Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-14 Minutes� . cY; /926- MINUTES OF A PLANNING C0MMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was.held at 4:05. P. M. Tuesday, October 14, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, John Power, Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Jack Ray, Rita Davis. John Maguire, Donald Nickell. Jim Vizzier, Lynne Weatherford, Phyllis Street, Dave Quinn, Ed Storm, Herndon Harris, Giles Pennick, Jr., B. W. Graue, Denver Hutson, Bob White, Jim Lindsey, Dr. J. B. Hayes, City Manager Don Grimes, Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz, Libby Simmons, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. The minutes of the September 23, 1975 meeting were approved as distributed with one correction on the last paragraph to add the last name of Maguire on the first line of the last paragraph. MINUTES Chairman Gitelman said there had been a request REZONING PETITION R75-21 submitted by Attorney William Storey, representing Sweetser, Sonnemon, P, Schultz Sweetser, Sonnemon, and Schultz, to table South Side of Lawson Street Rezoning Petition R75-21. Several people were present in objection to the petition and Chairman Gitelman told them that if the petition were to be tabled at this meeting, they could leave their names and addresses in the Planning Office in order that they could be informed of the public hearing when it was again before the Planning Commission. He also explained that an item could not be tabled for more than 45 days unless there was a letter from the petitioner requesting that it be tabled longer than that. Helen Edmiston moved to table Rezoning Petition R75-21, Sweetser, Sonnemon, and Schultz. Planning Consultant Larry Wood stated that about 4 months ago he had had a telephone call in which he was asked about the planning considerations on the property in that area. He said that at that time he had indicated that he felt it would be a good application from a planning principle. However, he said he had since learned he was operating off of a map that was not correct. Mr. Wood said he felt Mr. Sweetser made the application in good faith based on an understanding from him (Mr. Wood) that the planning principles were good and that he was doing the right thing from a planning standpoint. Mr. Wood said he had since then changed his mind concerning this and he wanted to make an apology for making that mistake. He said he wanted to make these comments before the people that were present in opposition to this rezoning petition left the room. There was no further discussion. Rita Davis seconded the motion whichwas approved unanimously. REZONING PETITION R75-19 Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on Kaylor Investment Company Rezoning Petition R75-19, Kaylor Investment Company, Inc., Joyce St. 4 Crossover Rd. Tom P. Coker and Elaine Coker, Jack B. Coker and Rayanne H. Coker, to rezone property. located on the South. side of Joyce Street and on. the West side of Crossover Road ( State Highway 265) from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Planning .Commission October 14, 1975. Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report recommendingthis for approval. Jim Vizzier (aplanning consultant) was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission and the membersof the audience that a.medical clinic was proposed, He said these doctors had applied for a rezoning on Township at another time whichwas turned down. He said the doctors now own a clinic on College Avenue but that it was- too small now -that there were 6 doctors in the clinic rather than the 4 that they started out with.. He said they had since investigated two sites in Springdale but felt these were not properly located. Also, they investigated a site in North Fayetteville but could not agree on access to the property. Mr. Vizzier said two of the doctors and a brother of one of the doctors owned this 80 acres on Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and they are willing to sell this property to the clinic itself to build a clinic. Mr. Vizzier said it was in a good location since the doctors did all their work either in the Washington Regional Medical Center at Fayetteville or Springdale Memorial Hospital. He said the utilities would be a problem, and they would have to spend a lot of money to get them to the site. Mr. Vizzier said the land to the East of this was outside the city limits. The land to the North has a couple of houses and pasture; the doctors own the land to the South and the West which is open land and there was a golf course West of that. Mr. Vizzier said there had been some comments made about not liking the idea of drugs being in the area because of theft, etc. He explained that this was proposed strictly as an outpatient clinic and there would be no drugs stored in the clinic to worry about. Chairman Gitelman read aloud a copy of a letter that the Planning Administrator had received from Lynne Weatherford who listed several reasons for opposing the request. Mrs. Weatherford, Route 9, Fayetteville, was also present to speak for those in opposition to the request. She said their biggest concern was having the door opened to commercial property. She said at the present time on the entire length of Highway 265 from Highway 16 going all the way to Highway 68 in Springdale there was only one commercial business located at the corner of Highway 265 and Highway 45 and that this was now about 8 miles of nothing but residential and farm She said there was a substationt(with an apparent sewer overflow) at the corner of Old Wire Road and Highway 265 which she said when she had passed it the past few days had emitted a very unpleasant odor. She, therefore, wondered if the sewer system could handle the load of the clinic even if a sewer main was run up to the site of the clinic. She felt with the system being over burdened already that the extra load that the clinic would create with each doctor seeing approximately 4 patients per hour would be even worse. She asked how the sewer would be brought to the proposed site and if the other people would be able to connect to the sewer system. Mrs Weatherford also was concerned about fire protection to the proposed site. She said unless the fire plug located South of this property was connected to water, the nearest plug was about '1 mile to the North of this property. She also pointed out that this was a good distance from police protection and that a burglar"would not know that there would be no drugs stored at the clinic. Chairman Gitelman said that normally a developer is required to install.Sewer:.facilities. Hbwever,.he said 'the "developer was not usually required to provide facilities that would benefit other property unless that other property is willing to assume part of the cost. Mrs. Wetherford then asked at what point in time Joyce Street would be developed to connect to Stearns Road. She commented that even when it did connect there would be an awful lot of "jagging around". Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave a brief history of the study that the Planning Commission had made on Highway 265 indicating that 265 was proposed on the Major Street Plan not to follow its present route where it comes into Highway 16, but would go over to Happy Hollow -Road and then follow a general curvature to come into a 4 -way intersection at the 16 Bypass; thus avoiding a jog. He said the Commission Planning Commission October .14,. 1975 had made this study because they anticipated be made. Therefore; they had tried to avoid for commercial at the intersections, Mrs. Weatherfordsaid she'had thought that H _that.numerous commercial requests would a situation like Highway.71 by planning ighway.265 was intended for a relief of traffic on Highway 71, Mr. Wood said that it was pointed out that commercial was a "fact of life" and, therefore it had to be provided for a t some point and some place, and that main highways were the logical places to make this provision. In answer to another question asked by Mrs. Weatherford, Mr, Wood said the extension of Joyce Street would have to be done by the developer as the development occurred. He pointed out that this is the normal manner in which new highways are improved. He said with Joyce it was another problem since it was presently a gravel street, and that he did not know what the City's policy would be. Ms Phyllis Street, 3933 Crossover Road, was also present in opposition. She said she was probably the closest one to this proposed site and, therefore, the most affected. She said she would be looking down on a parking lot containing 88 cars. She said Highway 265 had gone through the middle of her land and now they proposed a medical clinic near her. She was also concerned about opening up the door to commercial uses. She felt that it would not only bring a lot of people but spoil the beauty of the countryside. She said she would move if she were younger but that she did not feel like starting over again at her age. Jim Vizzier cleared up some of the questions that had been asked earlier. He told Mrs. Weatherford that the water line in Joyce Street was not large enough to provide fire protection, so a 6 -inch main or larger would have to be brought up toward the property from the 36 -inch Beaver Lake line and a fire plug put on it. He said the sewer had to go about 1 mile to the end of Sweetbriar Subdivision, and they planned to bring it down roughly on the line of the creek. Mr. Vizzier then explained how the area was sewered. He explained all gravity flows toward the Illinois River water shed. He said the sewer system is in the White River water shed. He then explained that the sewage flows to a sewer pump station near Johnson and is then forced some more over the hill to the treatment plant. He said the plan was to eventually develop a treatment plant somewhere to the West for Southwest Springdale and Northwest Fayetteville. He said at that point they could abandon the force mains and let it flow by gravity. On the roads, Mr. Vizzier said Joyce Street was open across the North side of the golf course and paved, graveled across the doctors' property, and then it was platted through the Gas Company property back to 71. He said as far as he could tell the Gas Company had no plans to improve that. He said (as Planning Consultant Larry Wood had already pointed out) the doctors had been informed that if they wanted any improvement on this it would probably have to be done through -an improvement district with the surrounding property owners. Mr. Vizzier told Mrs. Street that they planned to have a planted berm made out of the fill that would be dug out from the building foundation; However, he said they ran into site distance problems if this was built up too much. Dave Quinn, 3933 Crossover Road (nephew of Ms. Street), was also present in opposition. He said he felt the future should be considered on this application. He said this area was growing fast and there should be a stopping place somewhere. He felt if more people were brought in out in that area that the sewer and possibly some of the water lines would have to be replaced, He told the Planning Commission that he thought Fayetteville was a lovely town but felt if it grew much more it would lose some of its beauty. Mr. Quinn asked why R-0 (Residential -Office) was not requested rather than the Commercial zoning. - - Someone commented that doctorst offices in R-0 were limited to 4 doctors only. Planning Office"Note:(Use Unit 12 allows medical clinics in R-0 without limitation to number of doctors,) Commissioner Kisor asked the people present in opposition if they were opposed only to it Planning Commission October 14, 1975 the medical clinic:that was'proposed and they stated they were opposed to any commercial use in the area, The public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacks said when the Planning.Commission lookedat land use they felt this area would be_overrun with business and they made provisions totry to keep commercial under control. He said -he hesitated to go against what had been said but since this provision had been made, he felt this was the place for commercial out in that area, Mr. Jacks then moved to recommend the -approval of Rezoning Petition R75-19, Kaylor Investment Company, Inc, to rezone property from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to the Board of Directors. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval passed 6-1 with Power, Jacks, Edmiston, Davis, Kisor and Gitelman voting Aye and Ray voting Nay. ORTHOPAEDIC -NEUROLOGICAL CLINIC, LTD. The next item before the Planning Commission Joyce Street and Crossover Road was the Large Scale Development Plan for Large Scale Development Orthopaedic -Neurological Clinic, Ltd. to be constructed on the Southwest corner of the intersection of Joyce Street and Crossover Road. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report stating that 20 feet of additional right-of-way was needed on Joyce Street (40 feet from the centerline) and they needed to agree to extend the water and sewer to the site, that there not be a septic system considered. Mr. Jacks moved to recommend approval to the Board of Directors of the Large Scale Development Plan of the Orthopaedic -Neurological Clinic, Ltd. with those two contingencies: (1) Water and sewer be extended. (2) Dedication of street right-of-way for 40 feet from the centerline of Joyce Street. In answer to Chairman Gitelman'a question, Mr. Vizzier said that the landscaping (the berm) was part of the Large Scale Development Plan. Mrs. Weatherford asked since the sewer would be put in if the other people in the city limits would be allowed to hook on. Mr. Vizzier said there was an 8 -inch line in the Subdivision they can tie into. He said the doctors knew they needed to serve the rest of the property in case they want to do something else with it in the future; therefore, they would probably go ahead and put an 8 -inch line up the creek and then probably run a 6 -inch line from that up to the clinic. He said this would be at the clinic's cost. He explained to her that if the City should require a 10 -inch line, they (the City) would participate in the additional cost of material. Mr. Vizzier said as he understood it, the 8 -inch line would serve beyond the property. Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved 6-0-1 with Jack Ray abstaining. REZONING PETITION R75-20 The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition Ed Storm R75-20, Ed Storm, to rezone property located at 2846 West Sixth Street 2846 West Sixth Street (Highway 62 West) from A-1, Agricultural District, and R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He recommended that the Planning Commission give consideration to rezoning to C-2 as being in conformancevith the Highway 62 Plan and the General Plan. He said this application contained a lot that was land -locked (Lot 15 of Rutledge Subdvision). Since it is under the same ownership requesting commercial, he recommended this lot be " included in the rezoning. However, he suggested that the commercial zoning line should be adjusted South as it approached One Mile Road. Mr. Storm was present to represent, He said he didn't feel there was any .reason why this would be objectionable to anyone. He told the Planning Commissionthat the property would not change face Planning Commission -5- October 14, 1975 very much.and that there would be some Slight modification done to the building that would be used.for an. electronics shop._..He said.there would be a maximum.of about two to three automobiles'in at any one time; an average of.20.or so a day., There was no one present to oppose the.request. - There was no'.further discussion and the public hearing was closed. Helen Edmiston moved to "recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of Rezoning Petition R75-20, Ed Storm to rezone property from A-1, Agricultural District and R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-.2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion; the motion was approved unanimously. REZONING PETITION R75-22 Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on Herndon. H.Harris Rezoning Petition R75-22, Herndon H. Harris, to rezone Highway 16 East property located on the South side of State Highway 16 East and lying East of Hinkle Mobile Home Park and West of the West Fork of the White River from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He said this application under consideration is not in keeping with the General Plan recommendations; therefore, he did not recommend approval. He said several applications along Highway 16 East had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors and in each case they had reaffirmed the policy indicated in the General Plan. The Policy being to encourage the grouping of commercial basically around the existing commercial as much as possible on Highway 16 and to discourage the stripping of Highway 16 East for commercial purposes. Mr. Harris was present to represent. He said he would like to build a warehouse on the property which would not require any water or sewer. He said he had hauled a lot of dirt in on this property to build it up. He said he did not know why it should be zoned residential when it was nothing but a mudhole. No one was present in opposition and the public hearing was concluded. Ernest Jacks said this had been a hard area to handle for a long time because of the mixed uses (residential, commercial, and agricultural). He said, as Planning Consultant Larry Wood had already pointed out, that they had reviewed several applications like this one in the past and had always tried to adhere to the policy indicated in the General Plan for this area. John Power asked if the adjoining property owners had been advised and Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said six people had been sent material concerning the rezoning request. There was no further discussion. Mr. Jacks moved to deny Rezoning Petition R75-22, Herndon H. Harris; John Power seconded. The motion to deny was unanimously approved. DORSET COMPANY The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Conditional Use Request Dorset Company to construct a duplex in the R-1 Zoning District at 212-214 East Cleburn The applicant had appealed to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the 12,000 square feet lot area requirement; Board of Adjustment tabled this until after the Planning Commission's consideration. Giles Penick, Jr, was present to represent Dorset Company. In answer to Mr. Jacks', question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the adjoining property owners were notified by certified letter, return receipt requested; they also were mailed copies of the Planning Commission agenda as well as Board of Adjustment agenda Attorney Richard Hipp was present representing Mrs.. Lehman (adjacent property owner to the West) who is opposed to the proposal. He said Mrs. Lehman was concerned that withthe duplex being so close to her residence, it would create a problem with ingress and egress and additional traffic. • Planning Commission October 14, 1975 He said one particular problem was the.slope.of.the land.whichr.if the land were to be cleared, the drainage would flow, in,the direction of Mrs,.Lehmants property. He said they were hoping the water problem could.be worked:out prior to granting,of the usage (perhaps by way.of a retaining wall), He said Mrs, Lehman felt that another duplex in the area would further damage her property values'as well as that of the other .neighbors, Mr. Jacks- said after driving by this location he felt it was an R-1 area where duplexes would logically -be located. Mr. Jacks then moved to approve the conditional use, Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. She felt that the drainage would be the same no matter what was constructed on the site. - There was no further discussion. The motion to approve was- unanimously approved. -6- B. W. GRAUE The next consideration was a conditional use request Conditional Use Request and Large Scale Development Plan submitted by B. W. Graue, Large Scale Development to construct 6 duplexes on property on the North side of Elm Street between Green Acres Road and Gregg Avenue and zoned R-1. A petition signed by surrounding property owners who were' in opposition to this request was included in the agenda. B. W. Graue was present to represent. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's question, Mr. Graue said a private drive was contemplated. Mr. Graue said he also had agreed to make this a 20 -foot wide drive rather than the 16 -foot that was shown on the drawing, to dedicate 5 feet on Elm Street the entire width of his property, and to make a turn around on the North. Mr. Graue said this was a one, 2 -acre lot. SWEPCO is adjoining on the North and then there are three home owners; one practically in front (Inman), and then Hutsons are on the West and Lewis is on the East. Mr. Graue told Chairman Gitelman that these units would be for rental and if anyone wanted to buy, the.entire parcel would have to be sold as one package. He said it could not be subdivided. He said this lot had been for sale for about 3 or 4 years and was grown up in weeds. Denver Hutson, property owner on the West, was present in objection. He said he had no personal matters against Mr. Graue, but was concerned about the proposal. He said a housing development would probably be an improvement over the weed patch but he felt there was a better way to take care of that. He said there were several people in the Green Acres Subdivision that were concerned about the concentration of people as well as traffic that this proposal would create He said there were retired couples as well as young couples who, in talking with them, indicated that they had bought homes there on the assumption that this was a quiet area and probably felt there would be no need for enfringement on the openness of the neighborhood. He said he had lived at this address for 23 years. He said he purchased this property by choice because he felt this was an area in Fayetteville where he would like to .live and he said he had never anticipated encountering a proposal such as this. He said there was a lot of depth in the lots on Elm Street and the property owners had been concerned about a reasonable way to develop the unused land. He said they had discussed among themselves as neighbors the usage of the land for several years. He felt, however, what Mr. Graue had proposed was an overuse of the land; and, furthermore, it appeared to him that it would prohibit any future development of other tracts unless someone purchased the whole thing. He said he was hoping that someone would make a nice development of it without having an over -concentration whichappeared to him would exist as a result of this proposal. Mr. Hutson said he would certainly feelthe-impact since he owned property bordering both on the West and the South. He said he was concerned about the kind of people that would rent this type of property, He said he was not opposed to University students (since he would not have a job without them) but the noise factor and concentration of cars and Planning Commission October14, 1975• -7- people did cause some concern on his part.. 111 He said therewere otherminor concerns such_as drainage, access to.the property, the fire hazard of.the area. He told the Planning Commission that he had made the material concerning this proposal available to the propertyowners in.the area and felt their concerns should be felt on this matter." Bertha Lewis (property owner to the Easti was also present .to oppose the request. She was concerned because the drawing did not indicate the turn -around, the 20 -foot drive rather than the 16 foot, and the 5 foot dedication on Elm that Mr, Graue said he had agreed on. Mr. Graue said these these things were brought out in the Plat Review Committee meeting and that the drawing had not been revised; however, he said he agreed to change these things as stated. An unidentified man in the audience asked if there was a minimum of footage that was required in building duplexes. Mr. Graue commented that there was and that he was asking for a variance from the Board of Adjustment on this. Planning Administrator. Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. Graue had sufficient lot area but not lot width and that he needed a variance for the part fronting on Elm Street. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant) passed on some comments to the Planning Commission that Mrs. Hutson had made to him in a telephone conversation and which he felt were valid about this area. One is that they were dealing with about 740 feet of depth from Elm Street North to the back of what is industrial property now and probably future potential commercial on East of that. He said she pointed out some earlier conversations about a road extending from 112 and tying back in at Township and Highway 71. He said it was proposed that a portion of it would come on the South side of the SWEPCO property which adjoins this property to the North. Mr. Wood said this development • would probably preclude that if it were allowed to go in since part of the right-of-way would have to come off of this property. He said this proposal has been discussed but is not part of the Major Street Plan. He said it was not a requirement that the Planning Commission could make although it should be considered because there was a development problem there with 468 feet of depth on that whole length along Elm Street. He said if there was not a road to tie to, this had to be developed either as a private development as this was proposed or with cul-de-sacs going North of Elm and probably with an accumulation of property as it is presently. He said this property could logically develop in an R-2 fashion.and that there needed to be a transition from the industrial and commercial back into residential and this happens to fall in the , transition area Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Mr. Graue had asked her about having this property rezoned to an R-2 Zone. Mr. Graue told her that duplexes were all that he had planned and how many he planned. She said she told him that duplexes were a conditional use in an R-1 Zone and that she felt the Planning Commission would probably give better consideration to duplexes in R-1 than to a rezoning to R-2. Rita Davis said she could not visualize this kind of development where this was proposed. She felt that it would change everything from the way that it was presently. Chairman Gitleman pointed out that the property could conceivably be subdivided into lots which would put just about as many people moving into the area. He said he agreed it would look bad to have this in the middle of a low density area. He said when they developed the ordinance requiring duplexes to be a conditional use in R-1, they were thinking about one duplex on one lot primarily. He said this was a little different from a typical duplex proposal because it was one big lot that in density terms could actually hold five or six duplexes so it seemed more of a multi -family than it did a duplex. Ernest Jacks moved to deny the conditional use request, Rita Davis seconded the motion, The motion to deny the conditional use passed 4-3 with Jacks? Davis, Ray, and Kisor voting in favor of the motion. Git elman, Power, and Edmiston voted "Naye". C7‘ Planning Commission October 14, 1975 R t, S SALVAGE Next was a conditional use request submitted by Conditional Use..Request R and S Salvage to have a «building materials establishmenttt :";2727.North:College at 2727.North_College Avenue, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's.gUestion, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this usage was a conditional use in the C-2 Zone. Mr. Gitelman said this was an existing building that had previously been used for the same purpose. John Power said based on everything else that was going on he would move to grant the conditional use request. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved with Power, Davis and Ray voting in favor. Bill Kisor abstained. in that area out there Gitelman, Edmiston, Jacks, JIM LINDSEY Next was a request for approval of three waivers of subdivision Lot`.Split.Request requirements for property lying South of a street stub off Canterbury Road and also lying East of Block 5, Phase 2, Hyland Park Subdivision submitted by Jim Lindsey. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. He said that someone had bought 15 acres (the big shaded tract shown on the drawing) at the back (East) of Hyland Park Subdivision. He said he knew that before this person obtained a building permit that he would have to get a variance since he had only 50 foot of frontage. Mr. Lindsey said the person he was representing then acquired an extra 45 feet on the Canterbury Road (off Lot 26 of Sherwood Forests Subdivision) making him a total of 95 feet frontage. Mr. Lindsey said with the lot splits shown on the drawing, there would still be two lot splits left in conjunction with Lot 1. He said they wanted to bring this to the Planning Commission to see if after acquiring the lot splits and having the 95 foot on Canterbury Road whether it could constitute a tandem lot on 15 acres of land. He said Street Superintendent Clayton Powell wanted a cul-de-sac back into the 15 -acre tract Mr. Lindsey said a cul-de-sac would be impossible since there were two creeks there. Mr. Lindsey said since this was done by lot splits he thought that Mrs. Jones (Planning Administrator) wanted the Planning Commission to look at it. He said she could not give him 100% assurance on this since he was not trying to obtain a building permit; nor was it going before the Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Lindsey said he also wanted to know inadvance whether or not there could be a tandem lot. Chairman Gitelman felt this was not necessarily a lot split. He said that lot split procedures were to keep someone from circumventing the subdivision ordinance. He said this was a situation of re -combining some land that was platted into these other lots giving it back to the 15 -acre tract. Helen Edmiston said she could not see the problem, nor why they were being asked to waive anything. Ernest Jacks felt that 15 acres was ample room for two houses to be built on. John Power said he felt they were not acutally giving a waiver of the subdivision requirements. Mr. Lindsey said he felt they were complying with the ordinance but that Mr. Powell (Street Superintendent) saw it in a different light, and it was felt that the Planning Commission should take a look at this. Chairman Gitelman said the owner certainly would not want a cul-de-sac in there if he did not plan to develop there. He then asked the Planning Administrator if she wanted to treat this as a lot split. Mrs. Jones said they were dividing the shaded area off of Lot 26 in the Sherwood Forests Subdivision as shown on the drawing and off of Lot 1, Block 5 of Hyland Park and combining those with the 15 acres. • Planning Commission -9- October 14, 1975 Chairman Gitelman then asked her if the.. Planning Commission moved a resolution that this would not be considered to be two. lot splits if this. would satisfy her, She replied that two platted lot's were being split, Chairman Gitelman said this was not being split into two lots because neither of these were big enough to be lots under the regulations of the ordinance. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he felt these were lot splits but that it would not affect the other property. Chairman Gitelman felt that all that needed to be done on this would be to say that the shaded lots would be added to""Lotl" and that they would see that the present requirements of the tandem lot ordinance are there. He said they could not approve a tandem lot before it becomes one, and answered Bobbie Jones' question by stating that the Planning Commission would want this brought back before them when the tandem lot was contemplated. Jim Lindsey said he felt he owed the owner this assurance in advance. Chairman Gitelman said they could not give approval of something ahead of time. He said the requirements could be changed before this was actually done. The Planning Commission decided they did not need to take any action and that the discussion contained in the minutes would be sufficient to indicate their approval of the lot splits as explained to them,but not approval of an actual tandem lot. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Highway 62 West $ E. Razorback Road The Planning Commission's next item for consideration was a conditional use request to permit a municipal solid waste treatment plant South of Highway 62 West and East of Razorback Road, zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. City Manager Don Grimes was present to discuss the request. He told the Planning Commission that the City had decided that incineration was the route to go on solid waste disposal with as much recycling as possible; also, he said they envisioned selling steam to the University of Arkansas. He said they had been working on this for some time and the possibilities were very good. He said the site they were interested in was zoned R-2 and the parcel under consideration remained R-2 even though it is in more or less of an industrial area. He said Fulbright Wood Products were operating immediately to the North. He said the other properties around there were owned -by Farm Service Cooperative and Campbell Soup. He said this operation under consideration would be almost entirely enclosed, the trucks going into a large building before the loads are discharged and incinerated. He said it was felt that this was an ideally located site because of the fact that it would have to be within approximately 11 mile of the University steam line system in order for it to be feasible. He felt the only thing that might be objectionable to the neighbors would be the number of trucks that would be entering the site. He pointed out that this situation would exist with Farm Service Coop in a year or two anyway. Mr. Grimes said he had visited several large incinerator sites and with the present pollution control laws no one ever knew they were there since there was no smoke, odor, and relative little noise. He told the Planning Commission that this was a heavily wooded site and he hoped they could situate this properly so that noone would know it was there, There was no one present to oppose the request. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use request. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion whichwas approved unanimously, Large.. Scale.. Developments The next item was a request from the - -INTERPRETATION OF REQUIREMENTS Planning Office for interpretation ofrequirements for large scale development plans ( a part of the Subdivision Regulations) concerning exemption for additions that do not exceed 25%.of the existing buildings or 10,000 square feet. Inspections Superintendent Harold Lieberenz was present and told the Planning Commission Planning Commission October 14, 1975 -10- that they did .not .need to discuss this at.this meeting but.he,would like to take up withthem sometime in the future about the 25% exempted sturctures.that building permits can be issued on under the`Liige,:Scale Development and also the paving situation for parking areas,. He said this could.possibly come in with. the task force study. Chairman Gitelman said perhpas they could funnel this throughthe task force and then they would have something in writing for the Planning Commission. This suggestion was agreeable with the other Commissioners. Chairman Gitelman said there was a letter from Dr, Robert L. Kilgore OTHER BUSINESS and a petition signed by some of the property owners along Zion Road '1902 Zion Road in opposition to the conditional use that was approved on Libbey Simmons for 1902 Zion Road at the last Planning Commission meeting. The letter stated that Dr. Kilgore felt that the facts had been misrepresented on the artists studio and storage that Mrs. Simmons was permitted to operate. He also stated in his letter that Mrs. Simmons was engaged in the wholesale art business under the name of The Libby Simmons Manufacturing Company, that there would be 15 employees, and that he had not given her written permission to use the road on the West side of the property which she would be using as an access. Mrs. Simmons had submitted a letter stating that she had not misrepresented the facts. Chairman Gitelman said that a change of a non -conforming use was like a conditional use in that it did not go on to the Board of Directors, and could not be appealed to them. He said Dr. Kilgore said there was no notification to the surrounding property owners and they did not have a chance to oppose the request. Chairman Gitelman said the Planning Commission needed to decide whether or not to re -open this matter or to leave it as it is. John Power felt there was no reason to re -open the matter. He said it was a less intensive use than what was in the building previously and pointed out that this was back off Zion Road somewhat rather than right on the road Jack Ray said Mrs. Kilgore had called him concerning this matter and their main concern was the truck traffic that this use would create. Mr. and Mrs. Simmons were present and stated that the only truck traffic this would create would be (1) one United Parcel Service van per day, 5 days a week, and Mrs. Simmons said her family vehicle, a van, would be used some also. She said Mr. Kilgore had told her that she could use the road on the West side of the property for access, but that he would not give her a written agreement on this for the utilities to be brought up to the building. She said Mr. Bowlin, property owner to the South of the concerned property, agreed to let all the utilities come over his property with written easements. She said it would be hard to say for certain how many employees she would have. She said three of her employees 'would be leaving and they probably would not be replaced. Mr. Simmons said they probably had 10 people besides the family. In answer to Rita Davis' question, Chairman Gitelman said there was no requirement in the ordinance that adjacent property owners had to be notified. Mr, Jacks asked Mrs. Simmons if she was aware of the petition that was copied on the back of Dr. Kilgore's letter in the agenda. In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Mrs. Simmons said she did not know if the Bowlin person who signed the petition was the same one that was giving her the easement for utilities or not. She said it was a woman's name and she felt that it was not Mr. Bowlin's wife since she had talked with her and,she had had no objections, After some discussion, John Power suggested that since he and Mr. Ray were both familiar withthat vicinity they could check into this and make a.report back to the Planning Commission,at the next meeting, Mr. Ray, as well as the rest of the Commissioners was agreeable to this. There was no further discussion. Planning Commission -11- October 14, 1975 Chairman Gitelman reported that one thing the task force TASK.FORCE STUDY committee agreed on was to re -think the large scale development plan process. They did not feel that it should not be necessary fo"r:developers to go before the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Directors, They felt this was where they could streamline the process. He said they also discovered that there has been no follow up on the large scale development plans. Therefore, he said this was a recommendation for two things: (1) To take it out of the hands of the Board of Directors except for acceptance of -the necessary dedications. (2) To set up a mechanism so that the Inspection Department would check up on the progress of the large scale development to see that they are complying with their approved large scale development. Chairman Gitelman said he wanted to call the Commission's attention to this and for them to look at it so that it could be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting and make a recommendation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DISCUSSION Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the Board of Adjustment felt on items such as conditional uses, large scale developments, etc. that needed both Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission consideration, that the Planning Commission should approve it before it wentto the Board of•Adjustment. After some discussion, the Commissioners decided that they should approve any items like large scale developments, conditional uses and zoning changes, and such before they went to the Board of Adjustment. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P. M. 1 s i i RESOLUTION PC 51-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 14, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-19, Kaylor Investment Company, Inc.; Tom P. & Elaine Coker; Jack B. & Rayanne H. Coker. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIT.T.F, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, of said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the fractional Southdrest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West, being more parti- cularly described as follows, to Wit: Beginning at the intersection of the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the West right of way line of State Highway 265, said point being S 89° 39' W 183 11 feet from the Northeast corner of said fractional forty acre tract and running thence S 89° 39' W along the North line of said fractional forty acre tract a distance of 300 feet; thence South a distance of 308.74 feet; thence N 89° 39' E a distance of 351.27 feet to the West right of way of State Highway 265; thence Northward following the West right of way of State Highway 265 the following bearings and distances; N 00° 34' E 36.16 feet, N 05° 47' W 82.82 feet, N 11° 54' W 101.12 feet, N 13° 54' W 93.50 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2.36 acres, more or less. Subject to that portion contained in existing county road right of way on the North side of above described tract. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District, to 0-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope the property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 1975. Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 52-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing as held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 14, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-20, Ed Storm. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJSF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District and R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the NWt, NEI, and a part of the SWI, NEt, Section 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a point 757.4 feet West of the North- east corner of the last mentioned forty acre tract, and running thence South 18° 81 East 153.1 feet to the North line of State Highway 62; thence South 68° 42, West 65 feet with the North line of said Highway; thence North 17° 81 West 203 feet; thence East sixty-five (65) feet; thence South 18° 81 E 23 feet to the place of beginning. Also a part of the NW/ of the NEI and a part of the SWI of the NEI of Section 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning 892.4 feet West of the North- east corner of the last mentioned forty acre tract; thence South 16° 281 E 202.9 feet to the North line of State Highway 62; thence North 68° 421 E 70 feet; thence North 17° 81 W 180 feet to the North line of the last mentioned forty acre tract; thence North 17° 81 W 23 feet; thence West 70 feet; thence South 16° 281 E 23 feet to the point of beginning. Also lot 15 in the Rutledge Subdivision to the City of Fayetteville, which is a part of the NW* of the NEI of Section 19, T -16-N, R -30-W. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District and R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 53-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 14, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Herndon H. Harris, R75-22, for rezoning; 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 petition requesting the rezoning of property described as follows, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the SW*, SE*, Section 13, T -16-N, R -30-W, of the 5th P.M., Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 252 feet West of the Southeast corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence West 132 feet, thence North 346 feet to the South side of the State Highway 16, thence South-easterly along said Highway Right-of-way 136 feet to a point that is due North of the point of beginning, thence South to the beginning point. and being further known as Tract "C". SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman