HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-24 Minutes•
Ot Y
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A meeting of -the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Tuesday, June 24, 1975,
at 4:05 P. M. in the Board of Directors Roomy City -Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Maguire, John Power,
Chairman Morton Gitelman,
Jack Ray.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
None.
Donald Nickell,
Helen Edmiston,
Ernest Jacks,
Bill Kisor, Rita Davis,
Charles Oxford, Larry Wood, Alan Beauchamp, Jim Lindsey,
Mildred Graue, Judith Robinson, Donnealia McNair, Director
Russell Purdy, Mayor Orton, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
Chairman Gitelman called the meeting to order.
The minutes of the June 10, 1975 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as distributed.
Rita Davis arrived at 4:07 P.M.
The second item on the agenda, which was a public hearing
on the proposed amendment to Article 4, Article 6, and
Article 7 of the Zoning Oridnance 1747 (Appendix A to the
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to clarify the regulations
of signs within the City, had to be
Planning Commission Meeting of July
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones
on the agenda.
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Article '4,6,$ 7
applicable to the use
tabled since it was advertised for the
8, 1975.
explained that this had been erroneously placed
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on two alternate Amendments to
amendments to Zoning Ordinance 1747 whereby "retail Zoning Ordinance 1747
liquor stores" would become a permitted use in the C-2, (Thoroughfare Commercial)
and C-3 (Central Commercial)Zoning Districts. This was tabled from the June 10, 1975,
Planning Commission Meeting because the Planning Commission felt they should wait
until Chairman Gitelman was present to give a report from the committee that had met
concerning this matter.
Chairman Gitelman said it was the general concensus of the Board of Directors that
the Zoning Ordinance should provide a place for retail liquor stores. He said most
of the Board of Director members expressed there should be consideration on location
of liquor stores (C-2 and'C-3 being the proper place) but also felt some restrictions
should be placed on it such as . . . a separation between churches, schools, etc,
and screening from any abutting residential areas. Mr. Gitelman said this was
referred back to the Planning Commission for them to come up with a specific ordinance.
Chairman Gitelman told the Commissioners that a lot of people showed up at the Board
of Directors meeting expressing their concern so the conditional use approach to
the subject was more or less out of the picture as it stood right now.
Mr. Nickell asked Chairman Gitelman what the City Attorney said about people being
able to say whether or not they wanted a retail liquor store.next door to their
business.
John Maguire asked about making it a conditional use and Chairman Gitelman explained
that the City Attorney had indicated he did not think .that it would hold up in
court and he felt this would be encroaching upon state statutes.
Chairman Gitelman said the City Attorney's recommendation for Use Conditions would
•
•
Planning Commission -2-
June 24, 1975
be up for a public hearing on July 8, '1975.
Charles Oxford from the University, who was present at the last Planning Commission
meeting in opposition -to -the amendments,asked,about locations of commercial zoning
along Highway 62; Planning Consultant Larry Wood pointed out these areas
on the zoning map.
Ernest Jacks said he had a strong feeling for Alternate #2 but felt that it should
come under Use Unit 16 (Shopping Goods) rather than Use Unit 14. (Hotel., Motel, &
Amusement Facilities).
Helen Edmiston agreed with Mr. Jacks on this.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had talked with City Attorney
Jim McCord on this and he had no objections to placing this in Use Unit 16; how-
ever, he did urge the Planning Commission to take action to place it somewhere
in the Zoning Ordinance at this meeting.
Ernest Jacks moved to send the recommendation to the Board of Directors that
"retail liquor stores" be approved as a use under Use Unit 16 which would make
it a use "by right" in the C-2 and C-3 Zones only.
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion.
Maguire, Jacks, Gitelman, Edmiston, Kisor, Davis, and Ray voted "Aye"; Nickell and
Power voted "Nay".
The next item for consideration was the proposed amendment AMENDMENT TO
to the General Land Use Plan of the City of Fayetteville Proposed Land Use Plan
for an area in and around the State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) corridor, extending
southward to the lands lying south of State Highway 16 East and extending northward
to the northernmost Fayetteville City Limits Line; also included is an area
bounded on the west by Highway 71 and extending south to include lands on
both sides of Mud Creek. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,1975,
but a motion to recommend approval failed to pass with a vote of 4-2. State
Statutes require 5 affirmative votes. The Board of Directors referred the amendment
back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on June 17, 1975.
Ernest Jacks pointed out that the main question was concerning the alternate plan
as proposed by Jim Lindsey in which he requested commercial be shown at the inter-
section of Zion and Crossover Road and agreed to straighten out Zion Road at
the intersection. Mr. Lindsey is trusted for a group of people who would be
willing to dedicate the street right-of-way to take the two 90 degree.turns out
of Zion. Road
In answer to Mr. Jacks' question, Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he still
preferred to keep that intersection as it was for two basic reasons: 1. The
spacing involved if it were commercial at the intersection of Zion Road (only .8
of a mile from intersection of Stearns) 2. He felt this might establish a
precedent in this plan and the plan adoption (although there is already a precedent
set in the City) by recommending Commercial at major and collector street
intersections. He said he believed that the adopted land use plan stated
"commercial would be considered at major and major, and major and collector!'
However, he was reluctant to recommend to the Planning Commission that they adopt
a plan or plan amendment that begins with that kind of recommendation because
there were a lot of major -collector intersections that are planned and/or existing
that would not meet the spacing requirements. He said it was just a preference
on his part from a planning standpoint of staying with major -major intersections
for large commercial facilities. He said, however, that if it were decided to
put commercial at Zion Road, he saw no reason why they could not plan around a
location at that point. He felt that something had to be done to the existing
Zion Road intersection because it was a bad one.
Jim Lindsey was present and said this was a major -major intersection that was
being discussed. However, he pointed out that Joyce Street was presently a
li
Planning Commission
June 24, 1975•
gravel street that dead ends and would depend on Arkansas Western Gas tying into it.
• He felt that the City did not have funds right now. (even with. Community Development
programs) to construct Stearns Street within the next 10 years,
Jim Lindsey said within the last week. Zion Road had been resurfaced, and pointed out
a place where trucks had broken down the road and it had to be widened. He felt
that the fact that there was .8 of a mile spacing, and there was a mountain in
between, that there was more justification than in most zonings that had been
permitted. He said since the City Council had approved a rezoning at Jerry Street
and Highway 16 which is a minor arterial intersecting a major. In all fairness
to the people he worked for and with at that intersection, it was beyond his compre-
hension how it could be zoned otherwise. (Mr. Lindsey and the people he represents
are wanting to straighten Zion Road out and will dedicate the right-of-way for it. )
John Maguire felt Jim Lindsey had a valid request.
Chairman Gitelman said what concerned him was whether or not Stearns Road would
really come into existence. He said Zion Road would carry all the burden of the
traffic if it did not go through.
Paul Lewis asked about the total acreage of Commercial along Highway 265 and if there
was a possibility of it developing like College Avenue did.
PlanningConsultant Larry Wood replied that there were about 60 acres of commer-
cially predicted areas in all.
Helen Edmiston said they were trying to group the intersections to keep this from
developing like College Avenue did. Mrs. Edmiston felt that this intersection
at Zion Road would carry enough traffic that it would not be desirable for anything
but commercial.
After further discussion Bill Kisor moved to accept the alternate plan showing
commercial at the intersection of Zion Road and Highway 265.
• Jack Ray seconded the motion.
Mayor Orton asked if the amount of commercial at Stearns should be cut down' if the
intersection of Zion Road were commercial, and Chairman Gitelman said he did not
feel that the plan should predict the amount of commercial.
Mr. Alan Beauchamp was present and asked the Planning Commission why commercial
was not recommended east of this area (the intersection of Crossover Road and
Old Wire Road.
John Maguire said most of that area was residential.
Chairman Gitelman told Mr. Beauchamp that the Land Use Plan did not necessarily
follow property lines and was more or less a guideline which they hoped developers
would follow in future planning.
There was no further discussion
The motion that was on the floor was approved by a vote of 8 "Ayes" with
Donald Nickell abstaining.
•
DISCUSSION ON ZONING SETBACKS
The next item was a request from Commission member Helen Edmiston for a discussion on
zoning setbacks. (This item was tabled from the April 22, May 13, May 27, and
June 10, 1975 Planning Commission meetings because of the lengthy agendas.).
John Maguire moved to take Item 5 on this agenda (discussion of zoning setbacks)off
the table.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Helen Edmiston said she could not understand why it was necessary to have a 50 foot
separation between warehouses in an I-1 Zone. She felt that this was a tremendous
waste of property.
Chairman Gitelman said he understood the Board of Adjustment was having some
problems withsetbacks in the Central Commercial Zone (C-3) with the new Urban Renewal
program He said they had a request before them at their last meeting and felt they
would be having other requests in the future with. the area around the square
Planning Consultant Larry Wood felt like what had probably happened was that I-1
•
•
Planning Commission
June 24, 1975
-4-
tracts used to be platted out like the residential is now. Theywere platted
out in 25. foot lots and it depended on the type of industry how many lots were
sold. He said it was actually a lot situationwhere there was need for this much of
a setback between the lot lines between two industries. He felt these setbacks
were the result of the ways in which industries had developed in the 1950's
without regard to the general welfare of the Cities around them sometimes with open
drop forging and open deep -pit welding. Mr. Wood felt there was need for this
much setback where it was next to a residential area.
Helen Edmiston agreed with this but could not understand why there had to be
that much of a setback between two warehouses when they were both in the I-1 zone.
John Maguire said there might be cases where this much of a setback was required
because one industry might jeopardize fire ratings for another industry.
He said there was a building code requirement on this.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this was a part of the building code and
she was not familiar with it but that she did know that setbacks depended on the
type of construction and use and size of the building.
Donald Nickell said he could see the relief needed in the I-1 Zones but could not
see getting any closer to the residential districts.
Chairman Gitelman felt the Planning Commission should get Mr. Lieberenz's (Inspection
Superintendent) comments about lesser setbacks in the I -Zones and setbacks required
by building codes.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones commented that the Board of Adjustment would like
to have some guidelines about the setbacks in the Central Commercial District and
asked what the Commission wished to do on this.
Chairman Gitelman stated he felt the Commission was not prepared at this time to
do this. He said he would contact Chairman Yates of the Board of Adjustment about
a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss this problem
Paul Lewis said that downtown Fayetteville would like to be represented when they:had
thejoint meeting.
A Conditional Use Request submitted by Stagecoach Real
Estate on behalf of Judith Robinson for a Pre -School to be
located at 11 Trenton, was the next item for the Commission's
consideration. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density
Residential.
CONDITIONAL. USE REQUEST
Stagecoach Real Estate
2:.Of Behalf: Of
Judith Robinson
Mrs. Mildred Graue and Mrs. Robinson were present to represent.
In answer to one of the Commissioner's questions, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones
said this would have to meet the requirements of the Fire Chief, State Board of Health,
Inspection Department, and the zoning requirements. She said these requirements had
to be met before a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued and that she would haveto
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy before she could get her State license.
Donald Nickell asked if there was proper parking for parents picking up and leaving
their children, and Mrs. Graue replied there was.
Ernest Jacks asked whether or not the neighbors were aware of the Conditional Use
request.
Mrs. Graue said she had not been aware that this information was needed for the
request. She said she had not been told to get this information.
Chairman Gitelman felt the adjacent property owners should be notified of the request
before the Commission took any action on it.
Ernest Jacks and John Maguire also felt that they should be notified.
In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Mrs, Graue said there would not be any more than
15 children at one session.
John Power felt that if the neighbors had not objected to the construction of the
doctors' offices (Lushbaugh), then surely they would have no objections to this
request. He felt these people should not be held up just .because of this.
Jack Ray agreed with Mr. Power.
•
•
Planning Commission
June 24, 1975
-5-
John Power moved to grant the Conditional Use Request as requested on this agenda.
Jack. Ray seconded the motion,
Mayor Orton asked about the usual procedure on obtaining the consent of the
adjacent property owners.
Mrs. Jones said she always asked the applicant to go around and obtain the names
and addresses of these people and she mailed the necessary information to them. She
felt certain that she explained this to either Mr. or Mrs. Graue.
John Power said that on this basis he would like to withdraw his motion with the
approval of Mr. Ray. -
Jack Ray also withdrew his second.
Mr. Power then moved to table this Conditional Use Request until the July 8, 1975,
Planning Commission meeting to enable the adjoining property owners to be notified.
Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
Next was the Conditional Use Request submitted by Donnealia McNair
Donnealia McNair for a Pre -School in her home at 1966 Brent Lane. 1966 Brent Lane
Mrs. McNair was present to represent the request.
She said in view of the fact that Fayetteville needed this type of program she would
like to be granted permission for a pre-school program in her home at 1966 Brent Lane.
She said the classes would be held for 2 hours a day, 2 or 3 days a week and the program
would call for inside activities; however, she said she had a fenced back yard if this
would have any bearing on being granted the request. She said she had a circle drive
that would be convenient for parents picking up and dropping off their children and
also pointed out that this was a dead-end street. She said this would not be a place
for mothers to leave children while they worked and that she would work up eventually -to
around 15 children but would never have any more than that in the class. She said there
would be no public advertising. She said her mother had this type of program in a
lovely residential area for around 20 years and had no objections whatsoever from
her neighbors. She said she had experience in helping her mother with the program.
Mrs. McNair said she had gone to the neighbors and explained to them in detail what she
intended to do. She submitted a letter with signatures of most of the surrounding
property owners'signatures on it.
John Power said he felt there should be some stipulation limiting this to 15 children.
Donald Nickell said in view of the fact that she had the permission of the majority
of the neighbors, he would move to grant the Conditional Use Request for a period of
one year. -
Mrs. McNair wanted to know what this would involve. She said there was a fairly large
expense involved in getting the equipment set up in her home. She felt that she could not
afford to put all of this in and then not get to operate any more than one year.
Some of the members explained that this was merely to give it a chance to see if it
would work our alright. They told her that most of the time a Conditional Use Request
was not difficult to get an extension on it, especially if there were no problems that
came up. They told her that she could apply for the renewal in writing if she wished
to do so.
She said it would be next fall before she could get the equipment set up and start
operating. She wanted to know if the time period could be for one year from the day
she opened so she would have a full year to operate.
Mr. Nickell amended his motion to grant the request from the day she began operation until
a year from that date with her to notify the Planning Office when she began operation.
Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Under "Other Business" the First National Bank submitted a request to waiver the
safety zones between individual driveways on Block and Spring Street (where the old
Ward Ice Cream building used to be). The Ordinance requires 30 feet between driveways
on collector and higher designation streets. Block Street is designated a collector street.
•
,,
rcs
Planning Commission -6-
June 24, 1975
The Bank is requesting a safety zone of 18, 2".
Ernest Jacks pointed out the letter from Scarbrough. and Lance guaranteeing they
would not construct a driveway within 26 feet of their Northproperty line.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said City Engineer Paul Mattke had requested
that letter and said he would issue the permit for the driveway cut if the
Planning Commission would waiver the safety zohe'requirement. She said she had
talked with Street Superintendent Clayton Powell and he was not in favor of any
waiver.
Ernest Jacks moved to grant the waiver since this is a one-way street and each
driveway would be one-way traffic (one driveway for ingress and one for egress.)
Donald Nickell seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Director Russell Purdy asked the Planning Commission what the status was on
"riding stables and academies". The Commission pointed out thattat:the last: '
meeting they decided to table this until Planning Consultant Larry Wood and
City Attorney Jim McCord could gettogether and give a package to define this and
Use Condition 3 to place restrictions on it as to minimum acreage, setbacks, use
of loud speakers, ingress and egress, etc, and they had not yet received
any report on this from them.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P. M..
•
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 33-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission,
Tuesday, June 24, 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 a proposed ordinance to amend
Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning, Code of Ordinance, City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas) to amend Use Unit 16 (Shopping Goods) to include "retail liquor
Stores";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJJ.F, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1747 to amend Use Unit 16 to include
retail liquor stores.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman
RESOLUTION PC 34-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission,
Tuesday, June 10, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the
Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning
Commission on Tuesday, June 24, 1975, voted to make a recommendation to the
Board of Directors on a proposed amendment to the general land use plan;
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 the General Land Use Plan for an area in and
around the State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) corridor, extending southward
to the lands lying south of State Highway 16 East and extending northward to
the Northernmost Fayetteville City L.ithits line; also included is an area
bounded on the west by Highway 71 and extending south to include lands on both
sides of Mud Creek.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman