Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-24 MinutesThe Fayetteville in the Directors MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission met Tuesday, September 24, 1974, at 4:00 P.M. Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, John Power, Helen Edmiston, Al Hughes, Ernest Lancaster, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Rita Davis. None Larry Wood, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Mr. R. L. Wommack, Dale Evans, John Honeycutt, James 0. Witt. Gitelman called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the September 10, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. PETITION TO CLOSE ALLEY West of Gregg Avenue Chairman Gitelman opened the discussion on a Between petiton to close an alley lying West of Edgewood and Prospect Streets Gregg Avenue, between Edgewood Street and Prospect Street in Mitchell's Addition, submitted by R. L. $ Mary Lou Wommack, L. D. G Nellie Wagnon, Wood €, Lois Cunningham, and Mertle Wagnon. Mr. R. L. Wommack was present to represent. Mr. Wommack explained the location of the alley to the Commission. He said that they requested the closing of the alley because of ownership of a certain lot that is presently 50 feet in width and it cannot be built on otherwise; also that the alley does not go anywhere except into this private street (Edgewood Street.) He said that there were no objections of any kind, including utilities. Chairman Gitelman asked if all the property owners adjacent to the alley had joined in the application. Mr. Wommack stated that this was correct. He said that Mr. $ Mrs. Cunningham owned the property immediately behind this lot (their roofing business area) and their home residence is immediately North of this lot. He said Mr. Wagnon owns a house on the other side of the alley and that Mrs. Wagnon (mother of L. D. Wagnon) lives on the corner of Prospect and Gregg Street and all of these have joined in the petition. In answer to a question asked by Chairman Gitelman, Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, stated that Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, had submitted a memo saying he had talked with the petitioners and made field inspection and had no objections. Mrs. Helen Edmiston moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the right-of-way of the alley be vacated and abandoned as petitioned. Mr. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. There was no more discussion. It was voted on and unanimously approved by 8 "Ayes". The next item to be discussed was a request for a use unit interpretation submitted by Dale Evans, 400 Mission Boulevard. Mr. Evans was present to represent. USE UNIT INTERPRETATION REQUEST Mr. Dale Evans 400 Mission Boulevard • Planning Commission -2- September 24, 1974 Mr. Evans stated that he and his wife would like to open a small shop in a portion of their residence in which they would sell items such as hanging baskets, planter boxes, and various other items that they themselves make that are attractive to the home. He said that they would like to have this shop in their home until they found out if this would be a service to the community and perhaps open a shop at another location later. Chairman Gitelman asked if there was a barber shop located near his, residence. Mr. Evans replied that it was located about 2 or 3 doors from his home. Mr. Jacks stated that this location should not be a factor in the Commission's consideration of a use unit interpretation. He stated that they would probably be dealing with this area in years to come. The gas company had the whole block zoned I-1 years ago and this includes some residential property along Mission Boulevard. He said that when the gas company moves its operation out by its office that the Planning Commission needed to think about what would happen to this area. Mrs. Edmiston said she didn't think this area should be zoned I-1. Since a number of questions were asked about whether this should be under Use Unit 16 or 17, Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, explained that under Use Unit 16 "General Merchandising Establishment" is amplified on whereas under Use Unit 17 it is not. She felt an interpretation was needed as to whether all the uses included under "General Merchandising Establishment" in use Unit 16 should alsobe considered under "General Merchandising Establishment" in Use Unit 17. Mr. Evans stated that they will not be specializing in just one item; that they would try to make anything that customers asked for in the way of home improvements such as this. Ernest Jacks stated that they did have a problem in this area but didn't see how the Commission can deny it; and that as he read the Use Units didn't see how the interpretation could be logically denied. Mr. Jacks moved that an interpretation be made that this business as described by Mr. Evans, falls under Use Unit 17. Al Hughes seconded the motion. There was no more discussion. It was voted upon and unanimously approved by 8 "Ayes". Mrs. Edmiston stated that she felt that a study should be made on this area; that this area should not be I-1. Chairman Gitelman opened the discussion on a Conditional Use Request for a duplex to be located at 570-572 Happy Hollow Road, submitted by Mr. John Honeycutt. Mr. John Honeycutt was present to represent. Mr. Gitelman stated that he had a note from Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, that the matter had gone before the Board of Adjustment on September 23, 1974 for variance on the lot width and setback requirements. Mrs. Jones summarized the deliberations of the Board of Adjustment concerning this matter. She explained that the lots are 632' \wide by;:330'T;deep each and are 2 platted lots. She explained that there is a single- family dwelling located on one lot 42 feet from the common lot line. The Board of Adjustment approved the variances for the lot width and setback for the single-family dwelling and for the lot width for the duplex. There was no one present to oppose the re- -quest. The Commission discussed the fact that there are other duplexes in this area. Al Hughes -moved. that -the -request be approved; Helen.Edmiston•seconded:themotion. It was approved unanimously by a vote of 8 "Ayes." CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST John Honeycutt 570-572 Happy Hollow Road The next item for discussion was the proposed final plat of a Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 5, Hyland Park Phase 2, submitted by Hyland Park, Inc. HYLAND PARK, PHASE 2 Replat of Lots 17,18,19 and.20 -- Block 5 Hyland Park, Inc. Planning Commission September 24, 1974 • Mr. Jacks told the Planning Commission that the only problem the Subdivision Committee found was that Lot 16 should be included in the replat or it should be redrawn where it will not affect Lot 16, and that an easement needs to be dimensioned between Lots 19 and 20. Mr. Jacks stated that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the final plat with the provision that the Engineering Department be satisfied regarding the platting of Lot 16, and he moved that the Planninc Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the final plat be accepted with the above provision. Mr. Al Hughes seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. It was voted upon and approved unanimously by 8 "Ayes". Mrs. Rita Davis arrived at the meeting at 4:30 P.M. STUDY OF LAND USE PLAN $ ZONING The next item was a report from Larry Wood, Report from Larry Wood Planning Consultant, on a Study of Land Use Plan 15th Street $ Morningside and Zoning in the area of Highway 16 By-pass (15th Street) and Morningside Drive. Mr. Wood stated that he had no particular recommendation on this at this time because it was a difficult area and he needed some help before he could make a recommendation. He said it was apparent that the Commission had a committment to industry in this area but also had a committment to the residential as well. Mr. Wood pointed out the various features of this area which make it difficult to arrive at a recommendation. 1. Much of the area is in the flood plain on the Corps of Engineers study. 2. The railroad spur to the Industrial Park, crosses the area. 3. There are 2 large hills. 4. The City Major Street Plan and Arkansas Highway Department propose a major arterial street connecting Willoughby Road with Armstrong Boulevard. 5. Fifteenth Street is Highway 16 By-pass and whatever happens to the South side will have direct effect on the North side. Mr. Wood said the area which floods would not be good for residential development except as a planned unit development in which the flood prone areas would be maintained as open space. Nor, did he recommend residential development adjacent to a railroad track. He said that on the other hand, hilly rough terrain is not suitable for industrial development. He felt that if the South side of 15th Street could be developed by large industrial establishments they might keep a R-0 Zoning strip between 15th Street and the I-1 for the plants to use as offices. He did not favor any zoning that would permit the South side of 15th Street to develop as College Avenue has with many small commercial uses directed at traffic which would come and go at all times of the day. • Mr. Maguire stated that he felt that railroads were poor places to build houses; that this area should be reserved for factories as the area close to the tracks could be used for a parking lot for the factory or just a grassy area whereas this part would be wasted in a residential area He said sidings are needed and they can only be placed alongside a railroad track. Mr. Hughes agreed that this should be industrial instead of residential. He didn't feel like anyone would want to live by a railroad track because of the noise. Mr. James 0. Witt stated that many people lived by railroads and hedidn't see anything wrong with it. Planning Commission September 24, 1974 Mr. Nickell agreed the area along the railroad should be industrial but remarked that he would not like to see anything commercial or industrial go on the North side of the By-pass. Mr. Gitelman said he didn't see anything wrong with leaving that residential on the Zoning Plan. After some discussion it was decided that this would be taken up again at the next meeting in order to try to solve the problem. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P. M. • • RESOLUTION PC 31.1-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 24, 1974, fifteen (15) days after: 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 lying West of Gregg Avenue, between Edgewood St. and Prospect Street in Mitchell's Addition, submitted by R. L. and Mary Lou Womack, L. D. and Nellie Wagnon, Wood and Lois Cunningham, and Mertle Wagnon. NOW THEREFORE, BE TP RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition toddiose the alley between Edgewood and Prospect Sts. in Mitchell's Addition be approved. PASSED AND APPROVED this 24th day of September , 1974. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 31.2-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 24, 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 the proposed final plat of a Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 5, Hyland Park Phase 2, submitted by Hyland Park, Inc. 4_ 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 final plat of a Replat of Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 5, Hyland Park Phase 2, submitted by Hyland Park Phase 2, be approved. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of APPROVED* 1974. MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman