HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-12-21 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday,
December 21, 1971, in the Directors Room, City Administration'Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: Helen Edmiston, Ernest Jacks; Roy Clinton, Byron
Boyd, Al Donaubauer, Dr. James Mashburn.
Memberse'Absent:• Albert Witte, L. M. McGoodwin,.Dr. Walter 'Brown.
Others Present: Wilter Niblock, Harold Lieberenz, David Malone,
Pete Young, Wesley Howe, Larry Wood, Rus.sell.Purdy,
Wayne Bayley, Albert Miller.
Chairman Roy Clinton called the meeting to order
The first item on the.agenda was an appeal by Joe B. Cogdell to change JOE B: COGDELL
anon -conforming use of property at 504 East Fifteenth Street, deferred Withdrawn
from November 16, 1971 and December 7, 1971, Mr. Cogdell had called
the'Planning Office December 20 and requested that the appeal be
withdrawn. -
The,next item on the agenda was Rezoning Petition No. R71-11, Hoyet PETITION R71-11;
Greenwood, for property located on the Southeast corner of the - -HOYET GREEMIOOD.
intersection of Leverett Avenue and Poplar Street from R-2, Medium Leverett & Poplar
Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
District,.tabled from December 7, 1971.
aalter••Niblock and Wayne Bayley were present to represent the petition.
Mr:'Niblock said statistics' indicate that 48% of the. shoppers in
convenience food centers live within one-half mile of the centers.
Harold Lieberenz explained to Mr. Bayley and Mr. Niblock that if the
subdivision regulations remain as they are now, they will have a
..subdivision problem. They asked how a lease would be regarded.
.,David Malone said if it is a short term lease it would be acceptable;
but'if 3t takes substantial control of the property and runs for
99:•years or 150 years, we will have to regard it as a sale.
"The„pubiic hearing was closed.
The, next item on the agenda was the conditional use request and
large.scale development plan submitted for Happy Hollow School, north
of•the end of Ray Avenue and East of Happy Hollow Road,.continued' HAPPY HOLLCVJ1 SCHOOL
from December 7, 1971. There was no one present on behalf of the Conditional -Use
Scholl=District. Walter Niblock stated he is their attorney, but L.S.Development
was' not briefed on the points for discussion. Ernest Jacks gave a
report of:the Subdivision Committee and stated the still unresolved
question centers around the fact that the City apparently thought
the 'csohool would improve Fourth Street,
Wesley Howe said he and City Department Heads had met with Benny
Winborn about 9 months ago. At.that time the had indicated the school
was going to improve Fourth Street. They have since changed their
minds because (1)'availability of money and the cost of improving;
(4 they.think it unfair to use public money to improve a street
across private -property. An alternative mould be to permit it to
,be.opened.•as an unpaved street but no houses permitted to be built
12-21-71 -2-
along'.it until it is brought up to standard. When the property is
subdivided,'that subdivider would be required to 'Pave it: The City.
had specifically discussed with the school officials the possibility
:-df- one-way.traffic in on Ray Street and out on Happy' Hollow Road or
vice versa.., If it-, is .to 'be a one -tray arrangement, - it all -has:to be„
a-public..street, 'Mr: -.Howe thought Ray Street not being extended'as .
a;public•street a.more serious consideration.
Larry 116,od_said as the property is developed around the school; it,
would'rseem desirable to have traffic ties to Ray Street, etc..'
A1'Donaiibauer moved to defer action until the next meeting and to
invite: -the appropriate representatives of the School Board and•their
attorney to that meeting for the purpose of discussing the problems_'
concerning the Happy Follow School as enumerated in the minutes of
the.Plat Review Committee. Byron Boyd seconded. The motion iMa
approved.unanimously. -
The;next,itbm.on the agenda eras a large scale development plan
submitted by Albert Miller for 1663 South School Avenue. Mr. Miner.
ii s -an automobile repair'garage but must retire due to health: He
Yrould�like-to..be.able to.work 2 or 3 days a week from the rear,of
his%property., Ernest Jacks questioned the requirement for paving.
of:8O%,"of-the lot area for.Pdrive-in facilities" included garages:
Theknext
item on the agenda was a memo from Wesley
1.
Howe;' City
Manzger,,regarding
the service
road requirement for
Highivray 71 By=
,passxcorridor., The contents of the memo were discussed.
Allponaubauer,moved that.the Planning Commission direct Larry, Wood
to-make,the,study as recommended by Mr. Howe's memo. Byron Boyd
seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
Chairman Roy Clinton asked that he also include in his study a
recommendation on whether or not the proposed service road should
be. paved and guttered.
$egarding'•the-Hoyet Greenwood rezoning petition, Mrs. Edmiston said
:she:felt'the:neighborhood stores do meet a need and that it seems'
.better to have. people shopping there than:,going to the _edge of.town
to stores. Larry 4iood said that if the Commission is inclined to
accepting this type of development,. he would recommend they take a
Took:at the entire City and make changes in the comprehensive:'plan
to'"vihat extent we are talking about before it gets to be a problem:
Al Donaubauer moved to grant Rezoning Petition No. R71=11, Hoyet;'-
G•reenwood, as requested. Dr. .Mashburn seconded. It was'approVed
ALBERT MILLER
1863' S:'school
L.S.Development
CITY : MANAGER IS. MEMO,
71 By=Passcorridor
PETITION R71-11
-Regarding the, plan -_submitted by Albert Miller, David Malone said.he ALBERT�MILLER
'blt,the ordinance requirement for paving of 80% of the lot area' .
qua,114es as a, hardship in this.dase and he felt the Planning.:: Commission
1can1xary: this requirement. However, the Commission' can stipulate
',the amount of paving it considers necessary as a condition of approval:
4A1`Dopxubaucr moved that the Commission approve the plan as"submitted'
,ly.;Mr:•_Miller. .�Dr. Mashburn seconded. It has approved:unanimously:
`Theirnext,,.item discussed was the proposed amendments to the subdivision
regUlatigns. David *alone, City Attorney, said that iri a;given oase�
:someone'.might split property and mess up the entire Major Street Plan
,:so,some regulations that mould loosen up what we have but still provide
SUBDIVISION, REGS.•
12-21=71 -3-
some-eontr6l,is needed.,-P.e said.the old "subdivision,regulations,were,:
probably better on this: point than. the present regulations: 'He'
suggested a notice'•to" be. .prepared and inserted in ab"st'racts; gi- ing
notice that property has been subdivided and henceforth must :coir ply'.
`-with£ subdivision regulations if _divided again. In the discussion'
*;
M�' of ,the` Cc; mnission members .favored .allowing- lot splits or,;'
property-splits';to be handled administratively%%with it to bb'broughi
before _ihe Commission when the administrative personnel felt it
shgilld be. 1 public 'hearing is scheduled for January !>;.}to consider
=the;:amendments.
±The minutes of December 7, 19,71,: were approved as mailed.
The meeting<rras adjourned at,5:20,.P.M;
RESOLUTION PC 53-71
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the City Planning Commission held
a public hearing on the following rezoning petition, Tuesday, December 7,
1971, 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 public hearing the Planning Commission deferred
action on the rezoning petition until December 21, 1971, at which time
the public hearing was reopened; and
I�MREAS, after the public hearing on December 21, 1971, the Planning
Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on
the following rezoning petition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECON.hTNDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMISSION
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS,
SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning
the following tract of property as hereinafter indicated:
PETITION NO: R71-11:
The petition of Hoyet Greenwood for property located on the Southeast
corner of the intersection of Leverett Avenue and Poplar Street,
described as: Part of Lots 5 and 6, in Block 9, Parker's Plat of
Valley View Acres, described as beginning at the Northwest corner
of Lot 5, thence East 150 ft., thence South 125 ft., thence I -lest
150 ft., thence North 125 ft, to the point of beginning; from R-2,
Medium Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
.District.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of December, 1971.
APPROVED:,.
ROY CLINTON, CHAIRMAN