Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-08 Minutes• A meeting of the at 4:00 P. M. in Arkansas. MINUTES QF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING /99s - Fayetteville - Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Tuesday? July 8, 1975, the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, MEMBERS PRESENT: John Maguire, John Power, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Chairman Morton Gitelman, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Larry Wood, City Attorney Jim McCord, Danny Thomas, Pete Estes, Mildred Graue, Mrs. Hepler, Tom Keith; Parker Rushing, Wanda Yoe, Sam Taylor, Chip Wright, Kerry Schultz, Russell Purdy, Larry Gage, Jack Burge. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting.to order. The minutes of the June 24, 1975 Planning Commission meeting were MINUTES approved as distributed. Judith E. Robinson The second item on the agenda was the Conditional Use Request 11 Trenton submitted by Stagecoach Real Estate on behalf of Conditional Use Request Judith E. Robinson for a Pre -School to be located at 11 Trenton, Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. This was tabled from the June 24, 1975 Planning Commission meeting so adjoining property owners could be notified. Ernest Jacks moved to take the Conditional Use Request off the table. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Chairman Morton Gitelman asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones whether or not the adjoining property owners had been notified. Mrs. Jones replied that Mrs. Graue (Stagecoach Real Estate) had submitted a letter with the surrounding property owners' signatures stating they did not object to the Pre -School at that location. There was no further discussion. Helen Edmiston moved to grant the Conditional Use Request as submitted. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gitelman opened the Public Hearing on the Amendment to Art. 4,6, $ 7 proposed amendment to Articles 4,6, and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance 1747 Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to clarify the regulations applicable to the use of signs within the City. Chairman Gitelman asked for an explanation of the proposed amendment. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that at the present time a non- conforming use could not have any additional signs and if the non -conforming use changed,a sign could not be put up and Section 1 of the proposed ordinance would remove this restriction and allow the same type and size sign generally allowed in that zoning district. City Attorney Jim McCord said Section 2 would amend Article 4 to change the amortization period of three (3) years for non -conforming signs (off-site)to the amortization period written into the Sign Ordinance which is 4 years from the effective date of Sign Ordinance 1893 (1-19-73) on non -conforming off-site signs and 7 years from the effective date of Sign Ordinance 1893 on non -conforming on-site signs. Mr. McCord said Section 3 of the proposed ordinance re -describes outdoor advertising (billboards), and Section 4 of the proposed ordinance deletes Section 16 of • • • Planning Commission July 8, 1975 Article 7 which. includes Ordinance. . Section 5 repeals Section 9b of Article 7 whichdealswith. service No one was present in objection;- The Public Hearing was closed, Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the to the Zoning Ordinance be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. John Power commented that there were still a lot of signs standing come down and asked about the enforcement of this. Jim McCord said this was being enforced but might take a while to get them all down because of the lack of manpower. - Chairman Gitelman stated that Mr. Lieberenz (Inspection Supt.) had stated at one of the meetings that the Inspection Office planned to send:letters to those having non -conforming signs informing them of the amoritization period. -2- size and height limitations in conflict with the Sign station signs. proposed amendments that needed to PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing was opened on the proposed amendment to Amendment to Article 7 Article 7 of Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A to the Zoning Ordinance 1747 Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to add Section 22 to prescribe use conditions for retail liquor stores. Chairman Gitelman explained that the Board of Directors by general consensus decided the location for liquor stores should be placed in the C-2 and C-3 Zones and that they then showed interest in imposing whatever a joint Planning Commission and Board of Directors Committee would recommend as reasonable use conditions on specific locations within the C-2 and C-3 Zones. He also pointed out that Attorney Tom Keith had submitted a letter recommending 3 additional conditions. Discussion of each proposed use condition followed: Proposed Section 22 (a) reads: "No retail liquor store shall be located within 600 feet of any church, hospital or school For the purpose of this section, the term "school" shall include the University of Arkansas." City Attorney Jim McCord said the 600 foot restriction was taken from the State Statutes. Chairman Gitelman asked if this setback was from the property line, front door, etc. Jim McCord said this is why he wanted to discorporate the wording of the State act in this; because he anticipated there would be an Arkansas Beverage Control interpretation if not a test case as to what the Statute means. He admitted there is some disagreement as to which it should be. Proposed Section 22 (b) reads: "No retail liquor store shall be located on any property two or more sides of which abut or are across a street from property zoned residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-0)." Mr. McCord said he felt the City Board was trying to protect predominately residential areas with this condition. Chairman Gitelman pointed out that there might be a problem with this since the C-2 areas were "stripped" along College Avenue with residential along the back side. He said there might be a problem with someone deciding to split a commercial lot and make two lots out of it. He said, however, he understood this was meant to locate liquor stores in areas which are essentially commercial and not on the fringes of residential neighborhoods. Mr. McCord said this was a compromise the Committee arrived at rather than using minimum distances. Mrs. Fred Hepler (Kinwood Addition) was present and said if someone split up a commercial lot this would create commercial on three sides and felt there should be something added to protect against this. Chairman Gitelman said this would no longer be abutting residential and pointed out that with the required setbacks a person could not very easily split a lot and still give it access to a street. • • Planning Commission -3- July 8, 1975 Proposed Section 22. (c) reads: "A view obscuring fence or hedge not less than five feet nor. more than eight feet in height shall be erected and maintained. along the common boundary of any abutting residential property (: R-1, R-2, or R -Q)," Mr. McCord said this was an existing requirement as a use condition for a number of different things. John Maguire questioned the effectiveness of the screening. Jack Ray wondered if this screening would create a traffic or pedestrian hazard in an alley or driveway. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there was a conflict in the Zoning Ordinance on this. She said there was one section that prohibited any structure in excess of 30 inches in height which is view obscuring within the front yard setback,and then there was this one which would be required along parking areas and under certain other conditions. She said there was also one section which says certain things located across the street from residentially zoned property should be fenced on all sides which gets into a visibility problem. Ernest Jacks felt this would not be a particular problem in this instance since the screening would be stopped at the setback line. Bobbie Jones pointed out that this might not provide much screening to the residential property because the commercial front yard setback is 50 feet and the residential front yard setback is 25 feet; therefore, the house might be out past the fence. Chairman Gitelman felt some language should be put in both (b) and (c) to exclude a situation like putting a liquor store in the middle of a shopping center where one large lot is involved. He felt the screening should not be required in this case. In answer to Jim McCord's question, Chairman Gitelman said something could be put in to satisfy the Street Superintendent as far as visibility problems are concerned. Attorney Pete Estes pointed out a commercial lot with residential on both sides. However, the residential was a long way off across an intersection and behind a non -access fence. He felt this should not be considered a residential area adjoining even though it is across the street from residential. Chairman Gitelman read a proposed amendment which was submitted by Attorney Tom Keith, representing the Skelton Street Committee who are in objection to the proposed amendment. Items (c), (d), and (e) under Section 22 differed from the proposed amendment drafted by the City Attorney and already discussed. Item (c) reads as follows: "No retail liquor store shall be located within 200 feet of the right-of-way of any intersection at which a school bus stops to load or unload school children enroute to and from school." Attorney Tom Keith said this might be unfair if it concerned only one child. However, he felt where there was a group of children loading and unloading from the school bus that there should be some distance between the intersection and the bus stop where traffic was running in and out of a liquor store. Ernest Jacks thought the school bus stops changed locations too often to make this restriction feasible. Rita Davis said she did not know how they could getinto this unless they assumed everyone entering a liquor store was intoxicated. Mr. Keith admitted they could not assume that everyone was intoxicated, but on the other hand neither could they assume that everyone was not intoxicated; therefore, he felt a designated bus stop that had been used £or a long period of time should have this requirement. Section 22 (d) reads: "No retail liquor store shall be located within 250 feet of three or more dwellings occupied and used for single-family residential purposes without the prior written consent of a majority of the owners in fee of said dwellings." Mr. Keith said he used the 250 feet because .he felt this was the average depth for a commercial lot along College Avenue. • • • Planning Commission -4- July 8, 1975 He explained.. thiswas designed to get at the areas .that were mixed in nature Section 22. (e) reads: "No retail liquor store shall be located within 200. feet of the right-of-way of any intersection of more than two public streets, highways or .:thoroughfares unless the traffic' at said intersection is regulated by electrically operated traffic signals." Attorney Keith said this pertained to the particular case of -Attorney Estes and his client. He said in this case there were three streets that come together at an intersection and he said he could see a problem with traffic which would add to what was already a hazardous traffic situation. Chairman Gitelman said other types of commercial usage would generate more traffic than a liquor store and named as examples convenience groceries and service stations. Mr. -Keith said these would not be the same class of drivers as those going into and out of liquor stores. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said that between items (c) and (e) this would eliminate every commercial potential in the City and make almost every liquor store in the City non -conforming. Chairman Gitelman also said the City did not have control over the traffic lights on the Highway. He felt itwas the Planning Commission's place to look at the land use problems and if there were any moral issues involved they should be heard before the Board of Directors. John Maguire moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that they adopt the amendment to Article 7 of Zoning Ordinance 1747. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Rita Davis wanted to know how they would define the limits of the University. She said she personally would not want it to include every piece of University property since it was so extensive. She said she would go along with the academic buildings and dormitories being included in this. Mr. Nickell felt they should consider the future growth of the University. He said what was not within 600 feet now could possibly be in the future. Mr. Nickell felt the word "school" should be defined. After some discussion the Planning Commission felt the word'public" should be inserted in Subsection (a) to define schools. It was considered whether or not the limits of the University should be defined by streets but decided this would not be feasible. Section 22 (a) Ernest Jacks moved to amend Subsection (a) to read "public school" and "For the purpose of this section, the term "school".shall include classrooms and dormitory; buildings.of.the University of Arkansas:" Jack Ray.seconded the motion. The amendment to Subsection (a) was approved with Power, Nickell, Jacks, Gitelman, Edmiston, Kisor, Davis and Ray voting "Aye" and Maguire voting "Nay". John Maguire's motion and second to recommend to the Board of Directors that they adopt the use conditions was then voted upon and approved with Maguire, Power, Nickell, Jacks, Edmiston, Kisor, Davis, and Ray voting "Aye" and Gitelman voting "Nay". Section 22 (b) Ernest Jacks moved to include Item _(b) in the proposed Section 22. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. The Planning Commission then discussed the situation that Mr. Estes had brought to their attention. Chairman Gitelman said if this language were adopted Item (b), would put into question Mr. Estes' proposal and would make it an improper location for a liquor store. John Power suggested taking the wording "or are across a street from" out of Item (b) Mrs. Hepler wanted to know why the section where she lived should be less protected than those living on a two way street. She said they would feel the affects of the n to r Planning Commission -5- July 8, 1975 traffic and they could already feel the effects 0of.'the traffic. and feel the effects of a "similar business". located a short distance away. Mr. Gitelman said this was the reason he was opposed to any of the use conditions because he felt things were being imposed on retail liquor stores that are not imposed on other commercial property, Mr. Keith said he was sure his clients would not object to any of this to apply to private clubs, taverns and any retail liquor store. Rita Davis said she could see a lot of problems with "across the street" particularly where there is R-0 along College Avenue. John Power moved to amend Item (b) to delete "or are across a street from property zoned". Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Donald Nickell said this would force the people who perhaps had lived in a residence for a long period of time to have a liquor store across the street from them whether they were opposed to it or not. Jim McCord felt it should read "No retail liquor store shall be located on any property with a common boundary on two or more sides with property zoned residential" rather than "abut". This was acceptable with Mr. Power. The motion to amend Subsection (b) was approved by a vote of 8-1 with Donald Nickell opposed. Those voting in favor of the amended use condition were Maguire, Power, Jacks, Edmiston, Kisor, Davis and Ray. Those voting "Nay" were Nickell and Gitelman. Section 22 (c) Ernest Jacks moved to include this use condition. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. John Maguire brought the question of visibility up again. He felt they should be able to tell a person how close to street right-of-way they should build their fence. Mr. Jacks felt they should go back and get the conflicts cleared up in general in the Zoning Ordinance with a separate amendment later. Chairman Gitelman said if this passed they would probably want to have a public hearing and clear up the fence issues in general. The motion to include Subsection (c) was approved unanimously. Section 22 Item (c) as proposed by Mr. Keith John Power moved to not accept Item (c) as proposed by Tom Keith. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Mr. Keith wanted to know if it would make a difference if the proposed amendment were worded to say if a particular_intersection had been a regularly scheduled bus stop and for 5 or more years and there were 10 or more children involved and there was no electrically controlled traffic signal. Chairman Gitelman felt that the Board of Directors could send this back to the Planning Commission if they felt there was a need for this. He again pointed out that, in his opinion, the moral aspect of this should be taken up in a discussion before the Board of Directors. James Jones was present and requested that the Planning Commission make a moral decision on this rather than passing the buck on to the City Board. Item (d) Donald Nickell said he liked this proposal. He felt it would give some protection to the individual still having a residence in a commercial area. John Power asked City Attorney Jim McCord if this could be defended legally. Mr. McCord said there was no precedence in Arkansas that would indicate whether or not any of the use conditions would hold up if they were contested but that he was not in a position to say whether they would or would not. Donald Nickell moved to adopt item (d) of Section 22 as proposed by Tom Keith The motion died for lack of a second. • Planning Commission -6- July 8, 1975 Chairman Morton Gitelman left the meeting at 4:27 P. M. and the chair was turned over to Vice -Chairman John Power. Section 22 Item (e) Ernest Jacks moved that Item (e) proposed by Tom Keith notbeincluded in the amendment. John Maguire seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors the adoption of these use conditions as amended by Planning Commission action at this meeting. Jack Ray seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item for discussion was a proposed amendment to PROPOSED AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance 1747 whereby "riding stables" would be an Zoning Ordinance 1747 included use under Use Unit 1V (Article 6, Section IV (B), "riding stables" Cultural and Recreational Facilities, Appendix A- Zoning, Code of Ordinances of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas). A public hearing was held June 10, 1975 concerning this and it was tabled so the City Attorney could draft a new proposed amendment that would include use conditions applicable to "riding stables". City Attorney Jim McCord explained that he had drafted the proposed amendment to include "riding stables" but had left blanks for the Planning Commission to fill in at their own discretion as far as areas and distances were concerned. Wanda Yoe (property owner on Crossover Road) was present and stated she felt the word commercial should be placed before riding stables. Jim McCord said he felt that this might be covered in Subsection E. He explained that he had provided for riding horses for hire but he said it could read "for the renting of" and it would make it a commercial operation. He recommended that this be reinserted into the reading of this. Mr. McCord said he wanted to point out that there was an apparent need for regulations of riding stables even in A-1 Districts (even if the Planning Commission d ecides not to place it as a conditional use in R-1) where they are a use by right. He said there were existing litigations over a riding stable in Fayetteville because of dust and noise, etc. Mr. McCord said Section 1 of the proposed ordinance would amend the Zoning Ordinance by including riding stables in Use Unit 4 which is a conditional in the R-1 and the Planning Commission needed to decide whether or not they wanted to recommend this to the Board. John Maguire moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed ordinance to make riding stables a conditional use in R-1 be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said his recommendation was that riding stables should be left in A-1 and that they did not belong in the R-1 Zoning because it was a low density classification. He said when uses like this were inserted in the R-1 District it created conflicts that might take 10, 15, or 20 years to observe. He said this was like the old drive-in theatres that were built farther out and now they were surrounded by houses, and they were a nuisance to residential areas. He added that if they did decide to put them in R-1, he would have some comments for the blanks left by Mr. McCord. John Maguire and Ernest Jacks felt there was a lot of property that was acutally A-1 in usage but was zoned R-1, but Mr. Jacks pointed out that this was done to protect this property in the future. Helen Edmiston felt this would take care of itself if the acreage were large enough. Donald Nickell moved to take this item off the table. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously Planning Commission -7- July 8, 1975 Ernest Jacks asked about the parking requirements and Planning Consultant Larry Wood 411 said he recommended this be based on acreage since it was difficult to tie it down to anything else. He thought the requirements as proposed were very restrictive. He recommended one non -surfaced parking area equal to one space per acre. Ernest Jacks moved to adopt as parking space requirements Larry Wood's suggestion on parking area requirements of a non -surfaced parking area equal(in size) to one parking space per acre Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The Commission then acted on each "use condition" individually. Section 23 (a) Minimum Area Donald Nickell moved that riding stables shall not be located on any property which does not. contain a minimum of 40 acres of undeveloped land. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Chip Wright was present (property owner on Highway 265). He felt the 40 acre minimum was an arbitrary figure without first considering the setbacks and the minimum areas within which a riding stable would' have to be located. He felt that the Commission would be better served if they had some concrete recommendations for filling the blanks. The Planning Commission called for Larry Wood's recommendations concerning the filling in of the blanks. Mr. Wood said he would recommend a 40 acre minimum due to the fact he felt there were very few 40 acre parcels in the R-1 District under one ownership..He said he recommended 100 feet from any residential dwelling on the entrance or exit of the riding stable, but said this was an arbitrary figure and he had no basis for it. He felt it was hard to determine how far dust and noise would travel. He also recommended a 100 foot setback from any residential property for the paths and structures. John Maguire was more in favor of a 600 foot setback to the stable. Chip Wright requested some limitation on the number of horses permitted. City Attorney McCord.suggested the Commission include a section to limit the hours of operation. Helen Edmiston felt the traffic created by the riding stable would not be any worse than trucks traveling on the dirt road. Mrs. Yoe said the Taylors were building a new home with a porch the width of the house and that it would be rendered completely useless from the dust that would be created by traffic on the dirt road. Parker Rushing was present and he suggested a 500 foot setback since this would give him more of a leeway in consideration of the topography of the land. Kerry Schultz also had some comments. Chip Wright felt that a limit should be placed on the hours of operation and the Planning Commission agreed with this. Larry Wood suggested a "horse density" of one • horse for every 5 acres; Helen Edmiston suggested one horse for every 4 acres; Parker Rushing requested a density of one horse per acre; and John Maguire said he would like to see a restriction of 5 acres for each horse. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors for approval the ordinance as drafted by the City Attorney and to fill in the blanks as follows: (a) a minimum area of 40 acres of undeveloped land; (b) entrance and exit a minimum of 500 feet from any existing residential dwelling; (c) riding stables setback 500 feet from the property line of any abutting residentially zoned property and eliminate the setback for riding trails (paths); and add a restriction limiting this to one horse for every 4 acres. Bill Kisor stated that he thought there should be some limitation on the setback of riding paths. After further discussion, Mr. Jacks amended his motion to require that riding paths be no closer than 100 feet to any property line and to restrict the hours of operation from sunup to sundown. Planning Commission -8- July 8, 1975. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. With _Mr, .Jacks' permission, eachsubsection was voted on individually; the votes being cast as follows; Proposed subsection (a) requiring a minimum. of 40 acres. of undeveloped land was unanimously recommended for approval, Proposed subsection (b) requiring a minimum separation of 500 feet from any vehicular entrance or exit to a riding stable to any existing residential dwelling was unanimously recommended for approval.. Proposed subsection (c) requiring a minimum setback from property line of 500 feet for stables and other structures and 100 feet for riding paths was unanimously recommended for approval. Proposed subsection (d) prohibiting the use of loud speakers or floodlights in connection with the operation of riding stables was unanimously recommended for approval.. Proposed subsection (e) defining the extent of operations was unanimously recommended for approval. A proposed subsection (f) to limit the hours of operation from sunup to sundown was unanimously recommended for approval. City Attorney McCord at this point recommended the inclusion of a statement that would prohibit any horse shows except for horses boarded and located on the premises. No action was taken on this recommendation. Another subsection (g) was proposed to limit the number of horses to one horse for every four acres. Rita Davis stated that she felt they would need more than 10 horses. The motion .to limit the number of horses to one horse for every four acres failed to pass with a vote of 4 "Ayes" and 4 "Nays" with Nickell, Maguire, Kisor and Jacks voting "Aye" and Power, Edmiston, Davis and Ray voting "Nay". Thereupon, Rita Davis moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that a subsection be included that would limit the number of horses to one horse for every 2 acres. Jack Ray seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 5 "Ayes" and 3 "Nays" with Power, Nickell, and Maguire voting "Nay". ' Ernest Jacks then moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the adoption of the entire proposed ordinance as amended above. Helen Edmistion seconded the motion which was approved.unanimously. The next item was a Conditional Use Request submitted CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST by Susan Lewis, Katie Polone, and Nancy Broderick to open Lewis, Polone, $ Broderick a "tea room" at 218 N. Block Avenue. Property is zoned 218 N. Block Avenue R-0, Residential Office District; Eating Places without dancing or entertainment are a conditional use in the R-0 Zone. No one was present to represent the request nor was there anyone present to oppose the request. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use request for a "tea room" as submitted. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that no parking was available for this. She explained that there has been an antique shop in the building and when a building has. been used for commercial purposes in the past (part of this building will be used as a residence) and parking is not available, they are not required to furnish parking in order to change the use. John Power asked about the Urban Renewal Plan and Mrs. Jones explained that it would only extend to Spring Street. John Maguire asked if this was under Bill Parette's (County Health. Department) jurisdiction and Administrative Assistant David McWethy stated that it was. The motion that was on the floor was approved unanimously. Next was the Large Scale Development Plan to construct a Shoney's Restaurant North of the Northwest Azikansas Plaza on property belonging to General Growth Properties. SHONEY'S RESTAURANT Northwest Arkansas Plaza Large Scale Development Planning Commission -9- July 8, 1975 Larry Gage (Manager of the Northwest. Arkansas Plaza) was present to represent. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee. Report. He said Shoney's would be required to post a performance bond or contract for the Frontage Road for when the time came to construct it. Also, on the proposed access road that was shown on their plans, it was felt that if this was intended as a future street it should meet City Street standards and be inspected during construction. Mr. Gage said they would furnish a contract for the Frontage Road and they would construct what was shown as proposedaccess road to City Street standards Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Large Scale Development Plan be approved with the provision that the owner furnish a performance bond or contract for Frontage Road and coordinate with the City Street Superintendent on the access road. -- Jack Ray seconded the motion. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the only question was whether or not the driveway shown from the proposed access road to the parking area meets the safety zone which requires 40 feet between a driveway entrance to a street intersection. She said if this did become a public street then it would have to meet that 40 foot setback. John Maguire asked about the setback of parking. He said he had noted that on two new parking lots in town they had paved it up to the curb and the bumpers were actually hanging out over the street. Mrs. Jones said when a commercial piece of property is surrounded by commercial there were no parking setbacks required. She said they might need to check with the City Engineer's Office since the right-of-way is not to' be utilized as parking lots. The motion that was on the floor was approved unanimously The next item considered by the Planning Commission was SUNDOWNER REALTY the development plan submitted by Sundowner Realty to Highway 112 €,:71 By-pass locate a real estate sales office on property on the Southeast corner of Highway 112 and Highway 71 By-pass. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there were three or four ordinances involved in this. She said as far as the Zoning Ordinance was concerned, the use was a permitted use in that zone. However, she said they proposed to use a mobile home and this conflicts with the section of the ordinance which states thuat•mobile homes are permitted only in mobile home parks except they are permitted in A-1 on three or more acres and it was her feeling that.this exception was for dwelling purposes only; also, this property is zoned C-2. Therefore, there is a problem on the mobile home that needs to be resolved. She said there were also the regulations which designate Highway 71 By-pass as a controlled access highway which requires that development of any property abutting the bypass (this is of the total property) must have a development plan approved by the Planning Commission and that the developer dedicate a 50 foot right-of-way for a service road and either build a service road or make provision for its future building in the way of a performance bond or contract. Mrs. Jones said there was also the Large Scale Development Plan section of the ordinance concerning the Subdivision regulations which require that they bring the streets up to City right-of-way standards of Major Street Plan. She said if they tried to circumvent the controlled access regulation by cutting out a parcel, then they would be coming backto the Subdivison regulations again which would require the service road and the Subdivision of parcels. She told the Planning Commission that Mr. Wainright (Sundowner Realty) felt this was too restrictive for what he was wanting to do. Mr. D. B. Thomas, property owner of this 9 acre tract, was present to represent. • Planning Commission -10- July 8, 1975. He explained that a lot of money had been spent on this property in trying to get it developed. He said that due toreasons beyond their control the Hatfield Pontiac development plan had fallen through.. He told the Planning Commission that he planned to open up a place to sell "foliage" since Northwest Arkansas was considered to be the second largest potential for this type of industry in the United States. (This usage had not been discussed before this time. The only request the Planning Office had received was the development plan for the mobile home to be used for a real estate sales office.) Mr. Thomas said there were no roads or dedications that would be necessary and that the Frontage Roads were already there and were being used. He said if the Planning Commission decided to put a time condition on this he would agree to it. He said right now he needed a prime tenant and Mr. Wainright was that tenant. Several people had mentioned to him that if he 'could get a prime tenant they would like to move in. Vice -Chairman Power said the Planning Commission did not have a concrete plan before them and he was concerned about setting a precedent in this matter. Mr. Thomas said whatever was planned would be temporary and that there was no large scale development. He explained that the foliage industry would only be a sales area (there would be no growing area) and when he decided to do this he would come back in with a development plan of how it would be landscaped, etc. Mr. Power felt if they approved a temporary use that it could change without having a concrete finalized plan before them. Mr. Thomas said he would like to try to bring them a finalized plan but he did not have one. He said he had a piece of land with a lot of money tied up in it and he asked the Planning Commission to try to let him do something with this land. The ordinance concerning the controlled access highway was Mr. Thomas' biggest problem and this was also the main concern of the Planning Commission. Planning Consultant Larry Wood explained to Mr. Thomas that he could take the development .plan that Hatfield Pontiac had used, take the buildings off, and submit it for his development plan. This would agree to the dedication of additional right- of-way for Highway 112, set the setbacks on Highway 112 and the Bypass, agree to the future location of the service road, and commit to a bond or contract to build when it was necessary. Mr. Thomas felt it was unrealistic to ask for all of these requirements when there was not yet any development. He said they were not going to build any structures. He felt that without knowing what the Highway Department had in mind for this corner he did not know how they could request he post a bond for the construction of the Frontage Road He told the Planning Commission to wait until they had a large scale development plan (a concrete plan) and then they would sign the necessary bonds, etc. John Maguire felt it would not be right for Mr. Thomas to submit the Hatfield Pontiac plan when another person that moved in might want the service road moved to another location. After some discussion the Planning Commission decided that Mr. Thomas was actually asking for a temporary development or usage for a limited period of time and asking for a suspension of the controlled access regulations. Bobbie Jones said what ever action the Planning Commission took on this it would need to go before the Board of Directors for their approval. She said she did not think the Planning Commission could waive these requirements. Larry Wood and David McWethy, Administrative Assistant, agreed with this. The Commissioners said they were talking in terms of a temporary suspension of the regulations for a limited period of time rather than a waiver. Helen Edmiston moved to recommend the approval of a real estate sales office to the Board of Directors for six months with a temporary suspension of the requirements of Ordinances 1998 and 1661 during that time. John Maguire seconded the motion which was approved with Maguire, Power, Jacks, Planning Commission -11- July 8, 1975_ Edmiston, Kisor, Davis and Ray voting "Aye";, Nickell abstained. OTHER BUSINESS Under "Other Business" was a. plan for an addition to the Ridgeview Baptist Church, a conditional.use in the R-1. However, this. item was not considered at this meeting since it was brought to the Planning Administrator's attention just before the meeting started that the proposed addition exceeded 25% of the floor area of the existing buildings and it will have to go before the Plat Review Committee, back to the Planning Commission, then on to the Board of Directors. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 P. M. • • RESOLUTION PC 35-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, July 8, 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 Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A, Code of Ordinance, Fayetteville, Arkansas), to clarify the regulations applicable to the use of signs within the City. 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 Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Code of Ordinance, Fayetteville, Arkansas). PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 36-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, July 8, 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, Fayetteville, Arkansas) to amend Article 7 to include Section 22 to prescribe use conditions for retail liquor stores. N04, 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 1747 to amend Article 7 to include Section 22 to prescribe conditions for retail liquor stores. PASSED AND APPROVED this • • day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • • RESOLUTION PC 37-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, July 8, 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 IV ( Article 6, Section IV (B), Cultural and Recreational Facilities) to include riding stables. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILIE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1747 to amend Use Unit IV to include riding stables. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman