Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission washeld at 4:.00,P. M. Tuesday, January 27, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman John Power, John Maguire, Keith Newhouse, Jack Ray, Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Donald Nickell, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis (arrived at 5:10 P. M.). MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Libby Simmons; Harry Gray; Ervan Wimberly; Jim Lindsey; Loris Stanton; City Manager Don Grimes; Mayor Orton; Directors Russell Purdy, John Todd, and Morris Collier; Pat Tobin; Larry Wood; David McWethy; Bobbie Jones; Janet Bowen. Vice- Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. The minutes of the January 13, 1976 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. The next item on the agenda was a request for clarification on the type of fence required along the South line of Libby Simmons' property at 1902 Zion Road. (Planning Commission approved change of non -conforming use September 23, 1975, with three restrictions, one between Simmons'property and the Bowlin's property to the South as required for "screening" purposes in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a obscuring fence or hedge not less than 5 feet nor more than 8 feet in height. The Bowlins have signed a letter (a copy of which is a part of this agenda and acknowledged by the Vice -Chairman) requesting "a rail fence about 2= to 3 feet running approximately 145 feet along their common boundary.) Mrs. Simmons was present and told the Planning Commission that the Bowlins had wanted the fence there to prevent UPS vehicles using their yard as a turn around. She stated that there had been no other problems over this other than the fence, and said that Dr. Kilgore had given her permission to have the road graded. In answer to Commissioner Anderson's question about the ownership of the road, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that the road was probably contained in someone's legal description and was not a dedicated public road. However, she explained further that the road had been used as access to this property for a number of years. Mrs. Anderson then asked Mrs. Simmons what the situation was on the dumping at that location. Mrs. Simmons said the dump belonged to the Bowlins and they had asked them (the Simmonses) to use that for dumping their scrap material to help fill it up. Mrs. Anderson asked if this dumping situation could be allowed. It was explained, according to City Attorney Jim McCord, that if all the concerned parties- were in agreement,in something of this nature,that it would be acceptable. No public opposition was expressed. Ernest Jacks moved to accept the type of fence proposed by Mrs. Simmons and the Bowlins in their letters. Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0. MINUTES Libby Simmons 1902 Zion Road Clarification Of Fencing Requirement of which was a fence the view tall" Planning Commission -2- January 27, 1976 PERIMITER PLAZA The next item was the proposed preliminary plat of Preliminary.. Plat Perimeter Plaza, a proposed commercial subdivision Zion Road $'Highway 71 North on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Zion Road and North College Avenue (Highway 71 North). Owners and Developers are Jim Lindsey, Joe Fred Starr, Dr. & Mrs. J. B. Hays, and J. B. Hays P. S. Trust (J. B. Hays and Frank Grammer Trustees). Mr. Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report stating that everything seemed to be in order except for the street light spacing along Zion Road (they propose a distance of 350 feet rather than 300 foot ma*imum permitted) and they were requesting that this be waived. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said the proposed road was acceptable and that the only question concerns the tie back into Stearns Road at the South end the Department of Transportation denied the entrance as submitted to them for Johnie Bassett's Bassett Place. Harry Gray (McClelland Engineers) was present to represent. He explained that the Frontage Road could not connect from Stearns Road to Zion Road since Bob Stout (one of the property owners) would not allow it to go across his property. He said they were showing two types of sewer on the plat: gravity sewer going one way along the side of the street and a forced main going the other way on the other side. Ernest Jacks then moved to approve the Large Scale Development plan and permit a waiver of 300 feet to 350 feet on street light spacing along Zion Road Jack Ray seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Proposed Amendment To Next was the proposed amendment to the Large Scale Development Ordinance Large Scale Development Ordinance (Article IV, Section I, Appendix C. Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2016, 2044, 2073) to simplify the procedure for approving a large scale development plan, and for other purposes,tabled December 9, 1975 and January 13, 1976. A letter from City Attorney Jim McCord, which was a part of the January 13 Planning Commission agenda, had mentioned that City Planning Consultant Larry Wood felt the ordinance should be amended to require the developer to install public improvements necessitated by his development. (Neither the existing ordinance nor this proposed amendment requires this.) The Planning Commission at that meeting had requested Mr. Wood to contact the City Attorney as to why this had not been included in the proposed amendment. Mr. Wood said he had done so, and City Attorney Jim McCord said he was waiting for guidance from the Planning Commission on this. If they felt this should be made a part of the proposed amendment, it could be included before going to the Board of Directors. He said the four requirements they had discussed that should be included was water, sewer, storm drainage and streets. He said Mr. McCord felt that basically everything else was taken care of in some other way (either voluntarily or a zoning requirement). The Planning Commission felt that these public improvements should be included in the ordinance. Rita Davis arrived at 5:10 P. M. Jim Lindsey ("Task Force Study Chairman) was present was fair and reasonable and the only question he had fication of ownership of property as mentioned under He stated that he felt this proposed ordinance would himself to be present at some of the meetings rather represent him. Mr. Lindsey made apologies for not being present at the previous meeting (January 13) when this was on the agenda. and said he felt the ordinance was the expense involved in certi- Section 1, 1(e). create a need for the developer than having an engineer to i Planning Commission January 27, 1476 John Power pointed out:that::this ordinance would put more pressure on the Subdivision Committee in reviewing these. Loris Stanton (member of"Task Force"Committee) said the requirements would be listed in the ordinance and all the Subdivision Committee would need to do is check to see whether or not the developer met -these requirements..- Ervan Wimberly (McClelland Engineers and also a member of the "Task Force" Study Committee) pointed out•that the first -paragraph made provision for the Subdivision Committee to refer this on to the Planning Commission if they felt the need to do so. Mr. Jacks said they sometimes reviewed some fairly rough large scale development plans and would probably turn this type down. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had several things about the ordinance that she would like to discuss. PAGE 1, (1) She felt that the title "City Superintendent" should read "City Street Superintendent", . She also felt that the Inspection Department should be included on the Plat Review Committee list since they received all the material that went before the Plat Review Committee. Ernest Jacks pointed out that the second paragraph states that "The Subdivision Committee shall consist of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Chairman of said Commission." The Planning Commission By-laws state "Members of such committees may be persons other than members of the Planning Commission, but a member of the Planning Commission shall be named as Chairman . . . ." Jim Lindsey said the Board of Directors was especially concerned that the ones passing approval on these large scale development plans be at least someone appointed by that elective body. She felt this should also define the duties of the Plat Review Committee as a technical committee with advisory capacity only. Its duty is to advise the developer of technical problems which the members of the committee feel should be considered and to make recommendations and advise of mandatory requirements. The Planning Commission felt that these changes should be made. PAGE 1, lb Ervan Wimberly said with all the requirements in the proposed ordinance, it would be hard to get everything on a 14' by 18' black line print. Therefore, he asked why it would be necessary (as mentioned in 1 b) to show all the existing buildings if some of those buildings were going to be removed. The Commission decided to change the wording of the last line of this paragraph to read "any other distinctive or unusual features that will remain." PAGE 1, lc Bobbie Jones felt that the type of surfacing for parking and loading areas should be mentioned in this paragraph. PAGE 1, 1 d $ e: Bobbie Jones questioned the certification by an abstractor or surveyor mentioned in this paragraph. She said it would be expensive (as Mr. Lindsey had already pointed out) but she mentioned that the City had been receiving quite a number of incorrect legal descriptions. She felt that the purpose of this was to: (1) check to see if the property had been split without following the proper channels and (2) to have the correct legal descriptions needed on rights-of-way and utility easement dedications. Loris Stanton agreed with this. He felt that it was usually the owner who submitted the large scale development plan. City Manager Don Grimes felt this would not really be much of a problem. He pointed out that the owner of the property would be the one who would sign any necessary dedica- tions. • • Planning Commission January 27, 1976 -4- The Planning Commission felt that 1 e, requiring a certification,of ownership should be eliminated. PAGE 2 Bobbie Jones pointed out that a sentence had been omitted in 2(b) (next to the last line) but after some checking, the Planning Commission felt that this was a duplication and that the City Attorney was trying to shorten the wording of this. PAGE 2 (3) Note• Should be (e) Rather than filling in the blank on this paragraph, it was decided to word it as follows• "Prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting a developer submits to the Planning Administrator proof that" . . . . After some discussion, City Manager Don Grimes felt that the adjacent property owners should only be notified of the proposed development if the zoning classification of that adjoining property were different from the zoning classification of the property under request. Therefore, the Planning Commission added to this paragraph. "any property with a common boundary of a different zoning classification." PAGE 2, 3 (a) It was decided to omit the wording "return receipt requested," and "return" in the next sentence (middle of paragraph 3 (a). The Planning Commission felt if the developer mailed the notice, his responsibility was taken care of and it was not necessary to have the signatures showing they received the notice. PAGE 2, 3 (b) Administrative Assistant David McWethy and Commissioner Peg Anderson stated they did not like the classified al part of that paragraph. Mrs. Anderson felt that if the notice were to be run in the legal section of the newspaper it placed the responsibility on the persons involved if they failed to read that legal notice. After some discussion, the Planning Commission decided to change the wording to: "Said notice shall be published in the newspaper legal notice sections." It would not be necessary to stipulate a size in the legal notice section. PAGE 2, (4)- - Last paragraph of page 2. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had the number 10 filled blank and the number 14 on the last two blanks in the wording of this She said, however, there might be times when the committees would not needed to make provision for this. It was decided to change the wording to: Plat Review Committee meeting" last line of the paragraph be worded" Planning Commission meeting" PAGE 3, (b) (3) Bobbie Jones felt the wording "as well as the or screens required." should be added at the Mr. Stanton asked why they needed to add this 1 c It was explained that on Page 1 it was to be Page 3, (b) (3) would include it in the !'as ?1 in on the first paragraph. meet and they " . . . within 10 days or at the next (second line of that paragraph and that . . .within 14 days or at the next the material used in surfacing and fences end of (b) (3). when they already had it on Page 1, shown on the plans and that adding it on builts." • Planning Commission -5- January 27, 1976 PAGE..3, (b) (4) Commissioner Bill Kisor felt thattelephone andT,.V._ Cable should be included in this. Engineer Ervan Wimberly inquired why all,of thishad to be shown in the "as builts" when sometimes utility lines were abandoned if a leak developed and they placed new ones in a different location.. Mr. Kisor commented that at least they would have something on there to show where the lines are to start with. He felt that this was an important item. PAGE 3, (7) Bobbie Jones felt the Planning Commission would probably want to change the wording of "City Clerk" to "Planning Administrator" since material on large scale development plans were filed in the Office of City Planning. The Planning Commission agreed with this PAGE 4, (8) The Planning Commission changed the wording of the last sentence of this paragraph to read: "At their next meeting, the Subdivision Committee shall" . . . . PAGE 4 (9) (b) Bobbie Jones felt that the wording "or" should be inserted before number (2) in that paragraph. The Planning Commission agreed with her on this. PAGE 4, (9) (c) Ernest Jacks asked that the wording, "subject to the limitations of (b) above" be added after this sentence. • PAGE 4, (9) (d) Bobbie Jones then asked if they wanted to leave the word accessory in that line since they had problems in the past with portable buildings being used for principal use. The Planning Commission felt that this situation did not occur often enough to change the wording.. It was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that, since there were so many changes made in the proposed ordinance, that they should be mailed a copy of the revision and this should be placed on their next agenda for their review before sending it on to the Board of Directors for their consideration. They asked that the outline of the ordinance also be corrected. Director Russell Purdy commended the Planning Commission and those present in the audience for discussing these decisions that were so important to the City without so much as a raised voice. • PROPOSED AMENDMENT Public hearing was opened on the proposed ordinance Article IV, Section E to amend Article IV, Section E of Ordinance 1750 Ord: 1750, Appendix C (Appendix C. to Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to Fayetteville Code of Ord. provide street design standards to be followed by the developers of subdivisions in order to avoid the creation of traffic hazards; and for other purposes. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones asked (1) if this would apply only to new subdivisions from and after this date? (2) would it apply to any existing properties as they are presently owned or would it come under a waiver situation? (3) would it include large scale developments? •(4)•if this did apply to large scale developments and existing properties, there would be a problem since some commercial properties would be too small to meet the requirement of 200-300 foot minimum spacing between driveways and this proposed ordinance 'did not make provision for a way to waive this requirement. • Planning Commission January 27,• 1976 (5) Who would check. the View obstruction.section (Section 1) of the proposed ordinance and also how this would apply on a new street.where the speed limit was not yet in existance? Keith Newhouse left at 5:45 P. M. Planning Consultant Larry Wood explained that this proposed ordinance was an amendment to the existing Subdivision Regulations (Section C) which would apply only to new subdivisions. He also said there was already an overall waiver in the design standards. It was the general opinion of the Planning Commission that it should be up to the Traffic Superintendent to check the view obstruction section. Mr. Wood explained that on proposed streets there was a speed limit of 25 miles per hour unless otherwise posted. In answer to Ervan Wimberly's question, Larry Wood explained that if a street intersection did not line up there had to be a minimum jog of 150 feet. There was no one present in•opposition, and the public hearing was closed. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the proposed ordinance to amend Article IV, Section E of Ordinance Number 1750 (Appendix "C" to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) as written. The motion, seconded by Jack Ray was approved unanimously. MAJOR STREET PLAN Proposed Amendments Vice -Chairman John Power opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan: (1) To adjust the proposed alignment of the extension of Elaine Street (a collector street) as it would extend to the West side of Highway 265. (2) To designate Itson and a portion of Oakland Road as "collector" streets. (3) To designate Old Wire Road lying East of Crossover Road as an "arterial" street. (Old Wire Road shown on some maps as "Bailey Road".) Planning Consultant Larry Wood said the Planning Commission had previously taken action on Items 2 and 3 but that they had been approved in reverse to what the Technical Advisory Committee had approved them. Therefore, to clarify the matter, they were readvertised and placed on this agenda. He said the previous change on Elaine Street had brought it right through Alan Beauchamp's property on Old Wire Road, which had just recently gone through a large scale development process. Mr. Wood brought out that the City was in the process of accepting property East of Sweetbriar Subdivision as a park, and if they did, part of the alignment would be in City ownership. City Manager Don Grimes said this had been accepted. There was no opposition expressed and the public hearing was concluded. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan. Peg Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unanimously PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS The next item was the proposed amendment to the Proposed Amendment Planning Commission By -Laws to change the day and time of Planning Commission meetings to the 2nd and 4th. Mondays- of each month. at 5:00 P M., effective March, 1976. Planning Commission -7- January 272 1976. Planning Administrator BobbieJoneg said she had mailed notification to all of the Planning Commissioners 10 days in advance and, therefore, the amendment could be approved at this meeting w.ith.a majority of votes rather than unanimously. Donald Nickell moved that the By -Laws be amended to change the meeting dates as proposed. The motion, seconded by Bill Kisor, was approved unanimously. PAT TOBIN Conditional Use Request Vice -Chairman Power then took up the item under 50 East Township "Other Business" which was a request from Pat Tobin for a conditional use to permit "Housing for watchman and caretaker" at 50 East Township Road. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. (Use Unit 21 lists "Housing for caretakers" and is a conditional use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in the C-2 District. The Planning Commission expressed concern over this matter. It was felt that Mr. Tobin had submitted a request a year or so -ago -for a mobile home to be used to house a caretaker and then had put a beer sales in the building that he had moved onto the property. After some discussion John Maguire moved to deny the request. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. Mr. Tobin entered the meeting at this point and explained that when he came before them with the mobile home for caretaker request, they (the Planning Commission) had recommended to the Board of Directors that the ordinance be amended to allow this. However, the Board of Directors denied this. He said that the building that had been used for a beer sales had initially been moved on the property as an accessory building to one of the office buildings located on his property. He said the building that was now occupied as a caretaker was moved on the property initially as an accessory building to the golf course. He said the golf course was now closed and he had moved the caretaker in to keep motorcyclists from riding through the golf course He said he had spent $5500 on the building to bring it up to meet the Building Code. Mr. Nickell said he would like to see the minutes of the previous meetings concerning this and if they proved Mr. Tobin right he owed him an apology and thereupon he withdrew his second. After further discussion John Maguire withdrew his motion and moved to table the request. It was requested of the Planning Administrator to mail a copy of the previous minutes concerning this to each of the Commissioners and to place this item on the February 10 Planning Commission agenda. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE The last item was a report from the Nominating Committee consisting of Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, and Jack Ray. Chairman Bill Kisor reported that the committee wished to nominate John Power as Chairman; Ernest Jacks, Vice -Chairman; and Rita Davis as Secretary. This item will be placed on the February 10 Planning Commission agenda at which time additional nominations would be accepted. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 P, M. • • • RESOLUTION PC 7-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was Tuesday, January 27, 1976, fifteen in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a held by the City Planning Commission, (15) days after a notice was published newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend Article IV, Section E, of Ordinance 1750, Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted for the purpose of amending Article IV, Section E, of Ordinance 1750, Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to provide street design standards to be followed by the developers of subdivisions in order to avoid the creation of traffic hazards; and for other purposes. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman • a ''i ry RESOLUTION PC 8-76 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 27, 1976, 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; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed revisions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend the Major Street Plan as follows: to adjust the proposed alignment of the extension of Elaine Street (a collector street) as it would extend to the West side of Highway 265, to designate Itson and a portion of Oakland Road as "collector" streets, to designate Old Wire Road lying East of Crossover Road as an "arterial" street. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED• John Power, Vice -Chairman