Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, July 13, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: David Williams. Bobbie Jones, Gail Mainard, Larry Wood, Virginia Farmer, Steven G. Smith, Cecil Cogburn, Dr. Barbara Taylor, Alvin Neal, Gary Carnahan, Jim Vizzier, Sterling Anders, Jim Potts, Gordon Houston, Sid Noorbakhsh, Richard Hipp, Mel Milholland, Jan Parker, David McWethy and other members of the press and audience. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. There being no amendments or corrections, the minutes of the June 22, 1981, Planning Commission Meeting were The first item of business was the approval of the final plat of Meadowridge, Phase II, located South of Zion Road and West MINUTES approved as mailed. FINAL PLAT MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, PHASE II I. B. I., INC. of Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The Owner - Developer is I. B. I., Inc. Gail Mainard was present to represent. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that his Committee had reviewed the plat and the Plat Review Committee minutes. Mr. Hunnicutt stated that the plat the Subdivision Committee reviewed did not show the name of the North-South Street (Sunflower Circle) and did not show the location of the property pins as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Mainard presented each Planning Commission member with a revised copy of the plat which did contain the property pin locations and the name of the street, Sunflower Circle. Don Hunnicutt then moved that the Final Plat of Meadowridge Subdivision, Phase II be approved subject to all Plat Review Committee comments. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 8-0. The next item on the agenda was a Conditional Use Request submitted by Virginia Farmer to have a home occupation to care for 4 or 5 children in her home at 2241 Woodlark. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. In the R-1 District, a "Home Occupation" for child care can be approved for no more than 6 children and cannot be approved CONDITIONAL USE = HOME OCCUPATION ..CHILD CARE IN R-1 VIRGINIA FARMER Planning Commission Meeting SujJuete 13, 1981 • Page 2 • for a period of more than one year. Ms. Farmer was present to represent the request She informed the Commission that she was aware that the ordinance restricts her hours of operation to between 7:30, A.M. and 5:30, P.M. There was no one present to oppose the request. Martin Redfern moved that the Home Occupation be granted. Newton Hailey seconded. the motion, which was approved on a vote of 7-0-1. Gitelman, Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks, Wilson, Redfern and Hailey voted "Aye"; Cullers abstained from voting. Cullers stated that he really did not object to the request, but felt that the Commission should stop "penalizing" people who are honest enough to seek approval for a home occupation. The next item on the agenda was a GOLDICH $ SMITH Conditional Use request submitted by Peter Goldich DUPLEX..IN R-1 and Steven G. Smith to have a duplex in an 660 WHILLOCK ST. R-1 Zoning District at 660 Whillock Street. Steven G. Smith was present to represent the request. Chairman Jacks asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones said that the green postal return receipts had been submitted to her office for all of the certified letters which the applicant mailed except one. She said her office had mailed that person an agenda of the meeting. Mr. Smith said that there is already a duplex on the very end of Whillock Street. He said he has plenty of parking space for a duplex. This is an existing house with 1100 square feet upstairs and downstairs. The downstairs is like a basement except it is all above ground. It already has two entrances into the downstairs and it will only be a matter of plumbing to convert it into a duplex. Smith said the East side of the property is wooded and parking will be located on the West side of the structure. Don Hunnicutt asked if Mr. Smith lived there. He said he did not; this will be rental property. There was no one else present to either speak for or against the request. Morton Gitelman moved to approve the conditional use request for a duplex at 660 Whillock Street. Martin Redfern seconded, the motion which was approved unanimously 8-0. The next item on the agenda was the PETITION TO VACATE AND petition to vacate and abandon the right of ABANDON way for Delaware Avenue between vacated DELAWARE AVENUE Ohio Street and Stone Street. Chairman Jacks stated that several weeks ago the Commission had on its agenda a Large Scale Development Plan for the property West of this right of way along with a petition to vacate this portion of Delaware. The Commission had approved the Large Scale Development contingent upon the closing of Delaware Avenue and had recommended to the Board of Directors that Delaware be vacated. When it was considered by the Board of Directors, the Board referred the petition to vacate Delaware Avenue back to the Planning Commission • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 3 because there were some residents of the area appearing in opposition to the street closing. There was no one present on behalf of the petition to vacate Delaware Avenue or the developer of the property to the West. Cecil Cogburn, 282 California Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the petition to vacate Delaware. He stated that he did not believe the main issue is the closing of Delaware Avenue, but is that the developer is trying to put too large a development on too small a plot. He said he believes the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a case that spans the entire limits of R-2 Zoning; the adjoining properties meet R-1 Zoning; and that this developer needs R-3 Zoning unless the City closes the street and gives him a piece of public property. Mr. Cogburn said that he thought that only the interests of the developer had been heard in the Plat Review. Committee, Subdivision Committee, and Planning Commission Meetings. Some of the information considered had been incorrect and incomplete. He called attention to two letters from the City Engineer's Office dated June 1, and June 6, regarding the sewer situation in that area. Cogburn said that there is a problem with the sewer system. He said Dr. Barbara Taylor has had four overflows within the past year on the line which must serve the proposed development. The City Engineer's latest letter admits to two of those overflows. Mr. Cogburn said that the Planning Office letter of May 20 which summarized the comments submitted on the petition to vacate Delaware Avenue listed no objections from those responding. Mr. Cogburn stated there were some objections stated in the Plat Review Minutes of May 7. He proceeded to read excerpts from those minutes as follows: Clayton Powell's comments about drainage which he did not want worsened; Larry Wood had asked Mr. Powell to comment on the two proposed driveways onto Stone Street and the steep grade. Mr. Powell said he did not have a problem with the two driveways, but did suggest that since the school would have a driveway on the vacated right of way, the developers consider closing their easternmost driveway and share a driveway with the school system. Larry Wood had also indicated that it may be hard to provide fire protection to the two rear structures proposed without using Delaware Avenue. He said Page 3 of those minutes indicate comments from utility representatives and City Officials indicating a need for Delaware Avenue. Further he said this development would cost the adjoining property owners reduced property values. It will add to the already critical drainage, sewer and traffic situations in the area. It would nearly double the number of families on the sewer line just above the point where the trouble already exists. He said there are many children who walk in this area and many of the drivers in the flow of traffic are young drivers. Mr. Cogburn said he thought the reasons the Fayetteville School District was agreeing to the closing of Delaware was because they expect it to be a superficial closing and not a real closing and because one of the superintendents either owns or did own the property proposed for development. Mr. Cogburn invited the Commissioners to try using his driveway, which he said is much safer than either of the proposed driveways will be. The traffic is heavy during school terms from 7:00 A.M. until 9:30 A.M.; from 12:00 noon until 1:30 P.M..;from 2:30 P.M. until 4:00 P.M.; and any night there is an athletic event or special school function.. Mr. Cogburn asked if the Board of Directors had passed an ordinance regarding on-site and off-site improvements since the Commission's last meeting. Bobbie Jones stated that Section 1 of Ordinance 2732'.which was passed June 16, 1981, had added the following wording as a reason for which the Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 • Page 4 • • Planning Commission may refuse to approve a Large Scale Development Plan: "The developer refuses to comply with paragraph (2) (b) of this section pertaining to required on-site and off-site improvements." She said that ordinance also clarifies the appeal procedure on Large Scale Developments. Dr. Barbara Taylor, 243 Virginia Avenue, said the people in the neighborhood are concerned about the effect the development will have on the existing sewer and drainage problems in the neighborhood. She said a collector sewer line running through her back yard has overflowed with raw sewage four times within the past twelve months just from the ordinary use in the neighborhood. The drainage from the proposed development would not run down hill on Stone Street beside the development, but would travel down the North side of the property to Virginia Avenue. She reviewed the area of the drainage basin and said that during an ordinary rain, the water is up over the gutters and into the yards She said taking about 2 acres which has long been wooded and adding buildings and paving will increase the amount of water. Taylor suggested the developer add some off-site or on-site drainage measures to alleviate this problem. She asked the Planning Commission to work with the developers to alleviate the problems before construction on the development begins. Chairman Jacks stated that the Commission's approval of the Large Scale Development Plan was contingent upon the closing of Delaware Avenue. The Commission sent the closing of Delaware to the Board of Directors, and they have sent it back to the Commission. If the Commission affirms that recommendation, it will consider the Large Scale Development Plan approved. He said the approval of the Large Scale Development hinges on what the Board of Directors does on the closing of Delaware Avenue. Mr. Cogburn asked that the Commission consider the two letters from Don Bunn, City Engineer, dated June 1 and June 8. Gary Carnahan arrived to represent the developer of the proposed apartments. Newton Hailey asked to have the two letters from the City Engineer read. Chairman Jacks read portions of those letters. Newton Hailey said he was not sure what the Commission can do. The property is zoned properly; the developer has gone through the proper procedures; the City Street Superintendent and City Engineer have both said they have no objections. Chairman Jacks said that the Commission is called upon to either affirm or change its previous recommendation to the Board of Directors on the closing of Delaware Avenue, which recommended the closing. Mr. Hailey noted that both of the adjacent property owners have no objections to the closing. Don Hunnicutt said if the street is not closed, the setbacks from Delaware would have to be waived. Bobbie Jones said this was something that only the Board of Adjustment can do. Gary Carnahan stated that based on his calculations there is a 43 acre drainage area coming into a culvert. The Street Superintendent has supplied a drawing showing the direction of flow of this drainage tile. Carnahan said he had looked at the culvert and it is almost completely filled with mud, there is no way any storm water could go through it. Mr. Carnahan said his calculations showed that the lot in question would still have 38% green space when they are through with their development. Mr. Carnahan said the changes that would be made in the development would increase the run-off into that drainage by about .6%. He referred to the objections to sewer and to the fact that the City Engineer nig Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 5 had responded to those. He said the noise and traffic are just part of the location, being near to the University and the High School. The proposed 25 units are not, in his opinion, a significant increase to what is there. He said they would furnish on-site parking, and the reason for the driveways shown as they are is because of the terrain on the lot. There is a 20 ft. change in elevation across the front of the lot, which would make it impossible to serve the entire property by one driveway. He said the grade of the parking lots is 6% or less. Joe Wilson asked if the problem with the sewer was related to storm water or to normal demands. Mrs. Taylor said that only one of the problems she has had within the past 12 months was associated with storm water; the other 3 were not. Alvin Neal, 224 Virginia Avenue, stated that twice a day, morning and afternoon, the water level in the drainage ditch rises about 6 inches. He thought this might be due to overflow from the swimming pool at the Youth Center. Mr. Carnahan said the water will continue to go where it has always gone. The developers have 1.2 acres; the drainage area is 43 acres; he has calculated an increase from 60% to 95% in run-off with 38% of the development left in green space and this is how he arrived at the .6% increase He said this area drains all the way from Yocum Hall at the University, the apartments on Duncan Avenue, the High School and the Youth Center. Don Hunnicutt stated that he thought the arguments presented had been "hashing out" the Large Scale Development and not the street closing. He said he was in favor of closing the street if this development is going in; but if this development does not go in he would not be in favor of closing Delaware until he had seen the future development plans for the property. Morton Gitelman said the City Board will close or vacate the street by City Ordinance and all the Planning Commission can do is recommend. He said the Commission's function is minimal on street closings. If all the property owners on both sides of the dedicated street want to vacate and close it, the only reason for denying them the right to do that is that there is some other kind of public need for a dedicated street. He said it is not really giving public property away because that street originally came from those property owners. If all the property owners agree ( to the petition for closing) there must be some really strong public need; if the street connects up to other streets then you have a real problem. But, here is a street that doesn't connect up to any other streets. Don Hunnicutt said he thought it would create much more of a water problem if the development were to have access off Delaware than the way it would as presently laid out. Windell Cullers said the fact is that the property can be developed in some way now; it is just a question of a more intensive development if the street is closed. He said the Commission could not help the opposition by preventing this property from being developed. There is always the possibility of worse development of the property. He agreed with the comments made by Mr. Gitelman on the validity of the petition to close Delaware and said that in this case, the Large Scale Development is almost secondary. Mort Gitelman moved that the petition to close and vacate Delaware Avenue be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval again. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. Martin Redfern asked if this motion should make the closing contingent upon vehicles such as sanitation vehicles and school vehicles having the right of access across this right of way. Chairman Jacks advised that the school will have ownership ,QQJ Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 • Page 6 of half of the vacated street. Mr. Gitelman said that once a street is vacated, it is no longer a street. He did not choose to amend his motion as originally stated. Mr. Cogburn said the school is "public". He asked that it be retained as a public easement saying he had used the "street" himself. Chairman Jacks stated he could call this to the attention of the Board of Directors when it is before them. The motion to reaffirm the previous recommendation was approved unanimously, 8-0. The next item on the agenda AMENDMENT TO GENERAL LAND USE was a public hearing to consider an PLAN amendment to the General Land Use Plan PUBLIC HEARING for an area described generally as follows: West of Garland (Highway 112); North of Wedington Drive (Highway 16 West); South of Moore Lane; and extending through the area of Giles Addition and Bird Haven Terrace on the West. Planning Consultant Larry Wood introduced the public hearing by showing maps which he had prepared showing the actual existing land use in the area, the existing zoning pattern in the area, and his recommendations for changes to the General Land Use Plan. He said that at the time the General Plan for Fayetteville was adopted in 1970, there was not a proposed interchange at Mt. Comfort Road and Highway 71 By-pass. He said he now anticipates a land use change in this area because it is going from an internal neighborhood situation with no access to the By -Pass and no reason to introduce commercial and office uses to it because of access problems to an external situation because of the interchange. He pointed out the areas of existing R-2, R-3 and commercial development. He said he recommended the Commission recognize the economic change around the interchange, the increased demand for higher uses than single family residential, and attempt to buffer and transition away from this back to single family on the periphery. Wood recommended that the single family developed South of the churches (Calvary Baptist and Sang Avenue Baptist) be protected and fill in from the R-3 area back to the By-pass with a medium density development. Fill in from the mobile home park on the North down all the way to Highway 16. Wood said he had driven the area recently with Wilson Kimbrough, resident of the area, who is concerned about commercial as recommended by this plan at the end of Deane and Porter Road. He said there are two blind spots on that road, one from the North looking South, and another from the South looking North. Mr. Wood said he was not sure that changing to office or apartment use would change the traffic situation that much and he did not think leaving it R-1 is realistic. Wood further stated that the land on the South side of Deane Street is a mixture of older houses with some newer ones on extremely deep lots. He has recommended multi -family up to the East side of the University parcel of agricultural property; then filled in between Garland, Cleveland and Sunset with multi -family. Chairman Jacks pointed out that the public hearing was advertised only for the properties lying North of Wedington Drive and that the Commission can only consider the land use plan North of Wedington. Chairman Jacks said that he was appalled at the extent of R-2 recommended. He said if this plan were adopted, the Commission would feel almost compelled to approve a rezoning petition submitted in the direction shown. He admitted he did not know where he would suggest eliminating the R-2. I2LA • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 7 Morton Gitelman asked for a summary of the existing inventory of R-2 and R-3 located elsewhere in the City. Also, he asked if the Commission ought to look toward encouraging the multi -family use closer in rather than assume that the By-pass and the roads West of the By -Pass is a natural area for higher density growth; or, should the Commission use the single family residential around the By -Pass to force more higher density infilling. He said if the City already has a lot of vacant R-2 and R-3 property this would have an impact. The Commission should want to keep the multi -family toward the University of Arkansas and the established commercial areas of the City. Mr. Wood said the City does have quite a bit of undeveloped R-2 property around the City and proceeded to point out some of those areas throughout the different parts of the City. He said that from a short range point of view, the City should encourage the inner part of the City to develop first and take advantage of the existing public facilities. However, from a long range point, he said he thinks the By -Pass and beyond will develop in a more intensive pattern than single family. He expressed fears that the days of single family development are near an end. He said he was unsure if this would mean going to smaller sized single family lots, more mobile home developments, or just a denser land use pattern, perhaps an intermediate between the present R-1 and R-2 zones to allow up to 10 or 12 units per acre. Morton Gitelman said that the Commission has based a lot of assumptions on the By -Pass, starting with the assumption that major intersections around the By -Pass would tend toward commercial development. Your next assumption is to use medium density residential and offices to buffer from the single family. He suggested the basic assumptions should be questioned. Is it really necessary to allocate commercial uses at all the major intersections on something like the By -Pass, when today we are thinking about restoring commercial activity toward town centers and getting away from the regional commercial uses. He said that single family development is still a good way of keeping the real development closer into town. The demand for commercial at the By -Pass intersections might taper off as much as the demand for single family. He stated he was bothered by the scattering development of multi -family in isolated places. He said the Commission would continue to have the battle of people living in small homes in relatively undeveloped areas with apartment development here and another half a mile away and not a very unified development. Elizabeth Crocker asked how much of the property in the proposal was presently farmland being used as farmland. She said she thought the Commission should think of that as a concern, also. Mr. Wood said a good share is being used for agricultural land. She thought a lot of cities have found that urban sprawl is eating up good farmland and felt that the Commission had an obligation to protect it. Martin Redfern stated that nationally, there are about 3 million acres. of farmland converted to non -farmland per year. It is difficult to stop it in a rapidly growing area. Mr. Redfern called attention to the other interchanges onto the By -Pass, Gregg Avenue, Highway 112, Highway 16 West, Highway 62 West and Cato Springs Road He said that compared to all those, the interchange at Mt. Comfort Road seemed to be the least desirable of the interchanges. He said most of the businesses on out Mt. Comfort Road appear to be outside the City Limits. He could not see the Mt. Comfort interchange becoming developed the way the other interchanges are. Mr. Wood agreed and said he thought it would become a mess due to the way it is 42,2 Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 • Page 8 • • designed with a curve, service road, off -ramp and two more off -ramps all in a very sight -limited area. He said he thought any commercial or office uses that did develop there would be very light ones compared to Highways 16, 62 or 112. Mr. Redfern said he would prefer the land use plan look at a much smaller area around the interchange at this time. Mr. Redfern suggested concentrating on some of the triangular areas right around the interchange, extending to the West as far as the conditional uses, use the duplexes in Bird Haven Terrace as a vertical line, then work back to the East toward the By-pass; on the other side (East side) of the By -Pass, pick up the triangle shown as commercial on the proposal and work on down to about Sycamore West of Porter Road and zone all of that R-0. Joe Wilson said he thinks the concept of looking at R-1 and R-2 is outdated. He said it is not true that the only place you can build a single family home is in R-1. The City will never fill up all the low density residential shown on the land use map with single family homes in the next 75 years. If the population doubles and becomes 80,000 people, the other 40,000 will not buy single family homes; the trend nationwide is toward smaller lots with homes of 1,200,r,300',or 1,400 square feet in them; this does not necessarily have to be built in R-1. He said he thinks the concept of saying it has to be R-1 or it is bad is not realistic. Jim Vizzier stated that he, Attorney Richard Hipp, and Engineer Mel Milholland had been working on a proposal on what is commonly referred to as the Lushbaugh- Cole property which is being purchased by Sterling Anders, John Maguire and Jim Potts. He said he has a problem reconciling what Mr. Wood is proposing to what his clients want to do. His clients are mostly concerned with the existing A-1 tract between the By -Pass amd the R-2 rezoned by Lushbaugh-Cole. His clients wish to put in some light warehousing and wholesaling businesses that would be served by trucks and need to be located on the By -Pass. Many of these businesses want to serve the region, not just Fayetteville. There are location problems with all of the existing I-1 zones. Their idea is to develop their property South of Mt. Comfort fronting on the West side of the By -Pass so that trucks can get on and off with little problem. Mr. Vizzier gave some development comparisons on the property as follows: To develop the 371/2 acres R-2, it would have a potential of 900 dwelling units; if it were to develop in 3 family structures, it would be about 360 units at approximately $40,000 per unit for an assessed valuation of $3,000,000 having taxes of approximately $250,000. There would be approximately 4,000 ft. of streets and utilities, a potential of 360 children requiring 15 school rooms. There could be traffic of 2 cars per unit, plus police and fire protection. If it were developed I-2, he would assume 2-1/2 acre plots each worth $50,000 having a $250,000 building on it for a total of 15 such units with a total assessed valuation of $4,500,000 and paying taxes of $1,000,000. This would require about 20% less in streets and utilities and you don't have to worry about schools. This could provide new jobs for employees who would have to be housed. He pointed out that along the By -Pass you have a lot of noise and people who have a choice would not wish to live there. He said his clients see a market now for the type service they propose, but do not know if they will have a market for the R-2 development within the next 15 to 20 years Windell Cullers asked if the service road along this stretch of the By -Pass is presently under construction by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Richard Hipp said that his clients are working with the City Attorney on acquiring "p3 Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 9 right of way. They are interested in dedicating as much as they can and helping acquire the rest. Mr. Vizzier said he had spent an hour with Wilson Kimbrough on his proposal. He said they are very much concerned about anything that will increase traffic out there. Mr. Hipp suggested that since Larry Wood had stated the commercial he had shown as proposed on the East side of the By -Pass is not practical because of traffic problems, the Commission look at something that will serve regional needs where truck traffic can come in and out off the By -Pass. Gordon Houston stated he was in favor of the proposal submitted by Larry Wood. He said he had probably built the last two single family dwellings constructed in that area about five years ago. He did not expect any other single family dwellings to be constructed in that area. It has mixed uses. Houston said he would like to construct "townhomes" in a garden type setting such as he has seen in other towns. Sid Noorbakhsh said that he is in favor of Mr. Wood's proposal. The general economics of the area require looking at closer. He thought R-1 in that area is pretty much out of the question. Sterling Anders estimated a projected traffic count around the interchange of up to 4200 trips per day for R-2 zoning and about 900 trips per day for .:_. warehousing and light commercial. Anders said he was in favor of Mr. Vizzier's request for consideration of some I-1 land use. Richard Hipp said there just is not that much available warehousing and wholesaling land with easy ingress and egress in the City. In answer to a question from Mr. Redfern, Mr. Wood said that he had reversed the pattern of commercial -office on the two sides of the interchange in order to decrease the density of traffic on the curve. Don Hunnicutt said he would like to see a more general statement on R-2 away from the R-1 areas. He did not think that the lines should be drawn so as to set such definite boundaries for each use around the intersection. Windell Cullers said that in other cities in which he had been he had seen a lot of intersections for commercial. He said the character of the road is completely different from Highways 16, 62 and 112; each of those has some commercial development past the By -Pass. He said this interchange is primarily an exit for the people who live out there. He was concerned about the dip and rise in the grade of the road. He said the service road would make it better on the West side of the By -Pass, but no one knows the time frame on the service road now. He said he would prefer to leave the General Plan like it is until the demand for rezoning is there. He said the population has grown less than 20% in the last ten years and asked where the people to make that development viable would come from. This plan is so different from what the Commission has considered in the amount of R-2 and the way it is being asked for, and asked if this did not deviate from what the Commission usually does. Mr. Wood agreed that it is not consistent with what he usually recommends, but said that within the past 13 years, the —City has committed some land uses out there that are not consistent with planning. He felt the Ford Tractor Sales and other commercial uses around it should not be there, and what he has proposed is to try to bring development patterns back into logical transitions. The Trailwood Mobile Home Park and the land West of Highway 112 across from the Hushpuppy need to be annexed to avoid future problems Mr. Cullers said that he thought that the interchange itself, the property lying to the West of the interchange and the property lying to the East of the interchange were three different considerations and should be looked at separately. Planning Commission Meeting • July 13, 1981 Page 10 • Joe Wilson said that he thought the Commission needed to formulate a policy statement rather than draw off proposed uses for each parcel of land. Don Hunnicutt said he would rather have a statement that said the Commission would consider going to some other uses than R-1 without saying what other uses they would go to. Windell Cullers reviewed the existing development of the property East of the By -Pass and said that there is probably not all that much property there that would immediately go to R-2, but it would immediately change the character of the neighborhood and to simply say because those homes are a little older would make them candidates for R-2 is not justifiable in his opinion. Windell Cullers moved to deny acceptance of the plan presented and continue further study before the Commission accepts a more general study of the area. Don Hunnicutt seconded the motion. Morton Gitelman asked if the effect of the motion was to tell Larry Wood to go back and do the study all over again or to keep the existing land use plan and not make any changes. Mr. Cullers said he would like to ask Mr. Wood to do one study on the area East of the By -Pass, East to Garland and South to Cleveland. He said the By -Pass forms a boundary between this area and the West side of the By -Pass. He would like to see a separate study West of the By -Pass except it should be extended further out because water and sewer are available out there now. Joe Wilson said the Commission must make some kind of policy statement. It is unfair to the property owners to just keep studying and restudying. Elizabeth Crocker said that she was not in favor of denying the proposal, nor was she in favor of it. She moved to table the study until the next meeting. She said she wanted to go back out and look at the area again. Gitelman seconded the motion to table. The motion to table passed 7-1 with Gitelman, Crocker, Hunnicutt, Jacks, Redfern, Cullers, and Hailey voting "Aye"; Wilson voted "Nay". The next item on the agenda was REZONING PETITION R81-11 a public hearing on Rezoning Petition SID AND JUDIE NOORBAKHSH R81-11, Sid and Judie Noorbakhsh to rezone PORTER 4 SYCAMORE property located South of Sycamore Street and West of Porter Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District. This petition was tabled at the June 22, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Noorbakhsh was present and advised the Commission that he was not a big developer in town. He said he was concerned with what the Commission was going to approve for this area because he has to do something with his property quickly. Bobbie Jones advised that this petition had originally been advertised for June 22. The Commission must take action on the petition within 45 days from that date, or the applicant must agree in writing to have it tabled beyond that date, or the petition will automatically go on to the Board of Directors as though recommended for approval. The petition may be tabled for another two weeks, until July 27, without the 45 day period.expiring. Elizabeth Crocker moved that Petition R81-11, Sid and Judie Noorbakhsh, be tabled until the meeting of July 27, 1981. She said the Commission is considering a decision which affects the lives of a substantial number of people. Newton Hailey seconded the motion. • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 11 Morton Gitelman stated that regardless of the outcome of the proposed change in the Land Use Plan, he would be in favor of Mr. Noorbakhsh's petition. He would be in favor even under the existing plan. Gitelman said that he thinks the inevitability of developers having to go to R-2 is a fact of life, and he is not concerned about the mixing of apartments and single family dwellings. Windell Cullers stated that he does live in the area, on Lawson Street; but that he will not be greatly affected by this himself. He said he has been very much apposed to changes in R-1 neighborhoods for whatever reason. He thinks that there is some R-1 somewhere which will have to be protected, but the Commission votes economics in most cases. He said we seem to go to a greater density land use for the property that is older or of lesser value when it was built and he did not think that is justified. Cullers said the people living in a $10,000 house in R-1 need defense from the Commission as much as people that live in an $85,000 house, and he did not think the Commission has been consistent in that. He said he was also concerned about the amount of land that is taken out of agricultural areas and put into either R-1 or R-2. It is his contention that the R-2 on the Southeast corner of Deane Street and Porter Road is spot zoning, and is now being used as a stepping stone to go to more R-2. A vote was taken on the motion to table Petition R81-11 and the motion was approved 7-1 with Gitelman, Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks, Wilson, Redfern and Hailey voting "Aye"; Cullers voted "Nay". Because of the length of time the DISCUSSION meeting had already consumed, Joe Wilson FUTURE LANDSCAPING moved that the next item on the agenda, the ORDINANCE discussion of a future landscaping ordinance, be tabled until the next meeting. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion which was approved unanimously 8-0. The last item on the agenda was an addendum item, a request for waiver of minimum lot size applicable to a lot split, submitted by Joe Terminella for Lot 16, Miller Addition, located in the 400 Block of West zoned R-1, Low Density Willoughby Road. The property is Residential District. There was no one present to represent the request. Chairman Jacks asked the Commission if they wished to hear the matter at this meeting. Bobbie Jones said the request had been submitted to her office in time to be on the agenda, but she had understood Mr. Terminella wanted to give some more thought to the requirement for a cash in lieu of land park donation. While the agenda was being run for mailing he had called and asked if the Commission had acted on his request yet, so she had added it as an addendum item. Martin Redfern moved to table this request until the next meeting, July 27. The motion died for lack of a second. Bobbie Jones pointed out that this request is only to divide Lot 16 into 2 lots. The lots on the drawing, including the tandem lots have all already been platted and approved as shown. JOE TERMINELLA LOT SPLIT WAIVER LOT 16, MILLER ADD. /2 7A • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1981 Page 12 Chairman Jacks asked if this was not what the Commission had been trying to get away from when it set the minimum 3 acres in each parcel for the first split and S acres in each parcel for the second and third split in which the people tried to develop a subdivision without the necessary improvements that go with a subdivision. He asked if the Commission approves this request, might they not have other requests to split the other lots, also. Elizabeth Crocker said she is concerned since this is not developed already, that this request would set a precedent. She said she did not think it is an orderly way to develop the property. Crocker said she thought if it needs to be replatted, the person requesting this waiver should come back to the Commission with a replat rather than try to replat it in this fashion. She thought it was an effort to get around the purpose of the lot split ordinance. On the basis of her foregoing comments, she moved to deny the request. Windell Cullers seconded_.the motion which passed unanimously 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:37, P.M.