Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., May 27, 1980, in the Director's Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, Don Hunnicutt, Keith Newhouse, Elizabeth Crocker, Mort Gitelman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Peg Anderson OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Vizzier, Helen Edmiston, Harry Vandergriff, Dr. J. B. Hays, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Emil Utecht, Howard Johnson, Brian Disney, and other members of the press and audience. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. The first item of business was approval of the minutes of the May 12, 1980 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. The next item of business was the approval of Concept Plat of the L. B. E. located South of Sycamore Street and West of St. Louis - San Francisco Railroad, L.B.E. Owner & Developer. Harry Vandergriff, Fayetteville School Superintendent, and Helen Edmiston were present to represent. Ernest Jacks commented that this item had been tabled from the last Planning Commission Meeting so that Harry Vandergriff could be present to discuss the proposed location of a school in this development. The Chairman asked for Helen Edmiston's comments. She stated that she wanted to rezone this area so that a grade school could be built there, and so that the frontage on Sycamore Street could be developed commercially. Ms. Edmiston said that there had been much discussion at the last meeting as to why the School District thought a grade school should be placed here, and she thought Harry Vandergriff could explain that best. The Chairman asked Keith Newhouse what the Subdivision Committee's comments were on this proposal. Newhouse stated that it was the overall opinion of the Subdivision Committee, that this was not an ideal spot for a school, and that they were interested in hearing why the developers thought it was such a good spot. At this time Harry Vandergriff addressed the Commission. He stated that it might be necessary in the future to close an elementary school and build another. Mr. Vander- griff stated that there had been discussion of closing both Leverett School and Jefferson School. Mr. Vandergriff said that if both schools were closed, then another school would have to be constructed. He stated that a North-Central site was most attractive. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience had any comments, there being none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Mort Gitelman asked if there was a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Keith Newhouse stated that there was not a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Newhouse stated that, in discussing the proposal, the Committee felt that, due to the location of the railroad tracks, it was an unsuitable location for a grade school. Newhouse said that he also felt that developing the area surrounding the school commercially was undesirable. Vandergriff said that there was not very much open land available. that is situated in such a way that it will be accessible by the children who will be attending it. Beth Crocker said she felt that there was a big problem with locating a grammar school next to the railroad tracks. She said that children use a MINUTES the THEL:L.B.E..A CONCEPT PLAT SOUTH OF SYCAMORE ST. WEST OF ST. LOUIS F, SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 2 playground area as a park, and that many children will be playing on the school grounds unsupervised. Mr. Vandergriff said that, when the school was built, it would be fenced. Chairman Jacks asked Vandergriff if he did not feel that noise and railroad traffic would be a problem. Mr. Vandergriff did not feel that there would be a large number of trains passing by the school. Don Hunnicutt asked if the School owned this property now. Vandergriff replied that it did not. Martin Redfern asked if the decision to keep Leverett School open had affected Mr. Vandergriff's desire to purchase this land. Vandergriff said that if Leverett School only were closed, there would be no need to build another school, but if another school closed, in addition to Leverett School, then there would be a definite need to build a new school. Redfern asked Vandergriff if a committment had been made to keep Leverett School open for any specific period of time. Vandergriff stated that they had made a committment to keep the school open with no time limit. Redfern asked if a decision was made to close Leverett and Jefferson Schools, would it have anything to do with declining enrollment. Mr. Vandergriff said that that would be the major reason. Redfern asked if a new school were not built, would additions have to be put on existing schools; and, if so, at what time. Vandergriff replied that if two schools closed, there would not be enough room in existing schools to house the children and that a new school would have to be constructed, or additions would have to be made to existing schools. Vandergriff stated that they thought declining elementary school enrollment would be a factor by 1984. Windell Cullers asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a site consisting of a school site with commercial development along the front of it and the rest R-3 as it exists now. Bobbie Jones said that a petition had not been submitted to rezone the property. Jacks said that this was merely a concept plat. Windell Cullers asked if the School had taken any action toward acquiring this property as a school site. Cullers made a motion to not approve the concept plat, Newhouse seconded Jacks asked for further discussion. Helen Edmiston stated that the school does want the site. Harry Vandergriff said that this was true, the school does want this site. Don Hunnicutt asked Mr. Vandergriff how he felt about commercial developments abutting the school site. Vandergriff stated that he felt the light commercial could act as a buffer from the industrial and heavy commercial type developments in the area. Helen Edmiston asked if the Commission was opposed to the idea of a school being located on the site, or if it was the commercial development abutting the school site that the Commission was against. Ernie Jacks stated that it was the mixture of commercial, high density residential and a school that was not desirable . Windell Cullers stated that that was the reason for his motion, he felt that the Commission should be more selective as far as the uses put in next to a school. Ms, Edmiston asked the Commission if they wanted the school there at all. Windell Cullers said that he did not have any objection to locating the school on this site, but that he did not want a school and a commercial development side by side. Mort Gitelman said that he did not see anything incompatible in a commercial development next to a school site. Mr. Gitelman felt that a school would be more of a nuisance in a residential area than a commercial area. Cullers said that that would depend on the commercial use. Helen Edmiston said that she could not see any other use to put the land to. Gitelman said that if the Commission approves the site for the school it does not necessarily mean that a school will in fact be built. Mr, Gitelman felt that the school could be more easily protected from the surrounding area than vice -versa. Keith Newhouse said that this area is now zoned for multi -family dwellings, and Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 • Page 3 • • asked Ms. Edmiston if it would be possible to carry the apartments around the school in an "L" shape. Helen Edmiston said that Sycamore was a very busy street and she did not feel that it was suitable for apartments. She felt that a small commercial develop- ment might be appealing to the people that live in that area. Redfern asked if it was feasible to ask the Developers to strip off the commercial development. Chairman Jacks asked for a vote of hands (4-4) Cullers, Redfern, Jacks and Newhouse voted "Aye", Hailey, Gitelman, Crocker and Hunnicutt voted "Nay". The motion failed to pass. Crocker moved to approve the Concept Plat. She felt that sufficient land should be provided in the event there is a needjin the future„for a school. She said she thought her objections to the railroad could be "handled” by the School. Also, she was making this motion with the understanding that any commercial development would be "light" such as R-0 or C-1. Mort Gitelman seconded. Redfern said that as he understood Beth Crocker's motion, the commercial development could consist of stores, offices, or anything other than light manufacturing. Ms. Crocker said that any use permitted in C-1 or R-0 would be acceptable to her. Bobbie Jones said that this will have to come back for rezoning. The Commission took a vote on Beth Crocker's motion (5-3-0) with Crocker, Gitelman, Hunnicutt :. Newhouse and.Haileyrvoting "Aye";candnJacks,Redfern.and Cullers voting "Nay". The next item for discussion was the approval WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN of the Concept Plat for Washington Mountain, a Planned CONCEPT PLAT Unit Development, located South of Hwy. 62 West and West of 71 By -Pass; Washington Mountain Properties, Owner $ Developer. Jim Vizzier waspresent to represent. Chairman Jacks stated that he had discussed this proposal on the phone with Larry Wood the Regional Planner. Mr. Wood had indicated to the Chairman that he had some concerns about certain elements of design, and that he was going to submit some redesign ideas to Mr. Hailey. Mr. Hailey acknowledged that he and Mr. Wood had discussed this matter. The Chairman asked for the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. Newhouse said that the Committee felt that the Concept was good. The Committee realized that some problems would be involved such as off-site improvements that would be necessary to connect that area with Hwy. 62, and also, in renegotiating a contract with the FAA, on the leasing of the omni station located on the property. Newhouse said that on the whole the Committee recommended the passing of the concept. Mr. Vizzier presented various vicinity, topographical and aerial maps of the proposed site. He also had maps depicting the various utility services. Mr. Vizzier stated that they had considered the approaches to the airport and that there was plenty of room to build a water tank if the need should arise. Vizzier stated that there was an existing omni station on the property and that it was a directional and navigational aid for airplanes using Drake Field. He stated that the lease on the tower would expire in 1982. At that time the contract would be renegotiated and the tower would either be moved,raised in height, or left.standing. He said that buildings over 9 or 10 ft. within a certain radius of the tower would affect its operation at its present height. Vizzier said that if the tower was allowed to remain, the radius around it would be approximately 72 acres. Mr. Vizzier said that the mountain top consisted of good, deep soil that had once been prime farm land, and that it was terraced. He said that in some areas the top soil was very shallow, in some areas there were rock outcroppings, and other places where the soil was subject to shrinking and swelling, which did not percolate well. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 4 He stated that some of this land would be used for open spaces. He said that open space would be provided in the rear of each lot. He said that this would create the 30 percent open space required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Vizzier said that he would like to avoid putting curbs and gutters on all the streets. Mr. Vizzier said that the steep areas would be developed with two-family to four -family structures, the flatter areas would be developed with single-family structures. Vizzier stated that there would be somewhere between 350 and 500 units total. He said that they were trying to develop each lot with 5/8 acre of land; with the streets it averages out to about 1 unit per acre. Vizzier said that they were going to situate the houses so that they would face the south, in order to encourage the development of solar efficiency. Mr. Vizzier stated that he understood that improvements would have to be made to Finger Lane. He stated that sewer was existing on the North, but felt that it would probably have to be brought in on the West side too, either along the property line or along Finger Lane. He stated that it would be almost impossible to serve a couple of the lots on the south side and that they would probably have to have septic tanks or be left as open space. Ernest Jacks asked Newton Hailey what Larry Wood's comments had been. Hailey said Larry Wood had suggested an access across the notch on the North side of the development. Hailey stated that with the present lay -out, Mr. Wood had been concerned about the two parallel roads running North and South on the West side of the property. Mr. Wood felt that it would be difficult to build on them because of their being single loaded streets. Mr. Vizzier interjected that the reason for the single -loaded streets was due primarily to the steep character of the terrain. Mr. Hailey said that Mr. Wood was also concerned about access out of the South corner. Margaret Schwieger stated that she was an adjoining property owner. She asked Mr. Vizzier how many acres total were in the proposal. Mr. Vizzier stated that there were approximately 173 acres including the land around the FAA tower. Mrs. Schwieger asked Mr. Vizzier if the developer owned the land where the road goes to the By-pass or did he intend building a road on someone else's property. Mr. Vizzier stated that he did not own any land between the property and the By-pass. Vizzier stated that the property touches an existing road, and that there was an existing utility right-of-way which he thought could be utilized in getting access. Dale Hulet, 1425 South Root Ave., now addressed the Commission. He stated that the road Mr. Vizzier was referring to comes right out of his front yard He stated that the existing road had never been serviced, that he had graded it himself. He said that it was a one way road and that there was not sufficient clearance in most places for two way traffic. Janice Glenn of Finger Lane now addressed the Commission. Ms. Glenn asked if there would eventually be a left hand turning lane travelling West on Hwy. 62 for turning onto Finger Lane. She stated that turning onto Finger Lane at the present time was a problem due to the oncoming traffic on Hwy. 62. Mort Gitelman said that he believed that there was a proposal for a left turn lane on Hwy. 62 West in effect. David McWethy stated that there would be a left turn lane on Hwy. 62 West when the Hwy. is widened. At this time JoAnn Whitlatch,1630 Finger Lane, addressed the Commission. She asked Mr. Vizzier what type of housing he was planning to develop . Mr. Vizzier stated that it would be a fairly high income area Keith Newhouse moved that the Concept be approved. Beth Crocker seconded. It passed (7-0-1) with Newton Hailey abstaining. 6,, • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 5 The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition No. R80-8, J. B. Hays, to rezone property located on the North side of Old Farmington Road, and West of Hwy. 71 By-pass from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2 Medium Density Residential. Harry Gray was present to represent. The Chairman read the recommendation contained in the Planning Report from the Regional Planner, Larry Wood. Mr. Wood recommended that 1) the requested R-2 district is not recommended because the request is not in keeping with the adopted General Plan Recommendation; 2) access to the site is restricted and will be for a number of years; 3) a committment to medium density residential along the face of the By-pass is considered a reasonable land use, however, a committment to an interior location is questionable at this time; 4) If greater density or building grouping is desired, the PUD Ordinance is available for that purpose. Harry Gray, who was representing Dr. Hays, presented himself to the Commission. He explained that the piece of land was a fairly steep hillside with about a 20 percent slope. He said that there was approximately 360 ft. of frontage along Old Farmington Road. Mr. Gray stated that he did not feel that it would be several years until access was made available for this tract, as Frontage Road, along the By-pass, is presently under contract, and that it was only approximately 800 ft. from the Southeast corner of this property to the access road. Mr. Gray said that intersections normally develop as commercial. He said that the hillside terrain made it very difficult to develop this tract as single family residential. Mr. Gray felt that the medium density residential could act as a buffer zone between the commercial development along the by-pass and the single-family residential which would probably be developed on the hill top. There was no one in the audience present in favor or to oppose. The Chairman asked the feelings of the Planning Commission. Mort Gitelman asked Dr. Hays if he owned the adjacent property to the Northwest, and, if so, was he planning to split it off from the proposed property. Mr. Gray explained that the hill top would eventually be developed as single-family residential. Beth Crocker asked how far Old Farmington Road was from the intersection of Hwy. 62 $ 71 By-pass. Bobbie Jones said that the distance was about 1000 ft. Ms. Crocker stated that she could not see the property to the East of the petition developing as commercial. Don Hunnicutt said that, with access to the service road, the development seemed more feasible. Ernie Jacks agreed. Mort Gitelman asked if the 800 ft. of Old Farmington Road, lying to the East, would come under the off-site improvement provision. He wanted to make sure that Old Farmington Road between Frontage Road and the Southeast corner of the property in question would be suitably improved and will actually funnel traffic. Bobbie Jones said that at the time the Subdivision Plat is submitted for approval, the Planning Commission shall determine whether the proposed subdivision creates a need for off-site improvements, and what portion of the cost of the off-site improvements the Developer will be required to bear. Gitelman stated that there was nothing indicating Clayton Powell's, the City Street Superintendent, view was on the status of Old Farmington Road. 'Bobbie Jones stated that it was a sub -standard street, that it would fall under the off-site improvements requirements, and that the Planning Commission would have to REZONING PETITION NO. R80-8 J. B. HAYS - PROPERTY NORTH SIDE OLD FARMINGTON ROAD WEST HWY.71 BY-PASS 58lA • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 6 determine what percentage the Developer would be obligated to contribute. Redfern stated that the access road was a marginal road, that it was rocky and narrow and had ditches on either side. Mr. Redfern felt that if the road were improved, it would make the development much more acceptable. Mort Gitelman stated that even though there was no one present to speak in opposition to the plan, he felt uncomfortable about the absence of Larry Wood. Gitelman stated that he would like to table this item until the next Planning Commission Meeting. At this time Mort Gitelman moved to close the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition No. R80-8 and table any decision until the Planning Consultant could be present. Newton Hailey seconded Mort Gitelman's motion. It was passed unanimously. Redfern asked Harry Gray if the top of the borrow ditch was the property line of the tract of land in question. Mr. Gray replied that it was. Don Hunnicutt asked what the right-of-way was for Old Farmington Road. Bobbie Jones replied that the City Plat Book shows 40 ft., but she was not sure that it had ever been dedicated. The next item of business was the Public REZONING_PETITIONINO. R80-9 Hearing on rezoning Petition R80-9, Harold L. Cornish EAST OF CROSSOVER ROAD AND to rezone property located East of Crossover Road (Hwy. 265) WEST OF HILLSIDE TERRACE and West of Hillside Terrace from A-1, Agricultural, to R-0 Residential Office $ R-2 Medium Density Residential. Steve Adams was present to represent. The Chairman read Planning Consultant Larry Wood's written recommendations. His recommendations were as follows: The requested R-2 and R-0 District is recommended for the following reasons 1) the proposed land use pattern is in keeping with the adopted General Plan; 2) the necessary public facilities are available to serve the property. Steve Adams addressed the Commission in favor of the petition. He stated that this plan continues the zoning from the West side of Crossover Road over to the East side. He felt that it would act as a buffer zone between the Hwy. 265 area and the A-1 area to the East. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission in favor of the petition. He stated that there were discrepancies in time between the time people bought the land across the street and the time the land use plan came into effect. He stated that until Mr. Cornish and some other people contributed to the extension of the sewer line, only one building could be built on the property across 265. He said that people who had bought land and built houses before the land use plan came into effect felt that they were building in a single family area. At this time Jack Touissant, 4126 Valerie Drive,addressed the Commission. Mr. Touissant asked if the R-2, Medium Density Residential, meant that apartments would be constructed in this zone. Jacks stated that that could be true and probably was. Mr. Touissant asked what uses would be permitted in the R-0 zoning. Bobbie Jones said that presently R-0 allows offices as a use by right and, also, single family and two family residences.by right. Multi -family dwellings would require specific Planning Commission approval, as a conditional use Mr. Touissant stated that if Medium -Density Residential did in fact mean that apartments could be constructed that it would be the only area from Hwy. 16 to Hwy. 68, on Hwy. 265 where apartments would be allowed. Mr. Touissant said that 265 was a well built road and that the aesthetic value would be somewhat disturbed by the apartments being built. Mr. Touissant felt that if this area were developed as R-2, that an excessive burden would be placed on Zion Road. He said only a portion of Zion Road is being rebuilt. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 7 Ernest Jacks asked what Larry Wood's study on this area had revealed. Bobbie Jones said that on the Land Use Map this corner was established as a commercial, multi -family type corner. Gerald Bowman, 4300 Crossover Road, presented himself to the Commission. He stated that he owned property across the street. He asked if R-0 meant that a sit-down type restaurant would be permitted. Bobbie Jones said that it would be permitted only under appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowman was concerned about the intended use of the property if it were rezoned. The next person to address the Commission was Bill Rollins, 4024 Hillside Terrace. He stated that he would be directly across the street from the proposed R-2, Medium Density Residential. He said that Hillside Terrace and the area East of it was developing into a very nice residential neighborhood. He felt that putting apartments on the West side of Hillside Terrace would depreciate the value of the properties, that it would increase traffic. He hoped that the Commission would keep the property in the area strictly residential. Paul Poe, 4200 Hillside Terrace, addressed the Commission. Mr. Poe stated that he bought 2 acres of property from Mr. Lindsey with the understanding that this would be a strictly residential area, and that he had to agree to a certain square footage in his house He did not feel that it was fair to rezone this area at this time. Bill Drake, 4170 Hillside Terrace, presented himself to the Commission. He stated that he had just built a new home across from the requested R-2, and that he would hate to see apartments built across from him. David Quinn, 3933 Crossover Road? addressed the Commission. He stated that he el objected to the rezoning. He also wondered if the development of the R-2 tract of land would allow apartments or if Townhouses would be built. Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Cornish had asked Mr. Lindsey to submit a rezoning petition based on the Land Use Plan after sewer was extended and he did not know if he had any definite plans yet. Ernest Jacks closed the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-9 and asked the Commission's feeling on this petition. Mort Gitelman said that the Land Use Plan was amended not only to include this piece of land, but, also, a very large piece of land to the South. He stated that this was shown as R-2 on the Land Use Plan, to prevent commercial development on Hwy. 265. Mr. Gitelman said that he understood the objections of the present residents to apartments being built-in their area, but that along Hwy. 265, there were a lot of apartments projected for the future. Don Hunnicutt made a motion to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition No. R80-9 be approved as petitioned, Keith Newhouse seconded. There followed some discussion. The motion passed 7-1 with Newton Hailey voting "Nay". The Chairman stated that this matter would go to the Board of Directors on June 3, 1980, for a final decision on the petition. The sixth item of business was the REZONING PETITION Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-10, R80-10 Ben Hunt to rezone property at 2117 W. Sixth BEN HUNT (Hwy. 62 West) from I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. The Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, stated in his written comments that the C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial was recommended for the following reasons. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 8 The rezoning request is in keeping with the character of the area and the existing uses. It is served by principal arterial streets, and the necessary public facilities are available. Jim Lindsey stated that the property was located just to the West of Consumer's Drug Store. There was no one present to oppose the petition, the Public Hearing was closed. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the petition. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion was unanimous. The next item of business was a Conditional CONDITIONAL USE Use Request submitted by Barry Fink to construct BARRY FINK a duplex at 2824 Denver Avenue, zoned R-1, Low Density 2824 DENVER AVENUE Residential District. Leon Neal was present to represent Mr. Fink. Ernest Jacks read Clayton Powell's, the City Street Superintendent, comments. Mr. Powell said that Denver Avenue is a sub -standard gravel street. Mr. Powell was opposed to constructing rental units on an unpaved street, unless the Developer puts funds in escrow for his proportionate share of the cost of improvement of Denver Avenue. Leon Neal presented himself to the Commission. He stated that the land behind the proposed duplex was presently bare and undeveloped, and that there were no houses on the East side of the street. He felt that this would be a good location for a duplex because it would be located behind the houses on the other side of the street and not in front. He felt that by building in this particular area they could keep the rents down. Mr. Neal asked what the Commission felt his portion of the cost of improving Denver Avenue would be. Jacks told him that that would have to be determined. Mr. Neal said that, if it were not too exhorbitant, they would be glad to put the money in escrow. Keven Rice, 2750 Hadden, addressed the Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use. Mr. Rice had a petition signed by 13 of the property owners in the area. He stated that if the duplex was built it would look directly into the back of his house. He stated that if the conditional use is granted, he requested that some type of screening be required to obstruct vision into his home. Mr. Redfern stated that he had driven through the Grandview Heights subdivision. He said that it was a nice subdivision, with a small number of houses. Redfern felt that it would be appropriate to keep that area zoned R-1. Redfern made a motion to deny the Conditional Use. Cullers seconded. The motion passed (6-2-0) with Crocker, Newhouse, Jacks, Cullers, Hunnicutt and Redfern voting "Aye" and Gitelman and Hailey voting "Nay". The next item on the agenda was a Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Fayetteville Master Street Plan to change the designation of School Ave., between its intersection with Archibald Yell Blvd. and Dickson Street, from a Minor Arterial Street requiring 80 ft. right-of-way to a Collector Street requiring 60 ft. of right-of-way. Carl Robertson was present to represent. Chairman Jacks stated that he had had a telephone call from Larry Wood, the Planning Consultant regarding this item. Mr. Wood said that he agreed with the Technical Advisory Committee report, which recommended denial of this proposal. AMENDMENT TO FAYETTEVILLE MASTER STREET PLAN SUBMITTED BY CARL ROBERTSON • • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 9 Mr. Wood felt that the City must have a North-South arterial through this area At this time Mr. Carl Robertson presented himself to the Commission. Mr. Robertson stated that he had talked to Larry Wood concerning his plans. He said, referring back to Mr. Powell and the Technical Advisory Committee report, that in items one and two Mr. Powell indicates that he feels that 60 ft. is not wide enough to accomodate five lanes of traffic. Mr. Robertson said that he was not aware that the City needed 5 lanes of traffic, when he first researched his project, he thought that this street was going to be 4 lanes and that it would only require 60 ft. Mr. Robertson wondered if the traffic flow on this street did in fact require 5 lanes of traffic. Mr. Robertson said that he had measured the area between buildings and that in some cases buildings were as close as 61 ft. from one side of the street to the other and thought that it would be an extreme expense to widen School Avenue to 80 ft. The Technical Advisory Committee's report states, in item 3, that the applicant's inability to provide off-street parking did not warrant reduction of School Avenue to Collector status. Mr. Robertson stated that he had never implied that to be the case He stated that he had every intention of providing the required parking. The fourth item on the report stated that the reduction of School Avenue to Collector status would also warrant the reduction of Rock Street. Mr. Robertson stated that he did not see why the change in School Avenue would require changing Rock Street's status. Mr. Robertson said that another factor along the same line, was that his request was to change the easement all the way to Archibald Yell Blvd. from Dickson Street. He said that his only concern was from Spring Street to Dickson Street. Mr. Robertson said that building encroachment already occurred in this area more than anywhere else on the street. The fifth item on the Report from the Technical Advisory Committee was that zoning and land use presently along and in the general area of School Avenue indicate a denser development than currently exists. Mr. Robertson stated that he was not too sure that this was a correct statement. Mr. Robertson said that he could not see how the report could say that the area would definitely require 5 lanes of traffic. Mr. Robertson stated that what he was trying to do was create a denser populated area, he thought that he was giving people an opportunity to walk to such places as the Square or the University. The next item on the report stated that improvements to Gregg Avenue will introduce heavy traffic into the area without provision of a Southern relief route if School Avenue's classification is reduced. Robertson stated that he had looked at the Regional Planning Commission's plans and that he thought their plan was a good plan, but questioned their capabilities to do this. Mr. Robertson stated that denial of his request would probably not stop him from doing what he wants to do. He said that he wanted to put a swimming pool on the back side of his structure, and with the additional 10 ft., he could do this. Marshall Carlisle addressed the Commission in favor of Mr. Robertson's request. He stated that Mr. Robertson's proposed project would be two blocks from his office. He felt that the proposal would be a very attractive addition to Downtown Fayetteville. He hoped that the problems could be worked out so that Mr. Robertson could go ahead with his plans. Richard Johnson, 401 W. 24th Street, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. Mr. Johnson felt that Mr. Robertson had a good idea with the town at heart. Keith Newhouse asked Mr. Robertson if he would object to a 60 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Robertson replied that he would not object to a 60 ft. street, but felt that 80 ft. was unrealistic. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 10 Mr. Newhouse said that he felt Mr. Robertson had some good points concerning the additional width of School Avenue, and Newhouse felt that 60 ft. probably would be adequate. Windell Cullers asked if this was the only way Mr. Robertson could build his building. He asked if it would be possible for Mr. Robertson to get a waiver from the setback requirements and still build his building. Mr. Robertson said that all the 25 ft. setback does is limit any ammenities that he might be able to build with the building. Beth Crocker said that this sounded like a very attractive project. Ms. Crocker said that it was pretty hard to overcome the recommendation by the Technical Advisory Committee to deny this request. Windell Cullers said that he would like to vote for this proposal, but he did not like changing the Master Street Plan. Mr. Robertson said that he wondered if he could get the utility companies to waive their utility easements, and gain some ground that way. Bobbie Jones said that utility easements are inside the street right-of-way. Mrs. Jones said that in C-3, when there is no parking between the building and the street, there was a 5 ft. setback that should be measured from the roof overhang. Mr. Robertson said that that could possibly knock out a complete row of parking in the back as the plan he has drawn has the overhang within that 5 ft. setback. Bobbie Jones said that the Board of Adjustment is the only Board which could waive this requirement.. The Board of Directors would have to vote on waiving the other 20 ft. of Master Street Plan that Mr. Robertson requested. Beth Crocker made a motion to deny the request Hailey seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Robertson had the right to appeal to the Board of Directors. Mr. Newhouse left the meeting at 7:00 P.M. The next item for consideration OFF-SITE PARKING was the approval of off-site parking for the VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence at 320 W. Mountain Street; submitted by Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence; Zoned R-0, Residential Office District. Martha Butler was present to represent. Mr. Jacks stated that he had a letter from the Church of Christ stating that they would permit parking during periods except on Sunday morning, evening and Wednesday evening. Martha Butler spoke in favor of the request. She stated that in most cases their parking requirements were filled on the street. She said that she could not see any problem with excessive usage when the Church was holding its meeting. Morton Gitelman moved to approve the request. Redfern seconded. It was unanimous. Martin Redfern left the meeting at 7:20 P.M. The next item for consideration was a request for variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Jerris Duncan.and Rex Benham for property West of Hwy. 71 South, South of 20th Street, and North of Cato Springs Road. Also, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT BENHAM $ DUNCAN Planning Commission Meeting • May,::27, 1980 Page 11 • • a request to vary the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street. If sewer is not being made available to both of these lots, only the Board of Directors can vary the requirement for a minimum lot size of 11 acres for a lot not accessible to public sewer. Attorney Marshall Carlisle was present to represent. He stated that Mr. Benham had applied for a building permit to put an addition, for storage purposes, on to an existing building on the front parcel. The addition would be 10 to 15 ft. He said that the problem was, that there had been a lot split not in accordance with the ordinance, and that the Commission must approve it in order for his client to get a building permit. He stated that Mr. Duncan has no plans to do anything with the back lot at this time. He said that as far as the existing building on the existing lot, there was no problem with setbacks and that the building was in compliance with the zoning ordinance. He repeated that the present owner had no plans for development on the back lot. Ernest Jacks asked if Mr. Carlisle's client owned the whole lot. Mr. Carlisle stated that the original owner deeded off the back portion to Jerris Duncan and the front portion to Rex Benham. Beth Crocker asked if a building permit could be issued without approving or disapproving the lot split. Bobbie Jones stated that it should not because the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that no lot shall be created that does not meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr Carlisle said that the way he interpreted the ordinance, he understood it to mean that the request for building permit on any lot that had been split in violation of the City Ordinance must be denied, until the variance is obtained. Bobbie said that the variance that Mr. Carlisle is speaking of is the waiver of the requirement to file a subdivision plat for the division of property. Beth Crocker asked when this split had taken place. Mr. Carlisle said that it was in June of 1979. Ms. Crocker said she had a problem with the fact that this ordinance was passed, and then violated and that now the Commission was being asked to "bail them out". Windell Cullers asked why the Board of Adjustment was not hearing this. Bobbie Jones stated that the Ordinance specifically stated that the Planning Commission may waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street. Ernest Jacks asked if the land was landlocked when Mr. Carlisle's client had bought it. Mr. Carlisle replied that it was. Mr. Carlisle added that there is an easement on record giving the lot in the rear total access to the highway across the front lot for ingress, egress and utilities. Windell Cullers moved to approve the request for variance in lot size require- ment, and to waive the requirement that the rear lot have frontage on a public street. The motion died for lack of a second. Don Hunnicutt moved to approve the request for variance from lot size requirement, and to waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public road, if an ease- ment is provided across the front lot for driveway access to the Hwy. and if an easement for utilities (water F, sewer) is satisfactorily submitted. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (6-0). The next item of business was the REQUEST FOR REHEARING request for rehearing on a Large Scale Development MISSION BLVD. BAPTIST Plan for Mission Boulevard Baptist Church at 2006 Mission CHURCH Boulevard, submitted by Emil Utecht, property zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. Emil Utecht was present to represent. Ernest Jacks Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 12 stated that Bobbie Jones had made a note in her memorandum to the Planning Commission that according to the Planning Commission By-laws, a matter may be reheard if it is for the sole purpose of calling attention to a factual error, omission, or oversight in the first consideration. The Chairman said that he had talked to City Attorney Jim McCord and asked for his comments, and that he thought the.Cominission understood the considerations. He said that he felt it was the duty of the petitioners to prove that there was an ommission or an oversight on the part of the Commission. The Chairman recognized Mr. Emil Utecht (he spoke for 8 other people in the audience). Mr. Utecht asked the Commission to consider the plans that were submitted with the Large Scale Development Plan for the Mission Boulevard Baptist Church. He stated that he felt a misrepresentation had occurred on the part of the Church. He said that he felt the Commission had considered the Building of the Church only and had not given any consideration to the Church's future plans; a gymnasium and educational building. He also felt that the plan had been approved for building 375 ft. deep into the lot and on the drawings it showed future structures going over 480 ft. into the lot. Utecht also felt that the drawings submitted with the Large Scale Development plan were not drawn to scale, as he and Bobbie Jones had searched for a scale that would fit the drawings and could not find one. Mr. Utecht also felt that drainage had not been given property consideration. The Chairman asked Mr. Utecht to limit his discussion to omissions or oversights in the Commission's previous consideration of the Large Scale Development. Mr. Jacks asked if the Commission was to understand that there were two considerations; 1) that the total square footage was misrepresented; 2) that the distance or length of the development was misrepresented. Mr. Utecht said that those two items were certainly part of it. Mr. Drew Wilson, 1981 Lisa Lane, stated that he had not received a letter informing him of the Church's intentions to build. Bobbie Jones replied that he was not an adjoining property owner, and that the City was not responsible for notifying him. Tom Penquat, 2121 Lisa Lane, addressed the Commission, he stated that he would like clarification on what the use would be of the building constructed. Mr. Jacks said that it was his understanding that a Church only was going to be constructed. Bobbie Jones stated that the Church was the only use approved by the Commission. Judy Penquat, 2121 Lisa Lane, addressed the Commission, she stated that she would like Mr. Disney to explain to them what his plans were for the property at 2006 Mission Blvd. She said that she understood that Mr. Disney was not going to build just a Church. Mr. Jacks stated that the Commission had approved a Large Scale Development plan for a Church, and that any other plans would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacks stated that he understood the third oversight was alleged to be that proper consideration had not been given to the drainage problems associated with this tract of land. Darlis Utecht stated that she felt the Church had misrepresented their intentions to the Commission. Mr. Jacks explained that in order to build any other structures besides a Church, they would have to come before the Commission and get a building permit. Mrs. Utecht said that she would like some kind of reassurance that the Church would not be able to put in a school and other structures. Mr: Jacks said that the Church could always present another Large Scale Development Plan which could either be approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission. �J� • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 13 Mort Gitelman stated that a Church fell under Use Unit 4 and that it included many different recreational and cultural uses. He said that Use Unit 4 is permitted in R-1 under appeal to the Planning Commission. Richard Johnson, 401 West 24th Street, addressed the Commission, he stated that he was a friend and advisor to Mr. Utecht and the people he represents. He wondered if the fact that these people felt they had not been given proper consideration by the Commission was not grounds to be reheard. Beth Crocker said that the record clearly reflects that the matter was given an extensive hearing. Ms. Crocker stated the record also reflects the proposal from the Church, and that she did not have any misunderstandings about the Church's present and future plans. She stated she did not feel she had been misled and that she felt the drawings were very clearconcerning what he says is a factual error. Beth Crocker moved that the request for rehearing be denied. Mort Gitelman stated that he saw two things requested here, a rehearing on the Conditional Use, and a rehearing on the Large Scale Development. Mr. Gitelman stated he felt that everyone on the Planning Commission agreed with the Conditional Use, and felt no reason to rehear the request for Conditional Use. He stated he felt that, due to the three different drawings, there may have been some confusion as to the Large Scale Development Plan, and asked the Commission to be specific on which item they were denying. Bobbie Jones said that the request for rehearing was on the Large Scale Devel- opment only. She said the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for a rehearing on an approved Conditional Use; however, the By-laws do. Beth Crocker withdrew her motion. Mrs. Utecht stated that their opinions had not been given proper consideration, they had not been given proper:notification of the proceedings prior to the meeting. Bobbie Jones stated that there was a notice published in the paper, and that was what the ordinance required. The Chairman asked the Planning Commission to consider this request for rehearing at this time. Mort Gitelman asked for a clarification on what the reasons for the rehearing on the Large Scale Development were. Mr. Utecht stated that the reasons were 1) drainage had not been given proper consideration; 2) the distance or length of the development had been misrepresented on the drawings submitted with the proposal; 3) the total square footage of the develop- ment was misrepresented as submitted with the LSD proposal; 4) the sewer problems had not been given proper consideration. Mort Gitelman asked if this proposal had gone before the Plat Review Committee. Bobbie Jones stated that it had. She said she had not been at that particular meeting, that the Street Superintendent had not been at the meeting nor had the Water and Sewer Superintendent. Ms. Jones stated that the Street Superintendent had submitted comments but that none had referred to drainage. She also stated that the Water $ Sewer Superintendent had not submitted any comments on this proposal. Mr. Gitelman said that if a vote for rehearing were granted, that would mean the Street Superintendent and Water & Sewer Superintendent would consider this matter; if they had any requirements and the Church refused to comply, that would be the only way the Large Scale Development could be denied. He said that if the Church complies, then there would be no reason for denying their proposal. Mort Gitelman made a motion that the Planning Commission reopen the Large Scale Development Plan to the extent of hearing a report from the City Street Superintendent, and the City Water and Sewer Superintendent, and allowing the neighbors to gather any information and present it, on any drainage problems and water and sewer problems. • • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1980 Page 14 The Street Superintendent and the Water and Sewer Superintendent will give a report to the Subdivision Committee and they will give a recommendation to the Planning Commission on which the Commission will act. Beth Crocker seconded Morton Gitelman's motion to reopen the Large Scale Development Plan, with the consideration to be on Water and Sewer and Drainage problems only. There followed some discussion and the motion to rehear the Large Scale Development Plan for the Mission Blvd. Baptist Church passed (5-0-1) with Newton Hailey abstaining. The next item of business was the ORDINANCE FOR PROVIDING referral from the Board of Directors as to whether FOR DEVELOPMENT OF or not the Commission recommends an ordinance COMMERCIAL PUD providing for development of "Commercial PUD's" Bobbie Jones stated that at the Board of Directors Meeting of May 20, 1980, the Board of Directors had amended the PUD Ordiannce to state that it is to cover only residential developments Morton Gitelman said that common parking and such things are developing in commercial developments. He said that Oak Plaza and the Parnell development on Hwy. 62 were developing as a sort of Commercial PUD without a Commercial PUD Ordinance. Bobbie Jones said that there were provisions in the Ordinance for the Planning Commission to approve off-site parking and the requirement .that a. parcel have frontage on public street. There are only two things that the Planning Commission can not handle at present, and those are maximum buildable area and setback requirements would have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Jacks said that he would get with Jim McCord, Larry Wood and Larry Thompkins and research the possibility of a Commercial PUD Ordinance. Mr. Jacks said that as soon as he got some information from these people another Committee meeting would be scheduled. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30.