Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, April 13, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, David Williams, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers and Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Harry Gray, Ervan Wimberly, Butch Pappon, Bob Alguire, Jack and Georgia Burge, Bill Kisor, Henry Thibault, Rex Thompson, Max Worthley, Ron Jones, George Bradley, Neal Albright, Bob.Crafton, Walter Turnbow, Gary Carnahan, John Fitzgerald, Jim Hill, Jeannie Hill, Marshall Carlisle, Ann Sugg, Sue Phillips, John Maguire, Sterling Anders, Wilson Kenrow, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the March 23, 1981, meeting MINUTES of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The second item of of the preliminary plat inside the Growth Area, business was the approval of 0. E. Luttrell, located West of Highway 71 By -Pass, South of Highway 16 West and East of County Road #650; 0. E. Luttrell - Owner. (Tabled at the March 9, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting until the Board of Directors meeting April 7, for guidelines as far as requiring Developers in the Growth Area to extend water lines to subdivisions if a substantial amount of off-site work must be done in the extension). Harry Gray was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. He stated that this item had been sent to the Board of Directors for guidelines as far as requiring water to be run to subdivisions in the Growth Area. He wondered if these guidelines had in fact been set. Crocker stated the Board had ruled that water must be extended to subdivisions in the Growth Area, unless waived by the Board of Directors. She stated that 0. E. Luttrell had requested a waiver of that requirement from the Board%and they had waived the requirement that water be run to the two remaining lots not presently served by wells. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee stated the Committee had recommended this item for approval subject to Plat Review and County Planning Board comments. Hunnicutt so moved and Hailey seconded. The motion to approve passed (9-0). Beth Crocker stated that the Planning Commission should include a recommendation for subdivisions that will appeal this requirement to the Board of Directors. Ernest Jacks agreed. PRELIMINARY PLAT 0. E. LUTTRELL INSIDE GROWTH AREA 58 Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 Page 2 The next item of business was the FINAL PLAT approval of the final plat of APPLEBY ACRES Appleby Acres located West of GO -HAY PARTNERSHIP Highway 71B and North of Appleby Road; Go -Hay Partnership and Wal-Mart Stores - Owner. Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Ervan Wimberly, Harry Gray, and Butch Pappon were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt moved that the final plat of Appleby Acres Addition be approved with the following conditions: 1. Designate the 15 ft. easement at the Southeast of the Development a water easement. 2. Waive one street light along Appleby Road, South of the proposed Wal-Mart Store. 3. Subject to all Plat Review Committee comments. Beth Crocker seconded, the motion passed (9-0). Beth Crocker stated that Gottlieb had constructed a fence prior to beginning construction. She said she could see the desirability of requiring developers to construct a fence before construction is finished on a project and wondered if it could be required by ordinance. Jacks stated that the ordinance does not address timing. Gitelman stated he would study this and see if a time element could be added to the ordinance. Redfern stated he agreed, that Gottlieb had done the right thing by constructing the fence prior to construction. The fourth item of business FINAL PLAT was the approval of the final plat EAST OAKS, PHASE II of East Oaks Subdivision, Phase II, located BILLY $ JAMIE SCHNEIDER West of Highway 265, East of Old Wire Road, and South of the proposed Township Road; Billy g Jamie Schneider.- Owners. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly and Harry Gray were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. Don Hunnicutt said the Subdivision Committee recommends approval of this final plat, subject to Plat Review Committee comments and the Planning Commission's determination as to connection of Azalea Terrace and Bois de Arc with this phase of the Subdivision. Hunnicutt said that the Subdivision Committee's discussion on this matter had included debate on whether the developer should be required to pave Bois de Arc up to the property line and not connect it with the existing street in Sweetser's subdivision. The Committee had felt that Azalea Terrace should be connected. Harry Gray addressed the Commission. He stated that the preliminary plat for this subdivision was presented for the total development in phases. At the time of the preliminary plat, it was decided that Bois de Arc would not be 59 Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page 3 Bobbie Jones stated that Clayton Powell had recommended Azalea Terrace and Bois de Arc be opened. Jim Hill addressed the Commission and stated he lives at 1965 Primrose Lane which is at the corner of Primrose Lane and Bois de Arc. Hill stated that at the preliminary plat level, it was unanimously voted that Bois de Arc would not be connected until the Township Road extension was. constructed. He stated he did not see that anything had changed. Further, Hill said there is a real problem on Winwood. It is a 25 ft. street, very narrow, people park in the street, and there are no sidewalks for the most part. He said this narrow street catches all the cut through traffic from Overcrest and Old Wire Road. The reason for this is it is the shortest distance to Highway 45. Hill stated he was not opposed to the opening of Azalea Terrace. Williams asked how traffic would be alleviated from Winwood with the construction of Township Road. Hill stated Township will pick up East/West traffic and may be.used.as an alternative to Highway 45. People are presently using Winwood to cut through to Highway 45. Newton Hailey stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed the fact that Winwood is serving as a Major Collector Street, when Township should be carrying this load. Williams asked if he was correct in assuming this to mean that leaving Bois de Arc closed will encourage the opening of Township Road. Crocker stated that should not be the issue. The issue should be whether or not this connection is needed. She said this developer has offered to make the connection and pay for it. If the Commission determines that the street • connection is not important, these developers should be given the option of using the land to make another lot. Jacks felt the connection would be needed eventually. Windell Cullers stated that Winwood is just as Mr. Hill described.it. Harry Gray stated that if the connection is made at Azalea Terrace, Bois de Arc, and East Oaks, he did not think the flow of traffic will be that greatly increased on Winwood. Wilson stated he felt the City needed connecting streets and that at some future time this connection may have, to be made and the City will end up paying for it. He felt that if this Developer wants to construct this street, he should be allowed to. The cost at this time could not be as much as it would cost twenty years down the line. Gitelman stated he felt the opposite, that traffic should be funneled to larger streets rather than travelling through minor streets. Gitelman felt the problem occurrs in that there are not enough collector streets. He was against connecting minor residential streets to provide through traffic. Gitelman said he was against this connection and not sure about the connection of Azalea Terrace Mrs. Jeannie Hill stated that Winwood is already taking construction traffic out to Cedarwood Subdivision;.that backhoes and trucks are running over the barricade Hunnicutt moved that the final plat of East Oaks, Phase II be approved with the following conditions: • 1. Close Bois de Arc. 2. Make the connection with existing Azalea Terrace to the North. 69 `) 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page 4 • • 3. Subject to all Plat Review Committee comments. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (9-0). The next item for consideration FINAL PLAT was the approval of the final plat of Cato CATO SPRINGS ESTATES Springs Estates located inside the INSIDE GROWTH AREA Growth Area, West of Cato Springs Road (Highway 265), and South of County Road #200, Jim Hatfield - Owner. Neal Albright was present to represent. The Chairman asked for the recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt moved that the final plat of Cato Springs Estates be approved with the following conditions: 1. The final plat will reflect existing septic systems as reflected on the preliminary plat. 2. Subject to Plat Review Committee and County Planning Board comments. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (9-0). The next item of business CONCEPT PLAT was the approval of the Concept Plat J. B. HAYS PROPERTY for property located East of North EAST OF COLLEGE College Avenue on the hillside above Western Sizzlin' Steak House; J. B. Hays - Owner. Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, and R-0, Residential Office District. Ervan Wimberly and Harry Gray were present to represent. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee reported that this item had been brought to the Planning Commission for their input. Ervan Wimberly addressed the Commission. He stated this is a concept, and lacks any details such as area, setbacks and landscaping. He said the concept was being presented to the Planning Commission to get their opinion of the concept and the developer's desire to construct streets 24 ft. in width. Wimberly said that the roads can be cut down to a 12% grade.. Because of the existing slopes the width of the streets will be limited. The developers would like to cut down to 24 ft. width on streets. Proposed buildings will be located 30 to 50 ft. away from the streets. This is only a portion of the entire tract. Wimberly said the average slope in the area is 20%, the buildings will be narrow. The developers are not anticipating intensive commercial use. The entrance off Highway 71 will be 31 ft. wide with 30 ft. radii for the first 30 to 40 ft. into the development from Highway 71. Wimberly said he had no objection to this being a private street. Windell Cullers said he feels a narrow and steep street is hazardous, and wondered if it was impossible to make the street 30 ft. wide. Wimberly said he would like to make all streets within the development 24 ft. and stated there will not be any parking on the streets. Jacks said he was not in favor of 24 ft. streets. Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 Page 5 Wimberly stated a 30 ft. street could be worked out. Bob Alguire, 965 Oaks Manor addressed the Commission. He stated he is a traffic engineer. He is concerned about a road with a 12% grade coming out on Highway 71. On a 12% grade it is almost impossible to brake in inclement weather. The maximum grade allowable for federally funded roads is 7%. Also, this will be the only ingress/egress to this development, if something should happen and the road should be blocked, people would be trapped up there, or forced to use this road. Further, Mr. Alguire stated that there is an alley -way easement from this property to his own. He wondered if that would be utilized. Wimberly stated it would not. Alguire stated that the grade onto 71 will be critical, and that he felt this was a terrible place to put any density. Wimberly stated there are many hills in Fayetteville with steep grades. The Southern portion of this tract will not be so steep. Cullers asked if the curve could be extended further North to get some steepness out of the slope. Wimberly stated that if the curve was extended any further North it would start coming back down again. Beth Crocker asked if the Developers had considered making the road one way and tying back into Highway 71. Wimberly stated that was a long term plan. Ernest Jacks did not feel that one way turns off an arterial street.was a very good idea. Bobbie Jones stated that Clayton Powell had commented that it appeared that street construction had commenced prior to approval of street plans. He had further stated that he would like to see these streets remain private if possible. Windell Cullers stated he did not like the concept plat for several reasons: 1. The extreme slopes. 2. The intersection of Highway 71 creates a bad situation. 3. The Commission is being asked to approve a lot of development on a poor piece of land. Wimberly asked if the overall concept was acceptable. Cullers asked if there were other possible matlibds of development. Wimberly did not feel there was, other than going out through Rolling Hills. Cullers wondered if it would be possible to come off of College, make more of a turn to the North and come back down the slope. Wimberly stated that would create too much back slope South of the Curve. Wilson asked about private streets. Wimberly stated they would be no problem and that at the intersection to 71, the grade will be almost level at 2%. Martin Redfern stated he had no problem with the concept, but he would like to see 30 ft. streets all around. David Williams moved approval of the concept plat, with the condition that streets will be built to City Standards including 30 ft. of pavement width. He would like to encourage the developers to look at the safest possible options on the slopes. Martin Redfern seconded. Cullers asked if the Commission has the right to turn down a concept plat. Gitelman stated they do not, the developers are simply asking for guidence. A preliminary plat could be turned down. 6� A Planning Commission Meeting April 13,. 1981 Page 6 Bill Kisor stated he owns property in this area and that he is satisfied with this concept. Jack and Georgia Burge stated they also own property in the area and felt this type of development would be acceptable. The motion to approve the concept with 30 ft. streets passed (9-0). The seventh item of business was the approval of the design and location of the intersection of the By -Pass INTERSECTION OF BY-PASS & SERVICE ROAD AT MILLSAP ROAD service road with the West side of Highway 71B in the Millsap Road area. Bob Crafton, Walter Turnbow and Jim Roy were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt stated the Subdivision Committee had passed this item on to the Planning Commission with three questions: 1. Since the Developer shows access at Millsap, should the developer be allowed to develop the access point to Highway 71 By -Pass at all. Ernest Jacks said no. 2. If the ordinance does not state this, and the Developer can have access, does it mean that when the service road is connected with the Highway at a later point, that the developer will have to give up his Highway 71 By -Pass access. Ernest Jacks said they should once the service road is connected. 3. Where should the Planning Commission go for advice as to whether the access should be there in the first place, the TAC committee? Hunnicutt stated that by ordinance, the Planning Commission can waive this requirement that access be closed with the connection of a service road if.there is a hardship. Bobbie Jones stated she had put some questions concerning this item to the City Attorney, Jim McCord, and he had given her some written comments: 1. Can the developer be allowed to keep the access point to Highway 71 By -Pass at all? McCord stated yes. Can the Planning Commission waive this or must the Board of Directors? McCord replied the Planning Commission can waive this requirement if it finds hardship such as distance. 2. Can the Planning Commission allow the developer to have access now, but require it to be closed when the service road ties back to an intersection? McCord replied the Planning Commission could execute this power unless it deems a hardship exists. 3. Who should the Planning Commission go to for advice as to whether the access point should be there in the first place, the TAC committee? McCord replied the Highway Department has already approved the access and required the owner to close his other access point. Since the Planning Commission determines hardship on a factual. basis, McCord did not feel the matter should be referred to anyone else. 63 A Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page 7 4. Can the Planning Commission approve a development plan without the service Road intersecting Highway 71 By -Pass since the developer owns property that would allow that intersection. McCord replied yes. The Developer is not required to prepare development plans for all the property he owns, only that which he proposes to develop. He might sell his other property rather .than develop it. Jim Roy addressed the Commission representing the Developer. He stated that the Developer plans to develop the access road. The property and the access road will be developed in phases. In this phase the developer proposes to come off Highway 71 B across from Millsap Road and develop the property that is presently zoned C-2 (the remainder is zoned A-1). The portion of road that will access on 71 -will be terminated with this phase in a turn-around,which will be extended with the next phase of development. The developer proposes an acceleration lane for coming in and out of the development. At one time there were two accesses to the property, but the Highway Department closed one as they felt the two were too close. Roy stated that the Highway Department has chosen not to take this access point away. from the owners, should the City be required to pay the property owner if they require the access point to be closed? Mort Gitelman wondered if the road ought to run along the Highway. Jacks stated he felt that at this point, Millsap should be taken directly West. Windell asked why, since this plat is for that portion zoned commercial, was the Planning Commission discussing ,the intersection with the By -Pass to the West. He felt that it was premature. Gitelman agreed. Roy stated that the developer would like an opinion on the overall plan. Windell Cullers moved to approve the access to Highway 71 B, and not approve the remaining distance from the boundary of the C-2 property and the A-1 property West. Joe Wilson seconded. Newton Hailey asked why the Commission felt that the Highway Department's approved access point should be closed. Jacks replied that when the Highway Department constructed this "limited access By -Pass", they granted 55 access points. The Planning Commission did not feel this would be safe. Also, the Commission felt it was not in accordance with the intent of the limited access By -Pass concept. The Planning. Commission then drafted the ordinance so that these access points would be abandoned when the property was tied into the service road. Mort Gitelman stated it appears that the Highway Department granted access points to save money. Jim Roy stated the Highway Department has closed numerous accesses and has paid for them. Jacks felt the developer should negotiate with the Highway Department. Redfern felt this could create a potential traffic hazard. It appears that the Highway Department does not install traffic lights until there are serious accidents. Hunnicutt wondered how many developers are looking at the By -Pass with access points that the Highway Department has approved, and that the City will close. Jacks stated that in his opinion it is critical to keep the Limited Access By -Pass a Limited Access By -Pass. The Commission voted on Windell Culler's motion to approve the intersection of Millsap Road with Highway 71 B only. The motion passed (9-0). Mort Gitelman left the proceedings at 6:35, P.M. 6y Planning Commission Meeting • April 13, 1981 Page 8 Next item on the Agenda was the REZONING PETITION R81-1 public hearing on Rezoning Petition R81-1, STARR CHILDREN'S TRUST Starr Children's Trust, to rezone property SOUTH OF DILLONS located South of Highway 45 East and East of Greenview Drive (South of Dillons) from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. (Tabled at the February 23 and March 23 Planning Commission Meetings.) Gary Carnahan was present to represent. The Chairman asked for comments in favor of the request. Gary Carnahan addressed the Commission. He stated that Jim Lindsey and Mr. Starr as well as himself have mixed emotions about pursuing this rezoning request, as the persons objecting to the request are their friends. The Developer is hopeful that he is not proposing anything that will hurt these neighbors. The property -in question is approximately square about 300 ft. by 300 ft. It is so located that the only access to the property is on Greenview Drive. In order to develop this property as it is zoned, the lots that would result would be long and narrow. The developer is of the opinion that the lots would be condusive to the construction of homes that would not be as nice as those existing in the neighborhood. The developer proposes to develop the property at the same density as the neighborhood. The owner will assure by bill of assurance that he or any other subsequent owner will construct no more than 8 units. or four units per acre. The units would be built in a cluster of townhouses facing each other, with two driveways into the development. The decor of the townhouses will blend in with the existing homes. Jacks stated this item had been tabled in order to give Mr. Lindsey a chance to discuss development of this tract with the neighbors. He asked if these discussions had occurred; they had not. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else appearing in favor of this request. There being no one else present in favor, the Chairman entertained comments against the petition. Henry Thibault, 1976 Greenview Drive, addressed the Commission. He felt that the developer could come up with a reasonable alternative that would be consistent with the neighborhood as developed in the past. He stated that if you take a piece of land in this neighborhood of comparable size, that there are anywhere from 3 to 6 dwellings on that parcel. This developer's proposal would be almost twice that. He further stated that Greenview Drive is narrow and has no shoulders. The entrance to Greenview off of 45 is at the crest of a hill and is dangerous He felt that eight new families coming out that intersection would add to the dangerous condition. He stated that the grade of Greenview is about 18-20%. Thibault said this is not the only vacant lot in the neighborhood. If this lot is rezoned, it could set a precedent for the other vacant lots. He further stated that the owners of this property have not kept it up well, and wondered if they would really pay that much attention to preserving the nature of the neighborhood. Thibault said he did not agree with the buffer concept in regard to this property. He felt that the commercial (Dillons) was a mistake, and that it should not be allowed to grow. Rex Thompson, 1832 Viewpoint, addressed the Commission. Thompson said that the neighborhood consists of single family homes with children. Some of the 66 Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 Page 9 neighbors are retired. He was worried that if this parcel is rezoned, other requests will follow and that a solid neighborhood will be broken up. Max Worthley, 1982 Greenview, addressed the Commission. He said there are few neighbors in this area who have not ended up in a ditch from time to time in the winter. He said that this access to Highway 45 (Greenview) is very hazardous Viewpoint is usually covered with ice in the winter due to poor drainage. Worthley said he is opposed to developing this property other than single-family. Ron Jones, 1991 Greenview, addressed the Commission. He wondered why this petition had been filed if the developer readily admits that it could be broken up into single family lots. George Bradley, 1700 Viewpoint, addressed the Commission. He felt that the added density would create more noise. Windell Cullers wondered if this request was being pursued because the developers felt this property was too expensive to develop R-1. As far as this property being a buffer between Dillons, Cullers was of the opinion that Dillons should not even be there. He did not think the Planning Commission should try to legitimize Dillons by installing a buffer. Joe Wilson stated he was against this request as it would be spot zoning. But, he did hot feel the Planning Commission should dictate what the owners construct on the property either. Hunnicutt stated that it is hard to rezone property in an existing neighborhood, but also, he would not want the land to sit there undeveloped for another ten years. Beth Crocker stated there is no other R-2 property in the vicinity, and if this is rezoned to R-2, it would be spot zoning, which could set a precedent. David Williams stated that this item was tabled so that the Developer would have an opportunity to talk to the neighbors, he stated this did not occur, .therefore, he did not see any reason in delaying action any further. Williams moved to deny rezoning petition R81-1. Windell Cullers seconded. Hunnicutt wondered if something could be worked out on a conditional use basis. Redfern said he saw no reason for using this property as a buffer. Hailey stated he had no problem with this request. He stated the inclement weather will not affect these people too much, it will be those at the top of the hill who will be affected by the weather. Hailey felt that perhaps a conditional use with some assurances by the owner could be worked out. He did not see leaving this property vacant. He stated he could not support the denial. The motion to deny passed (6-2) with Hailey and Hunnicutt casting the "Nay" votes. The next item of business was the request VARIANCE OF LOT SIZE for a variance from the lot size requirement FOR A LOT SPLIT applicable to a lot split submitted by JOHN C. FITZGERALD John C. Fitzgerald for property in the Growth Area, North of Wyman Road, and West of County Road No. 338. John C. Fitzgerald was present to represent. Planning Commission Meeting • April 13, 1981 Page 10 • Mr. Fitzgerald stated he had purchased this lot from his Grandfather about a year ago. The property is smaller than the three acres required for a lot split. The property in question has frontage on two roads. He proposes to construct his home on the lot, and it is far enough away from his grandfather's house that it will look good. Windell Cullers moved that the request for variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split be approved. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion to approve passed (8-0). The next item for consideration WAIVER OF FRONTAGE was the request for a waiver of the ON PUBLIC STREET requirement that a lot have frontage on a FARMER'S DAUGHTER public street on behalf of the Farmer's Daughter at 2583 North Gregg Avenue Marshall Carlisle was present to represent. Mr. Carlisle stated that a misunderstanding had occurred over the frontage of the Farmer's Daugher property. He presented several deeds and an aerial photograph showing the property and the public road adjacent to it. Mr. Carlisle further stated that this road had been declared a public road by the Chancery Court of Washington County, Arkansas. Bobbie Jones stated that there are references about a public road but there are no widths given and it is a one lane road which is impassible during high water weather. It formerly extended back into the University Farm property. Marshall Carlisle stated that the objection to the deed being recorded is voided because the property fronts on a road. Carlisle stated that the McClellands sold off 1.9 acres to the Southeast of Skull Creek to the Fulbright Investment Corporation. It appeared to the Planning Office that the Farmer's Daughter property had been cut off from access to a public road which it had not. Beth Crocker stated she hesitated to recognize this as a public street. Don Hunnicutt left the proceedings at 7:20, P.M. Windell Cullers moved to approve the request for a waiver of the frontage requirement on behalf of the Farmer's Daughter. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item for consideration was the CONDITIONAL USE Conditional Use request submitted by John $ JOHN $ ANN SUGG Ann Sugg to have mini storage at 1955 South 1955 SOUTH SCHOOL School, Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Ann Sugg was present to represent. Mrs. Sugg explained this property had formerly been a motel or tourist court. The Sugg's ended up buying the property at an auction. After that the property was vandalized and fixtures torn out of the structures. Mr. and Mrs. Sugg felt that mini storage would be the best use to put these concrete • block buildings to. Mrs. Sugg said she did not see any of the adjoining property owners present, 67 Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page 11 • but felt sure they would not object. She stated they have improved the property somewhat by painting the existing building and tearing down some other structures and generally cleaning up the tract. David Williams moved to approve the conditional use for mini -storage at 1955_South School Avenue. Windell Cullers seconded, the motion passed (7-0). The next item for consideration VACATION OF STREET was a petition to close and vacate that LELAND AVENUE BETWEEN portion of Leland Avenue which lies between BERRY AND ORA Berry Street and Ora Drive. There was no one present to represent. Beth Crocker moved that Leland Avenue be closed per petition, with the retention of the 15 ft. utility easement as requested by utility companies. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (7-0). Next on the Agenda was a VACATION OF ALLEY F, STREET petition to close the alley BLOCK 7 F, 8 running East/West in Block 7 and JENNINGS ADDITION Block 8, of the Jennings Addition and the East Avenue right-of-way between 6th and 7th Streets. Sue Phillips was present to represent. She stated that the portion of alley shown in the Agenda as being part of the petition (that alley running East/West between Blocks 15 and 16, Jennings Addition) was not a part of the petition. Ms. Phillips stated that her father owns Lots 1 and 2 in Block 7 and wishes to construct a fence. Martin Redfern moved to approve the vacation of the alley and the East Street right-of-way with the retention of requested utility easements. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business AMENDMENT TO PLANNING was a public hearing to consider an AREA BOUNDARY MAP amendment to the Planning Area Map which was passed and approved on June 29, 1970 and amended on February 20, 1973. Said amendment would change the boundaries of the area within which the City of Fayetteville would exercise its jurisdiction over subdivisions. The Areas being considered for change are as follows: 1. City of Johnson Area (Delete from Fayetteville Planning Area) Township 17 North, Range 31 West Section 24 - Delete that part of the SE; South of Clear Creek Section 25 and 26 - delete the N1/2 •E PAte 11 A Ernest Jacks stated that the City of Johnson exercised its right by law to lands in the Fayetteville Growth Area. A committee consisting of representatives 6? Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 Page 11A Township 17 North - Range 30 West Sec. 27 - delete the N half of the NW' and the NW; of the NE4 West of Johnson Road/Gregg Street Sec. 30 - delete the N1 Sec. 19, 20, F, 21 - delete that part South of Clear Creek Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 Page 12 from both Johnson and Fayetteville agreed to the new boundary. The new boundary will allow existing subdivisions to remain in the Fayetteville Growth Area. David Williams moved to approve the amendment to the Growth Aiea and Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (6-0). (Martin Redfern left the room temporarily.) 2. City of Greenland Area (Delete from Fayetteville Planning Area). Township 15 North, Range 30 West Section 5 - Delete all of Section 5 Section 8 - Delete all of the N1, North of Wilson Street. Larry Wood stated this property was picked up in 1972. Greenland is presently forming a Planning Commission and they will probably come back with a Planning Area Boundary. Joe Wilson moved to approve the amendment to the Growth Area and Windell Cullers seconded. Beth Crocker asked if this would create a situation where there would be no control over development of this property. Larry Wood stated it would fall under the County's jurisdiction.. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was PUBLIC HEARING the public hearing to consider an amendment to . AMENDMENT TO GENERAL the General Land Use Plan of the City LAND USE PLAN of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for an area described generally as follows: West of Garland Avenue (Hwy. 112) North of Wedington Drive (Hwy. 16 West) South of Moore Lane; and extending through the area of Giles Addition and Bird Haven Terrace.on the West. Ernest Jacks stated this is a public hearing and asked for comments from the audience. Wilson Kenrow, 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, addressed the Commission. He stated it is his understanding that with the construction of the interchange, the Planning Commission sees this area as developing other than single family. He asked if the development would include filling stations. Larry Wood replied that some of the areas would include filling stations. Mr. Kenrow stated that he views with alarm the ever increasing encroachment on single family neighborhoods in this area. Kenrow wondered if this would take place immediately. Beth Crocker stated that the Commission is not planning on rezoning this area. The plan would be amended and the rezoning requests would come in as persons wanted their property rezoned. Jacks stated that is correct, this amendment to the Plan will guide the Planning Commission as far as rezoning requests. John Maguire addressed the Commission. He stated he had sent a letter requesting that this matter be addressed at a later date. He wondered if the Commission had received the letter. Bobbie Jones stated that she had received a phone call after the notice of the public hearing had been sent to the paper for publication at that time it was too late to reschedule the public hearing, the letter was received later. Maguire stated he is owner, with some other persons, of over 100 acres Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page 13 in this area. He said he needed more time. He stated he has retained Jim Vizzier to help in the planning of the land. He said he would greatly appreciate a continuation of the public hearing to give him more time to review alternatives and how this amendment would affect development in the area. Sterling Anders, 2850 Cheryl, addressed the Commission. He stated there are presently tractor trailers coming into the downtown area to load and unload. He felt that perhaps the Commission should consider amending the General Plan to accomodate this type of business, that would retain tractor trailers along the By -Pass, where they would not have to travel the streets in town. Mr. Kenrow agreed, the way the amendment now reads, the areas around the By -Pass will be encouraged to develop mmlti-family. He wondered if the quality of life would be that great next to the By -Pass. Larry Wood stated that there are other things going on that a delay in the public hearing might pull together. Paul Drawer, 2532 Hatfield stated that even though this amendment would not affect his property, he would like the public hearing continued. Beth Crocker moved to continue the public hearing to the first Planning Commission meeting in May (May 11, 1981). Beth Crocker withdrew her motion and moved that the public hearing be readvertised at the call of Larry Wood. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (7-0). • • There: being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00, P.M. 7/