Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-17 MinutesMINUTES OF A PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 17, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Joh * n Maguire, Dr. Walter Brown, Christine Childress, Donald Nickell. Morton Gitelman, Roy Clinton, Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston. Members Absent: Al Hughes, Others Present: Larry Wood, Mrs. Leonard Carl Warford, Pete Young, Brenda Blagg, G. T. Zini, Chairman Roy Clinton called the meeting to order, The minutes of the October 3, 1972, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed*. The first matter considered was an appeal for a variance from the LEONARD C. WARFORD Subdivision Regulations submitted by Leonard Carl Warford, Mrs. Warford Variance from was present. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had Subd. Regs. looked at the request. The Warford's request approval of a lot split Fairlane St. with one of the lots created being only 52 ft. wide instead of 60 ft@ wide in the R-2 District. The property is located on Fairlane Street and already has two houses on it. To divide the property with a minimum lot size of 60 ft. would splitan accessory building on the back of the property, Ernest Jacks said he did not see any great problem involved and moved '10 that the request for a variance be granted. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Next the Commission opened the public hearing concerning the Highway PUBLIC HEARING ON 71 By-pass route to amend (1) the General Land Use Plan and (2) the HIGHWAY 71 By-pass Major Street Plan. Chairman Clinton said there has been a request to CORRIDOR speed this along as there are some situations developing along the By-pass and this might help facilitate the State's treatement of the By�pass, John Maguire arrived at 4:15 P.M* Larry Wood reviewed the proposals for land use and location of service roads along the By-pass as they were depicted on the special maps prepared for this study. Ernest Jacks asked why residential had been proposed at the Southwest corner of the intersection of the By-pass and College instead of commercial. Mr. Wood explained that because of the access problem, he had recommended that the Southwest corner of this intersection and also the Northwest corner as far North as Mud Creek be residential, The large intersection around Highway 13.2 is the tentative location of the proposed take -off for what the State will probably call the new Highway 71 going North. They are proposing to take off West of Highway 112 and go almost straight North until they pass between Rogers and Bentonville, then back into the old Highway 71 and improve it. They are still debating two alternatives on the South take off. One alternative would be to interchange at Highway 265 and go West of Devils Den; the other would be to take off at the South point of Highway 71 By�pass and TO AMEND LAND USE PLAN 10-17�72 -2� go East of the Airport, then t7ie back into Highway 71 South of the West Fork River bridge. The proposal includes more commercial than is now shown in the existing land use plan at major intersections, but it plans to have steps from commercial to high density then down to lower density, The industrial in the area of Highway 265, Cato Springs Road, and Highway 62 West has been changed. It is pulled back on the South side of Highway 62 with medium density residential alongside the By�pass, Mr. Wood recommended that the Planning Commission undertake to dezone areas that need to be dezoned now but thought the zoning up to commercial would take care of itself. He warned the Commission they might encounter problems unless the dezoning process was started. Chairman Clinton told Mr. Wood he did not think the owners of the property across the By-pass from the Washington County Fair Grounds would accept dezoning of that property from commercial to residential. He questioned whether it could be developed residentially so close to the Fair Grounds. Property in the area of the proposed interchange around Highway 112 is shown void of land use because Mr. Wood said he did not want to inflate property values before the interchange is located by the State. Once the Highway Department settles on a location for the interchange, he recommended that the Commission study the intersection again after it is known what the State plans in the way of on ramps, off ramps, bridges, etc. The Highway Department was reluctant to tie itself down to even this extent. Morton Gitelman asked why R-0 and not C-2 had been proposed for the Southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 71 and Zion Road. He said he understood the Commission could expect a petition to rezone that property to C�2 soon, Mr. Wood said he wanted to look at what the Highway Department win do there. Chairman Clinton remarked that he thought any problems created by adopting the street plan would be more critical than any created by adopting the land use plan because people constructing in this area will have to conform to the street plan if this becomes a part of the Major Street Plan. Dr. Walter Brown opposed including any of Highway 62 in the adoption of this plan, Chairman Clinton said that they could delete evezLth ajr� g West of the service road, but that they needed to get the service .in, John Maguire requested a list of single family building permits issued between Fayetteville and Farmington within 300 feet of the Highway during the Past 5 years. Dr. Walter Brown moved to approve the proposed land use plan except at TO AMEND the intersection of Highway 62 and Highway 71 By-pass to approve it only MAJOR STREET to the W'eaternmost access road and to line up the South side with the North PLAN side. Ernest jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, Larry Wood asked how to reflect the section West of the By-pass service road on Highway 62. He was instructed to just leave it clear and pending. Dr. Walter Brown moved to approve the proposed changes in the Major Street Plan as proposed along the By-pass corridor. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The Commission held a discussion on the proposed sign ordinance. The PROPOSED SIGN definition of "Identification and Informational Signs" was reworded to ORDINANCE read: "Signs of an identificational or of informational nature bearing no advertising." Mr. Jacks asked that the definition of "Wall Signs" be 10-17-72 .3 - amended so that the first sentence would read, "Any sign that shall be affixed parallel toor painted on, the wall of any building in such a manner as to read parallel to the wall on which it is mounted; provided, however,"said wall sign shall not project above the top of, or beyond the end ofthe wall of the building.,, The word maintain under Section 17B�3, Sign Permits, was changed to the word "keep." The Commission discussed the proposed sign permit fees and agreed to leave it at $2.00 initial fee Plus $0.0,5 per square foot of sign face. The Commission reworded the paragraph on ,Sign Identification under Section 17B-4, Sign Maintenance (a) to read, "Every sign or other advertising structure hereafter resistered. shall show in a conspicuous place thereon4fhich is visible to,and in a location approved by, the inspector and is readable by the inspector from the ground, the permit number." Under Section 17B-51 Non -conforming Signs, the Commission desired to have the wording changed so that this ordinance would not extend the abatement period for signs made non�conforming under Ordinance 1747, adopted June 29, 1970. Subsection (a) (2) Off-site Non- conforming signs, would then apply to signs made non -conforming by this particular ordinance and not to off-site non -conforming signs made non- conforming by Ordinance 1747. Also under Section 17B-5. Subsection (b) is to be reworded to read, "No non�conforming sign may be enlarged or altered in a way which would increase its non -conformity. Subsection (c) of Section 17B-5, change word "destroyed" to damaged and word "destruction" to "damage". Section 17B�6 "complying with certain applicable provisions of this ordinance." Cmit the word "certain". Mr. Jacks said he had to talked to Mr. Gray with the State Highway Department some time ago and had been told the State would put up signs on the highway right-of-way itself. In view of this he felt the provision for a larger sign along a controlled access highway could be omitted. G. T. Zini with Humble Oil Company was in the audience and said that at the last meeting they had with Mr. Gray they could not get him to commit himself on this. No change -was made in the wording. Christine Childress left the meeting at 6:00 P.M. The proposed setbackfor.on�site, free-standing signs was discussed. Mr. Jacks questioned how the distance of 15 ft. from street right�of�way for buildings 25 ft. or less from the right-of-way had been arrived at. The difficulty of some businesses in built-up areas being able to either get a free�standing sign or to have one which might not be visible because of buildings on adjoining property was discussed. The possibility of writing a separate section for these areas was discussed. The suggestion was made that in the case where a building is set back farther than the adjacent buildings due to a change in the setback regulations to allow a sign to come forward in line with adjacent buildings or to some fixed footage, k Dr. Brown said he thought free standing signs make Fayetteville ugly and h-. would like to see them eliminated in the newer areas, The question was not resolved, I The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 P.M. -0 40 6y 1 17' RESOLUTION PC 32*1-72 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 17, 1972, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend the Major Street Plan as proposed along the By -Pass corridor; NOW THEREFORE2 BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE2 ARKANSAS, SECTION 1. That the proposed amendment, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend the original Major Street Plan for the area of the By-pass corridor. PASSED AND APPROVED this . 17th day of October 1972* APPROVED: ROY CLINTON, Chairman