Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-02-25 Minutes• <c aked, /r9S MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:10 P.M. Tuesday, February 25, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville; Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: John Power, Chairman Morton Gitelman, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Helen Edmiston, Ernest Jacks. John Lineberger, John Maguire, Donald Nickell. C. 0. Hammond, Ervan Wimberly, City Manager Don Grimes, Ronnie Woodruff, Mr. Rogers, Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Janet Bowen. Chairman Gitelman called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M. MINUTES The minutes of the February 11, 1975 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as distributed. RALPH GOFF, JR. Rezoning Petition R75-1 The next item to be considered by the Huntsville Rd 4 Jerry Ave. Planning Commission was the Rezoning Petition of Ralph Goff, Jr. (R75-1) to rezone property located on the Southeast corner of Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road) and Jerry Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, tabled from the February 11, 1975 meeting. Since Mr. F. H. Martin, the attorney representing the case, was not present at that time Ernest Jacks moved to leave this rezoning petition on the table until the next meeting. Rita Davis seconded the motion which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Chairman Gitelman asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to advise the petitioner that the Planning Commission would want to dispose of the petition in one way or another on March 11 unless they are willing to sign an agreement to have the petition tabled for more than 45 days past the public hearing. MAX GREENWOOD The next item to be discussed was the Large Scale 19 East 19th Street Development Plan of Max Greenwood, 19 East 19th Street. L. S. D. Mr. Greenwood would like to put a temporary building on his property to be used fora hobby shop. Two streets on the Master Street Plan are proposed to go through his property, however, Mr. Greenwood is willing to sign an agreement stating he would be responsible for moving the building when the street comes through his property. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report and said there were no problems aslong as he agreed to move the building himself (at his own cost). There was, however, a question of whether or not Mr. Greenwood should dedicate 30 feet of street right-of-way on College. Mr. Greenwood was not present to represent. Chairman Gitelman felt that if this was going to be treated as a movable building that it was not really the kind of development that required the dedication of right-of-way. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval • • • Planning Commission -2- February 25, 1475 of the Large Scale Development of Max Greenwood to place a temporary structure as indicated on his drawing providing he get the necessary variance from the Board of Adjustment and sign an agreement with the City to move the building at his own cost at some future date. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. It was voted upon and approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Attorney F H Martin entered the meeting at this point and said it would be agreeable with his client to table the rezoning petition and they would sign an agreement to allow it to be tabled until the Land Use Study was made of this area. Preliminary Plat of The next item to be discussed was the Preliminary Plat CLOVER CREEK II of Clover Creek II, Planned Unit Development, and a re- - PUD plat of Lots 24 through 38 of Clover Creek Subdivision (a replat of part of Meadowlark Addition) and part of the NW4, NWa, Sec. 28, T -17-N, R -30-W, submitted by E. B J. Development Company, Inc. and located South of Cato Springs Road. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said that in going over the Plat Review minutes there were several easements either the wrong widths or completely omitted and these needed to be straightened out. Also the radius on the culs-de-sac needed to be shown and the legal description needs to read Lots 24 through 38 of Clover Creek Subdivision and a part of the NWa There was also a question of whether the number of street lights on the replat should conform to the old ordinance or to the new one. (The Planning Commission has the power to vary street light regulations.) City Manager Don Grimes explained that the City would bear the cost of putting wooden poles with overhead wiring in the older parts of town. He said a lot of people objected to this but were unwilling to pay the extra cost of putting in decorative poles and underground cable. He felt that replats should looked at separately and if they did not have street lights they should suggest that there be some shown on the plat. (This, however, would not apply to this replat as some street lights are already there.) Mr. Grimes wondered if an agreement could be worked out at the time a lot was sold and some revenue was realized. Chairman Gitelman said it might could be worked out similar to an improvement district, and that sidewalks could be included in street improvement districts. There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the replat of Clover Creek II with the provision that the easements required by the Plat Review Committee be complied with; the radii on the culs-de-sac be shown; the legal description be corrected; and, furthermore, that the Planning Commission waiver the street light requirements under the new ordinance and it conform with the old ordinance as shown on the original plat. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. It was voted upon and passed by a vote of 5-0-1 with Helen Edmiston abstaining. Preliminary Plat of The next item to be discussed was the Preliminary Plat BASSETT PLACE of Bassett Place, to subdivide property.lying North Stearns Rd. F, Highway 71 of Stearns Road and East of Highway 71, submitted by Johnie Bassett. Engineer Ervan Wimberly was present to represent. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report. He said a letter from the City was needed before the Highway Department would give their approval. • • • Planning Commission -3- February 25, 1975 Ervan Wimberly said one would not give their approval before the other one would, but he thought if the Planning Commission would go ahead and approve the location of the road if they could get the approval of the Highway Department. Mr. Jacks said the radius on the cul-de-sac needed to be shown on the plat and the signatures of the adjoining property owners should be shown on the plat. Mr. Jacks also said there was a problem with Planning Consultant Larry Wood's recommendation that there be no access from Lot 6 along Stearns Road Ervan Wimberly said Mr. Bassett felt that Lot 6 was a prime lot and was not in agreement with Larry Wood's suggestion. He said Mr. Bassett was even thinking of splitting Lot 6 North and South and having frontage on one of them only along Stearns Road and the other one remaining a corner lot. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said it might necessitate more utility easements if Lot 6 were split. Chairman Gitelman said this would mean there would be two accesses onto Stearns instead of one and this would only make the situation worse at this intersection. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, agreed with this. Mr. Wood said the bypass plan shows the service road further East than what it presently is. He said when Mr. Skelton first came in he drew up a plan and sent it to the Highway De- partment asking what would be the safest location to come into Stearns Road with the Frontage Road. The Highway Department had recommended that the service road align with the Highway turn around. John Power felt that if Bob Stout's property came up to Highway 71 and that when this property is developed it might have to be condemned that Mr. Stout should be advised of this. Also that when this property is developed and if his house is left at the present location that Frontage Road would have to ge jogged eiter East or West. He said he was in favor of getting something moving in this area but felt that Mr. Stout should be notified of this situation. In answer to Chairman Gitleman's question, Mr. Wimberly said that Mr. Bassett did plan to continue to use the private drive of Lot 3 as an access onto the highway. Chairman Gitelman said he might not be able to do this when the Frontage Road is in. There was no further discussion. Helen Edmiston moved to table this item until the next meeting. (This would give them a chance to drive out to the area and also give Mr. Wimberly a chance to discuss this with Mr. Bassett.) Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Preliminary Plat The next item before the Planning Commission was the of Preliminary Plat of College Market Addition, to subdivide COLLEGE MARKET PLACE property lying North of Rolling Hills Drive, West of Trinity Temple, South of K -Mart, and East of Malco Theatre, submitted by Johnie Bassett. Engineer Ervan Wimberly was present to represent. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report. He said the signatures of the adjoining property owners were needed on the plat and the 15 foot easement shown along Rolling Hills Drive should be 20 feet. Mr. Wimberly said he would like to leave the easement at 15 feet until he could talk to the telephone comapny. He felt they might get by with a lesser easement even than 15 feet. Mr. Jacks said the big problem with this was the numerous comments concerning the traffic pattern. This does not tie back to Oak Manor Drive. He also mentioned Planning Consultant Larry Wood's comment concerning non -access from Lots 1 and 5 to Rolling Hills Drive, and a masonry buffer be erected to shield the residential property across the street. • Planning Commission -4- February 25, 1975 Mr. Wimberly said Mr. Bassett had already told him that if he was not allowed access from these lots onto Rolling Hills Drive he would "scratch" the whole thing. John Power said he thought K -Mart and Malco Theatre was supposed to put an opening between their tow properties. He told Mr. Wimberly that K -Mart employees were now using the area at the end of Market Street for parking, but if Bassett moved his access East it would be in the middle of the building. He said a connection through here would be a good idea to have but he was not sure that that was the right spot. He also said that people complained when K -Mart went in because of the traffic circling back and coming through Sheryl Street. He felt that this would just create more of this same situation. City Manager Don Grimes said people came to the Board of Directors objecting about the traffic through the residential streets when K -Mart went in He felt if they dead -ended this street against K -Mart's parking lot it might be better. Ervan Wimberly said it would definitely be a dead-end street. Mr. Wimberly showed the Planning Commission another plan that showed this area as low -traffic commercial with offices and it wouldn't be used for a public street. He said it would be okay with Mr. Bassett, though, to have an easement (if K -Mark and the City wanted to go along with this) and put the road all the way through. After further discussion it was the feeling of the Planning Commission to allow an access to Market Street but not allow any lot accesses to Rolling Hills Drive. John Power moved to deny the Preliminary Plat of College Market Addition as submitted. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. It was voted upon and unanimously denied by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Wimberly agreed to redesign the traffic circulation pattern and bring it back before the Planning Commission. The next item to be discussed was a petition to close a portion of Company Street lying between Vinson Avenue and Read Avenue (previously closed), submitted by William Weston Thomas A. Liles, John E. Mahaffey, Leta J. Mahaffey, William Olga W. Rogers. Attorney Ronnie Woodruff and Mr. Rogers were present to represent. Chairman Gitelman said there was a negative recommendation on this from Street Superintendent Clayton Powell concerning the possibility of needing right-of-way there on that street. He said this street had never been improved all the way to Vinson Street and he did not feel that this would ever be improved because of the grade. He said there were only two minor objections. One was from the gas company since they have a 2 inch line here and need to maintain it; however, the property owners have no objections for the gas company to continue their rights for an easement here. He said that the only other objection was from Street Superintendent Clayton Powell but that he simply wanted to keep the right-of-way open for the City in case they ever want to develop a drainage project through there. He said Mr. Powell wanted a 20 foot easement all the way down and since Mr. Rogers owns all the North side of what is now Company Street he is willing to give the City a 20 foot easement for whatever they want in the way of drainage. He said the gas line is within this 20 feet and the gas company felt they could work around with the City on this if the 20 feet was given. Helen Edmiston moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the petition to close the portion indicated of Company Street. Planning Consultant Larry Wood asked if there was anything on the legal side PETITION TO CLOSE A Portion Of COMPANY STREET:. Rogers, R. Rogers, and Planning Commission -5- February 25, 1975 (such as a rider attached to the deed whichwould restrict its sale without:. including sufficient lots to get it accessed to a public street.) Mr. Woodruff said Mr,Rogers owned the 50 feet on the Southend of Lots 1 and 2. He said he did not know who the present owner on the North end of Lots 1 and 2 was but they were already landlocked. Chairman Gitelman felt that anyone buying the property to develop would provide for an access to a public street. (All of these lots excluding Lot 5 are undeveloped.) There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The next item for discussion was the Large Scale Development Plan of C. 0. Hammond for property North of the end of Cline Avenue. Mr. Hammond was present to represent. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. (He said Mr. Hammond was wanting to locate two mobile homes by his residence while remodeling them for resale.) Mr. Hammond would have these mobile homes on concrete pads with utilities to them so he can check them out before selling them. Mr. Jacks said there were no problems as long as Mr. Hammond understood that there could be no residences in the mobile homes. Also that since he was planning to use an above -grade sewer, he needed to work with City Engineer Paul Mattke on this. (Mr. Hammond said he had already worked this out with Mr. Mattke.) Mr. Jacks said this was zoned for mobile home sales. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan of C. 0. Hammond. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. C. 0. HAMMOND Cline Avenue L.S.D. GLEN OLDHAM The next item for discussion was the development plan 2712 Highway 62 West of Glen Oldham to construct a residential garage on property at 2712 Highway 62 West (West Sixth Street). This matter is coming before the Planning Commission because the Highway 71 By-pass service road is shown going South from Old Farmington Road to Highway 62 in the area of Mr. Oldham's East property line. Ernest Jacks pointed out the property on a map and said there was a question of proper_setback from the service road that was proposed to go through this property. He said after reviewing this, the Subdivision Committe felt the setback should be held to in:order to protect the frontage road No one was present to represent. Ernest Jacks moved to table this development plan until Mr. Oldham (or someone representing him .) could be present to discuss it with the Planning Commission. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 6-0. Chairman Gitelman asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to tell Mr. Oldham that the Subdivision Committee had found some problems with this development. The last item to be discussed by the Planning Commission was a study of property presently zoned for medical offices requested by and City Manager Don Grimes. Planning Consultant Larry Wood siad the zoning ordinance presently districts which permit medical facilities. Those districts are: R-2, Use Unit -25; (Uses Permissible on Appeal) R-3, Use Unit -25; (Uses Permissible on Appeal) C-1, Use Units= -12 and 25; C-2, Use Unit 12; STUDY OF PROPERTY PRESENTLY ZONED for Medical Offices the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce contained seven Planning Commission -6- February 25, 1975 C-3, Use Unit 12; I-2,.Use Unit 12; and R -O, Use Units 12 and 25. Use Unit 25 restricts medical offices to no more than 4 doctors or dentists. Mr. Wood pointed out the areas on the Land Use Map where medical offices could be located. In conclusion Mr. Wood said there was more than sufficient land available for medical facilities. Mr. Wood said an amendment to the R-0 District that might make it more acceptable for this purpose, would be to move the high density potential (Use Unit 10) from a matter of right to a use permissible on appeal to the Planning Commission. He also recommended that medical facilities be included in the I-1 District Chairman Gitelman stated that he agreed with Mr. Wood's report that there is more than enough land zoned for medical facilities. OTHER BUSINESS Under "other business" John Box asked the Planning Commission about the possibility of getting property located West of Green Acre Road and North of Elm Street zoned for a dental office. He said his son would be out of dental school shortly and would like to put a dentist office there. The Planning Commission told him to talk to Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones about the procedures of getting the property rezoned. v '%f i i RESOLUTION PC 6-75 WHEREAS, the petition of William Weston Rogers, Thomas A. Liles, John E. Mahaffey, Leta J. Mahaffey, William R. Rogers, and Olga W. Rogers to vacate and abandon a portion of Company Street lying between Read Avenue (previously vacated and abandoned) and Vinson Avenue was presented to the City Planning Commission for recommendation, and WHEREAS, at a meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 1975, the City Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the City Board of Directors on said petition to vacate and abandon a portion of Company Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF.FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That after the public hearing an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of vacating that portion of Company Street described as follows: A 40 ft. street lying adjacent to and along the South side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Block 7, Mt. View Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and lying adjacent to and North of Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, Block 8, Mt. View Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat of said Addition on file in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas, and more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 7 at the intersection of Read Avenue (previously vacated and abandoned) and Company Street and running thence West 250 feet to the South- west corner of Lot 3, Block 7, at the intersection of Vinson Avenue and Company Street, thence South 40 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 10, Block 8 at said intersection, thence East 250 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 13, Block 8 at the intersection of Read Avenue (previously vacated and abandoned) and Company Street, thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning all within Mt. View Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of February , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 7-75 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Zoning Ordinance 1747, (Appendix A - Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Article 5 (VIII) District I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial (B) Uses Permitted by adding Unit 12 --Offices, Studios and Related Services and Unit 25 ---Professional Offices as permitted uses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby authorized to give notice of said public hearing by having a notice published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days prior to said public hearing. PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of February APPROVED: , 1975. Morton Gitelman, Chairman A • • RESOLUTION PC 8-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 25, 1975, 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 Petition to close a portion of Company Street. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVITS,F, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. Thatnan ordinance be adopted for the purpose of closing a portion of Company Street lying between Read Avenue and Vinson Avenue in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A 40 foot street lying adjacent to and along the South side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Block 7, Mt. View Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and lying adjacent to and North of Lots 10, 11, And 12, 13, Block 8, Mt. View Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat of said Addition on file in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas, and more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the SE corner of Lot 1, Block 7 at the intersection of Read Avenue and Company Street and thence running West 250 feet to the SW corner of Lot 3, Block 7, at the intersection of Vinson Avenue and Company Street, thence South 40 feet to the NW corner of Lot 10, Block 8 at said intersection, thence East 250 feet to the NE corner of Lot 13, Block 8, at the inter- section of Read Avenue and Company Street, thence North 40 feet to the point of beginning all within Mt. View addition to the City of Fayette- ville, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be abandoned and vacated lying between Read Avenue and Vinson Avenue. PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of February, 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman