Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 12, 1979, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor, Peg Anderson and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, David McWethy, Gary Carnahan, Neal Albright, Larry Browne, George Shelton, Jon Schader, Carolyn Newbern, Nancy Ault, Duane Nelson, Tilden P. Wright, III, A. E. Bowen, Marshall Carlisle, Alice Ludwick, Charles Smith, Don Hornsby, Charles Couch, Warren Luper, Tony Kelly, Ronald Curry, Randall Webb, C. F. England, Helen Edmis- ton, Claud Prewitt, Bob Martin, Bill Bonner, Elam Denham, Jerry Harrod, Wilford Thompson, Anita Zisner, and other un- identified members of the audience. In the absence of Chairman Rita Davis, Vice -Chairman Keith Newhouse called the meeting to order and presided over same There being no additions, corrections or deletions to be made to the minutes of the previous meeting of January 22, 1979, the minutes of said meeting were approved. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Mr. Newhouse read the recommendations from REPORT OF NOMINATING the nominating committee for new officers for the COMMITTEE ensuing year. Nominations were as follows: Chairman - Ernest Jacks Vice -Chairman - Morton Gitelman Secretary - Elizabeth Crocker Peg Anderson moved to adopt the slate of nomi- nations as recommended by the nominating committee. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Ernest Jacks assumed his duties as the new Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks noted that the third item of business was to be consideration of the final plat of Canvas Mountain Subdivision located outside the City Limits, North of Wyman Road on Starr Drive; Jim Lindsey, developer. Gary Carnahan was present to represent. ELECTION OF OFFICERS CANVAS MOUNTAIN Final Plat (Outside City) • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 2 Chairman Jacks stated that the Subdivision Committee voted to recommend that the Commission approve this final plat subject to the following contingencies: 1. Developer signing a contract with the City for incomplete improvements; 2. Certificate being added to the plat for County Planning Board approval; 3. A 50' easement noted on the plat from N. Canvas Road to the north property line in order that a road may be constructed northward in the future. A notation was asked to be made on the plat which would state that the road would be constructed by the property owner and that it would not be maintained by the County until it has been constructed to minimum county standards. Keith Newhouse moved that the Planning Commission approve the plat subject to the above contingencies. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unani- mously. The fourth item on the agenda was the public REZONING PETITION R79-7 hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-7, Jim Hatfield, Jim Hatfield to rezone property located on the South side of S. Side of Dickson St. Dickson Street approximately 280 feet East of Col- lege Avenue from R-0, Residential -Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Neal Albright was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Commission not con- sider changing the zoning to C-2 for the following reasons: 1. The request was not consistent with the General Plan; and 2. Eastward expansion of the commercial strip along Hwy. 71-B at this location or any location could lead to further degradation of the residential areas bordering the strip. Neal Albright, representing the petitioner, stated that the front portion of this property is presently zoned C-2 and that they were requesting that the remaining property also be zoned C-2 in order to utilize the property. He stated that they had not been able to come up with any really good plan to utilize the property in its "split -zone" situation. Larry Browne, President of the Washington County Historical Society, stated that the historical society board was unanimously opposed to the proposed zoning change as they also felt it would degrade the historical district and general area. • George Shelton, Chairman of the Fayetteville -Public Library Board, stated that their Board had met earlier in the day and voted to oppose the zoning change. Jon Schader, representing persons living in the neighborhood who were opposed to the rezoning, stated that many of the neighbors were opposed. He stated that a petition against rezoning containing over 200 signatures of resi- dents in the area had been submitted when a proposal to rezone the property was made two years ago. He stated that these residents "still oppose rezoning just as much as ever." Carolyn Newbern, representing the Big Springs Historical District, stated that for over two years this historical district had been working to bring the area into the National Register of Historical Districts. She stated that anything which might be done which "could seriously endanger the fragile character" of the neighborhood would be strongly opposed by this organization. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 3 Bill Kisor commented that "the property, as is, is an eyesore and something needs to be done to get the property rezoned so they can build a building". Keith Newhouse responded: that he felt the petitioner was "not being imaginative" in that he felt they could do something with the present R-0 zone which would improve and utilize the property. After further discussion, Mr. Newhouse moved to deny the petition. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed 7-1, with Bill Kisor casting the "nay" vote. The fifth item on the agenda was the REZONING PETITION R79-8 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R78-8, Nancy Ault Nancy Ault, to rezone property located west W. of Gregg Ave. Gregg Avenue, East of the S.L.SYF. R.R. and south of Center Street from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District, to R-3, High Density Residential District. Nancy Ault was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Commission consider changing to the R-3 zone for the following reasons: 1. The relationship of this area to the University and to downtown Fayetteville seem to support a higher density; and 2. Such a use is consistent with surrounding development to the west, north and east. Mr. Wood stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this change to a higher density residential "is premature" that he would urge them to at least consider changing to some other R (residential) district before the area becomes industrially developed. Nancy Ault stated that the petition she had presented in connection with the rezoning was "self-explanatory" and that she was present to answer any questions. Chairman Jacks acknowledged receipt of a petition in opposition to the request that bore approximately 20 signatures. The petition was submitted by Mrs. Anita Zisner prior to the meeting. Although Mrs. Zisner was not present at the meeting during the public hearing on this request, she did arrive later and stated that she would like "to go on record" in opposition to the proposal. Peg Anderson moved to approve the rezoning petition, stating "I think this is in keeping with what we have already and this is the way we should go." Windell Cullers seconded the motion. Newton Hailey stated that he agreed with the over-all plan for the area, but that he did not think the Commission should continue to create traffic problems "along that residential street down there." He stated that he felt they would "be compounding problems and we would not be any better off than we were before." He also stated that he felt "the City, or some-. body, should address the problem of upgrading the streets before we allow any further development in the area". After having voted on the motion to approve the petition, said motion passed 7-1, with Newton Hailey casting the "nay" vote. The next item was the public REZONING PETITION R79-9 hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-9, Duane Nelson Duane Nelson; to rezone property W. of Highway 71 N. located West, South and Southwest of Nelson's Funeral Home and the Ramada Inn, Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 • Page 4 West of Highway 71 North from A-1 and C-2, to all C-2. Duane Nelson and attorney Tilden P. Wright, III, were present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Commission not con- sider any zoning change at this time. He suggested that before any additional zoning is introduced that a coordinated traffic plan be worked out and agreed upon by all affected property owners in the area. He stated that the traffic movement in the area is becoming increasingly more difficult and hazardous and that the situation should be solved before additional traffic is encouraged. Mr. Wood also stated that the General Plan suggests that the commercial property south of the Mall be decreased as Mud Creek is approached and that this policy should be considered when any additional zoning is, proposed for the area. Tilden P. Wright, III, an attorney representing the petitioner, presented drawings to the Commission members which outlined a proposed traffic plan for the area. Mr. Wright stated that the proposed traffic plan would help alleviate much of the traffic congestion presently within the area. "With this type of future development in mind," he stated, "it is fairly obvious that there is going to be a lot of traffic taken off of (Hwy.) 71." He continued, stating: "According to Mr. Wood's report, 71 is carrying 31,000 vehicles in a 24-hour period. If you take a few of those off of 71 in some point in time and begin running them on a north -south road coming off the by-pass or on an east -west road such as Stearns and get them into the back entrance of the mall, there is going to be a large volume of traffic and back up inside this area to be developed. Based upon that it seems that the area immediately adjacent to the motel property and the area immediately adjacent to the roadway would::not have much utilization as low-density residential. People who are interested in the property pretty much feel the same way. If we are going to take advantage of the growth that is already apparent on this end of Fayetteville, and' if we are going to keep the buffer areas as Larry has discussed, then we need to start moving along that line and permitting development on south of the Mall in order to get the roads in that the City of Fayetteville desires. Now, there's no dispute that, as these are laid out today on this drawing Duane Nelson would be willing to dedicate the rights-of-way required to accomplish this little crossing of his property. The City, of course as I understand it, is not ready to take that and utilize it at this time, but we stand, ready willing and able to do so when the City wishes. Larry has tied his recommendation to what other property owners out there may or may not wish to do. Of course, we can't speak for the other property owners, nor do we think that our property should be tied to what other property owners may or may not want to do. If they were against the zoning as we have presented to the Commission, after due notice, it would appear that they would be here today to dispute it. Maybe they are. If they are not here to dispute it, we can only assume that they have no objections to the zoning change." Mr. Wright continued further, stating: "I might point out that right now all the property on the General Growth side is C-2 with the exception of the back portion which runs 200-300 feet back and is R-0. Dropping back behind the Mall, if we use these as collectors, there is not going to be much demand for single-family residential right along the side of a collector street. We think it all ought to be rezoned from an agricultural use to a C-2 use to permit office construction, retail sites, high density • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 5 apartments, etc. to serve the people out there working in the mall area. That's where the demand for property is, that's where the growth of Fayette- ville is, and I think that's the way the ultimate street utilization is going to have to be." He further stated: 'We've got to create something back there development - wise to get people off of the main thoroughfares and into that property. We submit to you that is should be rezoned." There being no public opposition to the proposal, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Jacks then invited comments from the Planning Commission members. A discussion concerning the proposed traffic plan ensued between members of the Commission. Morton Gitelman questioned whether Mr. Wood had any idea about the quantity of undeveloped commercially zoned land in the Fayetteville area. Mr. Wood responded that he did not have any recent data thereon. Mr. Gitelman stated that a great deal of land is being rezoned to C-2 and he would be interested in knowing what effect on existing C-2 zoned property this 80 -acre tract would have if it, too, were rezoned C-2. He stated that he was concerned about having "an over supply" of commercially zoned land. Mr. Gitelman commented that Mr. Wright might be correct that this is where the future commercial growth is, "but if that's true, if there's anything we can do to stop it, I would like to." Peg Anderson noted that the property is in the Fayetteville City Limits but within the Springdale School District. She stated that "this is another reason for discouraging additional commercial development in this particular area." Mr. Wood stated that he agreed with the over-all plan submitted by Mr. Nelson, but he did not think it should extend "so far back". "In my opinion," he stated, "we are pretty well committed to commercial to the southward boundary proposed, but not to the depth west". Mr. Wood stated that he had discussed this with Ervan Wimberly and Mr. Wimberly had suggested "a line equal to the West line of the Mall now, not the western -most line, but the west line of the south end of the mall, and this agrees basically with the extension of the street, and I thought .this was a reasonable request". After further discussion, Peg Anderson moved to table the rezoning proposal "until there is a meeting of the minds on the street plan and the traffic pattern is worked out satisfactorily". "I would also include that a revised request be submitted for a smaller C-2 area." Mr. Gitelman stated that, although he would like to second the motion, he would like a clarification of the motion since he felt that "this r!,meeting of the minds' is vague." He stated that he would like to propose that rhe item be tabled "until a proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan is:heard and adopted." "Then," he stated, "we can hold the developers to compliance with the Master Street Plan." Peg Anderson withdrew her motion and_seconded Mr. Gitelman's motion. A vote was taken on the motion to table, which passed unanimously. Mr. Gitelman explained to Mr. Wright that if the Commission does not take action on the tabled item within 45 days, the item will be considered approved unless the petitioners will give the Commission a letter stating that they agree to keep the item tabled. Mr. Wright asked for a clarification of the Commission's position on the tabled item. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 411 February 12, 1979 Page 6 Mr. Wright stated that he felt that the agreement of his client, Duane Nelson, to dedicate the rights-of-way necessary for the streets as shown on their drawing should be given some credence as opposed to tabling the motion and holding it at abeyance until such time as people who may not be interested in developing their land decide "whether they want to get on with making a deal with the City'.v Mr. Gitelman responded that he felt that "this very definitely calls for something in the street plan." He also stated: "It would be most unfortunate that, even if Mr. Nelson is willing to dedicate everything that is shown on his property, (which would only go up to the southerly line) we would have no way of compelling future developers to the south to go along with the plan. We would have nothing in the Master Street Plan to hold them to. I don't think you have to sit on your hands and wait for General Growth or Steele to agree because I think we can impose a change in the Master Street Plan publically that would be binding on them in the future also." Mr. Wright questioned whether the Commission was agreeable to immediately pursue the changes in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Gitelman responded affirma- tively. The seventh item on the agenda was the REZONING PETITION R79-10 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-10, A. E. Bowen & Martin Yurich A. E. Bowen and Martin Yurich, to rezone Giles Road property located North of Highway 16 West (Wedington Road), West of Highway 71 By -Pass and Giles Road, and South of Dorothy Jeanne Street from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commer- cial District. Mr. Bowen and his attorney, Marshall Carlisle, were present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that a portion of the property be rezoned to C-2, but stated that he felt an R-2 buffer zone should be retained along Dorothy Jeanne Street. He explained that this property has come up for re- zoning three times in the past, the first application being withdrawn and the latter two being denied. He also stated that it had been his recommendation on the last two petitions that rezoning be made on all but a portion of the property in order to leave an R-2 buffer zone along Dorothy Jeanne Street and that he still recommended this procedure since it would be in keeping with the General Plan. Marshall Carlisle, representing Mr. Bowen, presented the petition by re- viewing the history of the property with the Commission. Mr. Carlisle mentioned that this same property had been brought up several times before for rezoning, but that it was not coming back again through any fault of the Planning Commission. He stated: "The Planning Commission has always, in its great wisdom, did /sic% what Larry Woods /sic/ recommends that they do now, but we got /sic/ before a City Board of Directors, which, thanks to Mrs. Carlson, changed things a number of times." Mr. Carlisle stated that one previous rezoning in the area managed to rezone an area 660' deep North from the highway right-of-way line to C-2, but left the remainder as an R-2 zone. He stated that the big objection at that time was the situation of the intersection of Highway 16 West and the By -Pass. He stated that everyone agreed that the intersection was intolerable and the highway department therefore condemned 21 acres of the property rezoned to C-2 (about two-fifths of the C-2 property) in order to build an overpass to air Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 7 correct the intersection problem. He stated that a remaining acreage (approximately 11 acres) is now left R-2 and that the petitioners would like that remaining property also rezoned C-2 in order that the property could be developed commercially. Mr. Carlisle further stated: "I don't mind discussing the access problem, however, I think that that is a problem probably better served by being discussed at the time a large scale development plan is submitted for this property." He stated that the real issue here is "what property should be rezoned, not the access." Alice Ludwick, 104 Florene Street, opposed the proposal, stating that the traffic problems in the area were not completely solved when the over -pass was built because a lot of the traffic problems in the area are caused by their residential area. She stated that 84-85 cars use Giles Road daily to come and go. She stated that they have no other access road to use She further stated that the petitioners plan to develop the surrounding area commercially and plan to use Giles Road as an access "leaving us with an impossible situation which we will fight very much." Charles Smith (104 Dorothy Jeanne Street), Don Hornsby (104 Florene), Charles Couch (111 Florene) and Warren Luper (105 Florene) also opposed the rezoning for similar reasons. After a general discussion among members of the audience and the Commission, Mr. Carlisle stated: "I want to make it clear that we don't object to Mr. Woods' recommendation --my client would agree with a buffer zone provision." Peg Anderson moved to deny the petition, stating: "I don't see any reason for.additional C-2 in the area." Windell Cullers seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Gitelman, Crocker, Hailey, Anderson, and Cullers. Nays: Newhouse and Kisor. Abstentions: Jacks. The Chairman announced that the motion to deny the rezoning had passed. The eighth item on the agenda was the REZONING PETITION R79-11 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-11, Tony Kelly Tony Kelly, to rezone property located on the Hwy. 16 E. E Morningside Dr. Southwest corner of the intersection of East 15th Street (Hwy. 16) and Morningside Drive from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. Mr. Kelly was present to represent. -_ Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended consideration of changing to I-1zoning since I-1 would be consistent with the General Plan and the developing industrial nature on the south side of Highway 16. However, he stated that rezoning would be "premature" unless the applicant proposes to extend sewer facilities before construction. Mr. Kelly responded that he had plans to extend the sewer later on. A discussion ensued and the Chairman then stated that the Commission did not feel it could require construction of sewer facilities before rezoning the property. Therefore, Bill Kisor movedto approve the rezoning proposal. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. Peg Anderson commented: "The only thing that bothers me is that we've been turning down right and left across the street every kind of development that's almost less than R-1 or R -2 --and then here we go right on the street • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 8 opposite with industrial and turning down C-2, R-2, etc. across the street. 'cause we don't want any strip commercial. . . . I don't think we're being consistent or fair to the people across the street when they come in and ask for a grocery store and a few other things that we've been turning down. I thought the whole purpose of that area was to keep from having commercial, strip commercial, or strip development. There's no buffer between the two except the street." Beth Crocker commented that they were being consistent with the General Plan "in that we said Highway 16 was the dividing line." Mort Gitelman stated that he would abstain from on this item since he had not received the information on this item in his agenda packet and, therefore, had not had time to review the proposal adequately. Chairman Jacks called for a vote. The recordation thereof was: Ayes: Newhouse, Crocker, Jacks, Hailey, Kisor, and Cullers. Nays: Anderson. Abstentions: Gitelman. The Chairman announced that the motion to approve the rezoning had passed. The ninth item on the agenda was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R79-12, Ronald Curry, to rezone property located East of Deane Solomon Road, West of Hwy. 71 By -Pass and South of Moore Lane from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-9, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Curry was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Commission consider changing to C-2 zoning for a portion of the property under application. He stated that he recommended that the West 309' and the North 300' be rezoned as R-2 and the remainder as C-2. This R-2 would allow a buffer zone between theAA-1 and C-2. He stated that his reasoning for this was that an interchange being proposed by the Highway Department will change the entire land use pattern for the area. Mr. Curry stated that he would be agreeable to Mr. Wood's recommendation. After a short discussion, Keith Newhouse moved that the rezoning, as amended by Mr. Wood's recommendation, be approved. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Mort Gitelman stated that he was not sure that "just because an inter- change is proposed commercial uses are called for." Further discussion ensued. Beth Crocker also commented that the developers should be warned that off-site improvements would be required (streets brought up to standard, primarily) if any commercial development is commenced. After a vote having been taken on the motion to approve the rezoning, as amended, said motion passed 7-1, with Windell Cullers casting the "nay" vote. REZONING PETITION R79-12 Ronald Curry E. of Dean Solomon Road The next item for consideration was a request for approval of temporary off- site parking for a proposed law office at 16 E. Spring Street; submitted by Murphy $ Carlisle, Attorney's at law; property zoned R-0, Residential Office District. Marshall Carlisle was present to represent. MURPHY $ CARLISLE Temporary Off -Site Parking Request 16 E. Spring Street Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 411 February 12, 1979 Page 9 • • Mr. Carlisle explained that he owns three houses adjacent to each other and that he plans to rennovate the first one for his law office. He stated that he would be required to have six parking spaces, but only two are available in the drive of the first lot. He stated that he had been granted temporary use of the St. Paul's Episcopal Church parking lot while in the process of construct- ing the new office. The authorization would continue until July 1, 1979. Mr. Carlisle noted that he would thereafter raze the middle house and build a parking lot that would contain thirteen parking spaces. He stated that he did not plan to raze the house and building the parking lot at this time "because of tenacious IRS regulations." Mr. Carlisle presented a letter from Mr. Bass Trumbo, attorney for St. Paul's Episcopal Church, authorizing use of the church parking lot in the interim period. After a short discussion, Keith Newhouse moved to approve the temporary off-site parking until July 1, 1979. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Chairman stated that the next two items (#11 and #12) would be discussed jointly as they both pertained to the same property and were submitted by the same applicant. Request #11 was a petition to vacate and abandon a portion of Ruth Avenue lying.South of Anson Street,. submitted by Randall Webb. Request #12 was for approval of two tandem lots by Mr. Webb. for property located South of Anson Street, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. The access to the two proposed tandem lots would be that portion of Ruth Avenue petitioned for vaca- tion in Item #11 above. Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, stated that he had appeared at the meeting in order to oppose the vacation and abandonment of that portion of Ruth Avenue lying South of Anson Street for the reason that a large drainage system and concrete wall occupying 42' of the 50' width of the drive was necessary for drainage of several area streets. Randall Webb explained that he had presented his proposal to Mr. Powell several months ago and had received a verbal "okay" on the project. However, he stated, Mr. Powell now denies ever having given approval for the project. Mr. Webb further explained that, after having received word a few days ago that Mr. Powell strongly opposed his plan, he revised the plan and now planned "to go around" the drainage structure, proposing to use 50 feet off the west side of Lot 19, and then swinging back into the old street easement as soon as the drives clear the concrete retaining wall and drain pipes. He stated that the retaining wall and drainage pipes would not be changed in any way and that if the street is closed, the drainage south of the concrete retaining wall would be on private property and of no concern to the city street department. He stated that it would drain in the same area as it presently drains. Clayton Powell stated that he did not feel Mr. Webb's plan was drawn with sufficient detail and stated that he would like more time to study the plan in order to feel confident that it would work. Windell Cullers moved to table the two requests (#11 and #12) until the Street Superintendent and City Engineer have a recommendation to make to the Commission. Peg Anderson added that she felt they should also give a recommendation as to whether or not they feel the street should be vacated. Beth Crocker seconded the motion to table the items, which passed unanimously. RANDALL WEBB Petition to Vacate $ Abandon A Portion of Ruth Avenue AND Request for Two Tandem Lots • • • f Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 10 Item #13 was a Conditional Use request for C. F. ENGLAND F, A. L. CATHCART change of non -conforming use from a single-family Conditional Use Request residence at 2684 W. 6th Street to another non- 2684 W. 6th Street conforming use (5 -unit multi -family dwelling) submitted by C. F. England $ A. L. Cathcart; property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. England was present to represent. Mrs. Jones commented that the 71 By -Pass plan calls for the 50 ft. service road to parallel the West side of this property. Mr. England responded that he would be willing to dedicate one-half of the property needed for the service road off his property. After a short discussion, Newton Hailey commented that any proposals for right-of-way dedication should come up when the property is being developed and not at the present. Windell Cullers moved to approve the request. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item #14 was a request for a feasibility study prior to processing of a preliminary plat for future Woodhaven Subdivision to be located South of Hwy. 45 P, West of Crossover Road sub- mitted by Frank Farrish; property zoned R-1, Low. Density Residential District. Mrs. Helen Edmiston and Mr. Claud Prewitt were present to represent. Chairman Jacks stated that the Subdivision Committee had discussed the feasibility plan and had felt that Mr. Wood, Planning Consultant, should study the proposed plan and the area in general and come back with some suggestions as to through -streets from Highway 45 to Highway 16. He also stated that general discussions as to availability of sewer, cost of sewer vs. septic tanks, and availability of septic tanks were had. More general discussion on the above topics ensued. After the lengthy discussions, Chairman Jacks noted that the Commission did not have any recommen- dations to make to the developers, but stated that he hoped they had received some "indications" as to the feelings of the Commission members that a feasible street pattern plan should be offered. (Peg Anderson left the meeting at 7:05 o'clock P.M.) A public hearing was held on Item #15, a proposed amendment to Article VI, Sec. XV, Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping Goods, of Ap- pendix A (Zoning) to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances for the purpose of adding "picture framing, retail" as a use permitted in Use Unit 15 and in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Bob Martin, petitioner, was present to represent. FEASIBILITY STUDY WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION S. of Hwy. 45 and W. of Crossover Rd. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Amendment to ART. VI, SEC. XV, UNIT 15 of the Zoning Ordinance • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 1979 Page 11 Mr. Martin explained that he felt the unit should be amended to include this use as it was in keeping with other uses allowed therein, such as home furniture shops, etc. There being no public opposition to the proposal, Keith Newhouse moved to approve same. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Mort Gitelman stated that, although he had no real objections to allowing this as a use in the requested Use Unit, he felt people were using amendments to the Use Units as a device to get around rezonings. He stated that he was concerned "that use units will start manipulating zoning." Mr. Gitelman referred to 'the fact that a rezoning petition had been recently brought in order to allow this petitioner to put a picture framing shop in a certain zone. Since the rezoning failed, the petitioner now proposes to amend the Use Unit in order to get the shop onto the property. Bobbie Jones commented that the City Board had previously asked the Com- mission to review the uses allowed in C-1. She stated that she would allow for discussion of the use units on a succeeding agenda. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the rezoning had been denied mainly because the C-2 he had requested would have allowed liquor stores. He stated that he felt that there should possibly be a zone for liquor stores only in order that other retail uses would not be penalized just to keep liquor stores out. After a vote having been taken on the motion to approve the proposed amend- ment, said motion passed 6-1 with Windell Cullers abstaining (Peg Anderson had left the meeting). A public hearing was held on Item #16, a proposed amendment to Article IV, Sec. 2 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of exempting non -conforming lots on which more than one principal structure existed prior to June 29, 1970, from the limitations of said section. Bobbie Jones read the pertinent section of the above article, which she stated precludes owners of two adjacent lots (on which there is a principal structure on each lot which existed onthe effective date of the ordinance) from selling the lots separately. She also directed attention to the proposed ordinance which would amend the provisions by not precluding such owners from selling such lots. A short discussion ensued on the merits of amending the ordinance. Mort Gitelman then moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that this section of the ordinance be amended as proposed by Mrs. Jones. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Amendment to ART. IV, SEC. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance Chairman Jacks read a report from the COMMITTEE REPORT Committee which had been appointed to review Study of PUD the PUD (Planned Unit Development) regulations Regulations (Item #17 on the agenda). In substance, the report stated that the Committee was pursuing the following directions: Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting • February 12, 1979 Page 12 1. Develop two ordinances - one dealing with large tracts and the other with small tracts; 2. Try to encourage clustering of units through density bonus or some other incentive; 3. Allow private streets under certain circumstances; and 4. Make open space be contiguous. Newton Hailey added that the Committee "had talked about making Protective Covenants more rigid in regard to upkeep and maintenance requirements." Beth Crocker noted that they had also "talked about making setbacks from adjoining properties much greater than now required." Mort Gitelman stated that, after the Commission has approved new PUD regu- lations, he felt they should prepare the basic information and explanations thereof for the public in order that everyone would understand the basic concepts of PUDs and the advantages thereof. OTHER BUSINESS: Item #18 consisted of a complaint letter LETTER OF COMPLAINT from Mr. Robert Seay of North Little Rock which Mr. Robert Seay was directed to the Commission. Mr. Seay was un- happy with the fact that when property adjacent to his was platted, no street stub access had been required. He stated that his own property is now landlocked because of that omission. Bill Kisor, a Commission member whose property is located just South of Mr. Seay's property, stated that Mr. Seay had sold off his own property and that he should have been aware that he was landlocking himself. Mr. Gitelman com- mented that Mr. Seay could obtain "an easement of necessity" and stated that he did not see that the Planning Commission could do anything to help him. Mrs. Jones commented that she had added this to the agenda mainly as an informational item. A copy of Mr. Seay's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #1 and made a part of the minutes hereof. Chairman Jacks stated that the Planning MEMORANDUM Commission had received a Memorandum from the COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Washington County Planning Board and that Land Use Mr. Bill Bonner of that Board was present to discuss the information contained in said Memorandum with the Commission. Mr. Bonner read the Memorandum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit #2 and made a part hereof. In substance, the Memorandum stated that the County Planning Board had appointed a Committee consisting of Mr. Bonner, Jerry Harrod and Wilford Thompson which was directed to work with the Planning Commission "to intiate and carry out a cooperative effort by the two planning bodies to develop a proposal for land management in the City's planning area for consideration of the Quorum Court " Morton Gitelman moved that the Commission Chairman appoint a committee of three persons to work with the Planning Board's Committee on this item. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 7:50 o'clock P.M. • 1,, To r✓1;.,ti;es ,-f -i2-77 1612 Northline North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 January 22, 1979 Director of Planning City of Fayetteville F. 0. Box F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Platting Part of NE4 Sec. 35, T17N, R3OW Dear Sir: We own property described as follows: Part of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section thirty-five (35) in Township seventeen (17) North of Range thirty (30 West, more particularly described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said eighty acre tract, and running, thence East four hundred twenty (420) feet; thence North two hundred ten (210) feet; thence West four hundred twenty (420) feet; thence South two hundred ten (210) feet to the point of beginning; containing two (2) acres more or less. The property has been allowed to' be platted adjoining this parcel without providing plug streets to the property. Most cities require developers to designate areas for future streets into unplatted parcels. This apparently has not been done with regard to this parcel. We are interested in acquiring access to our property for development as a single family estate. It is understood that market value will have to be paid for the right-of-way to enter the property. Please provide the following: 1. Copy of Subdivision Regulations 2. Plats of adjacent platted property 3. List of fees and special requirements Your assistance in this matter will be greatly.ppreciated. Yours truly, • Robert H. Sa,4 4.1 • • WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD COURTHOUSE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 521-8600 Ext. 160 MEMORANDUM February 9, 1979 TO: Fayetteville City Planning Commission FROM: William S. Bonner Member SUBJECT: Land Use Management in Fayetteville Growth Area . 221 T rn vies 0C?.iz 79 The Washington County Planning Board at its regular meeting on Monday, February 5 voted to establish a committee to discuss with the Fayetteville City Planning Commission "the feasibility of instituting some formalsystem of land use management and development control in those parts of the County which lie within the planning area of the City of Fayetteville", as requested by the Conunission at its meeting on August 14, 1978. The County Planning Board Committee consists of William S. Bonner, Chairman and Jerry Harrod and Wilford Thompson, members. The committee has been instructed to advise the Fayetteville Planning Commission that the Board is willing to consider the Commission's request and to initiate and carry out a cooperative effort by the two planning bodies to develop a proposal for land management in the City's planning area for consideration of the Quorum Court. To initiate work, the County Planning Board desires to work through the com- mittee cited above with a committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Should the Conmli.ssion desire to proceed with the activity at this time, the Board's Committee is available to meet at earliest mutual convenience. We believe the initial discussion should focus on the statutory responsibilities of the City Planning Commission and County Planning Board in respect to planning and land use management in the City's planning area. In addition, a review of existing plans and planning objectives for the Fayetteville planning area would be desirable. WSB:lrs •