Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Tuesday, September 10, 1974 at 4:00 P.M. in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston, Al Hughes, Rita(McRee) Davis,* Donald Nickell, John Power, Ernest Lancaster John Maguire Larry Wood, Clayton Powell, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Ervan Wimberly, B. A. Shamblin, Marshall Carlisle, Alice Ludwick, Forrest Lane, Mrs. Charles Couch, Don Grimes, Arthur Skelton, Johnie Bassett, Charles Atkinson, Gladys McNew, Robert White B. W. Miller Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. The minutes of the August 13, 1974 Planning Commission meeting were approved MINUTES as mailed. Ernest Lancaster arrived at 4:05 P.M. OFF-STREET PARKING GARAGE Chairman Gitelman informed the audience that a request Center St. and Church Ave. had been received to table until a later date the referral to the Planning Commission for recommendation on the formation of an improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage at the intersection of Center Street and Church Avenue. He stated if there were those present who wished to be heard on this matter, they would be heard at this time in the meeting. No one present requested to be heard regarding the proposed parking garage. Chairman Gitelman read a written request which had been submitted to the Planning Commission requesting the tabling of Public Hearing on the rezoning petition R74-13, Drs. Tom Coker, Coy Kaylor, Carl Kendrick, and Jorge Johnson to rezone property located at 649 East Township . He explained that once a public notice had been made and posted that only the Planning Commission has the authority to table a petition or allow an item to be withdrawn; and that if the Planning Commission tabled the request, all property owners who had previously been notified would once again be notified. He asked if there were those present who wished to make statements or submit information in opposition to the proposal who would not be able to attend the meeting when it would be taken up again; if so, their comments would be heard at that time. N� one requested to be heard. Chairman Gitelman then asked the Commission if they wished to hear the Planning Report and hold the public hearing on the petition or table it. Al Hughes asked Chairman Gitelman if Item 11 on the agenda (Large Scale Development of Orthopaedic Clinic, 649 East Township Road) would be tabled alongwith.this request. Mr. Gitelman said that it would. Helen Edmiston moved that Rezoning Petition R74-13, Drs. Coker, Kaylor, Kendrick, and Johnson and the Large Scale Development Plan for Orthopaedic Clinic be tabled until October 8, 1974. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. REZONING PETITION R74-13 Drs. Coker, Kaylor, Kendrick,$ Johnson 649 East Township Road * Name Change. Planning Commission September 10, 1974 Mr. Nickell said he felt that they were putting off the inevitable and that they had had ample time to explore the facts. Mr. Jacks stated that legally he thought the owner had to submit the petition. Chairman Gitelman asked the Planning Administrator in whose name the petition was filed. Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, handed the file to Chairman Gitelman. Chairman Gitelman consulted the file and stated that the petition was signed by the doctors as property owners. Mr. Jacks commented that their letter requesting the' petition -be tabled indicated that they did not yet own the property. Mr. Jacks inquired of B. A. Shamblin whether he could "shed any light" on this matter. B. A. Shamblin stated the doctors own the property subject to forfeiture of money. They have a legal right to do anything that they may be required to do and, of course, if the zoning petition is not granted they do not have to take the property. For example, your earlier statement is true and some of the answers we get are born out why then the whole thing could be cancelled but they have the absolute and unqualified right from the property owners, the Keiths, to file for a zoning petition. B. W. Miller added that the Keiths are the actual title owners of the property. The title hasn't passed on. B. A. Shamblin requested the Planning Commission table it until the Keiths are back and can make the petition in their name. They will return from Europe on the 24th. and they will be glad to make the application in':their name if you desire. B. W. Miller requested they just substitute her name in there (on the petition) and "get on with it." Chairman Gitelman stated that those that were present to hear this rezoning petition and who had not received notification of this meeting could leave their names, addresses and telephone numbers on a sheet of paper with Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, if they wished to be notified of the next meeting. There was no further discussion. Chairman Gitelman called for the vote on the motion to table the two items. Gitelman, Jacks, Edmiston, Hughes, Davis, Power, and Lancaster voted "Aye"; Nickell voted "Nay." The matters were tabled by a vote of 7-1. Al Hughes left the meeting at 4:25 P.M. PETITION TO CLOSE 2 ALLEYS The next item discussed was the petition to close 2 alleys Parksdale Addition in the Parksdale Addition submitted by Dorwin L. and Tabled from August 13, 1974 Marie Kilgore, Russell F. $ Oma Kilgore, Edwin R. and Carolyn Kilgore, and Rosie Spurlock which was tabled at the August 13, 1974 meeting. Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, who had previously shown opposition to this was present and withdrew his opposition. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the petition to close these two alleys be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened by Chairman Gitelman on Rezoning Petition R74-14 rezoning petition R74-14, A. E. Bowen for Leo Thomas, to A.E. Bowen for Leo Thomas rezone property located immediately South of Dorothy Jean Street and immediately West of Giles Road, from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented the Planning Report. Attorney Marshall Carlisle was present to represent the petition. Mr. Carlisle stated that previously the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the petition as applied for, but when it got to the Board of Directors they were concerned Planning Commission September 10, 1974 about how deep from Highway 16 the C-2 zone should go back to the North. He said that —the development that he presented then was exactly the same now. He said that they had complied with a buffer strip by leaving 150 feet zoned R-2 South of Dorothy Jean Street. They propose to build a Howard Johnson's Motel on this property. Ernest Jacks asked Larry Wood if he would consider R-2 an appropriate buffer between R-1 and C-2 and if 150 feet would be enough depth for a buffer zone. Mr. Wood said "yes" to both questions. Mr. Nickell stated that his opposition was to the sewer, and wanted to know if they would still put it on sewer. Mr. Carlisle said that they would have to go through the Large Scale Development and he understood the Planning Commission and Board of Directors could disapprove the Large Scale Development if it were not put on sewer. There were those present in opposition. Alice Ludwick,-107.Elorene, stated that they were "bottled up" in the access area to Highway 16. She said they have 84 cars coming out of that area all times of the day. They have 53 family units and only one way out, and so they have to wait to get out onto Highway 16. She said it is sometimes necessary to turn West onto the highway and turn around at the R.E.A. to go East. She said the traffic congestion has worsened since Maple Manor Apartments were built. She felt that they didn't need any more traffic congestion and that everyone in the area opposed it. Mr. Forrest Lane said that he did not get a notice of the meeting in the mail. He also said they had considerable traffic congestion in the area, and that before the highway went in they had two accesses to the Giles Addition, but now only have one. He has had to turn West many times and drive to the R:E.A. to get out. He stated that he had counted •67 cars backed up trying to cross over to the bypass. He, too, said that everyone in the area was opposed to this. Mrs. Charles Couch, 111 Florene, was also present and stated that she confirmed what Mrs. Ludwick and Mr. Lane had already said. Mr. Carlisle said he knew their problem and was sympathetic. He felt that the proposed motel would be the best thing that could happen to this addition as there would have to be some kind of second access provided either through or around the Thomas property to get to Highway 16; therefore, this would eliminate congestion that comes out on Giles Road. Forrest Lane indicated disapproval for any street access plan that would drain traffic from the proposed motel around through Giles Addition. Mrs. Ludwick said they did not need any business of any kind to draw outside traffic into the area. Clayton Powell said he was neutral in the matter. He said that with this development if the road were paved it would eliminate the dust problem that the people in this area were concerned with. He agreed that the people did have a problem with the traffic con gestion. Ernest Jacks asked Clayton Powell if there were any plans to bring Dorothy Jean Street South. Mr. Powell answered there was not. Mr. Nickell asked about the possibility of extending the street North to Mount Comfort Road. Larry Wood replied that there had been a proposed subdivision to go North, but nothing had happened on it. The public hearing was concluded. Ernest Jacks made a motion to recommend to the of Petition R74-14, A. E. Bowen for Leo Thomas the pressure that was needed in order to solve Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Jacks, Edmiston, and Gitelman all said "Aye." Power, Nickell, Davis; and Lancaster said "Nay Board of Directors that the rezoning request be approved, as maybe this would bring the problem. Planning Commission -4- - :September 10,.1974 The motion to recommend approval was defeated by a vote of 3 "Ayes" and 4 "Nays." • The petition was denied. • Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on Rezoning Rezoning Petition R74-15, Roy J. $ Helen R. Milligan, to rezone Roy J. & property located North of Highway 62 West and immediately West of One Mile Road from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare 'Commercial District, and Rezoning Petition R74-16, Dayton Stratton, to rezone property located on the Northeast corner of One Mile Road and Highway 62 West, from A-1, Rezoning Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial PUBLIC HEARING Petition R74 -1S Helen R. Milligan and PUBLIC HEARING Petition R74-16 Dayton Stratton District. Larry Wood presented the Planning Report on both petitions. Mr. Jacks asked Mr. Wood to explain the recent ammendment to the land use plan which ammended the proposed land use along Highway 62 and which was adopted January 8, 1974. Mr. Wood said that the plan as originally adopted included service roads but was later ammended not to include service roads. Attorney Robert White was present on behalf of Mr. Milligan who is associated with the Modern Fence Company at Fort Smith, Arkansas which is the proposed use on the site. He said they would go through the Large Scale Development Plan; there are two residences now on the property, one of which is being rented. However, these will be torn down and this will all become part of the Modern Fence Company. Attorney Marshall Carlisle represented the Dayton Stratton family who owns the property immediately across the street from the proposed site. Mr. Carlisle stated that since Mr. Stratton's death two weeks ago he had not really had a chance to go through his files to know what Mr. Stratton had planned specifically for this property, but he had plans to develop it commercially. There were no objections; therefore, the public hearings were closed. Mr. Nickell moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petitions R74-15, Roy J. Helen R. Milligan, and R74-16, Dayton Stratton, be approved. Mrs. Edmiston seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. Before casting his vote, Ernest Jacks stated that he considered the Commission as following the City's land use plan which does not indicate strip zoning of Highway 62 West. He said that the "organization" along Highway 62 had made some statements to the effect that the people were committed to doing that. He said the City is not committed to that. AMEND ORDINANCE 1998 Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on the proposed Large Scale Development amendment to Section 4 of Ordinance 1998 which would empower the Planning Commission to disapprove a Large Scale Development Plan if "The development plan fails to provide sufficient ingress and egress for the proposed development necessary to avoid creating or compounding a dangerous traffic condition." Marshall Carlisle said when Holly -Ogden Enterprises had proposed developing 20 acres North of what is now Villa Mobile -Home Park, they had a well recognized traffic problem North of the intersection of North College and Township Road. The Board of Directors realized there was no provision in the Ordinance where the Board could turn down a development because of a traffic problem. He stated he felt that this should be added to the Ordinance so that this could be done. Ernest Jacks said the original Ordinance stated that each Large Scale Development be judged on its own merits and decision be reached as to whether it was approved or disapproved, and at one point when it was revised the last time a list was made. He approved of making the addition 'to'the list but questioned why the list had to be made. Planning Commission -5- September 10, 1974 Chairman Gitelman explained by telling Mr., Jacks that there was nothing in the original Ordinance that set standards where they could deny a Large Scale Development. Mr. Jacks then asked if this was too broad for the law.(A1 Hughes returned at 5:10 P.M.) Mr. Gitelman said that it came dangerously close to contract zoning, which is not good planning or proper City procedure; this leads to problems once you start having! a rule for each piece of property rather than rules that apply to everybody. He added that this proposal does not set any standards for what is sufficient ingress and egress and that it would not help any. There was no opposition to the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Ernest Jacks moved that the proposed amendment be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. Mr. Lancaster seconded the motion; it was approved unanimously. RALPH BROPHY The next item for discussion was a request submitted by Street Right-of-way Ralph Brophy to develop property with a street right-of-way East of College Ave. of only 40 feet instead of SO feet of right-of-way which lies and East of College Avenue and North of Township Road. North of Township Rd. There was no one present to represent Mr. Brophy. Chairman Gitelman said there were comments from Clayton Powell,Street Superintendent, Paul Mattke, City Engineer, and Don Grimes, City Manager, that they did not recommend this. Mr. Gitelman then asked Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, if she knew why the request was made Mrs. Jones said that he owned a 40 foot strip of land and that Mr. Brophy stated in his letter that he hadn't been able to obtain an additional 10 feet. He stated also that he thought that it would be better for the whole subdivision if the road was approved as is (40 feet instead of 50 feet). Mr. Nickell said he didn't know why he shouldn't abide by the same rules as everyone else. If we request it of one, we should Mr. Nickell moved that the request Ernest Lancaster seconded it. The motion to deny the request was request it of all. be denied. unanimously approved. WAL-MART PROPERTIES, INC. Highway 62 West Scale Development A proposed Large Scale Development Plan of Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. for property lying between Old Farmington Road and Highway 62, Large West and lying East of Highway 71 By -Pass was brought up for discussion next. Highway 71 By -Pass Plan designates Old Farmington Road service road Mr. Ervan Wimberly Mr. Jacks reported was present to represent. for the Subdivision Committee that: as the proposed 1.) Need S-feetof additionalright-of-way on Old Farmington Road; the setback would have to be adjusted accordingly. 2.) There is a strong recommendation that SangeAvenue be taken through on the East end of the triangle and that the dedication be made by the petitioner. 3.) There seems to be some sort of arrangement in the wind that the school would do the proper grading if the petitioner would pave it. 4.) There is a question about the existence of right-of-way for Root Avenue on the West end of this property. The City Plat Book indicates that such a street right-of-way exists. It is agreed that Root Avenue is not particularly needed through there. The access drive was swung downraround by Old Farmington Road • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1974 because it was felt that it did not need to intersect right at the By -Pass. Therefore, there has been a suggestion that by erasing Root Avenue and getting Sang it would come out better. In any event if Root Avenue dows not exist, SWEPCO needs a 5 foot right-of-way down the West side of the property. If Sang does go through, the City needs an easement of 50 feet. 5.) Clayton Powell mentioned the fact that the Arkansas Highway Department is considering a 120 foot right-of-way for Highway 62 West and that there should be co-ordination with the Arkansas Highway Department to be sure that when all of this is built that they don't come along and tear it all up. 6.) A question has been brought up about the distance between the intersection and the service road and Westernmost access to this property. They are close together, and do not meet our street standards. C. Powell said City Ordinance requires a 40 foot setback and if it were an issue that Root Avenue go on South, it would be a re- quirement but since the Northern section only serves three residences, he thought the City could work with Wal-Mart on this as well as on drainage. 7.) There is a question about the parking. Some of the parking really belongs to Gulf and there will need to be a written agreement on this. 8.) Clayton Powell has brought up a problem of drainage. He states that since the on-site drainage goes to Highway 62 West the State Highway Department should be co-ordinated with on drainage. He has had a request from them not to empty street drainage into the ditches on State or Federal highways. In answer to the above problems, Mr. Ervan Wimberly made the following comments. 1.) There is nothing in the Courthouse to indicate that Root Avenue had ever been dedicated. 2.) The arrangement with the school to improve Old Farmington Road was not known to him. 3.) The service road can be shifted if needed, so this is not a problem. 4.) No agreement can be made with Gulf so the building area will have to be decreased and some parking places will be deleted. 5.) Concerning the drainage, it is an existing ditch coming down the West side. As a matter of fact the highway department provided a concrete flume for the existing ditch. Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, said that he still though they should co-ordinate with the Highway Department because of the recent contact he has had with them in which they stated that they did not want city residential street drainage going into a ditch going along a state or federal highway. Mr. Wimberly then had some questions he wanted to ask the Planning Commission. 1.) If Wal-Mart gives 5 foot additional right-of-way on the North side it will not be a problem if we can use the existing right-of-way for figuring building setback. If we have to move the building 5 foot further South, we will loose about 22 parking places and that in return will reduce the building area because you need 1 parking space for every 200 square feet, that is about $90,000.00 worth of tax base: -lost because we are losing that other .6500 square feet or 4400 square feet of building. This will cost Wal-Mart about $22,000.00 per year in lost revenues, $6500.00 for loss of the rights-of-way, $18,000.00 for half of the street. So it is about $25,000.00 just to get a building permit and another $20,000.00 a year in lost revenues. I know it is part of the Frontage Road system, and they are supposed to • • • Planning Commission -7- September 10, 1974 have 50 foot right-of-ways, but I also want the Planning Commission to know the kind of problem Wal-Mart is facing. Mr. Wimberly stated that he did not know whether or not it would be a good idea to extend Sang Ave. South because there is a bad intersection there already, unless Old Farmington Road were closed on toward the East. He said that it seemed to him that if all the roads come in there it will be too much "criss-crossing." In addition to this, if it all comes off of Wal-Mart property it does not line up with the rest of Sang Avenue. The Eastern line of Wal-Mart porperty is the Western line of Sang Avenue. Wal-Mart would also lose more parking spaces and therefore, more building area. Mr. Jacks said he understood the filling station construction was such that they must be about on the line n ow and there didn't seem to be any way of getting property there except to tear down the filling station. Mr. Hughes stated that there was a storage or tool shed that would probably have to be moved. He said there was a tie up in traffic now and believed it was considered at one time that if that were run through,then the entrance to Old Farmington Road would be changed or curbed or something to avoid cars pulling off and going straight. There is about 400 feet of exit without any restriction whatsoever along Highway 62 near Old Farmington Road. Clayton Powell stated that there was a problem here, and there had been a speed break built on the Fina Filling Station property to keep traffic from cutting through the gasoline pump area. He said he felt the street at the West side of the Fina Station would benefit this commercial development; also, Mr. Hughes said that this would actually allow cars to turn right and go into the shopping center - they probably wouldn't turn right with a 340 degree turn. Wal-Mart could possibly get more business this way. Mr. Wimberly told Mr. Hughes that traffic could come down Old Farmington Road and come in one of the back entrances. He also stated that Wal-Mart had not yet bought the property, and it was strictlyupon options on them obtaining their building permit per their plans and they may not deviate. He said he realized that it did not matter that much to Fayetteville because someone else would buy the property and build something else on it; but when 50 feet is taken off the West end and 5 foot off the North end that is a lot of land that Wal-Mart will have to pay for and then turn right around and give part of it away and also lose building space besides. Mr. Grimes, City Manager stated that the school, (Fayetteville Public School District #1) as well as the Arkansas Highway Department had wanted the extension of Sang Avenue for sometime, and that if there was an alignment problem it could be worked out with the school system because they own all the property on the North. He said that the school also wants Old Farmington Road paved and is willing to pay for their half. Mr. Hughes stated he believed the School's heavy equipment class could do the grading and road work in preparation for paving the street. Ervan Wimberly suggested the relocation of the entrances to allow for traffic to cut across the East end of Wal -mart's parking lot with no dedication of right-of-way. He stated that Wal -Mart's busiest days -were not on school days but on week -ends and at Christmas; however, it would not be a dedicated street. Mr. Lancaster remarked that the general public would be on private property and this could create problems if wrecks occcured on this property. Chairman Gitelman agreed. Mr. Nickell stated that personally he thought Wal-Mart was looking at this as Mr. Brophy had -- in the way of economics, and he didn't see Wal-Mart Company any different than he did Mr. Brophy. He felt that if tps was given to one then it should be given to all, and if they weren't going to "her he line," then we are going way off base - if we are going to let economics get into the matter. Mr. Wimberly said that this would be part of the economics of the City of Fayetteville and they would be losing a lot of tax by not getting the proposed Wal-Mart store. Mr. Nickell responded by saying that they were talking about a set of rules that has been set down and that is going to be equitable for all. Mr. Wimberly said that he believed that in some cases where they had dedicated private entrance streets it has been after they have taken a setback for this from the original. He said that this was all that Wal-Mart was asking for. They will give the 5 feet, but they would not like the idea of improving the street and didn't know if they would re • ( -8- Planning Commission September 10, 1974 go along with this or not. Mr. Jacks and Chairman Gitelman indicated they would like to table the matter until Wal-Mart submits revisions because it would be "something drastically different." Ervan Wimberly requested the Planning Commission take action and include conditions it felt were required. Ernest Jacks moved that the proposed Large Scale Development Plan for Wal-Mart be approved based on the conditions and requirements outlined previously: 1. Additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Old Farmington Road; the setback to be adjusted accordingly. 2. That Sang Avenue be taken through on the East end of the triangle and that the dedication be made by the petitioner. 3. That Fayetteville Public School District #1 for half of the extension of Sang Avenue. do the proper grading 4. That Root Avenue be done away with and Sang Avenue be extended. 5. That the Arkansas Highway Department be co-ordinated with on the right-of-way for Highway 62 West and also on the drainage problem. It was approved unanimously. and pay ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC The proposed Large Scale Development Plan of Orthopaedic 649 East Township Rd. Clinic to construct a clinic at 649 East Township Road had Large Scale Development already been tabled until the October 8, 1974 meeting of the Planning Commission along with item 4. The next item for discussion was a request submitted by Ozark Windows, Inc. and E. Johnie Bassett regarding the location of a C service road on the East side of Highway 71 North Highway 71 is designated as controlled access. Mr. Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report. shown on the By-pass plan was "swung" more to the Front Street which is a service road that was put OZARK WINDOWS, INC. Arthur Skelton 4 Johnie Bassett side of Highway 71 N. of Stearns Rd. of Stearns Road. This portion of He stated that the service road as East and would intersect with in by Arkansas Western Gas Company. The committee didn't feel like it would want to deviate from the idea of a service road intersecting --(don't want this to jog). He said they were interested in seeing a continuous service road which interects at a 4=way intersection along Stearn Road with Front Street. Mr. Skelton stated that he had had a problem with the Highway Department on this all the way through. He said he had some indication that they would let him access out onto Stearn Road „ if he could come up with some kind of agreement with Mr.Johnie Bassett:. Mr. Nickell remarked that Mr. Skelton would have to build his own road if he wanted access. Mr. Skelton stated that he had no property on which to build a road, and that Mr. Bassett and he had agreed on the route that he indicated. In reply to a question asked by Mr Jacks, Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, explained that this was a controlled access area and anything that goes onto Highway 71 here would have to go before the Planning Commission. Al Hughes moved that the Planning Commission keep the location of the proposed service road as it is shown on the By-pass plan but permit Mr. Skelton to build his "access road" (driveway) assuming he could get state approval to build onto Stearns Road. • -9- Planning Commission September 10, 1974 • Mr. Jacks seconded the motion. Mr. Charles Atkinson was present to represent Mr. Bassett and he stated also that Mr. Skelton did .not have any property on which to build a road and that was the reason for the request to start with. He said that in exchange for Mr. Bassett's agreement to furnish the land on which to build this road, the proposal was made to re -locate it as requested. Mr. Jacks replied that the Committee did not want this to change. Ervan Wimberly said that the way Stearn Road and the old intersection was made was that Stearn Road (Joyce St.) was planned (as soon as it left highway right -of-way) to turn and head Southeast, and Frontage Road actually intersected that. Mr. Skelton stated that his drawing was not correct and that it was only to give a general idea of the request. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, asked if he might made a recommendation. He suggested that Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, contact the Northwest Arkansas Technical Advisory Committee of which involved the Arkansas Highway Department and their design people and leave this up to them and let them get back to .the Planning Commission with what they consider a safe design on this whole interchange. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Jacks withdrew their motion and second. Mr. Jacks then moved that the Planning Commission refer this to the Transportation Advisory Committee for recommendation and that the Commission table the request pending their report. Helen seconded the motion. Their was no further discussion. All said "Aye." The motion was approved unanimously. ., DAY CARE CENTER Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on the 859 California Dr. Conditional Use Request for a Day Care Center at Gladys McNew $ Mecia Marsh 859 California Drive, submitted by Gladys McNew and Mecia Marsh. Gladys McNew was present to represent. Mrs. McNew stated that they had leased this house from Baker -Freeman F, Associated for the purpose of a Day Care Center. She said that it was ideal for a Child Care Center and that they would have more than adequate footage and indoor and outdoor play space to satisfy the state; therefore, they wanted the conditional special exception for the zone. There is no parking on California Drive; there are two off-street parking spaces coming off of Harmon. Mrs. McNew requested that if the zoning special exception was made that they would like to have "no parking" signs put up as students parked here. Mr. Gitelman asked Mrs. McNew if the entire yard was fenced. Mrs. McNew stated that it was actually fenced on three sides. Mr. Jacks wondered why there were no comments from Dr. Sacks who lived next door concerning this matter. Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator said that it was her understanding that Mr. and Mrs. Sacks were out of the country. Mrs. McNew confirmed this statement and also stated that she talked with them about three weeks ago and had a letter which she read to the Planning Commission stating they had no objections to the Day Care Center. Chairman Gitelman said that there was a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Harold D. Hantz stating they had no objections to the Day Care Center to be located at 859 California Drive, but there was a phone call from Mr. Harold Fetter of 835 West Center Street who objected to the Center because of increased traffic this would create and also the furnishings and materials which had been recently placed outside on the property was creating an unsightly appearance. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Gitelman asked Mrs. McNew where the children would be coming from on the property. Mrs. McNew stated that they would be coming in off of Harmon. -10 - Planning Commission September 10, 1974 There was no one present to show objection. Mrs. McNew again went into the "no parking" signs discussion but Chairman Gitelman informed her that this was not under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacks moved that the Conditional Use Request for the Child Day Care Center at 859 California Drive be approved. Mr. Power seconded the motion. Lancaster, Hughes, Edmiston, Gitelman, Jacks, Nickell all voted "Aye." Mrs. Rita Davis voted "Nay." The request was approved. LEWIS FORD SALES, INC. The next item was a Large Scale Development Plan of 3373 North College Avenue Lewis Ford Sales, Inc. to construct a building for Large Scale Development storage at 3373 North College Avenue. Mr. Ernest Jacks reported that Subdivision Committee found no problem other than the requirement that they watch the drainage. Mr. Gitelman stated that Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, had a comment that any additional driveways will require a state highway department permit. Mr. Jacks moved that the Large Scale Development for Lewis Ford Sales, Inc. be approved. It was approved unanimously. SHAKESPEARE OF ARKANSAS,.' The next item was the proposed Large Scale Development Large Scale Development Plan of Shakespeare of Arkansas, Inc. to construct an addition to the existing building to be used primarily for warehouse purposes. Mr. Jacks said that there were comments from Paul Mattke, City Engineer, concerning the relocation of a water line. Mr. Jacks moved that the Large Scale Development Plan of Shakespeare of Arkansas, Inc. be approved subject to them working with the City Engineer on any work on the water line. Mrs. Edmiston seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and it was approved unanimously. Mr. Hughes then brought up the question of a letter that the Planning Commission had received from Shakespeare stating that they would require access onto Highway 71 By -Pass. Mr. Gitelman said that they had a letter from Mr. Grimes, City Manager, referring to potential request for access onto the By-pass. It was decided this did not enter into the plan submitted for approval at this time. OFF-STREET PARKING GARAGE The next item for discussion was a referral Intersection of Center St. $ Church Ave. to the Planning Commission for recommendation on the formation of an improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage at the intersection of Center Street and Church Avenue. A request had been submitted by City Manager, Don Grimes, on behalf of Dr. Garland Melton, Chairman of the Parking Authority to table this request as they want to try and work out something to provide additional parking that will be more palatable to the businesses and residents of the downtown area. Mr. Hughes moved that the consideration of the improvement district be tabled. Mrs. Edmiston seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously to table the matter. AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 1747 Chairman Gitelman opened public hearing on the proposed Off -Street Parking ordinance to amend Appendix A, Article 8, Section 9 (1) of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Zoning Ordinance 1747) for the purpose of clarifying off-street parking requirements. A public hearing was held July 9, 1974 at which time the proposed ordinance was tabled and again on July 23, 1974. • • -11- Planning Commission September 10, 1974 Mrs. Edmiston moved that the proposed ordinance be tabled again at this time. Mr. Jacks seconded the motion. Chairman Gitelman invited comments from anyone in the audience who might be in opposition to the proposed ordinance. There was no one present in -opposition. Mrs. Rita Davis stated that she thought they should reconsider the whole thing. She felt that the minimum 300 feet distance requirement for off-site parking was too close. Mr. Jacks thought that it would be wise to re-examine this. -Mr. Gitelman asked Mr. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, that if they table this proposed ordinance, would he make a study and present the PlanningCommission with an alternative recommendation for the problem of off-site parking. Mr. Wood replied that he would . Mrs. Edmiston and Mr. Jacks withdrew their motion and second. The public hearing was concluded. Mr. Jacks moved that they table the proposed ordinance pending Larry Wood's report. Mr. Nickell seconded it. The motion was unanimously approved. GINTONIO CONSTRUCTION CO. The public hearing was opened on a conditional use request 2241 South School St. for "warehousing" which was submitted by Gintonio Conditional Use Request Construction Company for property at 2241 South School Avenue zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. There was no one present to represent. Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, said that Mr. Gintonio would need to increase the setback to the North to 15 feet. Mr. Lancaster moved that the request be approved subject to the required setback. Mrs. Edmiston seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. LETTER FROM CITY MANAGER The next item for discussion was a letter from Don Grimes, Bob Mayes Property City Manager, requesting the Planning Commission to make Major Street Plan a recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding the location of a major street shown just South of the University of Arkansas farm on the Major Street Plan. Mr Grimes was present and stated he felt that this was such a minor change in the Major Street Plan that it wouldn't have to go back and forth between Fayetteville and Springdale and the Technical Advisory Committee. He said all that he was asking was that there be a slight jog to the South shown on the map indicating it would go South of the Mayes property. Mr. Grimes felt that temporarily this would berlogical solution to the problem since Mr. Mayes had been upset about it for quite some time. He said the City has been unable to get a firm answer from the University of Arkansas Farm to permit the street to jog to the North, and Union Life Insurance who owns property to the South is unhappy with the City because they were held up on a project; therefore, he didn't feel that anything could be worked out there. Mr. Grimes felt that sometime in the relative near future that something could be worked out with the property owners to the South with respect of extending on West to Garland. He said the major traffic generator (the University of Arkansas) is to the South and this traffic would be traveling from the Northeast to Southwest and vice -versa and he saw no problems being caused by that much of a slight curve to the South. Chairman Gitelman then told Mr. Grimes that he thought the PlanningrCommission would treat this as a request to re -draw the map slightly, because the Major Street Plan doesn't locate the right-of-way lines and if it would make Mr. Mayes happy to drop the line a little, he thought the Commission could recommend this. • -12- Planning Commission September 10, 1974 Mr. and Mrs. Z. L. Thomas were present to oppose this request. Mr. Thomas said that they owned property to the East of the Mayes property and he said that making an 80 foot street through and putting a slight bend in it would take part of their property and that it would take twice as much property this way as it would going straight through with it. Mrs. Thomas said that it looked to her as though Mr. Mayes would have all the frontage and would not be having to give any land, either; and, according to Mr. Grimes, if he ever developed they (the Thomases) would have to donate the 80 feet and then set back 30 feet. Mr. Gitelman explained that whatever they do, they are not locating the street. He stated that they would try to make it as easy as possible for Mr. Grimes to satisfy the citizens without necessarily making a commitment as to exactly where that street is going to go. He said he didn't think they wanted to take the position that they were going to mess up the Thomases property or Mr. Mayes' property. He said no one could tell right now where the proposed street would be located. and the fact that it was on the Major Street Plan did not necessarily make it to be located in that exact spot. Mrs. Thomas stated that the road by the Farmer's Daughter (restaurant) that went straight through the University Farm through to Johnson Road used to be a public road and she was wondering why they just didn't widen this and pave it to -save on expenses. Mr. Hughes stated that this was not a public road Mr. Al Hughes left the meeting at 6:30 Pc' M.) Mr. Jacks moved that the Major Street Plan be left alone and ask Mr. Grimes to explain to Mr. Mayes that this line on the Major Street Plan does not fix the right-of-way and that the City does not consider that the street will take his house; also, that he should be sent a letter stating the intent of the Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Ernest Lancaster seconded the motion. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, suggested that the Planning Commission propose to Mr. Mayes that a cuive be "swung" off of the Northwest corner of the Thomas property which would curve through the entire 104 feet width of his property on a diagonal until it touched his South line and terminate there. Al Hughes returned to the meeting. Mr. Jacks stated he felt they still should leave the major Street Plan as is. Jacks, Power, Nickell, Gitelman, Edmiston, Davis, and Lancaster voted "Aye." Mr. Hughes abstained because he was not present to hear the motion. REZONING PETITIONS The next item was a report from Bobbie Jones, Planning Letters of Agreement Administrator, on letters of agreement that have been received on previously tabled rezoning petitions which authorize them to remain on the table for more than 45 days They were: A. Rezoning Petition, R74-8, General Growth Development Corporation. B. Rezoning Petition R74-10, James 0. Witt, Jr., President of the Hargis Company, and Loris L. Stanton, President of the Stanton Company. C. Rezoning Petition, R74-12, J. Bernard Dresselhaus. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 P.M. • RESOLUTION PC 27.2-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 10, 1974, 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 petition to close an alley between Lots 1,o21 and 3, Block 3, Parksdale Addition and also an alley between Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Block 3, Parksdale Addition; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition to close the 2 alleys in Parksdale Addition be approved. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of September , 1974. APPROVED: • MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman • uJ RESOLUTION PC 28-71- WHEREAS, 8-7¢ WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 10, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on 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 voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Mr. A. E. Bowen and Mr. Leo Thomas, Rezoning Petition R74-14; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COP4MISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETPI;VILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property, des- cribed as follows, from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the SW*, NEw and a part of the SEt, NW* of Sec. 7, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 239.78 feet West and 150 feet South of the NW corner of the SW4, NE44 of Sec. 7, T -16-N, R -30-W; thence South 461.25 feet; thence East approximately 650 feet to the West right-of-way of Highway 71 By -Pass; thence North along the West right-of-way of said Highway 71 By -Pass to a point which is 617 12 feet East and 150 feet South of the NW corner of the SW4, NE4, of Sec. 7, T -16-N, R -30-W, thence 856.90 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this /d day of �.S�r-!i{r 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman A • i RESOLUTION PC 29- 74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, September, 10, 1974, 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 voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R74-15, Roy J. and Helen R. Milligan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILT,F, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SEy, NW;; of Sec. 19, T -16-N, R-30-1, described as: Beginning at the NE corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence South 49.5 feet; thence South 71° West 116.5 feet for a point of beginning of the land to be conveyed; thence South 71° West 105 feet; thence South 338 feet to the North line of U. S. Highway No. 62; thence North 71° East 105 feet along the North line of Highway No. 62; thence North 338 feet to the place of beginning. ALSO Part of the 5E4 of NW4 of Sec. 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of ROW of the St. Louis and San Fransico Railroad which is South 71° West 221 feet from the intersection of the North line of right-of-way with the East line of said 40 acre tract, being 7.25 chains South of the NE corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence North 398.52 feet; thence West ten feet; thence South to the North line of said Railroad right-of-way; thence Northeasterly with said North line 10 feet, more or less to the place of beginning. ALSO Part of the SEw, NW,i-,, of Sec. 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, of the 5th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point 49.5 feet South of the NE corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence South 71° West 116.5 feet; thence South 418 feet to the South line of U. S. Highway No. 62; thence North 71° East 116.5 feet to the East line of said 40 acre tract; thence North 418 feet to the place of beginning, containing one (1) acre, more or less, (the South line of said one acre tract being the North line of the former right-of-way of the St. Louis -San Francisco Railroad) situate in Washington County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultral District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develop the property commercially. PASSED AND APPROVED this /Q day ofairme. , 1974. APPROVED' Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 70- 74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 10, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, anewspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R74-16, Mr. Dayton Stratton. 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, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW,i-, of the NE4 of Sec. 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, and being more particularly described as beginning at a point which is 210 feet East of the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, thence East 57 feet; thence South 15° East 280 feet to the North line of Highway No. 62 West; thence in a Southwesterly direction along the North line of said Highway 365 feet, more or less, to its intersection with the West line of said 40 acre tract; thence North along said West line to a point 112 feet South of the NW corner of said 40 acre tract; thence East 210 feet; thence North 112 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.15 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develop the property commercially, PASSED AND APPROVED this day of e ,d rk4 , 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION 21-71 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday,September 10, 1974, 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 Section 4 of Ordinance 1998 (Article IV, Section I - Large Scale Development, of Appendix C - Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to clarify the requirements for approval of a large scale development; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1998 to clarify the requirements for approval of a large scale development. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of September , 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman