Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-03-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 7, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Albert Witte, Donald Nickell, Helen Edmiston, Roy Clinton, Ernest Jacks, Claude Hughes, John Maguire, Members Absent: Al Donaubauer, Dr. Walter Brown. Others Present: Raymond Lierly, David Lierly, Wade Bishop, Bob Grafton, David Fields, John R. Wilkinson, Harold Lieberenz, Chairman Roy Clinton called the meeting to order. The first items of business was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R72-9, Raymond Lierly, for property located between Hendrix Street and Mt. Comfort Road and East of Stephens Avenue and to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Raymond Lier],y and David Lierly were present to represent the petition. Roy Clinton read the prepared Staff Report. Mr. Lierly requested the change in zoning because he wishes to build another house on Hendrix Street and the property is not large enough and does not have sufficient width to permit another house to be constructed in the R-1 zoning. Helen Edmiston raised the question of zoning only the North part of the property which fronts on Hendrix Street to R-2 and leaving the frontage on Mt. Comfort Road R-1. There was no opposition to the petition. The public hearing was closed. PETITION R72-9 RAYMOND LIERLY Hendrix Street & Mt. Comfort Road The next item of business was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition PETITION R72�10 R72-10, Wade Bishop, for property located West and South of Appleby WADE BISHOP Road, and to rezone from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-2, Medium Density Appleby Road Residential District. Roy Clinton read the prepared Staff Report. Wade Bishop and Bob Crafton (from Crafton and Tull) represented the petition. Mr. Bishop proposes to subdivide the property. Some members of the Commission asked why R-2 was requested instead of R-1. Bishop stated he planned to build 99% single family homes, but also wanted to build an occasional duplex and the lots do not meet the R-1 requirements for duplexes. John Maguire arrived at 4:35 P.M. There were no objections to the Bishop petition; the public hearing was closed. The next item of business was a request by David Fields to permit a re -petition for zoning of property on the Northeast corner of y Nettleship Street and Hartman Avenue. The original petition, R71-4, had a public hearing October 5, 1971. Dr. Fields was present. He stated the petition had been approved by the Planning Commission, but he withdrew the petition because he didn't expect all the opposition he encountered when it reached the Board of Directors. At the time, Mr. DAVID FIELDS Request to file re -petition i 10 3-7-72 .2. he did not have time to contact the people who opposed the petition, and he hoped the opposition would moderate some. The Commission dis- cussed with Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, whether all the people iho had opposed the rezoning before would be notified. Dr. Fields also noted that some of the opposition had come from "clear across town." Albert Witte moved that the Planning Commission permit this matter to be rescheduled for March 21 subject to the City Attorney's opinion on whether it should be re -advertised. If it must be re -advertised, schedule it for April 4. Claude Hughes seconded. The motion was approved unanimously to permit re -petition. The next item of business was an appeal to the Planning Commission to permit a change of non -conforming use, submitted by John R. Wilkinson, JOHN R. WILKINSON for property at 352 North West Avenue. Mr. Wilkinson proposes a small 352 N. West Ave. antique shop in a building in the R-0 District which formerly was used Appeal to change by a record sales store, tuxedo rental shop, janitor supply store, and non -conforming use. grocery store at various times. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission allow the change in use and allow the antique shop. Helen Edmiston seconded. The change in use was approved unanimously. The next item of business was a petition to close Hill Avenue and another unnamed street lying North of Center Street submitted by A. Of White. Ernest Jacks reported for the Subdivision Committee that there are only 2 questions: (1) Paul Mattke requested a sewer easement to cover the existing sewer line in the present street right-of-way; (2) Still need letter of concurrence from the telephone company. Ernest Jacks moved the petition to close streets be approved with the provisions that (1) the necessary sewer easement be provided, (2) subject to a letter of concurrence from the telephone company. Helen Edmiston seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. PETITION TO CLOSE HILL AVENUE & OTHER UNNAMED STREET A. 0. WHITE The next item of business was a proposed preliminary subdivision BISHOP ADDITION plat of Bishop Addition for property covered in Rezoning Petition Preliminary Plat R72-10. Wade Bishop and Bob Crafton were present to represent the plat. Harold Lieberenz and Ernest Jacks discussed the Major Street Plan as shown, which would curve through the property, and as proposed by Larry Wood, which would take a major street across the South line of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Jacks cited two factors: (1) The Subdivision Committee felt Appleby Roacj as it presently exists, must be maintained. Additional right-of-way may be required off the subject property where Appleby Road lies along- side it. (2) What is the City's policy for that road across the South? Does an easement dolor must it be a right-of-way? Do we need a contract to see that it will be built? Harold Lieberenz said that with the City getting a new City Manager, he did not know whether the policy would change in the future. In the past, the City has just required people to give a street and utility easement, but not improve it. The present Street Superintendent feels the party should have to dedicate and pave it, or put up a bond insuring it will be built in the future. Mr. Bishop said he would agree to five 5 feet for widening of Appleby Road, if necessary. Bob Crafton said they plan to extend the center cul-de-sac to the North and plan to extend all cul-de-sacs to the South. 3-7-72 -3- Mr. Crafton agreed to furnish all easements needed. He said he had seen Paul Mattke's memo and it presented no problems. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary subdivision plat of Bishop Addition subject to resolving all details with the Planning Office. Claude Hughes seconded. The preliminary plat was approved unanimously. Albert Witte moved that Petition R72-9, Raymond Lierly, be approved as requested. Claude Hughes seconded. The petition was approved unanimously. Ernest Jacks moved that Petition R72-10, Wade Bishop, be approved as requested. Albert Witte seconded. The petition was approved unanimously, The next item of business was a discussion of policy in regard to the Building Inspector's memo concerning large scale developments. Harold Lieberenz said that on raw land with no structures on it, the Planning Office knows automatically to bring it to the Planning Commission. He cited other examples, such as adding ten feet to an existing building, or adding to any existing building on a plot larger than an acre, or the construction of a new building in a development which is already in existence. He also discussed the practice of leasing off parcels of a large tract of land. Sometimes the leased parcel is less than an acre, but the overall tract is more than an acre, When should these matters be brought to the Planning Commission? Ernest Jacks felt anytime it affects traffic flow or one of the other items listed in the ordinance, it should be reviewed. If, for example, Evelyn Hills wanted to build another building, this might affect traffic flow quite a bit, and he thought the Commission ought to see it. Roy Clinton asked that as the Planning Office meets with the Subdivision Committee to show them what the Planning Office is doing from time to time and submit a memo telling the Planning Commission what they are doing. If the Subdivision Committee feels it should go to the full Planning Commission, it should. Under "Other Business" the Commission reviewed the Large Scale Development plan submitted by Whit Chevrolet, which had not been reviewed by the Plat Review Committee yet. They propose to build a truck service garage on the South side of Township Road. Claude Hughes moved the Commission accept this subject to the review of the Plat Review Committee and the subsequent approval or recommendation of approval. Ernest Jacks seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. The minutes of February 14, February 15, and February 23, 1972, were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. 0 PETITION R72-9 PETITION R72-10 POLICY ON LARGE SCALE DEVELOP-, MENTS - Memo from Building Insp. WHIT CHEVROLET 2395 N. College L.S.Development RESOLUTION PC 72-7 WHEREAS, the petition of Rawleigh H. Ralls, Rawleigh H. Ralls, III, n Richard Allen White, Lynda Ann White, and Evergreen Cemetery Association, Inc. for vacating and abandoning that portion of Hill Avenue and an unnamed East :vest street lying East of Hill Avenue both lying North of Fcr Center Street was submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on March 7, 1972. the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on said petition. COS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY.OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the Board of Directors enact an ordinance for the purpose of vacating and abandoning the following described streets: A fifty (50) foot street lying adjacent to and along the West side of Lots 3 and 6 in Block One (1), I. W. Duncan's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and lying adjacent to and East of Lots 1 through 7 in Block Two (2) of I. W. Duncan's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and a fifty (50) foot street lying adjacent to and North of Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, in Block One (1) of I. W. Duncan's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the City of Fayetteville retain an easement over • the existing sewer line of sufficient width to maintain said sewer line. SECTION 3. That this recommendation is subject to the receipt of r,\ a letter of concurrence from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. h PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of March, 1972, iF ri APPROVED: ROY CLINTON. CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION PC 72-8 is 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 petitions, Tuesday, March 7, 1972, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a news- paper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make recommendations to the Board of Directors on the following rezoning Petitions. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RE=U E, NDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. Section 1. That ordinances be adopted for the purpose of rezoning the following tracts of property as hereinafter indicated: P3TITION N0. R72-9: The petition of Raymond Lierly for property located East of Stephens Street and running from Hendrix Street on the North to Nit. Comfort Road on the South described as: Part of the Si of the NE; of the PES of Section 8, T -16-N, R -30 -VI of the 5th P.M, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 250 feet South and 1.195 feet West of the NE corner of said 20 acre tract; thence running West 125 feet; thence South 190 feet or to Mt. Comfort Road; thence running Southeasterly along North side of said road 127 feet or to a point 215 feet South of the beginning point; thence North 215 feet or to the point of beginning; said property also being known as Lot 3, Block 3, Hendrix Addition; from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. PETITION N0, R72-10: The petition of Wade Bishop for property located on Appleby Road described as: A part of the Wj of the NW� of Section 35, T -17-N, R -30-W, Washington County, Arkansas; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the SE corner of said 11i of IIJ of Section 35, thence N 890 39' W 935.22 feet, thence North 1374.78 feet; thence S 89°39' E 935.22 feet; thence South 1374.78 feet to the point of beginning, containing 29.52 acres, more or less; from A-1, Agricultural. District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of March, 1972. APPROVED: ROY CLINTON, CHAIRMAN 140