Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-23 Minutes• 1 • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, February 23, 1981, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, David Williams, Martin Redfern, Joe Wilson, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hunnicutt. Ron Jones, Gerald Griffin, John Moore, Ray Plack, Gordon Houston, Mrs. Aaron Behl, Ms. Allen, Lloyd Boling, Jim Vizzier, Bob Crafton, Walter Turnbow, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Larry Wood, and other members of the press and audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order and stated that Mr. Harold Lieberenz is in the Hospital for surgery. The minutes of the February 9, 1981 MINUTES meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one revision. On page 5, Newton Hailey asked that the motion regarding the annexation study be revised as follows: "Recommend to the Board of Directors that the annexation study be investigated." The second item of business was PRELIMINARY PLAT the approval of the preliminary plat of Cato CATO SPRINGS ESTATE Springs Estate located South of County Road OUTSIDE CITY #200, and West of State Highway #265; Jim Hatfield - Owner and Developer. Neal Albright was present to represent. The Chairman asked for the recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Newton Hailey (acting as Chairman), stated that the Subdivision Committee is recommending that this item be tabled until reviewed by the County Planning Board. The Subdivision lies outside the City Limits of Fayetteville and inside the Growth Area, and under State law, it must first be reviewed by the County Planning Board. Beth Crocker stated that the Subdivision Committee had considered the Developer's request that City jurisdiction be waived, and the Subdivision Committee had felt that request should be denied. Cynthia Stewart reported that General Bruce Kendall of the County Planning Board had phoned in a comment to the Office of City Planning. He stated that if the item was discussed, that the County would require 30 ft. from the centerline of County Road #200 be dedicated by this Developer. The Developers of this Subdivision are to contact Bud Allen of the County Planning Administration, and advise the City Planning Administrator of their findings. as Planning Commission Meeting • February 23, 1981 Page 2 • • The next item of business was REZONING PETITION R81-1 the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition STARR CHILDREN'S TRUST R81-1, Starr Children's Trust, to SOUTH OF DILLONS rezone property located South of Highway 45 East and East of Greenview Drive (South of Dillons) from R-1, Low Density Residential Districtito R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent the petitioner (arrived late). Ernest Jacks stated that he had received some phone calls, letters and a petition in opposition to this rezoning request. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated that he is recommending that the Planning Commission consider rezoning this property for the following reasons: 1. The existing public facilities are in place to serve the R-2 zoning with the exception of a fire plug. Development of this tract could occur without extending facilities. 2. The property in question is on the exterior of the neighborhood just South of an arterial highway so development other than single-family should have a minimal impact. 3. The R-2 District can serve as a buffer and transition from the commercial development to the North. Jacks stated that he had received a petition with 19 signatures asking that the petition be denied, and, also, a negative letter from Winston Sloane. There was at this time, no one present in favor of the petition, so the Chairman entertained comments against the petition. Ron Jones, 1991 Greenview, addressed the Commission. He stated that if R-2 were allowed, he understood that 42 units could be constructed on the tract. He felt that the streets in the neighborhood were too narrow to support that many units. Ernest Jacks informed Mr. Jones that R-2 zoning would allow 16 to 24 units per acre. Mr. Jones asked how high the units could be constructed. Jacks stated that the Commission was not considering the development, only the feasibility of rezoning the property and whether the neighborhood would support R-2 zoning. Gerald Griffin, 1984 Greenview, addressed the Commission and stated that if a high rise apartment were constructed on this property, it would greatly devalue his single-family home. He stated that he is a minister and that his life earnings are tied up in his home. He said that when he purchased his home he thought that the neighborhood would remain single family residential. John Moore, 1980 Greenview, addressed the Commission. He stated that if the people on the Commission would look at the neighborhood, and the type of development, they would see that any type of multi -family development would destroy the unity of the neighborhood. Jim Lindsey was now present and addressed the Commission and audience in favor of the petition. He stated that Mr. Starr had retained him to develop the 29 Planning Commission Meeting • February 23, 1981 Page 3 • • property. In his opinion a townhouse -type development for individual ownership would be the best use for this property. Because of the terrain, Mr. Lindsey felt that the best use would be 8 to 10 townhouses, perhaps in a small area PUD. He stated he felt sure that Mr. Starr would assure, legally, that no more than 8 or 10 units would be constructed. Cullers asked how any drainage problems would be handled with the steep terrain. Lindsey stated there is no way to develop the property to its full potential. He stated the development could be screened. Also, it could serve as a buffer between the single-family neighborhood and the Dillons store. Ernest Jacks asked if the owner of the property would be willing to execute a bill of assurance to assure that density would be restricted. Lindsey felt sure the owner would be willing to enter into a bill of assurance. He further stated that he felt the property would be unsuitable for apartments. Lindsey said that an R-1 PUD would be a good alternative, but that setbacks would be a problem. Beth Crocker asked if only 8 - 10 units would be constructed on the full 2.8 acres. Mr. Lindsey stated he understood that there was only about 1.3 acres involved. Ernest Jacks asked the members of the audience if the_bill_of;assurance mentioned to restrict density to 10 units would change their negative attitude towards the rezoning request. Ron Jones stated that 10 units, in his opinion is still too much density for the neighborhood. Joe Wilson stated that he had observed the traffic in this neighborhood, and that it certainly is a dangerous condition. He said he, himself, had almost been hit. Wilson stated he would be against the rezoning because of the congestion, but that he would be willing to grant some variances under an R-1 status. Williams stated he could not see this area as a buffer, as it is surrounded by single family houses Redfern stated that the Highway 265 and 45 intersection was in a situation where it could be zoned from scratch. He stated that property could be zoned R-2 and work. However, Highway 45 is a little different. This area is largely single-family residential. Ernest Jacks stated he could not see this property being developed as single-family. He stated he could see a restricted multi -family development for this tract. He felt it could be a good answer for development of this property if it does not add too much more traffic to the area. He felt the buffer area could be used. Ray Plack, 1997 Greenview, addressed the Commission. He stated that at one time, he had tried to rezone property in this area and that the Zoning Advisor had been against any zoning changes in the area at that time. He asked why the Zoning Advisor's opinion had changed. He stated that there is currently a drainage problem to the West. He felt that a multi -family development, and the paving that would result, would add to drainage problems Also, it would add to traffic problems already existing. Newton Hailey stated he would like clarification of the amount of property involved, is it 2.3 acres or 1.3 acres. Hailey felt that if the property is 1.3 acres, that 8 units would be too many. Hailey felt that three units per acre would be enough, given terrain and traffic congestion in the area. However, he stated he did not see this property developing single-family. He said Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 4 any traffic from this development would probably take Viewpoint to Mission near the cemetery and would not use Greenview. Morton Gitelman agreed. He stated that a bill of assurance, that the property will be developed with the same density of the surrounding neighborhood might be the answer. He stated that a dwelling other than a single family dwelling in this area does not bother him. Gitelman said he was in opposition to expanding the commercial. Gitelman further stated that he would be in favor of multi -family development as long as four units per acre is not exceeded. Gitelman suggested tabling this item so that the acreage can be clarified and perhaps a bill of assurance submitted. He made his comment a motion. Also, he asked that all persons appearing at this meeting be notified of the next time this item will be considered, it was agreed that persons who had written letters and also persons who signed the petition would be notified. Beth Crocker seconded Morton Gitelman's motion to table. Williams asked what options the Developers have as far as a less dense development. Ernest Jacks stated that a PUD could be proposed. Bobbie Jones stated that requests for conditional use for duplexes in R-1 could be an alternative. Lindsey stated that if there is, in fact, two acres, that seven units per acre could be developed, that would total 14 units, this developer is proposing 8 to 10. Cullers asked if the Developer requested a conditional use for duplexes in R-1 if the Density could be restricted. Ernest Jacks stated that it could. Gitelman pointed out that if duplexes were proposed, and sold individually as the developer proposes, that the lots would have to be split. Lindsey stated once again, that the townhouse concept would blend well. He said what he had in mind was down -stepping townhouses with the slope of the terrain. He further stated that this property is expensive, that something of quality would have to be constructed. The motion to table passed (7-1) with Martin Redfern voting "Nay". Redfern stated that Mr. Lindsey is proposing 8 to 10 units, that if the property is developed to R-1 density, 7 units per acre could be developed. Jacks stated that's true, unless the density is restricted. The next item for consideration REZONING PETITION R81-2 was the Public Hearing on Rezoning GORDON HOUSTON Petition R81-2, Gordon Houston, to rezone property located East of Porter Road and South of Deane Street from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Gordon Houston was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Planning Consultant. Mr. Jacks said that two requests had been made for rezoning on this same property earlier. Larry Wood stated that at a previous application for rezoning, he had given a negative recommendation. The Planning Commission had then approved a restricted number of duplexes. Wood said that since that time, several things had developed. The water supply has been improved with the installation of a 12 -inch water line in Deane Street. At the time the last rezoning petition was considered, Porter Road Was a gravel road, since that time it has heen paved. 31 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 5 The land use has changed a bit with the construction of two churches. South of this property. There are apartments and trailers East of the two churches. Open land and the by-pass exist to the West. At this time, multi -family is planned for the area West of Porter Road. Also, the interchange has been installed at Mount Comfort Road; when the previous application was considered, there had been no access to the by-pass. With this access, the multi -family traffic will not have to transverse the neighborhood. All these things taken into consideration bring up the possibility of R-2 development pattern for the remaining undeveloped property. This area is basically South of Deane and West of Sang. Beth Crocker stated that on a previous occasion, Mr. Wood had been opposed to rezoning this property as it would isolate the R-1 existing on Deane, unless property to the West and across Porter Road was also rezoned. Wood stated that is correct. He felt that the existing single-family would remain until its economic life runs out, then it will revert to R-2. His feeling before was that a logical R-1 pattern would exist from the South, all the way up to meet the single-family along Deane. This area has been isolated from the single-family by the churches. Cullers said that some new single-family homes have recently been constructed in this area and their economic life may be 30-40 years. Cullers felt that this area had been single-family for a long time, and that rezoning this property would be spot zoning. He thought the R-2 was isolated. Wood agreed that the R-2 is an isolated spot. Cullers felt that it would be starting with an isolated section of R-2 and rezoning around it. Cullers asked about the Flood Plain. It was his understanding that the Flood Plain goes through the center of this property. Wood replied that the Flood Plain questions will have to be handled when this property goes through the Large Scale Development process. Gordon Houston addressed the Commission.. He stated that there is a 50 ft. designated street easement that goes into the 5 acre tract, plus another access off of Deane Street. As far as Flood Plain, Houston stated that he had worked with Mr. Lieberenz, and where it had been believed that the property was in the 100 year Flood Plain, it has been brought to light that it actually lies in the 500 year Flood Plain. (Bobbie Jones confirmed this.) Houston said that the new bridge on Porter Road, had solved some of the problem. Houston stated that as far as development of R-1, he did not believe it is there. He said he had built two single-family homes lately. Apartments are being developed on Deane Street, new ones are being constructed in Washington Plaza, and also, around Sang. He stated that the single-family homes in the area are already mostly rental homes. Property to the South and East is vacant. He stated that if apartments were developed on this property, the closest they would be to anyone's single-family home would be 250 feet. Houston further stated he appreciated the Planning Commission's permission to construct duplexes, but that it is not economically feasible to construct 12 duplexes on a five acre tract. He stated that developers are being forced to develop multi -family houses outside the City when there is land available inside the City to develop housing of this type. He felt this land should be utilized. Martin Redfern asked if Mr. Houston had considered developing a PUD. Houston replied that he had submitted a plan for a PUD to the Planning Commission and had been promptly turned down. The PUD had been proposed for this same piece of property. He stated as far as apartments next to single family homes, if it is done right, it works. He cited the development in East Oaks where apartments 3,2 • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 6 and houses are side by side, and are selling. Mrs. Aaron Behl addressed the Commission. She stated she owns ten acres South of this tract running between Sang Avenue and Porter Road. She said there is presently a drainage situation. A church had been constructed on Sang, and that water is running off onto her property from theirs. The other Church on Porter Road had worked with her, and they were not creating any problems. She said she has no objection to the rezoning, but did not want any drainage problems created. Ms. Allen, 2323 Deane Street, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had been present when this property had been requested for rezoning. At that time the Board had turned it down. She stated she is against the rezoning, as, she feels there are enough apartments in the neighborhood. She felt that if this property is zoned R-2, more and more property will be zoned for apartments. Cullers stated he is opposed to this rezoning as he did not feel adequate access was being provided. Houston replied that he is proposing to provide two different accesses. Cullers stated he is opposed also from a drainage standpoint. Cullers moved to deny the rezoning request due to inadequate access, drainage problems and because R-2 will be inconsistent with the area. Martin Redfern seconded. Wilson asked if the property is rezoned, how it would be controlled as to development. Ernest Jacks stated it would be controlled through the Large Scale Development process. Beth Crocker stated that previously, 12 duplexes had been recommended by the Planning Commission, but the rezoning will allow over 100 units. Cullers stated that if this area had originally started to develop R-2, that would be different; it was a single family area. He stated that if this area is rezoned there is a possible 40 acres that could go R-2. Redfern stated he felt something like townhouse development would fit better. Houston stated he would rather construct townhouses than duplexes. Wilson said the usage of this land needs to be decided. Newton Hailey stated that the interchange is a major new factor in the usage of this land. He said he is in semi -agreement with Larry Wood as far as R-2 usage. However, he was not sure the time was appropriate for opening up this area for apartments. Mrs. Behl stated that the property across from this tract had been sold for another Church. The Commission voted on Windell Culler's motion to deny and it failed to pass (4-4) with Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, David Wilson and Beth Crocker voting "Aye" and Newton Hailey, Ernest Jacks, Joe Wilson and Morton Gitelman voting "Nay". Morton Gitelman moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the requested rezoning be granted, and Newton Hailey seconded. Beth Crocker stated she is hesitant to hurry this area along. She said she felt that the conditional use for duplexes, previously granted, would be sufficient. Redfern stated he felt that the buffer comment may be overemphasized. He said his feelings were similar to Ms. Crocker's. He was not sure the timing would be 5 or 25 years as far as multi -family development in this area. He did not want to give up on the single-family and duplexes for this area. Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 7 Williams stated that by rezoning this area a situation was being set up for the formation of a "sea of apartments". The Commission voted on Mort Gitelman's motion to approve. The motion failed to pass (4-4) with Morton Gitelman, Ernest 'Jacks, Joe Wilson and Newton Hailey voting "Aye" and Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, David Williams and Beth Crocker voting "Nay". Mort Gitelman felt that Mr. Wood's restudy of the area should be considered for possible amendment to the General Plan. He asked that it be placed on the agenda for discussion and study. The next item for consideration was a Conditional Use request submitted by Lloyd Boling to have a home occupation (Real Estate) at 2360 Crossover Road, Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Lloyd Boling was present to represent. Mr. Boling stated that he is currently Sherwood and Associates. He said he has his Broker's License and wishes to work for himself. Having a home occupation would allow him to work at his own schedule. He said he has sufficient space in his home and that he would meet all requirements. Boling said he did not feel this home occupation would generate an undue amount of traffic. The entrance to his property is not directly from Crossover Road. The driveway entrance is off a private road that would be Township Road if it were extended. Boling stated that his property is 302 ft. wide by 715 ft. long. The home occupation would cut his overhead Ernest Jacks stated that Mr. Boling would have to comply with all City regulations and asked him if his business would be a branch of Sherwood and Associates. Boling stated he would comply with all regulations and would not be operating a branch office. Also, that he would not have any employees. Martin Redfern asked Mr. Boling what kind of sign he would have. Mr. Boling stated that by law, he would have to have a sign, but assured the Commission it would not be visible from the street. Bobbie Jones stated that home occupation signs are not allowed in R-1. Boling said he would comply with any requirements. Redfern asked if any of Mr. Boling's neighbors Boling replied they do not. Beth Crocker stated that Mr. Boling could not before 7:30, A.M., nor after 5:30, P.M. Morton Gitelman moved to approve the Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (7-1) with Windell CONDITIONAL USE LLOYD BOLING HOME OCCUPATION associated with object to the home occupation. operate his home occupation home occupation request. Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. The next item for consideration RATIONAL NEXUS was the determination of rational nexus on off-site improvements for Washington Mountain Estates. The Chairman stated that this item had been discussed at Subdivision Committee with input from Clayton Powell, Don Bunn and Jim McCord. He asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. 39 J Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 8 Beth Crocker gave the report in the absence of Don Hunnicutt. Crocker said that the main argument by the Developer was the fact that he would be putting in a street that other persons would benefit from. The Subdivision Committee's contention was that the development of the subdivision was creating the need for improvement of the street. The Subdivision Committee's recommendation was that the Developer bear 100% of the cost of the construction of the street, from the perimeter of the subdivision to Highway 62 West, to City standards, with pavement, curb and gutter. Jim Vizzier addressed the Commission. He stated his clients are developing a Planned Unit Development on 173 acres. The developers had received preliminary plat approval with the condition that sewer be provided, and that Finger Road be improved for a distance of 800-1000 ft. from Highway 62 West to the perimeter of the PUD. Mr. Vizzier stated that there is some commercially zoned property adjacent to Finger Road that would benefit a great deal. He said that according to his calculations, the 170 acres of his development versus the 490 total acres that would be served by the improved road would equal about 20% of the cost that this developer should bear. Vizzier stated that he strongly objects to bearing the whole cost of the pavement when the commercially zoned property will benefit. He did not feel that strongly about the residential property owners benefitting. Vizzier wondered if there was some way to get some kind of reimbursement from others as their property develops. Beth Crocker stated that she could see Mr. Vizzier's point about benefitting the commercial property, but she did not know how reimbursement could be obtained at a later date. Vizzier stated it had been done in the past with water and sewer, at the time the line is tapped. Cullers asked if a bond could be posted. Crocker said the Subdivision Committee's contention was that the street should be installed with the immediate development. Cullers said it may be three to five years before this gets off the ground, it would not be immediate. Vizzier said that is correct, the project may spread over ten years. Cullers stated that he did not feel it is fair for Vizzier to have to pave the whole street and not get some compensation. Culler's stated that when the drive-in property develops, that access should be off Finger Road, rather than Highway 62. Beth Crocker asked how far the commercial property extends South. Vizzier stated it extends right up to the perimeter of the PUD. Martin Redfern asked about forming an improvement district. Vizzier said that the other property owners may not be ready to develop their property. Gitelman stated that without the improvement district it might be possible to assess the road, place a value on it, then place a value on the properties that abut that road, and how much each property abuts the road on a standard assessment basis for an improvement. Assess the value of the road and charge the developer of the PUD. He said the problem is occuring as Mr. Vizzier's PUD is developing first, and the properties closer to the Highway are developing last. Gitelman stated that he did not think it fair to place the whole monetary burden on the backs of the developers of this PUD. Beth Crocker moved that the Developer get the road assessed and try to form an improvement district, otherwise, since this developer is creating the need, he will bear the cost of paving the road. Also, ask McCord to look into the possibility of assessing cost against other future developers. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (7-0-1) with Newton Hailey abstaining. 35� • • • Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 9 The next item was the consideration RELOCATION OF SERVICE of the relocation of the service road on ROAD - WEST SIDE OF the West side of Highway 71-B at Millsap HWY 71 B AT MILLSAP Road. ROAD Bob Crafton and Walter Turnbow were present to represent. Larry Wood stated that the request is for the Steele property located at the Southwest corner of Millsap and Highway 71-B. Grafton and Turnbow are requesting that they be allowed to construct the service road away from Highway 71-8 and into the property rather than constructing it parallel. Jacks stated that this type of request had come up quite often. Wood stated that the depth line on the service road, according to the Master Street Plan is two to three hundred feet and that this is not a deviation. Wood said in some cases developers have requested that they be permitted to pull completely away from the Highway. These developers are asking for an opinion on their plans prior to obtaining an opinion from the Highway Department. Bob Crafton addressed. the Commission. He stated that the Developers have met with the Fayetteville/Springdale TAC Committee, including members of the Planning Research Committee from Little Rock in making a study at the intersection of Millsap going West. The Developers intend to use the proper safety devices. The request arises as the Developers want the Planning Commission's concurrence with their plans before proceeding. He stated that by altering the position of the service road, stack space will be provided for cars between the development and Highway 71-B. The developers are requesting permission to design the service road adjacent to this development. Windell Cullers asked if the Planning Commission would be given an opportunity to study the plans prior to the Developers commencing with their development. Mr. Crafton said they would have to come back before the Planning Commission before proceeding with their plans. Gitelman moved that the request be granted. Cullers seconded. The motion passed (7-1) with Martin Redfern casting the "Nay" vote. He did not understand the request. Morton Gitelman moved that a resolution be drafted that the principle of relocating service roads sometimes to run behind developments instead of in front of developments is acceptable. The next item for consideration was REPORT ON a report on the Fayetteville -Johnson FAYETTEVILLE - JOHNSON Planning Area. PLANNING AREA Ernest Jacks gave the report. He stated that a compromise had been reached. Initially, Johnson had requested some lands for their Planning Area that were located in Fayetteville's Planning Area. It had been agreed that they would change their Area to the quarter section line, thereby leaving the water lines that had been installed in Fayetteville's Growth Atea. Beth Crocker asked about the other area that Johnson had requested between Highway 112 and Gregg Avenue. Jacks stated that the line would be drawn half way between the two Cities' present City Limits according to State law. 34 A Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 10 Jacks stated that Johnson had already held their public hearing and that Fayetteville needed to publicize their public hearing to amend the Fayetteville Growth Area. Mort Gitelman made a motion that a public hearing be held for the amendment to the Growth Area. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Next on the Agenda was a report REPORT ON on proposed revisions to the Planned PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Unit Development Ordinance. ORDINANCE Ernest Jacks reported. He stated that a Committee had been formed by the Planning Commission to try to come up with some way of retaining the integrity of the PUD Ordinance. The Committee had sent forward a recommendation that the PUD be a conditional use in R-1. The Board of Directors had sent the recommendation back to Committee. The Board then appointed a committee consisting of John Todd, Rick Osborne, Ernest Jacks, Milby Pickell and Larry Wood. The Committee had suggested requiring a strip of R-1 around any PUD adjacent to R-1 property. The Developer of the PUD would be required to build single family all around the perimeter of the PUD. Another meeting was held and it was suggested that a PUD meet 300 ft. setback requirements from adjacent R-1 for all uses except R-1 uses This is where the meeting left off. He stated that unless the Commission has some input, it will probably be sent to the Board of Directors and then back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Windell Cullers stated that there is a need for a small PUD and that perhaps the Board would be willing to consider a small PUD a conditional use. Ernest Jacks agreed, he stated he wished the Planning Commission would send a resolution to the Board of Directors. stating that they feel the conditional use is the best way to handle the PUD. Mort Gitelman asked if perhaps the small PUD could have specific design standards imposed on it. Such as restrict the number of four-plexes and setbacks. Windell Cullers moved that a Resolution to the Board of Directors be drafted saying the Planning Commission still favors having an ordinance that allows for small PUD's of 5 acres or less and feels the best method for approval of the PUD is the .Conditional Use approach. If that fails, then request the Board at least consider special design standards written into the PUD Ordinance for 5 acre PUDs. Mort Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Newton Hailey gave the report. He presented the Commission with an outline. He stated that a meeting is planned for February 26, 1981 in Springdale. Hailey stated that he would like to see zoning in the Planned Growth Area. An A, R and C zone is proposed. Basically, A will consist of everything that exists with no expectations. R will consist of all rural and preliminary C will consist of existing commercial. OTHER BUSINESS REPORT FROM THE PLANNED GROWTH AREA COMMITTEE subdivisions final 3? • • Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 11 Control of development could possibly occur through a permit system. In the Growth Area, a permit should not be required for farm related buildings, but would be required for commercial or industrial. A permit would be required as far as residential for setback and septic tank purposes. Jacks said he was delighted at the prospect of the meeting. He stated that formation of zoning in the growth area could keep some really bad things from happening. Jacks stated he was glad to hear that Springdale was participating. Hailey stated that Larry Wood had put together a map and .that if it is received well, that it will be taken on to the County Planning Board. If it goes well there it will be presented to the Quorum Court. Bobbie Jones asked that if the zoning is adopted for the Growth Area, who would issue the permits, and make inspections. Hailey replied the City of Fayetteville would be responsible for its Growth Area. Jacks stated that Don Grimes had felt this could be worked out. Ms. Jones did not think the City had the man power to issue the permits and make inspections. Jacks appointed Don Hunnicutt APPOINTMENT as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee to consist of Beth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt and Newton Hailey. Jacks stated that Windell Cullers would join the Subdivision Committee in April. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35, P.M. 38 3q� Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 • Page 12 • • RESOLUTION NO. PC1-81 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas: as a matter of policy, will approve service roads on a case by case basis, that are not parallel to the Highway, and that might run behind, rather than in front of a particular piece of property. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1981. ATTEST: SECRETARY APPROVED CHAIRMAN • • Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 1981 Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. PC2-81 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas: favors an ordinance that allows for small Planned Unit Developments of five acres or less. THAT THE Planning Commission feels that the best method for approval of a Planned Unit Development is by Conditional Use. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1981. ATTEST: SECRETARY APPROVED CHAIRMAN 40