Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., Monday, May 12, 1980, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Crocker, Mort Gitelman, Windell Cullers, Don Hunnicutt, Keith Newhouse. Newton Hailey, Martin Redfern, Peg Anderson Ish Benton, Neal Albright, W. D. May, Brian Disney, Larry Wood, Vernon Tarver, Ervan Wimberly, Kent Clement,and other unidentified members of the press and audience. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1980 were approved as mailed. The first item of business was the Large Scale Development plan for Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., to be located on the West side of Hwy. 112 between Trucker's Lane and the City Limits; ABC-Treadco, Inc., Owner 8 Developer. Zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Mr. W. D. May was Keith Newhouse asked Mr. May if he was able to reach Street Superintendent. Mr. May replied that he had. Mr. had been five considerations at the Subdivision Committee follows: he or MINUTES ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT TERMINAL HWY 112 $ TRUCKERt LANE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT present to represent. Clayton Powell, the City Newhouse said that there Meeting and they were as 1. ABF bring the street, Trucker's Lane, up to City standards going West from Hwy. 112 for approximately 470 ft. more or less to the end of the development site (not all the way to ABF's West property line). 2. The Committee recommends the waiving of the Handicapped $ Disabled ramp requirement. 3. ABF would conform to sidewalk ordinance along Hwy. 112. 4. Dedication of 40 ft.. right-of-way from the centerline of Hwy. 112 along the East side. Dedicate a 25 ft. utility easement outside of this right-of-way dedication. 5. Dedicate a 20 ft.' easement on the north side of Trucker's Lane, on the South side of property. At this time Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. May if there was some modification that wanted to make. Mr. May said that he understood that the City was making everybody put in sidewalks, post a cash bond for the construction of sidewalks. Mr. May said that he did not • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 2 want to post a cash bond, or put in sidewalks. He felt that there would probably be a drainage problem with the State. He said that the proposed sidewalk would run into a culvert and require a bridge. Mr. May said that his property ran up to the City Limits and that it would end at the end of his property. Bobbie Jones said that that was currently true. However, there is a request to annex the East side of Hwy. 112 North of this property, but it would not include the property on the West side of the Hwy, North of ABF. Mr. Jacks asked if this was the only provision that Mr. May was asking for. Mr. May said yes. He would prefer not to put in sidewalks. Mr. May stated that he would put up an affidavit stating that at such time as the property develops, he would construct a sidewalk. At this time, however, he felt that it would be a waste. Mr. May also stated that if he had to either put the sidewalk in, or post a cash bond, he would rather put in the sidewalk. Mr. May did not wish to put up cash because of the high interest rate of 18%. Bobbie Jones said that the money would be put in an interest-bearing escrow account, that, if the sidewalk were not built in five years, the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and decide whether the sidewalk were still needed. If the sidewalk were not still needed, the money would be returned with interest. Keith Newhouse made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development with the five recommendations aforementioned, and Windell Cullers seconded. At this time Ervan Wimberly addressed the Commission. He stated that some members of the Committee thought that the installation of sidewalks had been required as part of the annexation petitions when, in fact, they had not. He said that the property that he was speaking of was North of the ABF property and across the road. There followed discussion as to the practicality of constructing sidewalks. Ernie Jacks asked for further questions. The motion passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the proposed Large Scale Development and Conditional Use submitted by the Mission Blvd. Baptist Church to construct a Church at 2006 Mission Blvd., zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Brian Disney, Pastor, was present to represent. Chairman Ernest Jacks suggested that the Commission hear the Conditional Use request first and discuss the Large Scale Development afterwards. Mr. Jacks recognized Mr. Disney. Mr. Disney said that the location was very attractive since the existing Church was called the Mission Blvd. Baptist Church and they would not have to change the name. He stated that his congregation had overgrown its present location. Mr. Disney stated that he understood that the proposed site was not suitable for normal development because it is not wide enough. Mr. Disney felt that it was located well with plenty of room for them to expand. Mr. Jacks asked what would happen to the present Church. Mr. Disney stated that it would be retained as an extension. Mr. Jacks invited discussion. At this time Mr. Emil Utecht addressed the Commission. He stated that he lived at 1956 Lisa Lane which was the second lot coming off Hwy. 45 onto Lisa Lane, and that his property would be adjacent to the proposed Church. Mr. Utecht stated that he was representing several residents in the neighborhood, who .felt that they would be giving up a lot if a Church were constructed adjacent to their property. Mr. Utecht said that his neighbors, as well as himself, would be giving up their privacy; and they did not want to have the scenery replaced by a parking lot. He also stated that his property could be devalued as much as $5000.00. MISSION BLVD. BAPTIST CHURCH 2006 MISSION BLVD. CONDITIONAL USE 4 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 3 Judy Penquat of 2121 Lisa Lane stated that Mr. Utecht was speaking for herself and her husband. Ernest Jacks asked for a show of hands to determine how many people in the audience Mr. Utecht was speaking for, there were two. Mr. Utecht said that he felt that if a Church were put in, it would ruin the peace in the neighborhood. Mr. Utecht said he also represented Jim Strange and Linda Cormack who were not able to attend the meeting. Ron Rone, 2082 Lisa Lane, spoke in favor of the Church being built. Mr. Rone stated that his lot was adjacent to the proposed site. He said that the lot was presently overgrown; there were snakes living there, and ticks and chiggers were a problem. He said that the way he understood it, the back part of the site would be maintained like a park. He felt that this would be good for the whole neighborhood. He stated that he was speaking for his wife, and, also, for Mr. $ Mrs. Steve Terry. Mr. Utecht said that the Church, in the Plat Review Minutes, had stated that because of terrain, the building site might have to be shifted as much as 100 ft. Mr. Utecht was concerned that the Church might be built even closer to his property line. Mr. Utecht wondered if the Church would be able to add out buildings or enlarge the Church and, if so, how close could they build to his property line. Ernie Jacks stated that the setback was 50 ft. between non-residential uses and residential uses. At this time Windell Cullers moved to grant the Conditional Use for construction of a Church, and Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At this time Chairman Jacks asked Keith Newhouse to take up the matter of the Large Scale Development.proposal. Mr. Newhouse stated that there were two points that he would like to bring up. Mr. Newhouse said that the screening ordinance, consisting of a view -obscuring fence, should be implemented, especially where parking lots or buildings were concerned. Mr. Newhouse felt that if any additional buildings or parking were constructed in the future, they should also be screened by a view -obscuring fence. The second point that Mr. Newhouse wanted to bring up was that the entrance driveway to the Church from Hwy. 45 should be at least twelve and one-half feet from the adjoining property line and the driveway should be at least twenty-five feet in width. Ernest Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if the drawings submitted by Brian Disney met the requirements for the. Large Scale Development Ordinance. Mrs.. Jones said that the drawings were to scale. Bobbie Jones said that she thought the Commission ought to consider sidewalks along Hwy. 45 at this time. Mr. Disney stated that he had not asked for a waiver on the sidewalk requirements. It was agreed by the Commission that Mission Boulevard Baptist Church, Large Scale Development would adhere to the sidewalk ordinance. Chairman Jacks said that he understood Mr. Newhouse's motion to be to pass the Large Scale Development Plan with the following two contingencies: 1. That screening required be a view -obscuring fence around any parking areas or buildings presently proposed or added in the future. 2. The driveway will be twelve and one-half feet from the adjoining property line and will be twenty-five feet in width. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Ernest Jacks asked for further discussion. There followed some discussion as to the height of the screening. The motion passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the approval of the final plat of Butterfield Plaza located at the corner of Oak Cliff St. BUTTERFIELD PLAZA OAK CLIFF ST. P. OLD MISSOURI RD. PROPOSED OFFICE PUD Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 4 and Old Missouri Road Neal B. Albright, Owner $ Developer. This', proposad is an "Office PUD". Ernest Jacks stated that Butterfield Plaza had been developed under Large Scale Development procedures and that now Mr. Albright wished to change it to a Planned Unit Development. Chairman Jacks asked Keith Newhouse for the Subdivision.Committee's opinions. Mr. Newhouse stated that the City Attorney, Jim McCord, had stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting that he could not say that this particular development would not qualify as a PUD. Mr. McCord indicated that the ordinance was not specific enough to prohibit it. Mr. Newhouse said that the Subdivision Committee had not made a recommendation. Newhouse said that a motion had been made to deny it but it had not been seconded. Chairman Jacks asked if adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones said that they had but that the meeting had not been advertised as a public hearing as it should have been. Bobbie Jones said that she had discussed this with Mr. Albright and they had discussed advertising for the next meeting after seeing what the Commission's feelings were on the proposed PUD. Mr. Albright stated that he had followed the normal channels for a Large Scale Development three years previously, that that included notifying property owners. He stated that the appearance of the development would not be changed at all, and that he was not relaxing on the quality of the construction. Mr. Jacks asked Mr. Albright to explain the advantages of developing this area as a PUD as opposed to a Large Scale Development as originally planned. Mr. Albright said that his main purpose in changing this to a PUD was financial. Mr. Albright said that he proposed four building lots that he could develop one at a time. He said that his creditors wanted to refinance the first building built at today's higher interest rate when they finance the second phase. In other words, he wanted to be able to finance each building separately. Mr. Albright said that where the Planned Unit Development comes in is that the parking lot,and._landstaping will all be common property and maintained perpetually under a Property Owners Association. He stated that he had drawn up "protective covenants" as a means of perpetual main- tenance. Mr. Albright said that in the covenants he had named the City as a third party. Should the Property Owners Association neglect what they had said they would be doing, the City could come in, do it, and charge the costs to the Property Owners Association. Ernest Jacks brought up the point that Mr. Albright was asking for three waivers in the process. Windell Cullers moved that the proposal to change the Butterfield Plaza from a Large Scale Development to a Planned Unit Development be denied. He stated that the whole concept of a PUD is to plan it from the beginning, not to develop it and then try to change it into a PUD. He stated this failed to conform to the requirements of a Planned Unit Development as listed in the definition in Art. 8, Sec. 12 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Morton Gitelman stated that the reasons Windell Cullers stated were sufficient for denying the proposal. Elizabeth Crocker seconded Windell Cullers motion. Ernest Jacks asked for further discussion, there were no further comments. The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 5 At this time the Commission took up the THE L.B.E. approval of the Concept Plat of the L.B.E. SOUTH OF SYCAMORE ST. AND located South of Sycamore Street and West of WEST OF ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R.R. St. Louis $ San Francisco Railroad, L.B.E., Inc., Owner $ Developer. Keith Newhouse told Mr. Jacks that Mrs. Edmiston had agreed to having this tabled. There had been plans made for buying some of this property for a school. Mr. Newhouse told Mr. Jacks that some of the members of the Subdivision Committee felt that this particular spot was not ideal for a school, and that Mr. Vandergriff should come before the Committee and explain why he felt a school should be placed there. Keith Newhouse moved that the Concept Plat for the L.B.E. be tabled.arid that a meeting be set up with Mr. Vandergriff and Larry Wood to discuss the future use of that site for a school. Elizabeth Crocker felt that the Subdivision Committee should not hear this proposal but that it should come directly before the Planning Commission when it is on the agenda again. Elizabeth Crocker seconded Newhouse's motion. It passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the Tandem TANDEM LOT REQUEST Lot Request submitted by Vernon Tarver for property VERNON TARVER located East of Juneway Terrace and West of Old Wire EAST OF JUNEWAY TERRACE Road The access to the tandem lot would be through WEST OF OLD WIRE ROAD Lot 10, Hillside Addition. Vernon Tarver was present to represent. He gave a brief history. of the property. Mr. Tarver said his client had sold lot 10, Hillside Addition, but kept a 50 ft. easement onto Juneway Terrace which was a private driveway. Mr. Tarver was requesting permission to use the 50 ft. easement as a private driveway to get into the approximately 6 acres his client now wishes to sell. Chairman Jacks asked for further comments and Mr. Tom Webb, 2050 Juneway Terrace, presented himself to the Commission. He stated that he had petitions "con" that he would like to give to the Commission. Chairman Jacks read the petition to the Commission: "We the undersigned residents of Elm Street and Juneway Terrace neighborhood, wish to express the following concerns regarding Vernon Tarver's Tandem Lot Request. While we do not object to one single-family residence, we do object to Mr Tarver's desire, which was apparent in his application, to facilitate a subdivision in this tract. We ask the Commission to resolve the contradictions in the application and to establish a real development plan for the tract. . . a standard subdivision is unfeasible, yet on the same page it stated that the purchaser proposes to subdivide the tandem lot. We ask the Commission to prevent a sub -standard subdivision from being created in this area." The petition (Original on file in the City Planning Office) went on to say that the undersigned questioned the wisdom of development of an area subject to flooding. That they doubted the feasibility of adequate sewer service, adequate accessability of fire fighting equipment. That the proposed driveway would later become a public street which would not meet setback requirements, would add traffic to Juneway Terrace The undersigned asked the Commission to deny the Tarver request unless there is a permanent assurance that the tandem lot will not be subdivided and that the driveway will be a small suburban type access and never dedicated as a street. They asked that any approval be conditioned upon Mr. Tarver's execution of covenants in favor of adjacent property owners which would prevent subdivision and street dedication. The petition was signed by twenty-nine persons. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Jacks asked if there was anyone else who would like to be heard. At this time Mr. Phllip Bessner, 919 E. Elm, addressed the Commission. He stated that in 1975 a "variance" had been granted to allow the building of a house on the described lot. A high pressure gas main that goes from Fayetteville to Springdale crosses in front of the property. The "Planning Commission" had granted a variance to allow the house to be put at the back of the property at an angle, so that it would not be on the gas main. Mr. Bessner said that he saw this as an attempt to develop the area He stated that the area was inaccessible. He felt that if the area were to be developed, he would rather it was done in a comprehensive manner, rather than in a piecemeal approach. The next person to address the Commission was Mr. Bob Lewis, 1974 Juneway Terrace, who was the resident of the house on Lot 10, mentioned by Mr. Bessner. Mr. Lewis said that, as he understood it, in order for Mr. Tarver's request to be granted, his land must meet the requirements in Art. 7, Sec. 21, which is the Tandem Lot Ordinance. Mr. Jacks stated that that was true. Mr. Lewis asked the Commission if the topography of the land in question: makes a "conditional subdivision" unfeasible. Mr. Lewis said that secondly, he would like to question the Planning Commission about the statement that says "however, if the purchasersof the tandem lot proposes to subdivide the tandem lot in the future, and private drive becomes a public street ,'it is doubtful if the existing house would meet the required 25 ft. setback from a public street." Mr. Lewis said it is not only doubtful, but impossible as his house is only thirteen ft. from the property line. Mr. Lewis wished to know, in that case, if he would be the non- conforming party. Mr. Jacks stated that Mr. Lewis would be the non -conforming party. Mr. Lewis asked the Commission to address those two questions. Mr. Jacks asked if anyone else would care to speak. At that time Mr. Chester Baugus, Attorney, said that his client had no objection to Mr. Tarver's plan as long as his client would be dealing with one residence only, and if his client could have an assurance, in writing, from Mr. Tarver that only one home will be developed. Mr. Jacks stated that that was all Mr. Tarver could do under "tandem lot". Mr. Baugus asked what would prevent some future owner from coming back five years from now and announcing a division on this 5.63 acres. Windell Cullers explained that before anyone could subdivide that lot, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission to do so. Mr. Baugus said that a variance had been granted to build a house on lot 10 and wondered what would prevent a variance from being granted to subdivide the 5.63 acres. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Tarver what his intentions were. Mr. Tarver answered that his intention was to build a single family dwelling and that that was always his: intention. Mr. Tom Webb addressed the Commission again. He stated that he did not want any lots in his subdivision (Hillside Addition) broken up with a new street. Ernest Jacks asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Keith Newhouse asked if Mr. Tarver was asking for a street or an easement. Mr. Jacks said he was requesting an easement. Keith Newhouse asked if this were a case of locked land. Bobbie Jones stated that this was not a case of land -locked land because the.:South property line presently extends to Old Wire Road. Windell Cullers asked if an entrance could be made off of Old Wire Road Mr. Tarver said that there could not be an entrance made off of the part that his party was interested in building on. Keith Newhouse said that from the drawing, it appeared that the entrance off of Juneway Terrace was not the only access to the property, that Mr. Tarver could come across other property that he owned. Mr. Tarver stated that he did not have anything to do with this particular property, that he was simply the realtor. Mr. Tarver said that if the party he was representing could purchase a 25 ft. strip of property onto Old Wire Road, then a driveway could be put in there. Mr. Tarver said that there was already a 50 ft. easement existing along lot 10, and that his party would prefer to use that. Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 7 Bobbie Jones said that she had the impression that the present property owner owned all of lot 10 when she had spoken to the owner previously. Mr. Webb told the Commission that there had been an ad in the paper concerning this land and that it had clearly stated that the lot had access to Old Wire Road. He also stated that until the tandem lot was platted out, the entire parcel of land was owned by the same person. Ernest Jacks asked if this lot had been split. Vernon Tarver said that a survey was all that had been done, that it was one piece of land 13.18 acres in size, with a portion of lot 10. Windell Cullers asked why the Commission was hearing a tandem lot proposal if there was already a 50 ft. easement. Bobbie Jones said that the easement was not wide enough to build on because it does not meet the minimum lot width for R-1. Morton Gitelman said that a lot must have 70 ft. of street frontage, and that was the reason for the tandem lot request. Beth Crocker asked if, in fact, the Commission was being asked to approve a lot split on a non -conforming lot. Windell Cullers said it appeared to him to be a request for a waiver on street frontage requirements. Bobbie Jones said that she could not see, from the survey, where the existing house did not meet setback requirements as alleged by Mr. Bessner. Mr. Tarver stated that the house was 13 ft. from the foundation of the house to the existing property line. Windell Cullers asked the owner of the existing house if he was aware of the easement when he bought the house. Bill Lewis replied that he was aware that he did not own all of Lot 10. Windell Cullers moved to approve the tandem lot. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Mort Gitelman requested that the motion be amended by adding that the 50 ft. access to the tandem lot would not be accepted by the City, nor approved by the Planning Commission as a Public Street. Mr. Gitelman said it did not conform with anything in the Master Street Plan and that he could never see it as being a Public Street. The amendment reads as follows: It is the understanding of the Planning Commission that this access to the tandem lot will not be accepted by the City .or by the Planning Commission as a Public Street. Mr. Cullers and Mr. Hunnicutt agreed. to'amend the motion as requested by Mr. Gitelman. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Troy Parnell; and a request to waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street as provided in Ord. 2555 for property South of Hwy. 62 West and West of Hollywood Avenue. Present to represent was Kent Clement,rP. 0. Box.527, Bentonville. Mr. Clement stated that this was part of a Large Scale Development which had already been approved. Mr. Clement stated that at the time of the subdivision, it had been Mr. Parnell's intent to develop all of lot 3 as part of the Parnell Group's project. Since that time there has been a problem with financing. In order to get loans, Mr. Parnell set up a partnership and ownership transfer. This was the reason for needing the lot to be split in two. One part of the lot will be owned by Parnell Group and the other part will be owned by Wilkens/Parnell Partnership. Mort Gitelman said that this was a different kind of Commercial PUD. Mr. Gitelman asked Bobbie Jones if there would be any problems with parking. Mrs. Jones stated that there was an existing agreement on parking for the entire 16 acres with mutual parking and access drives. VARIANCE/LOT SPLIT SOUTH OF HWY 62 WEST AND WEST OF HOLLYWOOD AVE. TROY PARNELL • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 8 Ernest Jacks asked if the parking lot was accessible to the two lots in question. Kent Clement replied that there is parking on both parcels; but the common use agreement provides that all parking and all driveways were for common use and could not be blocked. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the variance. Mort Gitelman seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was a REZONING PETITION R80-7 Rezoning Petition R80-7, Mr. $ Mrs Carl Osborn, STEPHENS AVENUE Mrs. Bogdanka Arias, Mrs. Judith A. Trice, Frances PROPERTY OWNERS and Charles Conrad, Kathleen Harris, Brian $ Bobby Yandell, Mr. $ Mrs. Raymond Eichmann, Lierly Trust - Carmen L. Lierly-Trustee, $ Mr $ Mrs. F. A. Greenwood to rezone property located East of Stephens Ave., South of Mt. Comfort Road, and North of State Hwy. 16 West from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Ernest Jacks asked for Larry Wood's recommendations. Larry Wood said that he had three reasons for recommending the rezoning of this piece of land from R-2 to R-1: 1. The property is already developed for single family dwellings. 2. The property faces other property that has been developed for single family residences. 3. It would preserve the property value and offer a better land use relationship, as the proper location for the split between R-1 and R-2 is the East line of the property under application. Chairman Jacks asked for comments. Attorney Don Elliot, P. 0. Drawer 818, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was the attorney representing the nine property owners. Mr. Elliot wanted to point out that all nine property owners had signed the petition, and that all nine lots consisted of single family residences. Mr. Elliot stated that he had heard no opposition to the proposal. Chairman Jacks asked for any other comments. There were none. The Public Hearing was closed. There being no opposition, Windell Cullers moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning R80-7 be approved. Elizabeth Crocker seconded. At this time Mort Gitelman asked Bobbie Jones about what appeared to be a street stub that ran between lots 5 and 6. Bobbie Jones stated that there was a platted street there, and that it had not been described in the advertised legal description. Mort Gitelman asked if it was in existence. Bobbie Jones stated that there has not been a street constructed there. Mr. Gitelman suggested that the property owners file a petition to have this non -existing street vacated so that it would never be opened to provide access to the property to the East. The motion passed unanimously. Next for consideration was the request for approval of off-site parking for the Transcendental Meditation Center at 321 W. Center; submitted by the Transcendental Meditation Center. OFF-SITE PARKING TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION CNTR. 321 WEST CENTER ST. William Howell was present to represent. Mr. Howell stated that the Center had very modest parking needs and the Church of Christ, which was directly across the street from the Center, had given the Center permission to use their parking lot when • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 9 the Church was not in session. Mr. Howell stated that the Center would gear its activities around those of the Church so that no conflict would occur. Windell Cullers moved that the off-site parking proposal be approved and Don Hunnicutt seconded, it was unanimous The next item of business was the proposed CITY OF FARMINGTON PLANNING AREA amendment to the Planning Area for the City of Farmington. The two "additions" shown on the drawing are presently in the designated Planning Area for the City of Fayetteville; and, if approved, Fayetteville must decide whether to hold a public hearing amending its Planning Area. Chairman Jacks said that he had met with Mr. Burkett, Chairman of the Farmington Planning Commission. Mr. Jacks said that he understood that the State Law provides for each City to exercise its extra territorial jurisdiction to an equidistant point, between:.cities, which Fayetteville wasbeyond. Farmington now wanted to claim some of that property, but would remain at least equidistant. Mr. Jacks said that Farmington wanted to give Fayetteville back some of the land to the North of Hwy. 16 West where Wedington Woods is. Bobbie Jones said that at this time that land around Wedington Woods was not in Fayetteville's Planning Area. Mr. Jacks said that Farmington was planning on omitting it from their Planning Area. Bobbie Jones asked if this land, which Farmington wants to take out of Fayetteville's Planning Area is in the Fayetteville Water Service Area. Mr. Jacks replied that it was Mort Gitelman asked if the projected growth area was designed to coincide with the Water Service Area. Bobbie Jones stated she understood it was At this time Frank Blew arrived. Mort Gitelman said that if this does not effect Fayetteville's Water Service Plan that he did not find anything wrong with giving the land back to Farmington. Mr. Gitelman said that when Fayetteville retreated from the five mile Planning Area Russ Purdy had equated the Planning Growth Area with Fayetteville's projected Water Service Area. He wondered what Fayetteville's Water Service Area is in regard to going West. Frank Blew said that presently Fayetteville's Water System goes along the West side of Double Springs Road and that it stops there about one and one-half miles South of Hwy. 16 West. Fayetteville's growth area is about 520 ft. West of the centerline of Double Springs Road Ernest Jacks asked Frank Blew if Fayetteville's Water District was in the area that Farmington wanted back and Frank Blew replied that it was. Frank Blew said that his office had been asked to assist the Farmington Planning Commission in preparing Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations. He said the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission was assisting greatly in these regards. Morton Gitelman said that he would like to get a recommendation from the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Gitelman said that he would not like to see Fayetteville relinquish their jurisdiction until Farmington is about to adopt a regulation so that it would not go unregulated for a period of time. Frank Blew said that Farmington's regulations were already in existence, and that they were the Washington County Planning Commission Regulations. Larry Wood interjected at this point that he was not convinced about the Farmington Regulations, he felt that there were some problems with those regulations in terms of the law. Frank Blew agreed. Larry Wood stated that the existing Farmington Planning Area Boundary that is filed was prepared without a Planning Commission. He stated that • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 10 the Subdivision Regulations that were on file in Farmington were prepared without a Master Street Plan. Larry Wood said that he thought that there were some basic procedural questions that could be very easily challenged. Frank Blew said that the reason for bringing this proposal in front of the Fayetteville Planning Commission at this time was so that they could consider it. After the Planning Commission had considered it they would proceed. Mr. Blew stated that there would be a Public Hearing by the City Council of Farmington May 12, 1980, at which time the County Master Road Plan would be presented. Morton Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission of Fayetteville schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the City Board and to have at the Public Hearing a recommendation from NWARPC as to the merits of the transfer of Planning Area jurisdiction and the timing. Windell Cullers seconded. It was passed unanimously. The next item of business was the request HUNTINGDON SUBDIVISION to change the location of a portion of sidewalk in RELOCATION OF SIDEWALK Huntingdon Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development, OAK BAILEY ROAD on Oak Bailey Road between Warwick $ Katherine Streets from the West side of the right-of-way to the East side, submitted by Milby Pickell, Northwood Corporation. Keith Newhouse said that Helen Edmiston had discussed this matter with him before she left the Subdivision Committee meeting. What was proposed was to swap an area of sidewalk from one side of the street to the other because of problems with terrain. There was no one present to oppose the request. Keith Newhouse made a motion to approve the request, Don Hunnicutt seconded, it was unanimous. The next item of business was a request ANTENNAS $ TOWER for information concerning an existing tower and 608 S. CREST radio antennas located on property at 608 S. Crest Dr. Ernest Jacks said that he had a report from Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, to Bobbie Jones. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Benton, the gentlemen requesting information, if he had a copy of the report. From the Report Mr. Jacks gathered that there had never been a permit issued for the tower on Crest Drive. Mr. Jacks asked how the Commission could find out if the Tower was commercial or not. At this time Mr. Ish Benton addressed the Commission. Mr. Benton read Mr. Lieberenz's report. Mr. Benton said that he had a few comments to add to the information contained in Mr. Lieberenz's report. He said that there was a building located at the bottom of this particular antenna somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 ft. square on a concrete base. Mr. Benton said that one of the antennas was an 8 bay antenna which is not ordinarily used for non-commercial activities. Mr. Benton said he would estimate the output of this antenna to be in the range of 1000 to 5000 watts. Mr. Benton said that there were also two heavy duty telephone cables going into the building. Mr. Benton said that there was a 220 -volt power line going into the building, and, also, a telephone line. Mr. Benton said that he did not perceive this to be a non-commercial activity. Mr. Benton stated that there was another antenna on another corner of the lot. Jr. W. Eoff, the property owner, now addressed the Commission. Mr. Eoff said that he bought this property about 17 years ago, that it was a 200 x 300 ft. lot. Mr. Eoff stated that there was an existing antenna on the lot at the time he purchased the property and he wanted the antenna off of the property. Mr. Lieberenz Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 11 informed him that they would have to stay. Mr. Eoff stated that he obtained his building permit for his house, he put up a new antenna to improve the looks of the lot. Mr. Eoff stated that the telephone company had bought 5 acres behind him and had erected a large tower on that. At this time Robert Eoff, P. 0. 1227, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had come before the Commission several months ago requesting a variance to put up another tower. Mr. Eoff stated that he had spoken to a gentleman that had been with Smith Two -Way Radio since 1961 and that he had told Mr. Eoff that the existing tower had been on Crest since 1950 or 1951. Mr. Smith had told Mr. Eoff that the power output was actually very small. Mr. Eoff said that the parties that were currently using the tower were Arkhola, GoldKist, Inc., Campbell Soup, Motorola and Fayetteville Communications Company which is a licensed radio common carrier. The services provided by the tower include paging systems, radio telephones, etc. Ernie Jacks asked Mr. Eoff if he was suggesting that the tower existed before there was an ordinance against it. Mr. Eoff replied that he did not know if the tower was in existence before there was an ordinance against it. Bobbie Jones said that the first Zoning Ordinance, #1002, was adopted in September 1951. Windell Cullers moved that as far as action on the request on the tower at 608 S. Crest Dr., the Commission refers it to the City Attorney, Jim McCord for any actions he may deem necessary. Crocker seconded. "Ayes" Jacks, Crocker, Cullers, Hunnicutt and Newhouse with Mort Gitelman abstaining. (5-0-1) The next item for consideration was the report WASHINGTON COUNTY JOINT on the Fayetteville, Springdale, Washington County joint PLANNING EFFORT planning effort. Larry Wood stated that the Regional Planning Commission had developed a list of possible ordinances that might be developed by the County. The Regional Planning Commission has also developed a draft of a joint agreement for the City and the County, and will help draft a letter to the Attorney General seeking his advice as to whether the City and County can use a cooperative agreement for this purpose. There was only one item under other business. OTHER BUSINESS The City Clerk had already advertised a petition to close and abandon a section of Company Street. between Assembly and Vinson. There were letters from every utility company and public officials in town saying that there were no objections. Larry Wood stated that there were two lots in this area that, if the street were abandoned would be land locked. Larry Wood said that if adjoining property owners owned them, then an agreement should be signed wherein they would agree not to sell them separately. Morton Gitelman moved to recommend to the City Board, that the Commission has no objection to the closing of this portion of Company Street provided that the two lots do not become land locked and that the adjoining property owners work out an assurance on the matter. Windell Cullers seconded, it was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M.