HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-26 Minutes•
•
A meeting of
October 26, 1981,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
the Planning Commission was: held at 5:00, P.M., Monday,
in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker,
Don Hunnicutt, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers.
David Williams, Newton Hailey.
Paul Martin, Jim Lindsey, David and Jeane Randle, Paul
Marinoni, Jr., Paul Mattke, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia
Stewart, others.
Martin Redfern asked that the minutes
of the October 12, 1981 Planning Commission
Meeting be revised to indicate that he is not
in favor of an Appearance Board With that revision, the
The next item for consideration
was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition
R81-16, Paul Martin to rezone property located
South of Appleby Road and East of Gregg Avenue
(formerly Johnson Road) from A-1, Agricultural
District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District.
Paul Martin and Jim Lindsey were present to represent.
The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant. Larry Wood
stated he recommends the Planning Commission consider rezoning the subject property
to R-2 for the following reasons:
MINUTES
minutes were approved.
REZONING PETITION R81-16
PAUL MARTIN
APPLEBY ROAD f GREGG AVE.
1. The property has development problems with the flooding potential and the
possibility of grouping the structures could aid in its development;
2. The necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the
site;
3. The site has direct access to Gregg Avenue which has a minor arterial designation
and will eventually be four lane from the bypass South, property
will be disassociated from any development to the East because of Scull Creek;
4. The periphery_of a neighborhood is the desired location for more intensive
development.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing
in favor of the request.
Paul Martin, the petitioner, addressed the Commission. He stated the property
has a trailer court to the North of it. It is located in a flood control zone,
and that he felt the property would be more suitable for multi -family development
than single family development.
Beth Crocker stated that according to the map included in the Agenda, it
appears the property is not bounded by Scull Creek on the East. Bobbie Jones stated
the legal description of the property shows it as being bounded by Scull Creek on
the East.
157
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1981
• Page 2
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present appearing in opposition to
the request.
Mrs. Mae Nettleship stated she was not appearing in opposition to the request,
but wondered what the plans are for the improvement of Drake Street.
Bobbie Jones stated Drake Street is included in the Master Street Plan, and
as development occurs, it will be improved.
Martin Redfern asked if this petitioner should dedicate right of way for
Drake Street.
Mr. Paul Martin stated he had already dedicated right of way for Drake Street.
Ernest Jacks stated that is correct, the right of way is in existence.
Gitelman stated that none of the drawings submitted with this request.show
the boundaries of the Flood Plain. Bobbie Jones presented the FIRM Map for the
area.
Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He stated out of the 21.90 acres,
there is approximately 6 acres that are not in the Flood Plain. He stated a
study had been performed by the Engineering firm of Crafton, Tull and Associates,
some modification can be done to the creek, and the property can be developed.
In the Floodway, no development can occur, but development in the Flood Plain
can occur if the construction is such that floor levels are two feet above the
Flood Plain. Approximately 1/3 of this property is located in the Floodway. Lindsey
stated the creek will have to be excavated to make the project economically
feasible, R-2, R-0 or some type of commercial zoning would be necessary.
Windell Cullers asked if a PUD had been considered. Lindsey stated it would
work out about the same.
Morton Gitelman moved the rezoning request be recommended to the Board of
Directors for approval. Joe Wilson seconded.
Gitelman stated R-2 is probably the best use that can be hoped for for this
property. He stated he would not like to see the property developed commercial
or even R-0, he felt the R-2 would be suitable considering the trailer park
The motion to approve passed (7-0).
The next item of business REZONING PETITION R81-17
was the public hearing on Rezoning DAVID AND JEANE RANDLE
Petition R81-17, David and Jeane Randle NORTH STREET
to rezone property South of North Street
and East of Leverett Avenue from R-3, High
Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial
District.
David Randle was present to represent.
The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant.
Larry Wood stated he is not recommending the I-1 District, but does recommend
R-0 for the following reasons:
1. I-1 District uses are not compatible with the residential recommendations
of the General Plan and the residential uses to the East and West of the
property.
2. Industrial uses, because of their need
potential disruptive nature when close
in appropriate areas and not scattered
for easy ingress and egress, and their
to residential uses, should be grouped
throughout residential areas.
iia
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1981
Page 3
3. The intent of the General Plan is to phase out the commercial and industrial
uses within this area and not encourage further development of that nature.
4. The R-0 District recommendation, although not necessarily residential, is
considered more compatible with the surrounding uses and would allow
a reuse of the existing building.
Ernest Jacks stated that with the railroad down through this area, quite
a few industrial uses developed. The Planning Commission, when formulating
the General Plan, did not want to expand this industrial area and made a decision
to try to get those types of uses out of this location. The Commission recognized
that uses of this type need adequate ingress and egress.
David Randle addressed the Commission in favor of the request. He gave
a brief history of the site. He saidtpriortothe General Plan beingLadopted,_
the:property was zoned for.industrial':use- When the General Plan was adopted,
the property was changed to R-3. This prevents the expansion of the use now
in existence. He stated this petition arises from the fact that, with the widening
of North Street, the additional right of way required to widen the street will
take part of the existing building, and with the present ordinances, he will
be unable to expand to replace the portion of the building that will be destroyed
with the widening of North Street. To the West of the property there is an
existing City sewer lift station. When there is a large rain fall, raw sewage
is dumped into the creek, he did not feel this would be beneficial to residential
development. Also, the property is close to the railroad and he did not think
that would be suitable for residential development. He said the property to the
North of his and West of the railroad tracks is I-1, East of the railroad
tracks is zoned residential and is developedoresidential. Randle stated he did
not know what type of residential development could be put on the property.
Martin Redfern asked how much of the building will be destroyed with the
acquisition of the right of way. Randle stated all of the parking area and about
30 ft. of the existing building. He stated he would like to be able to
expand the building to make up'for the area that will be lost.
Don Hunnicutt asked if a conditional use would allow Mr. Randle to expand.
Bobbie Jones stated it would not.
Beth Crocker asked Larry Wood if the fact that the property is bounded on
the East by the railroad tracks and on the West by Scull Creek did not appear
to isolate the property.
Wood stated the property is definitely isolated. He stated he approached
his report on the property as though there was nothing on the property. He
stated with the adjacent development, he looked at it from a reasonable
zoning pattern. Crocker stated there is I-1 directly across the street from this
property. Larry Wood said the General Plan indicates a phasing out of this industrial
property. Randle asked what will happen to his property and to the Burge property.
Wood stated it will either have to be converted to an R-3 use, or come down. He said
if the property remains R-3, and 30 ft. of the building is taken down, the Planning
Administrator cannot issue a building permit for reconstruction.
Windell Cullers asked what zone would permit this property to retain its existing
use Bobbie Jones stated either C-2 with a conditional use or I-1.
Jacks asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing in opposition
to the rezoning request; there was no one present in opposition.
13
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1981
Page 4
Martin Redfern stated this is sort of a neighborhood industrial use.
Morton Gitelman stated when this area was discussed in relation to the General
Plan, the Commission talked about industrial zones that are not as intense as the
industrial park activities. He stated the industrial uses in this area have shrunk
to some extent since the adoption of the General Plan, however, there are businesses
located here that will probably remain for a long time. Especially with the
location of the railroad adjacent to those properties.
Windell Cullers stated that zoning the property industrial bothers him to some
extent. He felt that a commercial zone with a conditional use would rule out some
of the industrial uses that might be more undesirable.
Cullers moved thattthe petition be granted. Martin Redfern seconded.
Redfern stated he has the same reservations as Windell about some of the
industrial uses that could go in if Mr. Randle's operation should cease and another
industrial use placed on the property.
Morton Gitelman stated he felt the interior design business that has been
installed on the Burge property was a very attractive reuse of the property. He
felt it was more compatible with commercial than industrial. He said_he.had
always looked at the Randle property as potential commercial..
Windell Cullers stated he could change his motion to rezone to C-2 with
a conditional use:. Bobbie Jones stated that if the C-2 is recommended the Conditional
Use will have to go through at another time so that property owners may be
renotified.
Redfern asked if a rider could be placed on the rezoning approval that if
the Randle's ever vacate the property it would revert to something more in line with
the General Plan.
David McWethy stated the Planning Commission cannot attach conditions to
approval of a rezoning. He stated, however, the petitioner could voluntarily place
conditions on himself:
Randle stated he would have to check out the implications of such conditions
before he could agree to them.
The motion to recommend Rezoning Petition R81-17 to the Board for approval
passed (7-0).
The next item of business REZONING PETITION R81-18
was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition PAUL & T1ARY MARINONI
R81-18, Paul and Mary Marinoni to rezone HWY. 16 WEST AND 71 BYPASS
property at the SE corner of Highway 71 Bypass and
Hwy. 16 West from R-1, Low Density Residential
District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District.
Paul Marinoni, Jr. and Paul Mattke were present to represent.
The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant.
Larry Wood stated the requested C-2 District is recommended for the following
reasons:
1. The property is at the intersection of two major arterials, a criterion for
commercial locations.
2. The General Plan recommends commercial as a future land use for this intersection .
3. The public facilities and services necessary for commercial development
are available
18q
C^)
C.>)
u
o Planning Commission Meeting
• U October 26, 1981
Page 5
CD
co
C3
LUy 4. Topographically, the property is well suited for commercial development.
v
Wood stated he had always looked at this property as a major commercial site.
�) Hunnicutt asked what the difference between this site is and the Steele property
Oat the intersection of Highway 71 North and 71 Bypass Wood stated the primary
o difference is access. With the location of the service road in connection with this
property, there will be potential for several points of ingress and egress. There
is 600 ft. of frontage along Highway 16 West.
Joe Wilson asked what the zoning of the property directly South and East of
this property is. Larry Wood stated it is R-1 and that the property South and East
of this property is owned by the petitioner.
Paul Marinoni, Jr. addressed the Commission. He stated he has approximately
138 acres that he plans to develop. This portion consists of about 27-1/2 acres,
he showed.the Commission his tentative plans for the remainder of the property
including a park land contribution. He stated a preliminary and final plat had
been filed on one phase of a residential subdivison. He stated the developer is
creating a neighborhood and would create a need for commercial consumer goods.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone appearing in opposition.to the request.
There was no opposition.
Joe Wilson stated he has a problem with this request in that a portion of
the total tract had been brought in for commercial rezoning with other pieces
to be rezoned some time in the future. He felt that a concept plan should be
• submitted with the whole development rather than in pieces.
Marinoni stated if that is what the Commission desires, it could be done,
all that would need to be completed would be the legal.. descriptions for each tract.
Jacks stated Wilson had a good point, but the question before the Commission
tonight is this particular request.
Beth Crocker stated she understood what Joe Wilson was talking about,
but she did not feel the same way. She felt that even if the developer never brought
in the other property to be developed it would remain R-1. She stated she would be
more in favor of the C-2 than the other little pieces of proposed tracts to be
rezoned.
Marinoni stated that was the reason an overall plan had not been submitted,
much of this is tentative.
Hunnicutt stated this was along the lines of what Mr. Marinoni presented to
the Commission when he started the R-1 subdivision. He did not see any major
changes
Don Hunnicutt moved that rezoning petition R81-18 be recommended to the Board
for approval.
Beth Crocker seconded.
The motion passed (6-1) with Gitelman, Crocker, Hunnicutt, Jacks, Redfern
and Cullers voting "Aye" and Wilson casting the "Nay" vote.
0
U
u
CJ
CDC3
C1
L
L
The next item of business was NEW SCHOOL - EXTENTION ON
a request by the New School for further PAVING PARKING AREA
extension of time on paving their 2460 NORTH GREGG AVENUE
• parking area at 2460 North Gregg Avenue.
Ernest Jacks stated the letter fron,Mr. Mandrell
states the New School feels they will acquire the needed funds to complete the
paving by January 1983.
Hunnicutt asked if the New School had been issued a certificate of occupancy.
185 J
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1981
Page 6
Bobbie Jones stated they only had temporary permission to occupy the structure.
Redfern stated the Commission should expect more of these types of requests.
Bobbie Jones stated requests for extensions of this type are becoming more
frequent in commercial areas as well.
Windell Cullers moved that an extension of one year be granted to the New
School (until October 26, 1982); Joe Wilson seconded.
The motion passed (6-1) with Gitelman, Crocker, Jacks, Wilson, Redfern and
Cullers casting the "Aye" votes and Hunnicutt voting "Nay".
The last item of business REPORT ON PROPOSED
was a report on the proposed LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Landscape Ordinance.
Jacks stated the Commission had requested he go
to the Board of Directors and present the proposal to the Board. He stated he had
done so on October 20, 1981 and the Board, with one exception, appeared to be highly
in favor of the proposal and asked the Commission to proceed with the development
of the ordinance along the lines indicated.
Jacks stated he had received an excerpt from the ordinance submitted by
Bobbie Jones, in which she requests the P-1 zone be included in the section of the
ordinance whereby the minimum setback may be reduced to 25 ft. by having no parking
between the street and the building with the installation of landscaping.
Jacks stated a criticisimLhad_aiso:been submitted by David McWethy. Jacks
said he felt Mr. McWethy's comments were well made. He felt he was getting into
details which had not been covered yet. So far, the Commission has been concerned
with setting up the intensity of the requirements.
Mr. McWethy was also concerned about the implementation of the proposal.
Bobbie Jones stated that Sondra Wright has been going out on final inspections
and checking required improvements. Landscaping, where requireddis now being
regulated in this manner. However, there is. nothing set up at this time to
go back and check to see if the landscaping is still living.
Jacks stated the burden of this type of enforcement was discussed to some
degree. He said if the landscape ordinance is put off until personnel is added
to inspect the landscaping, there may never be a landscaping ordinance.
Beth Crocker felt that citizen groups should get involved in the implementation
of the ordinance.
Redfern stated the only landscaping that he has heard severe criticism on is
at Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
Gitelman stated they were supposed to plant a screen of living trees along the
East property line and they installed 6 dead Poplars.
Redfern stated he was against an Appearance Board, and he was not sure a
citizens group would be workable.
Gitelman stated the ordihance would be dependent on the land values in various
parts of town. He stated he could not see applying this landscape ordinance
to the new First National Bank Building and the Square. On something like Colt
Square or the Martin rezoning, it will be easy to implement because the land is not
developed... However, where someone comes along doing the Penney's store where land
values are high and density is high, waivers will be granted, and that bothered him.
He felt the market and costs of land in some parts of town will force waivers:to be
granted.
18b
Planning Commission Meeting
• October 28, 1981
Page 7
•
•
Cullers stated he was not in favor of the ordinance. He stated he had heard
some reservations about the landscape ordinance voiced on Channel 2. Jacks stated
there had also been comments to the effect that the ordinance was not strong enough.
Cullers felt other than Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, he could not point out one
development andsay it was a lousy addition to the City. He felt that the person
who has room will be penalized by this ordinance, and not the person with more
valuable property.
Jacks stated intensity of development could be taken into consideration.
Cullers felt property owners will put their property into a position to make
them money. He felt there would be a:lot of problems, with enforcement of the
ordinance. He felt a -lot of people will try to get around it. Also, Cullers did
not agree with the 2:1 ratio of bushes to trees. He felt there would be cases
where a row of trees will look better than trees combined with bushes; or a planting
of azaleas would look better than trees and bushes mixed. He felt it would be
better to have options rather than set rules. If there is going to be a landscaping
ordinance, he would rather it be voluntary. In his opinion ordinances were written
for a small portion of developers.-.:.:
Hunnicutt stated the money for landscaping will not amount to that much, the
major consideration will be the curbs around the islands. Hunnicutt felt a developer
should be able to put the landscaping where he wants to rather than be told where
to put.it.
Jacks stated each generation of developers makes his buck and wipes out
more and more greenery.
Gitelman stated he would rather dip his toe in the water rather than jump in.
He felt perhaps a policy on tree removal would be a good place to start. Some
places require that all trees above a certain diameter have a permit in order to be
removed. Perhaps they could be required to replace them. That way you would have
a policy that trees are a community asset. That would be sort of a half way thing.
You_:are not requiring the developer to landscape, but you are saying you don't want
trees removed. If the developer maintains he has to move the tree in order to develop,
then you say he's got to replace it with a tree of a certain size. He felt this
would make it more fair.
Windell felt that would not address landscaping, only a certain size of tree.
Martin Redfern felt that part of competing for customers is having a nice
environment for them to shop in. He wondered if it would be feasible for giving
credits and debits in relation to removal of trees. He wondered if there
was an area comparable to Fayetteville in terms of hard woods that was.:doing
something similar.
Gitelman stated he could probably find some model ordinances.
Jacks stated that with development in Fayetteville, the time has come to
decide whether or not a landscaping ordinance is needed at this time.
Gitelman stated distinctions would have to be made on the size of the property,
the part of town it is located in, existing greenery, whether or not a separate
landscaping board is needed to approve or disapprove things.
Crocker stated when the sidewalk ordinance was first formulated, it was not
strictly enforced, but after some time passed, people came to see the need in the
City to have a sidewalk system. She felt perhaps the same would be true of a
landscape ordinance.
Cullers felt there was a need to have landscaping, but he felt having people
comply with something that is esthetic would be hard. If the results the Commission
desires could be realized that would be one thing, but he did not feel those results
187
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1981
• Page 8
would be achieved by forcing people to comply.
Redfern stated there had been input from the Committee, from Bobbie Jones,
from David McWethy, and Larry Wood. He felt the next step would be to incorporate
all these comments and see what happens.
Crocker agreed, she felt a concensus should be reached and problems brought
out up to this point worked out. She felt the ordinance should be made flexible;
if tradeoffs could be made, incorporate them into the ordinance. Crocker said she
would be in favor of this type of thing.
Jacks stated he would also.
Redfern stated he did not know how it would be enforced and administered.
Hunnicutt stated some of this landscaping would at some time in the future
become a traffic hazard.
Jacks asked for the feeling of the Commission as to whether or not to pursue
the drafting of a landscape ordinance.
Cullers stated he favors a voluntary system. He felt landscaping should be
brought up at the preliminary plat level and the developers asked what they
plan to do as far as landscaping. Let them know it is expected of them.
Jacks asked how many of the Commissioners would be in favor of a mandatory
Ordinance. Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker and Ernest Jacks voted "Aye!'.
Don Hunnicutt and Windell Cullers voted "Nay!'. Wilson and Redfern abstained.
Redfern did not feel a mandatory landscaping ordinance is timely.
Hunnicutt said he did not see how much more research could be done.
Cullers stated he was not opposed to landscaping but was opposed to the
mandatory ordinance.
Hunnicutt stated there are no incentives with this ordinance.
Jacks stated incentives are very difficult to incorporate into the ordinance.
However, he stated he would look into incentives.
Elizabeth Crocker moved the landscape ordinance be tabled. Martin Redfern
seconded. The motion passed (6=1) with Gitelman, Crocker, Hunnicutt, Jacks, Wilson,
and Redfern voting "Aye" and Cullers voting "Nay".
The meeting adjourned at 6:40, P.M.
�S�