HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-23 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 23,
1979, at 5:10 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Ernest Jacks, Mort Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Rita Davis,
Keith Newhouse, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor and Windell Cullers.
Newton Hailey.
Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, David McWethy, Rick
Briggs, Scott VanLaningham, Frank Blew, Richard Mayes, Nat
Hays, Chip Wright, Ervan Wimberly, Marion Orton, Mona Benedict,
Walter Turnbow, David Horne, Cy Sutherland, Lynn Wade, Jerry
Sweetser and many unidentified members of the audience.
Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order.
Keith Newhouse proposed an amendment to the MINUTES
minutes of the previous meeting of April 9, 1979,
stating that page 6, paragraph 2 thereof should
be corrected to reflect that Mr. Gitelman had put
together a rough draft of the proceedings of the
meeting and then Mr. McCord had reviewed and revised
same.
Chairman Jacks read a comment from Newton Hailey that stated he would like
a correction made on page 5 of the minutes under the Planning Area Land Use Con-
trol Committee Report. He stated that the first sentence under guideline #1
should read: "Set procedures for a conference land use study to be approved
(not made) by the Quorum Court for the entire area."
There being no further revisions to be made to said minutes, same were
approved with the above corrections.
The Chairman stated that the next item of MAYES OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION
business would be consideration of approval of (Outside City)
the preliminary plat of Mayes Oakwood Subdivision Preliminary Plat
located East of Wheeler, Arkansas, and West of
Salem Community approximately 11 miles West of
the Fayetteville City Limits; Richard Mayes, owner
and developer. Mr. Mayes and surveyor Frank Blew
were present to represent.
Keith Newhouse, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that this
item had been tabled at the meeting of that Committee just preceding in order
to await the discussion on off-site improvements scheduled later in this meeting.
Mr. Newhouse stated that once again the Subdivision Committee had run into a
problem regarding improvement requirements for on-site county roads within Fayette-
ville's planning area. Mr. Newhouse explained that this subdivision is located
about 11 miles from any kind of paved road.
Peg Anderson questioned if the Commission had adopted any changes whereby
it could control planning area streets. She stated that she understood that the
County retained jurisdiction over such streets. Discussion ensued.
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 2
Peg Anderson stated that she felt certain that the last decision made in
this regard was that the City would defer to the County with regard to require-
ments for such roads. Chairman Jacks concurred. Peg Anderson then stated that
she felt this Board might make a recommendation to the County concerning what it
would like to see required, however, she stated that this would be a recommenda-
tion only. Beth Crocker stated that she did not entirely agree, however, she I.
said that she saw the problem with this subdivision as being that it had come to
them without first having a County recommendation. "Almost all the others we
have seen before have had a County recommendation before coming here," she said.
Mrs. Crocker also pointed out "We are not getting as much of an acre and a
half in the county as we get when we require an acre and a half inside the City."
Mr. Newhouse said that this was simply because County property lines run to the
center of the roadways.
After further discussion, Bill Kisor moved to table action on this item
until the next meeting of the Commission in order to await discussions with the
off-site improvements committee. Rita Davis seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously (8-0).
The Chairman noted that the next item of business EDUCARE CHILD CENTER
was consideration of a Conditional Use Request sub- Conditional Use Request
mitted by Lloyd Schuch, Jr. for an Educare Child Center 1090 Bertha Street
and early childhood learning center at 1090 Bertha (cor- (Previously Tabled)
ner of Bertha 4 Lee); property zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential District. No one was present to represent.
Chairman Jacks noted that this item had been tabled at the March 26, 1979,
meeting at applicant's request. Rita David stated that there had been a problem
with the covenants of the subdivision prohibiting such use without approval of
80% of the property owners. Mr. Jacks questioned whether all the adjoining
property owners had been notified. Mrs. Jones replied that she had received
proof of notification, but that Mr. Boss (realtor who had presented the original
request) had talked to her and told her that he doubted if anyone would be pres-
ent at the meeting to represent since he had not yet been able to obtain approval
fromrd,m ajority of the property owners.
Chairman Jacks acknowledged a note given to him by Mrs. Jones which stated
that Larry Wood had recommended the following in the event the Planning Commis-
sion should approve the request:
1. Access should be limited to Lee Avenue and not from Bertha Street.
2. Lee Avenue should be paved.
3. There is 5 ft. additional right-of-way required for both streets;
however, if they pave Lee he thought the 5 ft. could be waived
on Bertha.
Several persons were present in opposition to the request. Mr. Nat Hays,
3285 Martin, spoke for the group giving several safety hazards in the area as
the main reason for being opposed to the request. He stated that large delivery
trucks which park between the proposed playground area and the commercial build-
ings in the area would be very hazardous in the event their air brakes should
fail because of the close proximity and hazardous layout of the service areas to
the proposed playground area.
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 3
Mrs. Davis stated that the covenants of the subdivision presently preclude
this use and she therefore did not see any reason for the Commission to belabor
a decision to approve or not to approve. She then moved to deny the request.
Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (8-0).
Next on the agenda was the rehearing on REHEARING OF
Rezoning Petition R79-9, Duane Nelson, to rezone REZONING PET. R79-9
property located West, South & Southwest of Nelson's Duane Nelson
Funeral Home and Ramada Inn, West of Hwy. 71 North
(N. College Ave.) from A-1, Agricultural District
and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Tilden P.
Wright, III, and Mr. Ervan Wimberly were present to
represent.
Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that he had revised his previous
recommendation and now recommended C-2 for the portion of property west of the
existing C-2 to the centerline of the proposed north -south collector and arter-
ial streets. He stated that he recommended R-0 for the remainder of the property
under application. He stated his reasoning for the revised recommendation as
being:
1. Previously it had been suggested that circulation patterns be worked
out before any additional property was zoned commercially. Since that time
the Planning Commission held a public hearing and added the collector and ar-
terial streets to the Master Street Plan. He stated that there have also been
other recent attempts to try to solve some of the traffic related problems in
the area, such as the proposed overpass, etc.
2. The newly proposed road now provides a reasonable and definable place
from which to work back from the C-2 adjoining and lying north of this property.
Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Nelson was recouperating from surgery and could
not be present. However, he stated that Mr. Nelson was agreeable to Mr. Wood's
revised recommendation and formally requested to amend Mr. Nelson's request to
conform to the revised recommendation.
Peg Anderson questioned the amount of acreage the request now covered.
Mr. Wright responded, "according to Ervan's magic calculator it would amount
to 4411 acres C-2 and 71 acres as R-0."
Mr. Wright stated that the other times he had been before the Commission
there had been alot of confusion and "everything has been in a sort of state
of flux with nobody knowing exactly where things were going to lie." He added:
"Ervan has pinpointed the existence of the roadway based,upon the
contours down there and the best possible location for the north -
south collector. The centerline has been fixed by relationship to
this plat's previous surveys by Ervan. Thus, we can tie in where
this proposed roadway will ultimately be if development occurs in
this area. Of course, Duane has already indicated to this Commis-
sion in earlier sessions that he stands ready and willing to dedi-
cate it (the road rights-of-way) with or without the amendments to
the Master Street Plan. The objections that have been raised,
other than just the ambiguity and indecisiveness of the information
that has been presented to you, seems to be geared around whether or
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 4
not there is too much C-2 in the City of Fayetteville that is unutilized
already; whether or not the C-2 development at this end of town is
good, bad or indifferent; and whether or not the fact that this type
of development with resulting school taxes, or a portion of the millage
going for schools, going to the City of Springdale would dictate this
type of development for this area
"First of all, on whether or not there is too much or too little C-2
in the City of Fayetteville, we have been unable to put our fingers on
any definite or ascertainable study of exactly what there is that is
now developed and what there is that remains to be developed. We can
ascertain how many acres there are that are zoned C-2, and we can ascer-
tain how many acres there are totally within the City of Fayetteville
within this Planning Commission's jurisdiction inside the City Limits,
not County -wide, for the purpose of exercising its controls, and we can
show approximately 4% of C-2 development in the City of Fayetteville.
I don't know what the figure means, it has very little meaning to me.
It means more to me in terms of what property can be utilized for. In
other words, the emphasis being not on do we have too much or do we
have too little, but what is the demand and what can property in a
given location be utilized for. This particular piece of property
lies immediately to the South of the Mall. As Mrs. Anderson has
pointed out, it also lies in the Springdale School District although
in the Fayetteville tax books. The end result is that the City of
Fayetteville gets the remainder of the municipal taxes. That pre-
sents rather an awkward situation for anybody who's a'prospective
builder in a speculative residential area because he's treating kind
of a funny market. People either have no children or live in Spring-
dale and are willing to have their kids moved all that far with the
grand view of the Mall as their attraction. It doesn't quite fit in
with the development around Lake Fayetteville. Fayetteville residents
to move out there would either have to subject their children to the
Springdale School System, it's not that bad but that's not where the
children play and that's not where the children's friends have been;
or pay private tuition to get them into the Fayetteville School System.
"We think the highest and best use, in fact the only use really
available for this property, is in C-2; or as the back part as now
zoned behind the Mall and as perhaps will be zoned behind this C-2
tract, R-0 at least that far back If you turn this, according to
the Master Street Plan, into this type of collector or arterial, you
are not going to encourage residential development along either side
of it. You are going to require the type of streets that will support
and carry some of the traffic that is now on 71 and that is not going
to be conducive to people living there. People are not going to want
to build a private residence in that location.
"We are sort of placed in what looks like the chicken and the egg
concept to me --on the one hand the City doesn't want to rezone property
until they know what they are going to do with the traffic patterns
by moving them off of 71 and onto the collector -arterial; on the other
hand, you can't get the collector -arterial without condemnation and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 5
the City building it unless the property is such that it can support
the costs of private development to put in that type of a street sys-
tem. I don't know what the true answer is in terms of what the
City's ultimate goals will be, but I think when you voted to amend
the Master Street Plan that you pretty well agreed that this is the
type of development that is going to occur in this area. I don't
know why that decision should be postponed until such future time
as a roadway might or might not be put in there. I think the property
owners should be permitted to go ahead and develop along the trend
that Larry says is going to be there. We would urge you to go ahead
at this time and vote upon it, vote favorably upon it."
Considerable discussion between Mr. Wright, Mr. Wimberly and the Commission
ensued. Mrs. Anderson questioned whether the only entrance planned into this
property at this time would be through Stearns Road. Mr. Wimberly stated that
initially this would be the only entrance, however, ultimately several entrances
would be built from different directions as well as several interior streets
which would also handle traffic. Mrs. Anderson said: "Still, it would all have
to come off of Highway 71." Mr. Wimberly stated that a point he wanted to make was
that there is enough residential land already in Fayetteville that if anyone wanted
to go and buy forty acres to make a residential development, "they ain't going to
buy this." "There's just too much land elsewhere, therefore, without commercial
zoning, these streets won't be built anytime soon," he added.
Mr. Wright stated that the demand for streets in the area is there and that
the only way to get them is to let development begin in the area. Peg Anderson
replied that she understood what he was saying, "but I see no reason to develop
it at all until at least some other access to it other than 71 can be provided,
or until the 71 situation is different than what it is now." Ervan Wimberly re-
sponded with "you have to start somewhere." Mrs. Anderson rebutted, "I don't know
why you have to start somewhere at this point and at this time." "This is just
where we are plainly going to disagree," she said. "The traffic problem is just
so serious," she added.
Mr. Wimberly stated that another point he would like to make, which was his
personal opinion only, was that he was opposed to "this idea of an overchange at
the Mall which is being considered." "I, in my personal opinion as an engineer
who is familiar with traffic patterns and the costs of building that structure,
am opposed to the idea." "I've discussed this with Ernie quite a bit," he con-
tinued, "and I think you are spending alot of somebody's money just to serve the
Mall." "I think a grade separation structure should be built down there," he
continued, "but Duane doesn't agree with me on this because it is going to mean
condemnation and loss of some of his land." "It ought to be right here, it will
open up Joyce Street all the way from 265 across to Johnson Road When you've
got that in there then you are putting alot of traffic in there."
Mr. Jacks concurred with Mr. Wimberly's opinion, stating that "we need badly
to go on and develop Stearns and Joyce." Mr. Wimberly stated that Arkansas West-
ern Gas had dedicated rights-of-way all across its property and that "Duane will
do the same thing here and we'll be one step closer."
Former City Mayor Marion Orton, present in opposition to the rezoning, stated
that she was very much against putting more commercial in the area for three
reasons. First, she stated that there is already a large number of commercially
Planning Commission Meeting
• April 23, 1979
Page 6
•
•
zoned areas within the City which have not been developed as yet, all of which
are much closer to the heart and downtown of the City. Second, she said that
these other large commercial areas are all within the Fayetteville School District.
Mrs. Orton stated that 76% of our property taxes go to Springdale, and although
she knew that Springdale needed the taxes too, "since we are planning for the City
of Fayetteville I think this is a place we should think very, seriously about keep-
ing these taxes for the Fayetteville schools." Mrs. Orton continued, stating
that because of the traffic problems in the area she felt it would be premature
to put in large commercial areas in an area with no immediate plans for develop-
ing streets which will take some of the burden off 71. She stated that until
these traffic alleviating streets are built (which she commented could be as far
off as twenty years) that she did not see providing more commercial property in the
area.
Mona Benedict, 535 Oliver, stated that "the highest and best use isn't always
the best criteria" to use when contemplating rezoning parcels of property. She
stated that she felt the "overriding future problems" should be considered and al-
so commented that she was against encouraging development outside the center of
town and outside the Fayetteville School District.
After further discussion, Bill Kisor stated he did not think the streets which
were needed in the area would be built until development began in the area, although
he agreed he would like to see development kept downtown. Mr. Kisor moved to ap-
prove the rezoning request as revised. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion.
Chairman Jacks read a memo from Mr. Hailey who was unable to attend the
meeting, which_stated:
"I cannot support further commercial development in this area until
more definite plans are instigated to solve the traffic flow problems,
that is, (1),to be sure that the Mall overpass or other solution has
been approved and that, (2) plans are underway in the immediate future
for connections from this property to Frontage'Road toward the south.
"The drawing furnished does not indicate any scheduled plans to tie
the existing Frontage Road to the Hwy. Department extension coming east
from the new Johnson Road interchange with the Bypass, nor does it
indicate when the proposed north -south collector will tie to Frontage
Road. I realize that in most cases the development itself will furnish
the road system but in this case the roads furnished by the developer
will lead to nowhere. I'd like to see a proposal from all land owners
indicating a time frame whereby the entire road system would be func-
tional."
Windell Cullers stated that, until the area to the South is brought in for
development, until that roadis built, and until the road is completed (hopefully
80 ft. wide all the way from 71 to Johnson Road) the immediate problem is that
Mr. Nelson is going to build on his 52 acres and'all the traffic to and from
there is going to have to go right out Stearns Road. It could be 2, 5, even 10
years until the problem to the south is developed, he said. "Now, you've stated
very plainly that that road is going to have to be built by the developers and
so we're going to probably have to wait until Mr. Steele tells us what he is go-
ing to do with his property until we'll know whether there is going to be any
access across the south part of this whole area," stated Mr. Cullers.
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 7
Ervan Wimberly replied that if Mr. Steele ever does anything with his prop-
erty that the Master Street Plan says "he will build the street." Mr. Cullers
stated that the real problem was that they just didn't know how long it would
take from the time the Nelson property is developed until the property to the
south is developed and the necessary roads for proper access and traffic flow
are constructed.
After further discussion, Chairman Jacks called for the question on Mr.
Kisor's motion to grant the rezoning request as revised. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Kisor and Newhouse.
Nays: Cullers, Anderson, Jacks, Crocker and Gitelman.
Abstentions: Davis.
The Chairman announced that the motion to approve the rezoning had failed on
a 5-2-1 vote for a lack of 5 affirmative votes which are necessary to pass a motion.
The next item for consideration was a AINSWORTH $ GLASS
Conditional Use Request submitted by Harry Ains- Conditional Use Request
worth and Sally Glass to convert a single-family 1658 Hotz Drive
residence into a two -kitchen residential unit at
1658 Hotz Drive; property zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential District. Mr. David Horne, attorney,
and Mr. Cy Sutherland, builder, were present to
represent.
Mr. Horne presented the request, stating that Mr. Ainsworth & Ms. Glass are
brother and sister and that they have purchased this house with the intention to
occupy same jointly in the future. He stated that the downstairs is one large
room and that they would like to build another kitchen and bathroom on that level
for Ms. Glass. He stated that Mr. Ainsworth would occupy the upper level and would
have his own separate bathroom and kitchen facilities. He stated that the two
levels would be connected by an interior stairway instead of the exterior stairway
which is the norm for a single-family house turned into a duplex. For this reason,
he said, there is a question as to whether you can construe this arrangement as
an actual duplex.
Chairman Jacks questioned Mrs. Jones concerning whether the request was in
her opinion actually a request for approval of a duplex. Mrs. Jones replied that
in effect that was what she felt the applicant should be requesting. Mr. Jacks
said that if the Commission decided to construe the request as a Conditional Use
that sufficient restrictions could be put upon it to allow approval.
Peg Anderson questioned whether there are any provisions in the zoning ordi-
nance or elsewhere to provide for a "mother-in-law apartment" or an apartment
that isn't rented out. Mr. Jacks replied that there is not, other than to allow
the use as a Conditional Use (in R-1 zones).
Mr. Sutherland questioned what would happen if the house eventually became
an actual duplex and Mr. Jacks replied that the owners would then have to appeal
for a duplex approval.
After a short discussion, Windell Cullers moved to approve the request with-
out placing any special restrictions thereon. Rita Davis seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously (8-0).
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 8
Chairman Jacks stated that the next item
of business was a Conditional Use Request sub-
mitted by Charles Reitzel to sell red worms to
CHARLES REITZEL
Conditional Use Request
2500 City Lake Road
reduce his inventory prior to moving by January 1,
1980; 2500 City Lake Road; property zoned A-1,
Agricultural District.
After a very short discussion, Rita Davis moved to approve the request.
Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (8-0).
A public hearing was held on Rezoning
Petition R79-15, to rezone the following prop-
erties from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light
Industrial, to R-1, Low Density Residential
District:
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
Tract
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tract 9
CONSIDERATION OF
REZONING PETITION R79 -1S
Ten Tracts on Gregg St.
Mary Grace Sinnott, 121 S. Gregg
Laverne Fifer, 129 S Gregg
- Clarence & Nerva Meadows, 109 S. Gregg
- Marymartha Wynne, 304 S. Gregg
- Johnny P, Carole Woodward, 306 S. Gregg
- Velma Durning, 309 S. Gregg
Irving P, Mary Anita Zisner, 325 S. Gregg
Buddy $ Anita Zisner, 325 S. Gregg
Ruth A. Campbell, 226 S. Gregg
Tract 10 - Ormaline Goldsmith, 208 S. Gregg
Attorney Lynn Wade was present to represent petitioners.
Chairman Jacks briefly reviewed the history of past rezoning petitions
brought for this area. He stated that about 11 years ago the Commission had
studied the area and had recommended to the City Board a change in the land use
along Gregg Street to multi -family residential, which recommendation the Board
subsequently approved. Since that time, he stated, two or three rezoning re-
quests had been brought to the Commission from renters and property owners in
the area asking for R-1 zoning. He stated that a blanket petition had been turned
down and that the Commission had asked that individual property owners in the
area submit rezoning petitions for their individual parcels of property. About
two months ago, he stated, a request was made for a high density residential
zoning (R-3) in the area and that this Commission had recommended to the City
Board that R-3 be approved. The Board discussed the matter and although it
considered R-2 for the property, finally tabled any action on the request until
rezoning requests could be submitted for other property on South Gregg Street.
Mr. Jacks stated that he had reread the minutes of the City Board meeting
at which this most recent rezoning petition had been tabled (Nancy Ault Petition)
and found "some interesting accusations" therein, such as "we, the Planning
Commission, 'are upset at the Board because they prefer to rezone the property
as R-2 instead of R-3." "I didn't really realize that I was sore at the Board
members," he stated.
Larry Wood noted that the map he had included in his Planning Report in the
agenda should be corrected to show Lots 13 through 16 in the lower lefthand cor-
ner thereof as R-3 zoning also. He stated that he recommended the requested R-1
be considered since he did not see anything contrary in that change to the
eventual achievement of the General Plan recommendations (multi -family residential)
•
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 9
"I see no real change in that all of the properties now have single-family
residential houses on them, at least there are only a couple of lots that don't
have houses on them," he continued. He stated that he viewed the proposed R-1
"as an improvement over. the existing I-1 zoning."
Attorney Lynn Wade, representing the nine petitioners who own the ten
tracts of property the subject of the petition, stated:
"I think we all recognize that no one takes the stand that this
property should remain industrially zoned, but the argument is that
we believe this property is not now suitable for high density resi-
dential. Our reasons are: limited parking space, lack of side-
walks, the narrowness of the street, curvature of the street, no
street lights, number of children in the neighborhood and the large
amount of foot traffic. ... High density is just not appropriate
for the area unless the City is ready to make commitments to improve
streets, sidewalks, lights, sewer, etc."
Mr. Wade stated that he had discussed with the petitioners that the R-1
zoning they are requesting may. be "a stop -gap measure only" as the area may well
be moving toward a more high density neighborhood, as inferred in Mr. Wood's
recommendation. Mr. Wade noted, however, that the petitioners "are basically
people who own their own homes and have done quite a bit of home improvement
over the last few years." "These people request to maintain the character of
their neighborhood as single-family residential," he stated. Mr. Wade said that
he felt it would be premature to go into any high density zoning without the
improvements he had just referred to.
There was no opposition to the R-1 request by anyone present in the audience.
After a short discussion, Rita Davis moved to follow Larry Wood's recommendation
and recommend rezoning of the petitioned lots to R-1 to the City Board Windell
Cullers seconded the motion.
Mort Gitelman stated that although he agreed with Mr. Wood's recommenda-
tion in principal, "however, if the Board is going to interpret this in the
terms that the petitioners are interpreting this --that they want the entire
neighborhood to become R -1 --and that the Board will take a piece of property
that we have recommended for R-2 and refuse to rezone it that way, I would like
to append to our recommendation, if we do pass it, a resolution that we reaffirm
our previous decision on the pending R-2 request up there that we in no way want
to change that particular request and that Larry's recommendation is that if any
of these people who are seeking R-1 want to develop multi -family that that is in
accordance with the General Plan."
Rita Davis stated: "That is not my recommendation, I will say that for sure."
Mr. Gitelman responded: "I am not going to vote for this one unless there is
that understanding." Mrs. David responded: "My motion will not include anything
like that. My motion will say R-1 and then if anyone wants to make a separate
motion saying 'but leave what you have tabled for R-2 as is,' you all can vote
anyway you want to on that." Mr. Gitelman clarified his statement, saying "I do
not want to put any conditions on our recommendation, I simply want the Board to
understand that any favorable action on this request should not be interpreted
as undoing what we recommended previously." Mrs. Davis stated that she felt she
could go along with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 10
Beth Crocker stated that she agreed with Mr. Gitelman that "if we recom-
mend this as R-1, they (the Board) are going to take itthat we are now changing
our minds about the whole district." Mr. Jacks stated that the Board's minutes
had stated that "they moved to table final action on the other rezoning petition
until they get rezoning requests from other property owners on South Gregg."
Windell Cullers suggested that the Commission could, in letter form, "admonish
the Board not to read into our decisions any particular action on their part,
rather than denying this petition which is accomplishing in some degree what we
want to do."
Beth Crocker stated to Mr. Cullers: "He (Mr. Gitelman) is not saying 'deny
this petition' but is rather saying 'don't take our recommendation to grant it as
being also a recommendation now to not grant the R-2."
After further discussion, Mr. Gitelman proposed an amendment to Mrs. Davis'
motion, stating "since what we vote on is a recommendation to the Board anyway,
as part of our recommendation to approve this as R-1 I would amend our recommen-
dation to include the comment that we in no way intend for this action to reflect
on the merits of rezoning the pending piece of property to R-2." Windell Cullers
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (8-0). A vote was then taken on
Mrs. Davis' motion to approve the rezoning of the ten tracts to R-1, said motion
also passed unanimously (8-0).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Chairman Jacks handed out an outline of the key PLANNED UNIT
provisions of the proposed revised Planned Unit Develop- DEVELOPMENTS
ment regulations which this Committee has been working
on for some time. Mr. Jacks asked the Commission mem-
bers to review this outline thoroughly before the next
regular meeting. At that time, he stated, a more de-
tailed discussion would be had on the proposals.
Mr. Jacks stated that Mr. Hailey, Chairman of this
Committee, had left some comments with him regarding
his Committee's progress. He stated that Mr. Hailey
and Mr. Jay Penix of the Springdale Committee and Mr.
Bill Bonner of the County Committee had met to work up
some provisions to bring to a full meeting of the three
committees to be held on May 17th. If those committees
approve the proposals, he stated, the proposals will
be taken to the Planning Commission for some kind of
final form for its "once over." He stated that the pro-
posals would finally be sent to the Quorum Court in June.
Keith Newhouse, Chairman of this Committee, stated
that his Committee had not been able to meet this week,
but that they would be meeting next week. He stated,
however, that something had come up in the Subdivision
Committee's meeting earlier in the day that he would like
to get the Commissionersr reactions thereon. He stated
that they had been faced with somewhat the same problem
PLANNING AREA
LAND USE CONTROL
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 11
as they have been facing on off-site improvements MAYES OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION
on the Mayes Oakwood Subdivision. He stated that (Outside City)
this was a large, 17 -lot subdivision within the Preliminary Plat
Planning Area but outside the City Limits, which
consisted of large lots all more than 1.5 acres each.
Mr. Newhouse stated that the subdivision was more
than 1.5 miles from any paved road and 2 miles from Highway 16. He stated:
"I had the feeling that on a development of this size that we should
require the double chip and oil seal road that is required in town.
As of today there are no paved roads to that property, the developer's
objection is that if he puts out the money to put that road down he
will then have something that will result in axle -breaking, etc. Also,
the roads leading up to it will not be conducive for him to be able to
sell those lots with that additional cost involved. He did offer, in
light of what we've been talking about on this 6ff-site improvement
thing, to set up a fund (he offered a bond but we've been talking about
putting up cash) in an escrow account in order to pave the interior
roads within five years or as soon as the roads out to his subdivision
are paved. What is the Commissions' thinking on this matter?"
General discussion ensued concerning the Commission's powers to set subdi-
vision regulations within the Planning Area and the County's jurisdiction over
the roads in such subdivisions. Bobbie Jones read Article III, Sec. A(3) of
Ordinance No. 1750, Subdivision Regulations, which lists the improvements which
are exempt from suburban subdivisions not adjacent to the City's corporate limits.
Peg Anderson noted that the last revision made to the ordinance had, in her
understanding, left the decision -as to the type of roadway improvements up to
the County. Mrs. Jones stated that she had been told, although she had not seen
anything in writing, that the County has new regulations which require a minimum
double chip and oil seal for on-site streets in planning area subdivisions.
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not to untable the Mayes Oakwood
plat. Mr. Mayes, owner and developer, was still present at the meeting and con-
sented to the untabling thereof. Keith Newhouse moved to reconsider the prelimi-
nary plat and Peg Anderson seconded his motion, which passed unanimously.
Chairman Jacks stated that the matter was now off the table and on the
floor and asked for discussion. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the preliminary
plat of the Mayes Oakwood Subdivision with the stipulation that "we will recom-
mend that the County require double chip and oil seal for the on-site roads
within the subdivision." Mr. Newhouse acknowledged the renaming of the drive
and southern cul-de-sac and stated that as a part of his motion he would accept
the reallocation of acreage of the individual lots in order to bring them up
to minimum 11/2 acres each by including the roadway easements to the centerline
of the roads in the calculation of those allocations.
Beth Crocker seconded the motion. (Peg Anderson left the meeting at 7:04
o'clock P.M.) After further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to
approve the plat with the above stipulation, and same passed 6-1 with Windell
Cullers casting the nay vote and Peg Anderson and Newton Hailey being absent.
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 12
Chairman Jacks stated that he had re- ' DISCUSSION --
quested this discussion since he felt there SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS
could be a more efficient way to review
subdivisions than the normal procedure of
the preliminary plat going through Plat Review,
Subdivision and Planning Commission meetings for approval and then having the
final plat go back again through the same procedure. He stated that he had
discussed this with Ervan Wimberly and that Mr. Wimberly had prepared an al-
ternate procedure for processing plats. Mr Wimberly passed out this proposed
procedure outline to the Commissioners, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part of the minutes hereof.
After a short discussion thereon, Chairman Jacks asked the Commissioners
to be thinking about these suggestions and to be ready to discuss them more
fully at the next meeting.
Last on the agenda was a discussion DISCUSSION --
regarding the size of parking spaces required PARKING SPACE SIZES
by the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Jones, Planning
Administrator, and Commissioner Hailey requested
this discussion because of a problem which had
come up on the downtown parking garage presently being proposed. It was noted
by Mr. Jacks that the normal parking spaces are .9' x 19' in size (give or
take a few inches) but that City Ordinance requires parking spaces to be 200
sq. ft. (making 10' x 20' the most convenient size to conform thereto). Mrs.
Jones stated that sometimes the few inches or feet difference in what is actu-
ally needed to park today's smaller cars can make a great deal of difference
to a developer who can't meet the number of parking spaces he needs.
After a short discussion, Rita Davis stated that she would like to defer
any interpretation as to perhaps whether the regulations should be changed to
allow different regulations for parking garages than for normal parking spaces,
etc. to Mr. Jacks and Mr. Hailey since they are much more knowledgeable about
such requirements. Mr. Jacks agreed that he would discuss the matter with
Mr. Hailey and work out recommendations to bring back to the Planning Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Jerry Sweetser entered the meeting shortly after 7:15 p.m. and stated that
he would like to call attention to a problem he has been having a great deal of
difficulty with. He stated:
"I am constantly running into Dick Shaw and the Gas Company and
other utility people about PVDs, subdivisions and other developments
and all they have to do is come in here to you and say they want 20
ft. for an easement. I say 'I don't want to give you 20 ft.' and
they say, 'well, we are going to have 20 ft.' I ask them where they
are going to put that 20 ft. and they say, 'anywhere I want to.''
Mr. Sweetser questioned why the Planning Commission doesn't give the utility
companies some standards to abide by and then require them to provide as -built
plot plans to the developers showing where they have -put their lines when they
get through.
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1979
Page 13
Mr. Sweetser stated that many times all the utilities could go into one
15 or 20 ft. easement, but by the time they each decide where they want their
easements he has hardly any lot left to build on and can't meet any of the
required setbacks. Mr. Sweetser asked the Commission to take a good look at
this matter.
Mr. Jacks, Mrs. Davis and Mr. Kisor each stated they were in sympathy with
Mr: Sweetser's.good point. Mr. Jacks said that they would discuss the matter
further at a later date.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting
adjourned at 7:25 o'clock P.M.
•
•
•
EXHIBIT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES OF 4-23-79
SUGGESTED SUBDIVISION PLAT PROCEDURE
1 Submit a "Concept" Plat directly to the Planning Commission
showing existing topography, a good vicinity map and layout
of planned development with approximate dimensions. The
plat would be reviewed for general design and compliance
with the master street plan, the land use plan, and general
subdivision regulations.
2 Submit the "Concept" Plat to Plat Review Committee to work.
out details of utilities, streets and storm drainage.
3. Submit Preliminary Plat to Plat Review Committee and Planning
Commission with all revisions required by the previous meetings.
This plat should be in virtually final form. No significant
variations would be allowed after this point except with the,
approval of the Planning Commission or Administrator.
4. Submit Final Plat to Planning Administrator. If there is no
. significant change, then it could be processed without further
review by either Planning Commission or Plat Review.
•
1