HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMI,SSI.ON MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4;06 P.M. Tuesday,
December 9, 1975, in the Board ofDirectors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks,
Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, John Power.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Ray, Rita Davis.
Robert A. Jacobs, Tracye Ware, Sam and James Mathias, Jim Vizzier,
Al Hughes, Mrs. LeRoy Tyson, Ron Masters, Wiley Holt, Bennie Harris,
Tom McMullen, George Blyholder, Bill Threlkeld, Shirley Lucas,
Ray McElhaney, Polly Martin.
Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order.
MINUTES
The minutes of the November 25, 1975, Planning Commission were approved as distributed.
REZONING PETITION R75-26
Chairman Gitelman moved Item 5 (Rezoning Petition R75-26) H. L. Mathias
on the agenda up for the Planning Commission's consideration 221 South Block Avenue
since he felt that it could be disposed of quickly and would keep others from having
to wait so long.
Rezoning Petition R75-26, H. L. Mathias, to rezone property located at 221 South
Block Avenue from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
District, or C-3, Central Commercial District, was tabled at the November 11
Planning Commission meeting with a recommendation that the applicant had to go before
the Board of Directors on a sign appeal.
This is the last date the Planning Commission will meet before the maximum time limitatior
of 45 days within which they have to act on a petition expires.
Written approval of the petitioner is required to table a petition for more than 45 days.
Chairman Gitelman explained that Planning Consultant Larry Wood was doing a study on
this area and that the petitioner was present and willing to leave a written letter
with Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to keep this item on the table.
Bobbie Jones told Mr. Mathias to just leave the letter at the Planning Office as he
left the meeting.
There was no one present in opposition and the Commission left the matter on the
table by unanimous consent.
The next item was a request for approval of a tandem lot, a TANDEM LOT REQUEST
conditional use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission B. W. Miller
for property located on the North side of Township Road, submitted Township Road
by B. W. Miller, tabled November 25 for further information.
No one was present to represent or oppose the request.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Mr. Miller had called the Planning Office
requesting that this item be tabled.
Helen Edmiston moved to table the tandem lot request submitted by B. W. Miller.
Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
SELF-HELP CANNERY
Next was the conditional use request for a Conditional Use Request
"Community Self -Help Non -Commercial Cannery" 225 North Gregg Avenue
for property at 225 North Gregg Avenue zoned C-3, Central Commercial District,
submitted by Economic Opportunity Agency (represented by Mr. Robert A. Jacobs).
On November 25 the Planning Commission interpreted this type use to be permitted in
Use Unit 17 which is permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in the C-:3 Zone.
Planning Commission
December 9, 1975
Adjacent property owners have been mailed copies of the agenda and related material.
(This item is. also related to Item 4of this agenda.)
There was no opposition expressed.
Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use (Item 3 of the agenda) for a
self-help cannery.
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
"POTTERY STUDIO"
Use Unit Interpretation
The next item was a use unit interpretation for a "Pottery Studio" submitted by
Calabash. The applicant proposes to locate in the same building as the above item.
(Item 3 on this agenda). Adjoining property owners have been mailed all the information
on this in case it ends up being a conditional use in C-3.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that Use Unit 12 included artist studio and
Use Unit 16 included hobby shops and she did not know which use unit it should be
considered under. There is also Use Unit 22 which is "Manufacturing."
Tracye Ware was present to represent. She said this would be a studio where they would
make the pottery and "fire" it. They would also have a gallery and might sell some
of the pottery there.
Ernest Jacks felt this would probably be under Use Unit 12 or 22 but he said that it
was probably Use Unit 12 intensity.
Bobbie Jones commented that was why she brought it to the ,Planning Commission, for an
interpretation.
Chairman Gitelman said it seemed to him it should be in Use Unit 12.
There was no further discussion.
Ernest Jacks moved to interpret the "Pottery Studio" they were discussing to be in
Use Unit 12. This would be a use by right in this zone (C-3).
The motion, seconded by Bill Kisor and Donald Nickell was approved unanimously.
Chairman Morton Gitelman opened the public hearing REZONING PETITION R75-29
on Rezoning Petition R75-29, Kaylor Investment Company; Kaylor Investment Company
Tom P. Coker and Elaine Coker, and Jack B. Coker and Joyce and Crossover
Rayanne H. Coker to rezone property located West of Crossover Road (Highway 265),
South of Joyce Street, and North of Mud Creek, from A-1, Agricultural District, and
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to R-0, Residential Office District. (This
includes the property recently rezoned C-1 on the Southwest corner of Joyce and
Crossover Road.)
Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report in which he recommended that the
R-0 District be reduced to 600 to 800 feet of frontage on both Highway 265 and Joyce Street
with the balance of the land being zoned R-2 District. This will reduce the density
potential, provide for a transition zoning pattern, and establish a dividing line for
future commercial zoning on the North side of Joyce Street. He said the General Plan
showed commercial at this point and wondered if they didn't put commercial here, then
where would they put it.
Jim Vizzier was present to represent. He indicated on the map where the property was
located and also where the water, sewer, and gas lines were in that area.
He said the doctors asked for (and were granted) 12.36 acres of their entire 80 acre
tract to be rezoned to C-1, since they understood that they had to have the C-1 Zone
to have more than four doctors. He said they now knew that the R-0 Zone would take care
of this.
Mr. Vizzier said there had been other requests to build medical offices so the doctors
are interested in having a medical park- - -doctors and possilby optometrist offices, and
perhaps a dental lab. There may also be medically related things such as a counter selling
prescription drugs connected with these medical offices, but not a "general store"
type of drugstore.
Mr. Vizzier said the doctors were not interested in a shopping center, but were interested
in the medical park with. residential surrounding. He explained that the doctors were
not interested in the residential at this point. Right now they were mostly interested in
the medical park situation.
k%
rn
•
Planning Commission -3-
December 9, 1975
Mr. Vizzier explained that the doctors were being pressed for an answer as to
whether or not the land could be sold for medical, offices and he did not yet have
all of the plans drawn on this.
Mr. Vizzier said Planning Consultant Larry Wood had recommended this 600 to 800
feet being rezoned because that was the way it was on the Land Use Plan. He said
the streets and utilities would have to be put in to follow the grade He said
the 10 acres Mr. Wood was suggesting be rezoned might or might not be enough for
the doctors clinic, depending on where it was located and the topography of the land.
He also pointed out that some of this along the creek was in the flood plain.
Mr. Jacks and some of the other Commissioners asked Mr. Vizzier why he did not just
bring them a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Vizzier answered that because the doctors were being pressed by these other
doctors wanting to build offices on the property, they felt they needed to, be able
to tell them yes or no, and he did not have time to complete the plans.
Ernest Jacks said he would be in favor of having part of this R-0 but felt he
could not go along with all of it being rezoned.
Jim Vizzier told the Planning Commission that it was around 800 feet from Joyce to
the creek.
Ernest Jacks and Helen Edmiston asked if an 800 foot by 800 foot parcel would be
sufficient.
Chairman Gitelman pointed out that this would be close to 20 acres rather than the
10 acres recommended by Larry Wood.
John Maguire said he didn't feel any differently about rezoning 20 acres than he
did 10, or 30 acres. _
However, the other Commissioners were wary of approving so much R=0_before a plan
had been presented because R-0 would allow high density residential.
Mr. Vizzier felt the simplest solution would be to rezone the whole thing
R-0 rather than rezoning a part of it for the medical offices and then coming back
with a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Gitelman pointed out that if they rezoned all of this as requested, it
would be the largest parcel of R-0 zoned property in the City of Fayetteville,
and he wondered what effect it would have on the other R-0 parcels.
Jim Vizzier pointed out that this would also be the largest medical park in the City.
Mr. Jacks agreed it sounded like a good idea, but he said he would like to see the
"package" and come back to them. He said this would also give the Planning Commissio
time to figure out what the doctors were going to do there.
There was no one present in opposition.
In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the
property owners had been notified as well as the people who signed the petition
against the original rezoning.
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission asked Mr. Vizzier if he
felt the doctors would want to go along with having just part of it rezoned right
now or if they would want the whole thing rezoned.
Mr. Vizzier asked for permission to leave the meeting to call the doctors in order
to check with them.
The Commissioners agreed to postpone action until later in the meeting to enable
Mr. Vizzier to contact his clients.
The public hearing was opened on Rezoning
Petition R75-30, City of Fayetteville, to rezone
the following described properties owned by the
Fayetteville Public Schools:
REZONING PETITION R75-30
City of Fayetteville
School Properties
Planning Commission -4-
December 9, 1975
TRACT A: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL located North. of Lafayette Street, South of
Maple Street, East,of Forest Avenue, and West of Highland Avenue, to rezone from
R-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District.
TRACT B: LEVERETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL located North of Cleveland Street and West
of Garland Avenue to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1,
Institutional District.
TRACT C: BUTTERFIELD TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL located at 3050 Old Missouri Road to
rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District.
TRACT D: HAPPY HOLLOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL located at the North end of Ray Avenue
to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District.
Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report in which he recommended
approval of the rezoning to P-1'•Zones.
He said the present zoning classificationsplace:school facilities as a use on appeal
to the Planning Commission, and these classifications require the School Board to
request permission on almost every physical adjustment they wish to make. (The P-1
District classifies schools as. a use by right and is the district intended for all
public property.)
In answer to Ernest Jacks' question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said if
the school properties were rezoned to P-1 the only time the schools would need to come
before the Planning Commission would be for approval of a large scale development
but that they would no longer have to have the setback requirement waived by the
Planning Commission (the setback requiring 100 feet from a residential district if
air-conditioned and 200 feet if not air-conditioned.would no longer apply.)
There was no one present in opposition.
The public hearing was concluded.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend approval to the Board of Directors the rezoning of
Washington Elementary School from R-2 to P-1; Leverett Elementary School from
R-1 to P-1; Butterfield Trail Elementary School from R-1 to P-1; Happy Hollow Elementary
School from R-1 to P-1;
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
The next item for consideration was two Al Hughes
duplex conditional use requests submitted by :. Duplex Conditional Use Request
Al Hughes for Lots17 and 18 of Prairie View Addition. Ora Drive
Mr.'Hughes was present to represent the request.
He told the Planning Commission that he had 13 lots in that area and that he would
like to put a duplex on each of the lots on the West end of that as a buffer between
his lots and the row of houses on Eva to the West. (He said it seemed logical to have
a duplex here and he felt that it would improve the area He said he could
go on up the hill with some better homes;:costing ; between 33,000 and $40,000.
In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Mr. Hughes said there would be duplexes only on
those two lots. Mr.. Hughes said he did not know why some of the people were opposed
to it because he felt it would improve this area. He said they (he and Loris Stanton)
just recently improved Ora Drive by paving and putting in curb and gutter and sidewalks.
He pointed out that some of those objecting lived on down the street from this proposal.
Chairman Gitelman acknowledged a petition. and letters of those in the area in opposition
to the request.
Mrs. LeRoy Tyson, 1906 Ora Drive, was present.
She told the Planning Commission that they were not beyond two blocks of this proposal
and the 2 blocks were on Ora Drive. She said the rest of those that had signed the
petition were all within a City block of the proposal. She said they had all helped
pay for Ora Drive.
Ron Masters, 924 Eva Avenue, was also present in opposition.
He said he did not think this would add to the neighborhood and that there was evidence
of that already over on Lawson Street.
•
•
•
Planning Commission -S-
December 9, 1975
He said, there was'a-difference..in-the'way.people took care of things when they lived
on a permanent basis.than when they lived somewhere on a temporary basis.
Wiley Holt, 1002 Eva, felt if one duplex was allowed in the area it would be easier
for others to come into the area later. He said it was low density residential and
felt it should remain such.
Bennie Harris, 1017 Eva, said he bought a lot in Prairie View Addition and built a house.
He said before buying this they checked into the restrictions and were told they
were for single family dwellings with a minimum of 1600 square feet. He said they built
their house there thinking it would remain low density residential and he said he was
opposed to this proposal.
Tom McMullen, 916 Eva Ave., said he purchased a home 3 weeks ago and was glad when they
checked on it to find that it was zoned R-1. He said Eva being a dead end street with
very little traffic and it being a quiet street was a big factor in deciding to buy at
this location. He said he would like to see it remain single-family dwellings.and
that he would like to protect his investment.
George Blyholder, 1054 Eva, agreed with what the others had said in objection to this
request. He said they all bought homes with the understanding that it was a low density
residential district and he felt they did not want to see a higher density type thing going
into the area.
Bill Threlkeld, 1917 Ora Drive, felt that this change of use would not fit into the area.
Mr. Hughes said some of these people lived further than a good City block and he said he
had the check toprove that he had paid for part of the improvements of Ora Drive.
A member of the audience commented that Mr. Hughes did pay for every foot of Ora Drive
on the part that he (Mr. Hughes) had developed,
Shirley Lucas, 2139 Ora Drive said she was opposed to this because she would rather have
people living in the neighborhood that owned their own homes. She said that was why
they would like to keep that single family residential.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the Planning Office also received a call from
Mrs. Joe Slaven, 1915 Wedington Drive, also objecting to this request.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bill Kisor said he drove by here and he could not see how duplexes could
ever be put in this area with all the people opposed to it.
Mr. Kisor then moved to deny the duplex conditional use request submitted by Mr. Hughes.
Donald Nickell seconded the motion.
John Maguire said he usually voted in favor of duplexes in the R-1 Zone but felt that he
could not with so many people present in opposition.
The motion to deny was approved by a vote of 5-2 with Chairman Gitelman and Helen Edmiston
voting "Nay".
EMEI
Jim Vizzier, representing petitioners on Rezoning REZONING PETITION R75-29
Petition R75-29, Kaylor Investment Company, re-entered Kaylor Investment Company
the meeting stating that he had talked with one of the Joyce and Crossover
doctors. Mr. Vizzier said the doctor had indicated that he would like to have the
whole 40 acres rezoned. He said the 10 acres as recommended by Mr Wood would not be
enough, but they felt the 20 acres they discussed would be enough to get them started.
Mr. Vizzier said they would have to come back to the Planning Commission on a Planned Unit
Development for the rest of the area anyway.
After further discussion, Helen Edmiston moved to recommend to the Board of Directors
to rezone to R-0 a parcel 800 feet wide from the West right-of-way line of,Highway:265
along Joyce and to the creek and to table the balance of the request.
Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on some PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan: Major Street Plan
1. To show the service roads required by Ordinances 1661, 1662, and 1663 for those
portions of Highway 71 and Highway 71 By-pass designated "Controlled Access".
A
T
Planning Commission -6-
December 9, 1975
2. To show relocation of Zion Road West of its intersection with. Highway 265
(Crossover Road).
3. To designate Old Wire Road East of Crossover Road (Highway 265) as a collector
street.
4. To clarify the location of Elaine Street extended and Center Street extended
to the East as collector streets.
5. And for other purposes.
Chairman Gitelman explained the first sub -item (concerning the service roads along
the Highway 71 and 71 By-pass. He said the reason for locating these service
roads on the Major. Street Plan was to make sure that any possibilities raised by
the City Attorney about the requirement of service roads doesn't fall into some
"judicial limbo".
Planning Consultant Larry Wood said on Item #1 there were a couple of areas that he
had to more or less make assumptions on that and that he would like to double check
with the Planning Commission on.
He said one was the return of the service road just South of the intersection of the
By-pass and Business 71. He said they previously pulled it through Montgomery
Street (the South street of Kenwood Subdivision) and he was now recommending to go
South of the subdivision itself. Mr. Wood said he could not see pulling the traffic
through Kenwood Subdivision and destroying the value of the homes there.
He said another adjustment was Elaine Street. He said there were some discussions
whether this street should proceed straight West across the creek or skirt South
and tie in with the intersection of Old Wire Road.
Mr. Wood said another adjustment was that on the By-pass plan they paralleled the
extension of a four lane North which would be a relocated Highway 71. He said
not knowing whether or where this 4 lane would be, he had forgotten trying to
parallel it.
2. To show relocation of Zion Road West of its intersection Highway 265 (Crossover
Road). - -
Larry Wood indicated Zion Road on the map where he said'they had adjusted off from
the double 90 degree curve in the Highway 265 Plan and a "gentleman's agreement"
with Jim Lindsey to pull it through that portion and straighten Zion Road at that
location.
John Maguire felt that this was very beneficial.
John Power asked if the Planning Commission had anything from Mr. Lindsey concerning
this other than just a verbal agreement. Mr. Power said as he understood it this
was in a trust and Mr. Lindsey was just present to represent the trust.
Chairman Gitelman said he did not think they would want a dedication yet since the
City would then be libel for construction.
3. To designate Old Wire Road East of Crossover Road (Highway 265 as a collector
street.
Larry Wood indicated on the map where that facility would tie back into Highway 45.
Mr. Wood said he hoped as this developed some of the jogs would be straightened
and pointed out that the alignment shown on the map was as it presently existed.
He said up until this point they had just brought Old Wire Road as a collector
street up to Highway 265.
City Manager Don Grimes said he had anticipated some signalization work having to be
done there sometime in the future and the State people insisted that it be tied
to something.
4. To clarify the location of Elaine Street extended and Center Street extended to
the East as collector streets.
Planning Commission -7-
December 9, 1975
Mr. Wood said on the previous Master Street Plan Elaine Street was shown basically as
crossing it with a common intersection on the section line. He said at some point
they were going to have to cross the creek. He said Ken Riley (Director of the
Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission) felt this would be an easier crossing
and would tie to the old section of Old Wire Road extended. He said they were going
through some flood plain at this point. He said from a spacing standpoint it looked
better to him to just continue straight East with Elaine and then try to tie
into something and get away from the minor arterial.
Concerning Center Street, Mr. Wood commented that he did not know how to pull that
together since Center was shown on the Major Street Plan from Block all the
way East.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Rock is presently shown as a collector street
from Fletcher all the way to Crossover Road on the East on the Major Street Plan
and that he had changed it to show Center Street being a collector street from
Fletcher to Crossover Road.
John Maguire felt that it would be better to have Rock Street extended than it would
Rock to tie in.
Ernest Jacks felt it should be left as it was already shown.
After some discussion, several of the Commissioners felt that Center Street should
be left as it is presently.
There was no one present in opposition.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of sub -items
1,2,3, and 5 and the first half of sub -item 4.
John Maguire seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
John Maguire left the meeting at 5:40 P. M.
GLENN'S FURNITURE
Chairman Gitelman said the Planning Commission would 2262 South School Ave.
look at Items 12 (Glenn's Furniture) and 13 (Conditional Large Scale Development
use request for a "part time residence and real estate office") so those present
concerned with these two items would not have to wait.
The Planning Commission's next consideration was the large scale development plan
submitted by Glen Oldham for Glenn's Furniture for property at 2262 South School
Avenue.
Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report in which he stated they needed
a corrected legal description and there was a 25 foot easement needed across this
property for the future sewer extension.
Ray McElhaney, contractor was present and said that Mr. Oldham was agreeable to the
25 foot easement and that the legal description would be worked out.
Mr. Jacks pointed out that City Engineer Paul Mattke was concerned about whether or not
a septic tank would work in this type of soil.
Mr. McElhaney said that Mr'. Oldham did not want a septic tank and was wanting to use
a temporary facility until sewer was extended.
There was no further discussion.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend approval of the large scale development submitted by
Glenn Oldham contingent on: (1) that they get the corrected legal description.
(2) they provide a 25 foot easement along the highway right-of-way. (3) and the property
be built not utilizing a septic tank and that they connect onto public sewer when it is
extended.
The motion was seconded by Helen Edmiston and approved unanimously.
The next item for consideration was a conditional use request Polly A. Martin
for Polly A. Martin for a "part time residence and r • Conditional Use Request
real estate office" in R-1 Zone at 3617 Huntsville Road. 3617 Huntsville Road
"Real Estate Sales Office" is listed as a temporary use in Use Unit 2 -- City wide
uses by conditional use permit, requiring Planning Commission approval. (This
property was recently petitioned for rezoning by Herndon H. Harris, but denied.)
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones told the Planning Commission that the Planning Office
Planning Commission -8-
December 9, 1975
notified all the people whose nameswere turned in concerning the rezoning petition
submitted by Mr. Harris.
Mrs. Martin was present to represent. She said she lived in Winslow and she would
be occupying this part time when she needed to stay late concerning her real estate
sales and would like to use part of it for a real estate sales office.
Ernest Jacks felt that this was a good solution to that problem. He said they did not
rezone this and he saw this as a good use for this property.
Helen Edmiston agreed with Mr. Jacks concerning this.
There was no further discussion.
There was no one present in opposition to the request.
Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use as submitted by Polly Martin for
a part time residence and real estate office at 3617 Huntsville Road for one year.
The motion was seconded by Helen Edmiston, and approved unanimously.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The next item was the public hearing on a proposed Proposed Ordinance
ordinance to amend Article IV, Section I of Appendix Large Scale Development
C, Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Ordinance 1750 as amended by
Ordinance 1998, 2016, 2044, 2073) to expedite the procedure for approving a large
scale development plan.
Chairman Gitelman said this proposed ordinance came about from the "task force"
studies on recommendations of cutting down on the time involved in processing large
scale developments. He said essentially the responsibility would be placed on the
Subdivision Committee who would look at the large scale development plans after they
had gone before the Plat Review Committee.
The large scale development would not be seen by the Planning Commission unless
appealed to them by the developer or someone in opposition to the request. Also, the
Board of Directors would not review it unless there were dedications involved in the
large scale development.
Chairman Gitelman said another interesting thing that was brought out in the "task force"
meetings was that the Inspection Department was not following up on the large scale
developments to see that the developers were doing what they had proposed to do.
He said this plan would call for the Inspection Department to use the large scale
development as a part of their check list for approving or initialling progress under
construction.
Mr. Jacks said he attended the Board of Directors -when this item was discussed and there
was concern about the public being by-passed. They felt that notice of some type should
be published in the newspaper and the Subdivision Committee meeting would be open to the
public. They were also concerned about the adjacent property owners being notified.
He said this was not reflected in the ordinance and he wondered if it should be made
a part of it.
City Manager Grimes said he had discussed this with Inspection Superintendent
Harold Lieberenz and PlanningAdministrator Bobbie Jones. They felt that it could be
done the same way as subdivision plats where the developer shows the adjacent property
owners his layout and have them to sign it and on the plan would be indicated when the
Subdivision Committee would meet. He said they would like to try to stay away from
public hearings on the Plat Review Committee meeting. He felt there would not be that
many people attending the Subdivision Committee but they would be notified of it.
He said he was trying to get away from some of the red tape in the Planning Office and
take.the burdens off of them having to take time to notify the property owners. '
Chairman Gitelman said he could see a problem if the adjacent property owner lived
out of state, and would introduce more red tape insofar as expediting the procedures.
In answer to Mr. Jack's question, Bobbie Jones said all that was written into the
ordinance was that the notice be published in the newspaper and the sign be posted
on the property on rezoning petitions.
She said they had just been notifying the property owners by mail as a matter of
policy for the past 6 years
•
•
Planning Commission
December 9, 1975
-9-
Mr. Jacks said he thought all the Commissioners felt this should be a matter of policy
and even more so -now. He said the question was, did they want it to be made a part
of the ordinance. He then asked if there was a need for this to be called a "public"
hearing.
Chairman Gitelman said they might could just have an administrative policy that required
things such as large scale developments to give the surrounding occupied property
owners notice. He pointed out that this would avoid the situation that he had raised
about the property owner living a long distance away.
City Manager Don Grimes said he would not like to see it be made a part of the
ordinance. He said if it was zoned for commercial use then that person should assume
that it would be used for commercial purposes.
Chairman Gitelman said if they had some more requirements (such as landscaping,etc.)
written into the ordinance he could possibly see this.
Mr. Grimes asked about publishing a notice if the parcel was over 3 or 5 acres.
Helen Edmiston said if it was a one acre development and presumably in the right zone,
she could not see notifying the surrounding property owners except in a newspaper
story that Subdivision Committee would meet at a certain time to discuss it.
Mr. Jacks said he felt that about 9 times out of 10 therewould not be a need for the
property owners to be notified,.but he worried about that one time out of a hundred
when someone would complain that it was done without them being notified.
Chairman Gitelman suggested that perhpas the Subdivision Committee could take care of
this.
Mr. Jacks said he did not like the discretionary part of this on when the property
owners should and should not be notified. He said he did not want to make these
decisions.
After further discussion, City Manager Don Grimes suggested giving the developer
one of three choices; (1) Sending certified letters, Return Receipt Requested;
(2) Publish a notice in the newspaper; (3) or have him to take his layout to each
property owner and have them to sign that they have been notified.
Chairman Gitelman said they could put a sentence in the ordinance that the developer
must notify surrounding property owners in a manner approved by the Planning Office
and then they could just give the developer the three alternatives.
Helen Edmiston moved that the ordinance read so that thedeveloper be given the
three alternatives listed above tonotify surrounding property owners.
Ernest Jacks seconded the motion.
In answer to Mr. Jack's question, Bobbie Jones said this proposed ordinance deleted
what must be shown on the initial development plan.
He then asked her if she could get all the information she needed the way the proposed
ordinance was worded and she replied that in most cases she could. She said the question
of drainage might come up and the developer might try to refuse to do anything on it
since it would not be written in the ordinance. -
Mr. Jacks felt that there should be some definition in the ordinance of what the
developer was expected to do.
Chairman Gitelman felt that the ordinance needed some more work done on it and
asked Mr. Jacks if he could meet with Bobbie Jones and City Attorney Jim McCord
concerning this.
Commissioner Bill Kisor said he definitely felt that all sewer, water, and possibly
gas lines be shown on the "as built" plot plans. He felt this should be added to the
ordinance to save a lot of trouble, (Page 3, B-1).
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones pointed out the wording on page 3 (b) c). She
said it implied that if the request were to be appealed it would go straight to the
Board of Directors rather than going to the Planning Commission first and then on to
the Board of Directors.
She said she did not know if this was just a misunderstanding on the City Attorney's
part or if he wrote it as it was intended.
Chairman Gitelman said there was some ambiguity in there and told Mrs. Jones to
make a note of it.
She said on page 3 under 8 (b) it would be more flexible if this could read as
•
•
i
Planning Commission -10-
December 9, 1975.
"addition to or an additional structure".
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission decided to leave the 10,000 square
feet and omit the 25 per cent of the square footage.
Under Page 3 8 (c) Bobbie Jones asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to delete
the word "accessory" or leave it in.
She said sometimes a prefabricated, movable building was set up as a primary use and
if it met the Building Code it would not have to be reviewed.
There was no further discussion.
Bill Kisor asked that the "as built" plans show water, sewer, and gas lines as installed.
Bobbie Jones suggested any underground utility locations be shown.
Chairman Gitelman appointed Ernest Jacks to get together with City Attorney Jim McCord
and Planning Administrator Bobbie Jories at their convenience concerning this item.
FAYETTEVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE
Chairman Gitelman opened the public -hearing on a Proposed Ordinance
proposed ordinance to amend Article VII, Detached Accessory Buildings
Section 1 of Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning,
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to delete the requirement that detached accessory
buildings be located at least 10 feet from dwellings.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this would also take out a subsection that says
"no accessory building may be constructed on any lot prior to the construction of the
principle building to which it is accessory."
She said they had turned some cases down where the people did not live on the property
but they wanted to maintain it and build a storage building or garage to store their
tools in.
She said she asked Mr. Lieberenz (Inspection Superintendent) about this and he said he
would be in favor of stating that the principle structure should be built within 5 years
or the accessory structure be removed.
She said Mr. Lieberenz remembered in somesubdivision where the people had built
a garage' first and moved into it and then built their house and the neighbors were upset
about it.
Chairman Gitelman felt the requirements in the Housing Code and Building Code would cover
this, but felt that it should be picked up in some code enforcement.
Helen Edmiston felt this should be changed.
There was no one present in opposition.
The public hearing was concluded.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend the approval of the proposed ordinance as written to
amend Article VII, Section.l.
Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
The last item on the agenda was a Planning Office report on REZONING-PETITION•R75-31
Rodger Seratt, 545 West Center Street. (On October 28 and Rodger Seratt
Novemberll, Rodger Seratt had a request before the 545 West Center St.
Planning Commission for a change of non -conforming use. This request was denied.
On November 19, Mr. Seratt presented a petition to the Planning Office to have the property
at 545 West Center rezoned to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. On December 4,
Mr. Larry Wood, while preparing a Planning Report, discovered and called to the
Planning Office's attention that the ordinance which rezoned this area from I-1 to
R-0 rezoned only as far West as the East right-of-way line of the railroad spur line.
545 West Center is on the railroad right-of-way. Therefore, the property is zoned I-1,
Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District, and Mr. Seratt's repair garage and body
shop can be approved as a permitted use.
A letter of apology has already been sent to Mr. Seratt. The Planning Office felt the
Planning Commission should also be advised).
Larry Wood commented that since the notice had been published in the newspaper concerning
this rezoning petition that it would have to be disposed of by the Planning Commission.
Ernest Jacks moved to accept the Planning Office's action concerning this;p&-ition.
The motion seconded by Helen Edmiston was approved unanimously.
Planning Commission -11-
December 9, 1975
City Manager Don Grimes said the Planning Office had, been taking it upon OTHER BUSINESS
themselves to,mail information on lot splits and tandem lots to all the utility companies. 410
He said he has suggested that they check.for.what is required as far as zoning and let the
person requesting the lot split get in touch with the'utilities to see if they can
serve the property.
CHAIRMAN GITELMAN'S FAREWELL
Chairman Gitelman said this would be his last Planning Commission meeting and he wanted
to tell everyone "Goodbye",.
There was no further discussion._
The meeting was adjourned at.6:45 P. M.
•
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 62-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday,
December 9, 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
R75-30, City of Fayetteville.
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 R-2 (Washington) and R-1 (other three), to P-1, Institutional District,
said real estate.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Tract A: Washington Elementary School located North of Lafayette
Street, South of Maple Street, East of Forest Avenue, and West of
Highland Avenue, being a part of the NE*, NE*, Section 16, T -16-N,
R -30-W, more particularly described as: All of Block 2, Public
School Addition to the City of Fayetteville as designated upon the
Original Plat of said town filed in the Office of the Circuit Clerk
and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas.
Tract B: Leverett Eleitentary School located North of Cleveland Street
and West of Garland Avenue, more particularly described as follows:
All of Block 1 and Lots 1 to 5, inclusive, Block 2, Read's Subdiv-
ision of Part of NE*, SE*, Section 8, T -16-N, R -30-W, and a strip
of land 50 feet wide lying between said Blocks 1 and 2, as shown
by the recorded plat of said subdivision, all being situate in the
City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas.
Tract C: Butterfield Trail Elementary School located at 3050 Old
Missouri Road, more particularly described as follows: Part of the
NE4, NW*, and part of the NW*, NE*, of Section 36 in T -17-N, R -30-W,
described as beginning at the point of intersection of the East line
of Old Wire Road (Old Missouri Road) with the South line of the first
mentioned 40 acre tract, and running, thence North with the East line
of said Road 581 feet; thence East 750 feet; thence South 581 feet,
more or less to the South line of the second mentioned 40 acre tract,
and funning, thence West along the South line of said 40 acre tract
750 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning, containing 10
acres, more or less. ALSO, part of the NE**, NW*, and part of the
NW*, NEe, of Section 36, T -17-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a
point on the East line of the Old Wire Road (Old Missouri Road) which
is 581 feet North of the point of intersection of the East line of
said road with the South line of the said NEt, NW*, and running
thence North 150 feet, thence East 750 feet, thence South 150 feet to
the NE corner of a 10 acre tract previously conveyed by Warranty Deed
recorded in Book 652 at Page 09 of the Washington County Land Records,
thence West along the North line of said 10 acre tract 750 feet to the
place of beginning, containing 2.5 acres,more or less.
•
•
Page 2.
Tract D: Happy Hollow Elementary School located at the North end
of Ray Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Part of
Ei, SW4, Section 14, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows; to -wit:
Beginning at a point which is North 667.0 feet from the SE corner
of said 80 acre tract, thence N 89° 31" West 653.0 feet, thence
N 0° 36" E 325 feet, thence North 669.81 feet, thence S 89° 59" E
651.80 feet, thence S 0° 23" W 333.5 feet, thence South 667.0 feet
to the point of beginning, containing 14.9 acres, more or less.
SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from
R-2 (Washington) and R-1 (other three), to P-1, Institutional District,
so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975.
APPROVED*
Morton Gitelman, -Chairman
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 63-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday,
December 9, 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
R75-29, Baylor Investment Company, Inc,. Tom P. Coker and Elaine Coker.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West; and that part of
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Town-
ship 17 North, Range 29 West that lie North of Mud Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILIE, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning
from A-1, Agricultural and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Districts, to
R-0, Residential Office District, said real estate. .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
800 feet of equal and uniform width lying West of the West right-
of-way line of Arkansas State Highway 265, that lie North of Mud
Creek.
SECTION 2. That thecabove.described._property'be rezoned from A-1,
Agricultural and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Districts, to R-0,
Residential Office District, sotthat the petitioner may develope
property accordingly.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman
RESOLUTION PC 64-75
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 1975, the Planning
Commission met to discuss the proposed revisions to the Major Street Plan.
WHEREAS, after the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to make a
recommendation to the Board of Directors on proposed revisions to the Major
Street Plan;
NCW, 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 revisions, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, be adopted to amend the Major Street Plan as follows: to show the
service roads required by Ordinances 1661, 1662, and 1663 for those portions
of Highway 71 and Highway 71 By-pass designated "Controlled Access"; to
show relocation of Zion Road West of its intersection with Highway 265
(Crossover Road); to designate Old Wire Road East of Crossover Road (Highway
265) as a collector street; to clarify the location of Elaine Street
Extended as collector streets; and for other purposes.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman
•
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 65-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission,
Tuesday, December 9, 1975 fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the
Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearingl the Planning Commission voted to
make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend
Ordinance 1750 (Appendix C - Subdivision Regulations, Code of Ordinances, City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas) to amend Article IV, Section I to expedite the
procedure for approving a large scale development plan.
N0W, 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 tbrdinance, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1750, Article IV, Section I to expedite
the procedure for approving a large scale development plan.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman