Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman, Ernest Jacks, at 5:28 P.M., Monday, September 28, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern, Newton Hailey (arrived late), Morton Gitelman (arrived late). MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Crocker, Windell Cullers. Gail Mainard, Harry Gray, Bill Martin, Truman Yancey, Walter Turnbow, Bob Crafton, Frank Farrish, Larry Wood, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, others. Hunnicutt stated he would move•approval of the minutes of the September_14, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting_if they would be amended to show him as being present. With that amendment, the minutes of the September 14, 1981 Commission Meeting were approved. The next item for consideration was the approval of the Concurrent Plat to Replat Lot 8, Block 3, Kantz Place located West of East Oaks Drive and North of Arkansas State Highway 45; Gordon Wilkins, Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Gail Mainard was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman,moved the Concurrent Plat to replat Lot 8, Block 3, Kantz Place be approved subject to Plat Review Committee comments. David Williams seconded. Martin Redfern stated there was an omission in Article 7, Section 4 of the covenants dealing with class B membership. Gail Mainard stated that was probably a date, and it would be corrected. Redfern asked the meaning of the last part of Article 10 where it states common area may be annexed to Wilkins Place with the consent of 2/3 of the property owners. He asked if this meant within the development. Bobbie Jones stated they may incorporate adjoining lots if the property owners consent. Hunnicutt stated it had come up in the Subdivision Committee meeting that this developer may be required to contribute to the parks acquisition fund since this is a replat. The motion to approve the concurrent plat passed (5-0), with Jacks, Hunnicutt, Williams, Wilson F, Redfern present. MINUTES Planning CONCURRENT PLAT REPLAT LOT 8, BLOCK 3, KANTZ PLACE The next item of business was the approval of the Concept Plat of Stone Gate located North of CONCEPT PLAT STONE GATE BILL MARTIN Highway 45 East and East of Box Avenue; Bill Martin - Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. 167 J Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 2 Harry Gray and Bill Martin were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt stated there were no comments from the Subdivision Committee. If the concept is submitted as a regular subdivision, waivers..will have to be requested, and if it is submitted as a PUD, waivers will have to be requested. Jacks stated he did not see this concept as a PUD. He felt the philosophy `c2 of a PUD was to draw the housing together with large areas of green space. He Q felt this was more in line with a Subdivision. to Newton Hailey arrived at 5:32, P.M. ED Hunnicutt stated the PUD comes into line with the request that the street be tg private. CD Jacks stated there have been some strong feelings about private streets V from the City Street Superintendent, with which he did not agree. Cynthia Stewart stated that is due to problems with the. City ending up maintaining the private streets. Bobbie Jones stated other than in PUD's, there are no private streets ti within the City in regular subdivisions. Bobbie Jones said that whether it is submitted as a PUD or a subdivision, the maximum length of a dead end street will have to be waived. Gray stated that is the reason for the Concept Plat. He wanted the feeling ,031 of the Planning Commission on the private street within a regular subdivision. The developer proposes a private street with 24 ft. of width and no parking on the street. Jacks asked if the developer didnot want to provide open space Gray stated the concept is to provide larger lots. Gray stated if this is submitted as a subdivision, the Planning Commission will have to waive the frontage requirement on a public street. If it is submitted as a PUD, the percentage of green space will have to be waived. Gray said the developer is proposing a Property Owner's Association for maintenance of the private street. This concept will be planned by a firm in Tulsa, they have subdivisions there with electronic gates and fire, police and trash services. He stated the concept works in Tulsa, and the developer is exploring this idea. Jacks asked what type of construction would be used on the streets. Gray stated they propose something similar to West Wind where the street will be 24 ft. with curb and gutter. Morton Gitelman arrived at 5:40 P.M. Gitelman stated there are private streets not located in PUD's within the City Limits, and cited Washington Plaza. Bobbie Jones felt that Washington Plaza was more a group housing project under the old ordinance than a subdivision. Gitelman stated what is needed is a covenant whereby the public can enforce and insure the streets will be maintained to proper specifications. Ly. Jacks felt this concept should be submitted as a Subdivision. He said he did epnot like to grant PUD's without the green space. Harry Gray stated the .City a Attorney felt this should be submitted as a subdivision with a waiver of the Cr frontage requirement on a public street. Further, Gray stated the street will 4= be constructed of concrete and will have sidewalks and street lights. The developer • proposes to covenant that there will be no parking on the street. Also, the covenants will state a certain amount of off-street parking with each residence. David Williams moved approval of the concept with the condition that before final approval, there will be assurance that streets will never be maintained at 161 Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 3 less than City Standards for a private street. Martin Redfern seconded. Gitelman stated for the record, he would feel differently about this street being private if there were some plans in the future to connect it to a public street. Since there is no exit onto or connection with a public street it is self contained, and he would go along with approval of the private street within a regular subdivision. Redfern stated some scepticism about the electronic gate idea. The motion to approve the concept plat passed (7-0). The next item of business REZONING PETITION R81-14 was the public hearing on Rezoning WALT LONGSTREET Petition R81-14, Walt Longstreet, to HWY. 265 €, HWY. 16 rezone property located on the Northeast corner of Highway 265 and Highway 16 East from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Truman Yancey was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Wood stated he is not recommending the requested C-2, for the following reasons: 1. A special study was performed on Highway 265. The Study ended:up with a recommendation approved by the Planning Commission and the City Board of Directors for R-0 District as the use for this intersection. R-0 would be in keeping with the General Plan recommendation. 2. Flooding is a problem at this site. 3. There is an access problem and site distance problem, particularly to the West of this intersection. The uses in the R-0, being generally less intensive, would be better than the C-2. Truman Yancey addressed the Commission in favor of the rezoning petition. He stated flooding'is a major problem with this tract of land. Extensive fill work and engineering will have to be performed to bring the site above flood stage Yancey said the development will have to be enough to justify this type of improvement to the site. He said there is no particular development for the site in mind, it will probably be sold if rezoned. Yancey said access to the highway is a recognized problem. He did not feel the access to this property would be less safe than other properties along the highway with the drives setback the minimum distance from the intersection. David Williams stated the jump from R-1 to C-2 is large. He felt the rezoning would enhance an already bad traffic condition. He felt the suggested R-0 would be a nice alternative. Yancey stated R-0 does not open up very many functions. He felt it would restrict the property too much and make it harder to sell. He felt C-1,and C-2 would open up more possibilities. Bill Laningham, addressed the Commission. He stated he owns the property adjacent to the North. He said when the highway was put through the whole mountain 16e1 A Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 • Page 4 • was bull dozed off and he was already experiencing problems with water drainage. He stated he would prefer an R-0 zoning. He stated he did not want his property damaged any further. Jerald Ward addressed the Commission and stated he lives just East of the property in question. He stated there is a big traffic problem at this intersection. He felt that if any businesses were installed at this location a traffic signal should be installed. Yancey stated the Master Street Plan calls for a deviation of Highway 265 North of this intersection to connect with Happy Hollow Road and bringing 265 back into Highway 16 at East Gate Shopping Center. He felt this would change the intersection to some extent. Newton Hailey asked if Mr. Yancey's client was interested in a C-2_zoning.only. Yancey stated that is correct. His client would probably go along with a C-1, but would not be interested in anything less than C-1. Hailey stated from a planning standpoint this intersection should be less intensive than a C-1 or a C-2 and moved the Rezoning Petition be denied. Morton Gitelman seconded. He stated there had been lots of public opposition to rezoning requests for C-2 on Highway 16 in the past. He stated he would like to see Highway 16 kept from being stripped commercial. Redfern felt Larry Wood's recommendation for R-0 would be the best use of the intersection. He felt in the future it would be more and more travelled. Hunnicutt stated if Highway 265 is to be rerouted,to come in at Happy Hollow, from a planning standpoint, even C-1 would not be good for this location. The motion to deny passed (7-0). The next item of business was REZONING PETITION R81 -1S the Rezoning Petition R81-15, Steele 71 BYPASS Investment Company to rezone property located STEELE INVESTMENT CO.. West of Highway 71 North and South of Highway 71 Bypass from A-1, Agricultural District,to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Bob Crafton and Walter Turnbow were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Wood stated that in 1972 when the Bypass plan was formulated, this site was not recommended for commercial because of the poor access to it. However, recently, the access to the site has been improved and the plan for access from :Highway 71B and the Bypass has been approved by the Board of Directors. With these recent developments, Wood stated he can comfortably recommend extending the C-2 West on the property and suggested terminating the. West line of the commercial with Residential Office District. He stated the R-0 is recommended so that a precedent will be set for the service road along the Bypass for something other than Commercial. Wood stated he would like to know where the developer would prefer to have the R-0 begin and suggested the creek. Bob Crafton addressed the Commission in favor of the rezoning request. He presented an enlargement of the City Zoning Map and showedtthe Commissioners the property in question. He stated the Eastern portion of the original tract is presently zoned C-2 for a depth of 617 ft. The zoning on the property was made the same depth as some other property zoned C-2 at the time the petition was heard. Crafton stated there are presently properties located close to this tract 170 Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 5 that have depths much greater than 617 ft. He cited the Gas Company property which is about 1500 ft. deep, and zoned C-2. Crafton went on to give a history of the property under petition and also a history of a prior rezoning attempt which had been carried to the State Supreme Court which upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the rezoning of the entire 39 acres to C-2. He read from the statements made by Judge Butt of the Chancery Court. Crafton stated that since the last rezoning petition for this tract was heard, there have been a lot of changes. The:location of the service road has been altered. The service road that was previously proposed did not lend itself to good commercial development. Also, the TAC Committee recommended the closure of the existing Southbound lane where the:bypass merges with 71B. If this :is done, the proposed service road to be constructed with this development would be the only logical right turn movement. Also, Crafton stated that September 10, 1981 the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department opened bids on the first 6-1/2 miles of the proposed major bypass around Springdale to Elm Springs Road. Crafton's contention was that the major bypass would take traffic North just West of Gregg Avenue and that a lot of traffic that is presently emptying out onto 71 from the bypass will not get into this portion of the bypass Crafton stated the development of the service road along would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700,000.00. He felt that if the property was developed anything other than commercial, the cost could easily double. Crafton stated he felt that conditions had changed since the prior rezoning request. Good ingress and egress has been provided. He stated the petitioner would like to see the whole tract rezoned commercial; if the Commission prefers, a small tract of R-0 can be developed to buffer the commercial from the West end of the. proposed. service road. He stated if this'is the wish of the Planning Commission, the developer would go along with 2 acres or 600 ft. from the West end of the service road East for a buffer. Wilson stated he felt the developer was being evasive by first getting the service road approved and using that as an argument for rezoning. Crafton stated he had mentioned the developer's plans to rezone the A-1 to C-2, he was not sure if it was at the Planning Commission level or the Subdivision Committee level. Jacks stated this property was at one time farmland. When the highway was installed, it was recognized that major intersections would be developed commercial. Jacks said he thought this property would stay A-1. He agreed that property along the bypass should not be developed residentially. He was for the .service -road, .hut against .the:access.to.the bypass. - He said this is the first time the Planning Commission has allowed an access to remain in spite of the limited -access ordinance. He felt the property should remain A-1, if there is going to be a limited- access highway. Crafton stated access would be controlled with right turn only traffic and an accelerate and decelerate lane. Hailey stated access has already been granted and approved. He felt that in itself changed the usage of the property. Redfern stated the traffic in this location bothers him. He said a dangerous traffic condition has to exist before the Highway Department signalizes an 171 Planning' Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 6 intersection. He felt it would be difficult turning North onto Highway 71B from West Millsap. Crafton stated Highway 71B would be widened to five lanes up to Sain Street. He thought that might improve the traffic conditions. David Williams asked Larry Wood how he felt about the size of the R-0 buffer suggested by the Developer. Larry Wood felt an R-0 buffer with a depth of 600 ft. would be fine. Redfern stated he would like to see Millsap Road signalized. Wood agreed. Walter Turnbow stated the existing commercial will be developedat this time. He said that in itself may create enough traffic to warrant signalization of the intersection before the balance of the property is developed. Jacks asked if there was anyone appearing in opposition to the rezoning request. There was no response. Hunnicutt asked what was being buffered with the R-0. Wood stated the balance Vof the service road ought to develop other than C-1 or C-2. LD David Williams moved Rezoning Petition R81 -1S be recommended to the Board oO of Directors for approval. Newton Hailey seconded Hailey said he felt this service road will be critical over a period of time. Redfern said his preference would be to see the property zoned C-2, however he was concerned about traffic at Millsap and would like to see a signal installed. Larry Wood stated he is concerned about stripping of the frontage of the bypass going West. He felt a precedent would be set for commercial along the • c3 bypass. ctj- Redfern said the traffic flow with the whole area zoned C-2 would be sufficient to warrant signalization. He said he would like to see a West boundary lag on the C-2. UMorton Gitelman stated he was going to vote against the motion. Gitelman stated that with the existance of 9 acres already zoned C-2, and 33 additional acres, to his mind adds too much to the.'present inventory of C-2 in existance. The Planning Commission is committee to not allow the bypass to turn into a commercial strip. Gitelman felt that increasing the depth of any property along the bypass will lend itself to rezoning other pieces. Rezoning of this piece of property will invariably lead to rezoning the property on the North side of the bypass, so that it will line up with the back of the mall, or head down the bypass to Johnson Road (Gregg Avenue). Gitelman felt the inevitable economic impact on the downtown would be too much commercial located around the mall. He said he was not impressed with the argument that the Highway Department divided the land because, presumably, the owners of the property were compensated for the property South of the bypass. Gitelman said he was not pursuaded by the comments made by Judge Butt at the previous rezoning attempt for this tract to offer whatever is in demand. He stated he was opposed to the request for those reasons. The motion to recommend approval for Rezoning Petition R81-15 failed to pass (3-4) with Don Hunnicutt, David Williams and Newton Hailey casting the "Aye" votes and Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, Joe Wilson and Martin Redfern casting the "Nay" votes. The Chairman stated the rezoning petition is denied and the petitioners have the right to appeal to the Board of Directors. L Martin Redfern and Morton Gitelman left the proceedings at 6:45 P.M. I72 Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 7 The next item of business was the public hearing to consider an amendment to Article 8, Section 12, of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to authorize and regulate commercial and industrial subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments. Jacks stated a committee had been formed consisting of himself, Don Hunnicutt, Larry Wood and Ervan Wimberly to try to get an amendment or a separate ordinance for a PUD of a non-residential nature. The Committee decided to amend the present ordinance. This amendment to the PUD Ordinance will allow PUDs to occur in residential, commercial or industrial districts. Jacks stated he felt Office districts should be added to the amendment. Jacks further stated the ordinance is set up to allow mixed PUDs, it provides for a mixture of residential and commercial. Jacks added that Bobbie Jones would like the ordinance to include a requirement that the present rules and regulations of the PUD Ordinance will also be adhered to, added to Section 5. Williams said he had a problem visualizing a mixture of residential and commercial. Jacks stated it is done in downtown areas with big high rises. Jacks said the formulation of the committee and the eventual drafting of the ordinance occurred because of a desire on the part of some developers to have a Property Owner!.s Association to control parking and to allow for the construction of a shell or building envelope with separate ownership of floor space. Frank Farrish stated he was appearing in favor of the amendment. He stated he is presently awaiting final action on this amendment. He has a piece of property that will encompass all of the things mentioned in the proposed amendment. His proposal will consist of a piece of property developed into a residential, multi -family condominium development for individual ownership. The building will be contiguous but with individual owners within the building. Common area, certain streets, landscaping and grounds will be maintained by a Property Owner's Association. He stated at the present time, there is no vehicle in the ordinance to encompass this type of development. Further, Farrish felt this will allow a buyer to purchase 26-2800 square feet of Office space and five parking spaces Otherwise someone would have to purchase a tract and construct a small office building. He felt the City needed this type of amendment to the ordinance. Hailey asked if Jacks felt there would be any criticism to the effect that this would be side stepping the rezoning procedure. Jacks said this was discussed in Committee and the Committee considered putting it under the Large Scale Development portion of the ordinance. However, the Committee finally decided this would be a PUD -type situation. The units will be for separate ownership, there will be no setbacks and it will be maintained by a Property Owner's Association. Hailey thought a Committee should be formed to present this to the Board of Directors. Hailey stated there is some sentiment that a PUD adds to the density of a zoning district. Farrish interjected that occurs mainly with residential type PUDs, when the zoning is commercial, people presume your're dense. Joe Wilson moved to amend Article 8, Section 12 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances with minor amendments as recommended by Ernest Jacks and Bobbie Jones. Newton Hailey seconded. Jacks stated he would like Offices added to the definition after the word PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 8, SECTION 12, APPENDIX A • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1981 Page 8 Commercial. Also, insert a requirement in existing ordinances unless specifically wa The motion to recommend the amendment passed (5-0). Section 5 requiring adherence to all ived. to Article 8, Section 12, Appendix A In response to a request from Elizabeth Crocker requesting the Planning Office to inquire about a traffic count at the intersection of Highway 265 and Highway 45 East, a letter was included in the Agenda. It stated a traffic count had been conducted in the Spring, and traffic did not warrant signalization of the intersection at this time. Cynthia Stewart explained another traffic count may be requested I. six months after the date of the last traffic count, which was held in March, 1981. LETTER FROM ARKANSAS HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT REGARDING SIGNALIZATION OF HWY. 265 AND HWY. 45 The next item of business was consideration of a resolution to the Board of Directors regarding revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING REVISION Jacks stated it had come to his attention there may be some monies available to embark on a revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Jacks said What he had in mind is a revision of what is presently on the books rather than starting over. He stated special consideration will be given to revision of the Use Unit.; portion, areas outside the bypass, etc. Larry Wood has estimated it would cost about $20,000.00 to revise the present plan. Jacks asked the Commission if they would like to send a resolution to the Board recommending this be considered. Hailey asked ifcJacks was talking about getting into the ordinances. Jacks said to some extent, such as the land use plan, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, community facilities and the master street plan. Hunnicutt asked how much the Commission would be involved in the revisions. Jacks said quite a bit, everything would be considered by Committee before going to public hearing. Bobbie Jones stated the present plan is 11 years old, and some of the studies for the plan were done as early as 1965. Jacks did not think that a start -over approach would be necessary as the ordinance has been amended accordingly. Larry Wood agreed, he felt the Commission had kept up pretty well. Jacks stated he had discussed this with Don Grimes. Mr. Grimes felt it could be built into the 1982 budget. However, Mr. Grimes wanted to know how much it would cost and what it would accomplish.. Jacks stated he would send Grimes a cost estimate and some examples of what the study needs. Jacks asked that a resolution be sent to the Board stating that the Planning Commission would like to have the Budget consider a revision or an updating of the Comprehensive Plan into the fiscal year 1982 budget. Planning Commission Meeting • September 28, 1981 Page 9 • Newton Hailey moved the resolution as stated by Ernest Jacks be sent to the Board of Directors, David Williams seconded. The motion passed (5-0). Newton Hailey asked that the Commission consider moving their time of meeting from 5:00, P.M. to 4:30 P.M. TIME OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Hunnicutt stated he saw no CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT PLATS need for the Subdivision Committee to consider a Concept Plat prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission. He felt they should go directly to the Planning Commission, as the Subdivision Committee cannot take action on them. It was agreed to adopt this procedure for Concept Plats. The meeting adjourned at 7:10,P.M.