 and that the traffic ingress and egress on 45. It is hoped that a street
running perpendicular to Highway 45 can be put in at a later date.
Mrs. Yoe said Mr. Clinton had mentioned a traffic control plan to her and she would
like to know if the Planning Commission had a plan in mind that they could suggest to
her.
Mr. Clinton replied that the Planning Commission has no control on requirements for
development of Commercial property under the present regulations. He suggested that
perhaps Mrs. Yoe could discuss this with the State Highway Department and work out a
plan. A traffic light will probably be installed at this intersection since it is
the intersection of two state highways. He said he felt that streets should be platted
• in shopping centers and curbs installed to provide more orderly traffic flow within the
shopping center area.
Min. 4/16/68 (2)
Mr. McClinton asked Mss. Yoe to check with the State Highway Department for a plan
for traffic control.
• Mr. Brown asked Mrs. Yoe if she had talked to Mr. Vizzier, City Planning Consultant.
Mrs. Yoe replied that she had not as yet but does intend to later when plans for
development were more complete.
Mr. Shamblin told the Planning Commission members that as an example of Mrs. Yoe's
intentions for the development of this commercial tract she had refused an offer
from someone who wanted to purchase part of this property for a service station, as
she did not want a service station on the corner of this tract.
Mr. McClinton, expressed appreciation to Mrs. Yoe and Mr. Shamblin for taking the
time to come to the meeting to discuss this matter. He continued with the next item
of business of the agenda which was publich hearings on three rezoning petitions, the
first of which was that of Mrs. Billie Hunter requesting the rezoning of her property
on North Leverett from R -1B to R+4.
Mr. Haskell Utley represented this petition and explained that apartments seemed to
be the best use for this property as apartments are located both West and North of it.
He said that the petition was filed asking for a change of zoning to R-4 and that
some of the adjoining property owners had objected to this due to the "Dormitory" use
permitted in this zone, and due to this objection he would like for this to be changed
to R-3, a more restricted multi -family zone.
Mr. McClinton asked if anyone was present in opposition to the petition.
Mr. Ed Gibble, 900 Bel -Air Drive, presented a petition signed by sixty (60) persons
• who are opposed to this rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The proposed rezoning would bring more high density living units into an area
already overly congested by multiple living units as evidenced by the noise, litter,
traffic flow, and law enforcement problems.
2. The undesireable sharp transition between zones R -1B and R-3 as now exists would
be accentuated by the proposed rezoning.
3. The proposed rezoning would add excessively to the problem of the existing multi-
family units encroaching unduly upon the privacy and personal peace of the in-
habitants of the single family dwellings.
4. The proposed small lot rezoning is obviously prompted by desire for gain, lends
nothing to, and in fact detracts from the orderly, planned development of the
City of Fayetteville.
5. The proposed rezoning would add to the thru traffic on Bel -Air Drive, a residential
drive already inadequate to carry the existing traffice load.
6. The heavier thru traffic:on Bel -Air Drive caused by the proposed rezoning would
create an undue personal safety hazard to the children in this single dwelling
residential area.
7. The proposed rezoning would add excessively to the traffic flow on Leverett Street,
• which street is obviously inadequate to carry the existing traffic load as shown
by the disrepair, narrow width and lock of shoulders and parking.
Min, 4/16/68 (3)
8. The proposed rezoning would add further to the very undesirable law enforcement
problem currently developing in the existing high density living area as evid-
enced by the recent car thefts, car burglaries, disorderliness, and fires in the
• apartment area.
Mr. Gibble added that Bel -Air Drive has become a collector street between Garland
Avenue and Leverett.
Mr. James Powell, 820 Bel -Air, Commented that Bel -Air is a narrow street adequate
only to handle two lane traffic and cannot accommodate heavier traffic.
Mr. Gibble made reference to the Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 1963. A
public hearing was held on the petition for the rezoning of the property North of and
adjacent to Bel -Air Subdivision. The minutes of this meeting indicate that Mr. Emory
Gose, Fayetteville Realtor, had commented on the depreciation of property saying heh3d
had a great deal of experience on appraising property. Mr. Gose pointed out that in-
fluences outside can partially destroy property value. Any thing with no future has
no present value.
Jim Ferguson, 1001 Bel -Air Drive, pointed out that the area further North on Garland
Avenue is zoned for apartments. He said he thought this property should be developed
before more is rezoned for apartments.
Margaret Young, 840 Bel -Air, commented that she and her husband own one of the lots
adjacent to the South line of the property in question. She pointed out that this
is a short lot and if apartments are built within 5 feet of the property line, they
would not be able to see anything from the back of their house but the brick walls of
the apartments.
• Mr.
James
Powell said
he also owns
one
of the short lots and
itis only forty-eight
feet
from
the back of
his house to
the
rear property line.
Mr. Seth Young, 840 Bel -Air, referred to Mr. Utley's comment that the best use of
the property would be R-3, Mr. Young said he disagreed because the best use would be
something more desireable and more in keeping with the single family residential area.
Hesaid he had hoped to buy a home in a quiet residential area and already there is a
traffic problem, Bel -Air is too dangerous for children. He asks that this petition
either be denied or delayed until the streets can be improved to handle the additional
traffic.
Mr. George Brower, 821 Bel -Air, expressed the view that there should be a buffer zone
between single family and multi -family dwelling units.
There was no further discussion on this petition, so this hearing was closed.
The Chairman presented the petition of Paul E. Sullins and 011ie E. Sullins for re-
zoning of property located on U. S. Highway # 71, adjoining and South of Twenty -Second
Street. No one was present to represent the petition or in opposition to, it. There-
fore this hearing was considered closed.
The next item of business on the agenda was the rezoning petition of Mr. 0. U. Green
and Grace I. Green for rezoning of property on Fifth Street between Sherman Avenue and
Happy Hollow Road. The Chairman asked Mr. Green to speak on behalf of this petition.
• Mr. Green explained that he had started subdividing this property about 10 to12 years
ago and had put in the streets as recommended by Mr. Carl Smith, City Engineers at that
time. He had also put in the water lines and has sold some of the lots for residential
uses. He felt there could be nothing objectionable about this rezoning.
I '+
Min. 4/16/68 (4)
Mr. McClinton asked if anyone wished to express objections to this petition. No
one spoke so this hearing was closed.
The petition of property owners requesting that the official name of the road along
which these owners live be hereinafter named VAN,HOOSE DRIVE, was the next business
to be considered. No one was present representing this petition, therefore the
Chairman proceeded to the next business on the agenda.
The Chairman read the explanation of Mr. R. E. Markleyts Subdivision plat as written
in the agenda for this meeting which said; Mr. R. E. Markley is the owner of this
property which lies outside the City limits, but is within the Fayetteville Planning
Area as provided for the Subdivision Regulations, General Provision, Paragraph C.
The City Board of Directors by Resolution No. 6-66 provide that lands which lie within
this Planning Area, and are to be subdivided, must be approved by the City Planning
Commission prior to recording in the County Court House. The Markley Addition plat
has been recorded but has not been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. McClinton
asked where the property is located and was answered that it is approximately one-half
mile East of Suns Chapel.
Mr. McClinton explained that the primary purpose is for lots and streets to be platted
to meet the City standards, this is not intended to work a hardship on the property
owner but to help eliminate some of the problems when the area is annexed.
Mr. Dean Newlin explained that the platted street within the subdivision is used by
the public as it intersects at the North end with a County Road.
It was pointed out that an opinion had been requested and received from the City
Attorney, Mr. Hugh Kincaid, regarding the extent to which the City could legally en-
force the Subdivision Regulations on property not within the City Limits.
•
The Chairman proceeded with the next business to be handled which was the request from
Mr. Wayne Bayley for approval of plans to increase the size of his Mobile Home Park on
North Leverett Street.
Mr. Lieberenz explained that Mr. Bayley had put in this trailer park with black topped
drives and in accordance with Ordinance No. 1509, Section 2, had made application to
change the location of four (4) trailer spaces.
Mr. Bayley pointed out that by moving these four spaces further South, he could make
a large recreational area for the use of the Mobile Home Owners with the park.
This completed the public:. hearing on the items on the agenda.
The Chairman asked what action the members wanted to take on the Board of Directorst
request for reconsideration of Mrs. Wanda Yoets property at the intersection of State
Highways 265 and 45.
Mr. Clinton moved that the request be returned to the Board of Directors with on action
taken, as any rezoning of this property, initiated by the Planning Commission would not
be legal. The motion was seconded by James Mashburn and approved unanimously.
The rezoning petition of Mrs. Bills Hunter was considered by the members next.
James Mashburn asked what the side setback requirements for a R-3 zone would be.
• He was answered that 5 feet is the minim.
Min. 4/16/68 (5)
Morton Gitelman asked what the maximum height would be. He was answered that a
building exceeding 3 stories or 35 feet in height an additional two (2) feet of
side yard setback is required for each additional story.
• Walter Brown asked Jim Vizzier if there was any special zone that could serve as
a buffer zone between the R -1B and R-3 zoning districts. Mr. Vizzier replied that
the R-2 zone would be a type of buffer as it would allow duplexed but not apartment
buildings.
Mr. McClinton expressed the opinion that one of three things could be done. The
petition could be approved as R-3 or R-2, or denied.
Roy Clinton said he felt the area was too saturated already for the traffic and
street conditions. There are a lot of college students living the area. He said
he was opposed to either the R-4 or R-3 zoning, but would not be opposed to R-2.
James Mashburn asked what if any improvements have been planned for Leverett
Street.
Mr. Fox answered that the street will be improved this summer including drainage
the and resurfacing with asphaltic concrete.
Walter Brown moved that this petition be denied. There was no second to the
motion.
Allan Gilbert moved that the petition be tabled for further study and that Mr. Utley
be asked to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. This motion was seconded
by Wade Fincher and the following vote was recorded: Clinton, Brown, Gilbert, Fincher
and Mashburn "Ayes" one "Nay" and one "Abstaining" vote the motion was approved.
• The Chairman asked for discussion of the petition for rezoning of Paul E. Sullins
and 011ie E. Sullins.
It was noted that this property lies across the street South of the Eoff property
which was approved for rezoning to C-2 at the previous meeting.
Allan Gilbert moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors
that an Ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning the property of Mr. and Mrs.
Sullins located on U. S. Highway # 71, South of Twenty -Section Street, From 0-1 to C-2
as petitioned. The motion was seconded by Wade Fincher and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, April
161 1968, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a
notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation
and
WHEREAS, after the hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation
to the Board of Directors on the rezoning petition of Paul E. Sullins and 011ie E.
Sullins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
• SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from 0-1,
Open Land District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, the property described
as follows:
Min. 4/16/68 (6)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All the following described property except the East 100 feet.
• A part of the NW� of the NE� of Section 28, T -16-N, R -30-W, of the
5th P.M., described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point which
is 29 5/6 rods East and South 14° West 14 1/6 rods from the Northwest
corner of said forty acre tract; thence South 70° East 418 feet; thence
North 14' East 184 feet; thence North 78j' West 418 feet; thence South
14! West 71 rods to the place of beginning, except a strip of equal and
uniform width to feet off the North side of said described tract which
is reserved for road purposes.
SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from 0-1, Open
Land District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the property
may be developed for commercial purposes.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of Anril, 19�2.
F.1192061VDI �
/s/ Clark McClinton
CLARK McCLINTON, CHAIRMAN
The petition of 0. U. Green and Grace I. Green was considered for action next.
• Walter Brown moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors
that an Ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning the property of 0. U.
Green and Grace I. Green located on Fifth Street between Sherman Avenue and Happy
Hollow Road from A-1, Annexed Territory District, to R-2, Two Family Residential
District, as petitioned. The motion was seconded by Allan Gilbert and unanimously
approved.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuseday,
April 16, 1968, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and
after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, after the hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommend-
ation to the Board of Directors on the rezoning petition of 0. U. Green and Grace
I. Green.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1,
Annexed Territory District, to R-2, Two Family Residential District, the property
described as follows:
40 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Min. 4/16/68 (7)
Part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
fourteen (14) in T -16-N, of R-30 W, being more particularly described
as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point 565 feet North and 413.45
• feet West of the Southeast corner of said 40 acre tract and running
thence West 246.55 feet; thence South 104.9 feet; thence in a South-
easterly direction to a point 165 feet South of the beginning point,
thence North 165 feet to the point of beginning.
SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from A-1,
Annexed Territory District, to R-2, Two Family Residential District, so that
the property may be developed for residential purposes.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 16th day of April , 19 L$.
APPROVED:
/s/ CLARK McCLINTON
Clark McClinton, Chairman
The petition from propety owners asking that the road along which these property
owners live be officially named Van Hoose Drive, was considered by the Commission
members.
Walter Brown moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors
that an ordinance be enacted officially naming the road running in a Southwesterly
• direction from the point of intersection with State Highway 14 Van Hoose Drive.
The motion was seconded by Allan Gilbert and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION PC 16-68 "'H8wc* ^"^_
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has considered the property ownerst
petition requesting that the official name of the road along which these owners
live be hereinafter officially named VAN HOOSE DRIVE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMEND BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEV ILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That a ordinance be enacted for the prupose of officially naming
VAN HOOSE DRIVE the road described as follows:
Beginning at a point, on State Highway # 16, which is approximately three
hundred (300) feet South and two hundred (200) feet West of the NE corner
of the SW4, Section 21, T -16-N, R -29-W, and running in a Southwesterly
direction from this point.
SECTION 2. That the above-described road be officially named Van Hoose
Drive as petitioned.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of April , 190($.
• APPROVED:
/s/ CLARK McCLINTON
CLARK MCCLINTON, CHAIRMAN
Min. 4/16/68 (8)
The subdivision plat of Mr. R. E. Markley was discussed.
• Walter Brown asked Mr. Fox to explain what action should be taken on this
matter.
Mr. Fax pointed out that if property within the City limits is subdivided and
includes a street which is dedicated and in use, the subdivider is not required
to make street improvements. However, any new streets dedicated to the City by
filing of a subdivision plat must be improved according to the minimum street
standards.
Reference was made to Mr. Hugh Kincaid's letter of opinion on the application of
the Subdivision Regulations and implementing resolutions to property outside the
City limits but within the Planning Area jurisdiction.
Mr. Kincaid's letter points out the Arkansas Statutes concerning a Cityls
jurisdiction fo the subdivision of land within their Planning Area. He summarized
by saying that the City of Fayetteville formally extended its jurisdiction over
the control of development and subdivision of land to include the 5 mile territorial
jurisdiction by adoption of its Resolution No. 6-66 on May 2, 1966. Accordingly,
thereafter all subdivisons established in the Planning Area jurisdiction became
subject to the City Subdivision Regulations and implementing resolutions, fully and
to the same extent as though the dubdivision were located inside the City limits.
Thus, we can legally enforce the Subdivision Regulations regarding the improvements,
lot sizes, etc., for subdivisions lying outside the City limits in the territorial
jurisdiction to the same extent that we could do so inside the city limits.
• Mr. Fox pointed out that Resolution No. 6-66 was approved by the Directors and filed
with the County Recorder. He also noted that the plat does not indicate acceptance
by the County Judge of the platted road within the subdivision.
Walter Brown suggested that the City try to get the streets improved to meet the
Cityts minimum standards.
Morton Gitelman said it seems that perhaps the purpose of the Planning Area might
be to prevent someone, for competitive reasons, from going to the edge of the City
limits and subdividing property without being required to meet the City Subdivision
requirements. If we do not enforce at least a part of the regulations, lot sizes,
streets and etc., it willjput the City in a bad position when this property is
annexed.
Mr. Fox said that the theory is that all improvements be made the same as are
applicable to subdivisions inside the City.
Mr. Gitelman pointed out that the standards for street widths and improve-
ments should be worked out with the County for proper handling.
Mr. Fox asked if the Planning Commission would consider it unreasonable to
require the owner to prepare and submit a regular preliminary subdivision
plat, with topography and in this particular case the additional right-of-way
needed for widening of the County Road which borders the proposed subdivision.
0
Nin. 4/16/68 (9)
• Allan Gilbert moved that Mr. R. E. Markley be instructed to have a regular
preliminary plat prepared including topo., streets, lot sizes, easements,
etc., and indicate the additional right -o£ -way as needed for future widening
of the County Road lying on the east side of the proposed subdivision. The
motion was seconded by James Mashburn and approved unanimously.
Mr. Baileyts request for permission to redesign a part of his mobile home park
on North Leverett was considered.
Mr. Bayley pointed out that this would not increase traffic any more than normal
residential use.
Roy Clinton reviewed that this change was requested in order to provide a
larger recreational area. He asked if access for these mobile homes would be
from Leverett Street.
Mr. Bailey said this was correct and a screening hedge along Leverett would be
maintained.
Walter Brown moved that the Planning Commission approve this alteration in
plans as presented. The motion was seconded by Wade Fincher and approved
unanimously.
The minutes of meetings held March 19 and March 26 were unanimoulsy approved as
mailed, on motion by James Mashburn, seconded by Roy Clinton.
• There being no further business the meeting was adjorned.
0