Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 26, 1979, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Beth Crocker, Peg Anderson, Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman. Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Clayton Powell, Neal Albright, Robert Martin, David Carter, Dan Epperly, Jim Parish, Clayton Barnhart, Ralph Barnhart, Helen Edmiston, Linda Yancey, Scott VanLaningham, Rick Briggs, Rick Gauldin, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. The minutes of the previous meeting of February 12, 1979, were approved as mailed. Chairman Jacks appointed Beth Crocker to replace himself as a member of the Subdivision Committee. Chairman Jacks also appointed a Committee to work with the County Planning Board committee on the formulation of regulations for land use con- trol in the Fayetteville Planning Area. Ap- pointed to the committee were: Newton Hailey (Chairman) Morton Gitelman Windell Cullers Larry Wood (Consultant) Chairman Jacks stated that the County Planning Board was waiting for the City to initiate action on the project and requested Mr. Hailey to contact Mr. Bill Bonner of the County Committee to ?et up.a meeting. Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent, CITY STREET made a presentation to the Commission on right- RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS of -way requirements for collector and arterial streets and improvements within the City. Mr. Powell handed out an outline of his presen- tation (a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of the minutes hereof). He also presented cross -view illustrations of different classifications of streets which illustrated the amount of footage used for traffic canes, parking lanes, sidewalks, embankments, etc. within the different rights-of-way widths. In conclusion, Mr. Powell stated that he hoped the Commission would not reduce any of the present right-of-way requirements "as they are already the bare minimum". MINUTES APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO FORMULATE REGULATIONS FOR LAND USE CONTROL IN THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY P.LANNING.BOARD • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 1979 Page 2 Mr. Jacks asked Mrs. Jones to place a review of Mr. Powell's presentation on the next light agenda in order that the Commission could have time to review the facts presented and be able to make a recommendation to the City Board as to the adequacy of the present requirements. The next item for discussion was the pro- USONIA TERRACE posed final plat of Usonia Terrace located Final Plat South of Old Missouri Rd. and East of the S. of Old Missouri Rd. intersection of Zion Road $ Old Missouri Road; Ball Family Trust, owner and developer; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Neal Albright, engineer, was present to represent. Keith Newhouse reported that the Subdivision Committee had voted to recom- mend approval of the final plat, contingent upon any and all unmet Plat Review comments. Mr. Newhouse moved that the Planning Commission also approve the final plat upon the same contingencies. Newton Hailey seconded the motion. Bill Kisor noted that the Subdivision Committee had overlooked the fact that sidewalks should be required on Old Missouri Road. A discussion ensued. Mr. Newhouse amended his motion to include the requirement that sidewalks be constructed along Old Missouri Road. Newton Hailey stated that his second to the motion would stand. After a vote having been taken, the motion to approve the plat passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on Rezoning Peti- REZONING PETITION R79-13 tion R79-13, Robert E. $ Janeen Martin, to rezone Robert E. & Janeen Martin property located at 820 $ 834 W. North Street 820 $ 834 W. North Street from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office District. Robert Martin was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that he had studied this rezoning request in order to be able to give a recommendation on this petition as well as a result of the recent Stanton rezoning application (at that time the Commis- sion had asked him to study the area to see if the General Plan recommendations were still valid). Mr. Wood called attention to the three maps included in the agenda entitled "North St.-Leverett Ave. Area Study". Mr. Wood stated that as a result of this study he felt that service commercial (R-0) zoning would be very appropriate for portions of North Street and Leverett. He stated that he recommended that the Commission consider rezoning the subject property to R-0 for the following reasons: 1. The R-0 district could serve as a buffer for the residential uses to the north and south; 2. The R-0 district could help contain the spread of commercial develop- ment along North Street; and 3. The R-0 district could provide a reasonable alternate land use as North Street begins to take on more characteristics of a principal arterial and single-family dwellings decrease in desirability. Mr. Jacks questioned whether Mr. Wood felt the revisions should be made to the General Land Use Plan, in view of the results of his study. Mr. Wood replied affirmatively. After further discussion, Windell Cullers moved to approve the rezoning petition for Mr. Martin. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting • February 26, 1979 Page 3 • Newton Hailey then moved to advertise for a public hearing on the proposal to amend the General Land Use Plan. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item was the proposed Conditional DAVID CARTER Use Request submitted by David Carter to construct Conditional Use Request four indoor racquetball courts at 661 W. Ash; zoned 661 W. Ash I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. David Carter was present to represent. The Chairman inquired of Mr. Carter whether he had any presentation to make and Mr. Carter stated that he felt his application and the plot plan attached thereto explained his request. He said he would be pleased to answer any ques- tions the Commission members might have. .Mr. Jacks questioned whether the skating rink operation was in business and Mr. Carter replied affirmatively. Windell Cullers moved to approve the request. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Mrs. Jones noted that the building would have to be setback 25' from the south property line instead of the 20' plotted. Mr. Carter responded that he would move the building over as far as necessary. Mrs. Jones also noted that she needed an "as -built" plot plan for the skating rink and that Mr. Carter still needed some additional parking spaces paved and striped on the skating rink development. She also noted that this racquetball development would need four additional parking spaces Mr. Jacks stated that if the Commission approved the Conditional Use re- quest it would not be waiving any setback requirements, etc. A vote was taken on Mr. Cullers' motion to approve the request, and the same passed unanimously. The next item was a request for a rehearing REHEARING REQUEST on Petitions R79-5 and R79-6 to rezone property EPPERLY & DENNIS located at 1317 & 1319 N. Garland, submitted by 1317 $ 1319 N. Garland Mr. $ Mrs. Dan Epperly and Mr. $ Mrs. Kenneth Dennis; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Dan Epperly was present to represent. Chairman Jacks reviewed the history of the property, stating that the re- zoning petitions had first been heard on January 22, 1979, asking that the property be rezoned from R-1 to C-2. Mr. Jacks stated that there had been considerable opposition at that hearing from people in the neighborhood, as well as from administrators of Leverett School. He noted that the rezoning petitions had been denied since the Commission had not felt that C-2 would be an appropri- ate zoning for the area. He stated that the Commission had stated, however, that a lesser zoning such as R-0 might have been appropriate as a buffer zone. Mr. Epperly stated that he was asking for a rehearing since he had not been present at the first hearing as a result of a misunderstanding as to the date of the hearing. He stated that if he had been at that first meeting and had understood the Commission's feelings about the possibility of an R-0 rezon- ing, he would have requested the lesser zoning at that time. Mr. Jacks asked Mrs. Jones to clarify the rules which the Commission fol- lowed in allowing rehearings. Mrs. Jones stated that a rehearing could be had only if a factual error, omission or oversight had occurred at the first meeting. • • Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 1979 Page 4 After considerable discussion concerning whether the request was for a rehearing or for a repetition, it was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Epperly was actually asking for a repetition since he no longer was requesting a C-2 zoning in order to relocate his florist shop business. Beth Crocker noted that his florist shop could not be located in an R-0 zone and Bobbie Jones commented that Mr. Epperly was aware of that, but that he now wanted to rezone the property to something he could use to improve the property. Mr. Epperly stated that he would like to be able to remodel the building and find a more efficient use for it than it now has --a deteriorating rental building. Mrs. Jones informed them that in order to hear a repetition that evidence would have to be submitted that would justify any reconsideration. Ralph Barnhart stated that he and his son, Clayton, still opposed any rezon- ing which would allow any type of business or high density apartments that "would have a most deleterious affect upon my property and seriously impair its use as a family residence because of increased traffic, noise and activity such commer- cial development would bring." Mr. Barnhart also stated that Mr. Epperly's letter to the Commission asking for a rehearing had "bothered" him in that he did not feel a person should be allowed "to ask the Commission to allow a letdown rezoning just because he's allowed his property to deteriorate." Mr. Barnhart stated that he had spent a considerable amount of time and money on upkeep of his property and felt that he should not be penalized just because Mr. Epperly had not kept his property in good shape. Jim Parish, 1245 S. Maxwell, stated that he was against the rezoning simply because he did not feel that rezoning should be done in such a hop, skip and jump manner. He stated that if the property is rezoned that the other lots contiguous to it should also be rezoned in a large block. After further discussion, Keith Newhouse moved to allow a repetition of the requests. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued. Peg Anderson stated that she did not want to rehear this again since "we have heard this same argument and same discussion five or six times in the last year and I think we are imposing on the people who come around each time to rehash the same thing over and over and over again." Bill Kisor noted that, although he agreed that it was a problem for the people who kept coming back to oppose the rezoning, he personally felt "that this is improper zoning and I want to give the man a chance." A vote was had on the motion to allow a repetition of the requests. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Newhouse, Jacks, Kisor and Cullers. Nays: Davis, Crocker, Hailey and Anderson. The Chairman stated that the motion had failed for lack of receiving five (5) affirmative votes. Item #9 on the agenda was a report from PLANNING CONSULTANT REPORT Planning Consultant Larry Wood regarding re- I-1 $ I-2 Setback Requirements quired setbacks in the I-1 & I-2 Districts. Helen Edmiston was present as an interested party. • Mr. Wood called attention to the informational items he submitted with the agenda of the meeting regarding this study on I-1 & I-2 district setbacks. From his study, he explained, he felt that setbacks on the interiors of such industrial • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 1979 Page 5 lots should be lessened as they really performed no positive function and led to a waste of valuable land. He stated that he felt the setbacks were outdated and possibly had been reasonable in years past when buildings were constructed mainly out of wooden material and the setbacks were necessary for fire protection. Mr. Jacks stated that he agreed with Mr. Wood's recommendation since it still provided protection for the industrial buildings and other property, but maintained efficient use of property within the industrial zone. Bobbie Jones commented that she had been having problems with a setback requirement unrelated to any particular zoning district. She stated that the requirement that setbacks from the centerline of public easements must be certain distances (such as 20',.25', etc.) presented undue hardships on narrow lots. She stated that she felt the easement width requested by a utility company, or required by ordinance, should cover the full amount of land necessary to service the utility. She recommended that the requirement be deleted from the regula- tions. Larry Wood and Newton Hailey concurred. After further discussion, Keith Newhouse moved to call a public hearing on the proposed change in interior setbacks in I-1 and I-2 zoning districts accord- ing to Mr. Wood's study and recommendations. OTHER BUSINESS• Bobbie Jones submitted a request from Gerald Salsbury regarding the newly constructed house at 1465 Windsor Place in the Summerhill Addition. Mr. Salsbury had supplied her with a plot plan of the lot (Lot 14, Summerhill Add.) showing the house as situated on the lot, copies of which she handed out to the Commission members. The attached garage of the house necessitated the driveway to be only 8 feet from the adjacent property line. The driveway of the adjacent lot was only 4 feet from the property line, making the total distance between the two drives only 12 feet instead of the required 25 feet. Mrs. Jones stated that Mr. Salsbury had a very real hardship since both houses were already constructed and it would be very impractical and extremely expensive to try to relocate the driveway of the new house. (Both houses are located on the curve of a cul-de-sac.) Mrs. Jones stated that she had told Mr. Salsbury that he would need to get the signatures of the property owner whose driveway would be less than 25 feet from his driveway. After a short discussion concerning the fact that the situation should have been remedied.before the house was built, Bill Kisor moved to approve the waiver of the 25 feet safety zone requirement contingent upon Mr. Salsbury obtaining permission from his neighbor. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. GERALD SALSBURY Request for Waiver of Safety Zone Requirement 1465 Windsor Place There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 6:27 o'clock P.M. • • STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS 1. Resolution No. 34-70, July 6, Plan which contains the following STREET CLASSIFICATION Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local (Residentual) Service Road 1970, adopted the current Master Street right-of-way requirements: RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS 100' 80' 80' 60' 50' 50' - 120' - 100' - 100' - 801 2. Ordinance No. 1801, June 21, 1971, revised pavement widths for local and collector streets as follows: STREET CLASSIFICATION * PAVEraTIT MOTHS URBAN ORDI„ARY URBAN HILLY Local Collector "PAVEIENT WIDTH:” The Distance of curb (flow line to flow line). 30' 36' from inside edge of 30' 36' curb to inside edge 3. Ordinance No. 1750, July 6, 1970 addresses local and collector streets on ordinary and hillyterrain as follows STREET :LIGHT -OF -:'AY CLASSIFICATION URBAN Local Local Collector Collector REQUIREMENTS SURFACE WIDTH RURAL UA;. AY RURAL 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 28' 60' 28' 80' 40' 801 40' 24' 24' TERRAIN CONDITION Ordinary Hilly 30' Ordinary 30' Hilly 4. Ordinance No. 1245, September 12, 1960, established right-of-way and street improvement requirements as follows: STREET CLASSIFICATION Throughfares Collector A Collector B Minor or Residential Alleys Cul -de -Sac RIGHT-OF-WAY URBAN REQUIREMENTS SURFACE WIDTH RURAL 84' 70' 60' 50' �5' 50' radius 120' .70' 70' 50' 15' 48' 40' 40' 26' 12' 5. The following streets have been constructed to varying specifications as indicated below: STREET FROM TO PAVEMT ::WIDTH Dixon Lafayette Gregg Gregg Rolling Hills College College Spruce Elm Dr. Old Missouri Rd. Highland Highland Ash Township College 38' 40' 44' 46' 49' 2 6. Definition of Street Classifications: In a new National Highway Clas- sification Manual, al highway classes the U. S. Department of Transportation defines function - in urgan areas. The criteria considered in determining classification of existing facilities include average trip length, traffic volume, system continuity, and service to travel generation centers. A second group of criteria includes neighborhood identification, spacing between routes, control of access, and travel time or speed. All of these characteristics are applied in the classification process. This system provides for the classification of all existing roads and streets into a limited number of functional classes on the basis of the • A • 1 • • most logical hierarchy of of principal streets. use of facilities to serve present 3 travel and land use. The functional systems for urban areas includes arterials, minor arterial streets, major categories collector streets, and local THE PRINCIPAL ARTTRIAL SYSTEM: Serves major centers of activity, the high- est traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip desires. It carries the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area as well as the majority of through movements. The principal arterial ss em is stratified into controlled -access facilities (including the Interstate other freeways and expressways) and System and uncontrolled -access facilities (in- cluding all other principal arterials). THE MINOR ARTERIAL SYSTEM: Interconnects with and augments the principal arterial system and provides service to trips of moderate length at a some- what lower level of travel mobility. It contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access; it provides intracor'munity continuity, but it is not to penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. TI !F COLLECTOR STREET SYSTEM: Penetrates neighborhoods, distributing trips from arterials through an area to their ultimate destinations,which may be on a local or collector street. Conversely, the collector street also col- lects traffic from local streets in the neighborhood and channels it into the arterial system. It is not intended that through traffic be carried by collector streets, although a minor amount of such traffic is sometimes un- avoidable in the design of the system. The collector system provides for • • both land access service and local traffic movements within residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial areas. THE LOCAL STREET SYSTEM: Comprises all facilities that primarily offer direct access to abutting land. It offers the lowest level of mobility. Through traffic movement is deliberately discouraged. TYPICAL MILAGE, TRAVEL, AND SPACI G ON URBAN UI'TCTIONAL SYSTEMS SYSTEM Principal Arterial Principal Plus Minor Arterial Collector Local TRAVM VOLUME 40-55 65-75 5-10 15-30 MIL AGE o SPACIi 5-10 1 mile 15-25 5-10 65-80 z mile 4 .mile 1 block 4