Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-08 Minutes• • • A meeting of March 8, 1982, in Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Chairman Ernest Jacks, Crook, David Williams, Windell Cullers. Jim Lindsey, Jack and Jorgia Burge, Bryce Davis, Robert and Charles Leflar, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, others. Julie Nash, Morton Gitelman, Barbara Newton Hailey. and Melanie Stockdell. The minutes of the February 22, 1982 meeting of MINUTES the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The next item of business was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by the Colony Shop for property East of Front Street, South of Stearns Road and South and West of the intersection of Stearns Road and Joyce Street. Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated this is part of a Subdivision on which preliminary plat approval was given. The final plat was never submitted, this tract must have approval since it does not meet the minimum size for a lot split. As an informational item, Barbara Crook stated that she had worked on the preliminary plat for the property of which this is a part and there is a definite drainage problem with the entire site. Jim Lindsey stated this particular tract of property is not in the Flood Plain. Bobbie Jones stated that since this property is part of a subdivision which has not had final approval, street lights and sidewalks should be installed with this particular development. Jacks asked how large this tract is. Jim Lindsey replied it is 1.59 acres. Jacks stated the ordinance requires a minimum of 3 acres for the first split. Actually, this property is part of the preliminary plat of Block 8 of the A $ W Realty Subdivision. The purpose of regulating divisions of property is so that subdivision cannot take place without the proper% installation of improvements. Bobbie Jones stated improvements have never been installed on this property. Jacks did not feel this developer was trying to develop without installing proper improvements. Crook stated she was concerned about drainage improvements. She wondered if the solution of the site drainage problem could be required as part of approval of the Large Scale Development Plan. She said there is not a final plat on this property and drainage is being handled in a piece meal fashion. Fill work is being done along the road, if the fill continues piece by piece; a drainage problem will be created. Jim Lindsey stated that drainage is being handled at the rear of the tract by SUBDIVISION WAIVER - LOT SPLIT COLONY SHOP FRONT STREET 941 • Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page 2 a ditch that carries water to the creek. He agreed that a plat should be submitted. He stated the developer of the site is raising the site above the flood plain so they can submit engineering plans and profiles to HUD for Flood Insurance Purposes. The developer has installed a box culvert. Lindsey said he believes an overall drainage plan for the entire subdivision is in the process of being worked up. Bobbie Jones stated the developers of the overall property should have obtained a Flood Plain Development permit for the property they are filling in. Any parcels created prior to the Final Plat being filed should be improved, including sidewalks and street lights. The Master Sidewalk Plan addresses sidewalks on both sides of Highway 71B, but does not address Front Street. Ms. Jones felt sidewalks would be needed along Front Street as much as along Highway 71B. Crook felt a development plan should be submitted. Lindsey stated the developer had done a flood study analysis in connection with Joyce Street construction. Gitelman stated he did not have any problem with the lot split waiver, and moved it be approved. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item for consideration LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN was the Large Scale Development THE COLONY SHOP • Plan for the Colony Shop to be located FRONT STREET East of Front Street, South of Stearns Road, and South and West of the intersection of Stearns Road, and Joyce Street. The Colony Shop - Developer. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee, in Chairman Don Hunnicutt's absence, Barbara Crook gave the report. She stated that at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the engineer for this development had assured the Committee that no water would drain out onto Front Street other than water from the front portion of the parking area, the rest would drain to the ditch East of the property. Barbara Crook moved that the Large Scale Development Plan for the Colony Shop be approved with the following conditions: 1. Subject to Plat Review Committee comments and requests being complied with. 2. A waiver of the safety zone for the Southern Drive is recommended from the 12-1/2 ft. required to 10 ft., so that an adequate radius may be installed. on the drive. 3. Street lights shall be installed at the Northwest corner and the Southwest corner of this property where it intersects Front Street. 4. Drainage will be handled in such a way that surface drainage from this development will be controlled until it reaches the creek. Drainage will be subject to the approval of Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent. V5 J • r@gitiph WRAS0 c gclI® E6 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page 3 5. Sidewalks will be installed along the East side of Front Street for the length of this property. Newton Hailey suggested that the drainage studies mentioned by Mr. Lindsey in connection with the Joyce Street construction be submitted to Clayton Powell, this; may give an overall view of the development of the site in connection with the drainage concerns. Lindsey stated he would be glad to do that. That he would have full drainage criteria submitted to the Street Superintendent. Bobbie Jones stated drainage criteria should also be submitted to the Inspection Department. Crook moved that item 4 of her motion be amended as follows: 4 Full drainage criteria for the area shall be submitted to the Street and Inspection Superintendents, drainage will be subject to their approval. David Williams seconded the amendment to the motion. Gitelman asked if the Developers had any objections to the conditions placed on approval. Lindsey stated he was not sure the way sidewalks were required with this development if it would fit in with the overall plans for the finished subdivision. He felt there may be some problems with sidewalks being located on the East side of Front Street for the entire tract. He said he would like to make sure the sidewalks are consistent with the overall plan before he commits them to the East side of Front Street. Gitelman moved that item 5 of the motion be amended as follows: 5. The developer will submit a proposal for the Master Sidewalk Plan for properties in this area; sidewalks will be required with development of this site. Crook seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was REZONING PETITION R82-3 the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition JACK $ JORGIA BURGE R82-3, Jack and Jorgia Burge to rezone NORTH STREET property South of North Street, East of Leverett Avenue, and West of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad from R-3, High Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. (This description overlaps that of Rezoning Petition R81-18, David Randle, approved for rezoning to I-1, November 3, 1981.) Jack and Jorgia Burge were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated I-1 District is not recommended, but R-0 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. I-1 District is not consistent with the recommendation of the General Plan. 2. R-0 District would allow a use of the property more consistent with the General Plan and more compatible with the nearby residential uses. Hailey asked Larry Wood what his recommendation had been for the Randle • property adjacent to this property on the West and South. Larry Wood stated his recommendation on that rezoning petition had been the same. 0 CfJ L 9-6 i Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page 4 Jack Burge addressed the Commission in favor of the petition. He stated that he had been before this Commission in regard to this property for a conditional use to permit his wife to operate an Interior Design business in the residentially zoned area. He stated he asked Bobbie Jones about some advertising on the East side and at that time, decided to take action to get the property rezoned. Originally, he and Mr. Randle were going to request the rezoning at the same time. Neither p one of them owns this property, they lease it from the railroad, it is part of o the railroad right-of-way. He stated the legal descriptions of his property and Randle's property overlap to some extent. In addition, the highway department is tg in the process of widening North Street and the bridge at Scull Creek. When the 'o actual construction begins, it will destroy 16 ft. of the present building along Ul With 9 parking spaces. He stated'pin order to replace any portion of the building that will be destroyed, he will have to conform to the zoning ordinance. He stated, therefore, he is requesting the change in zoning. ��. The Chairman asked if there was anyone appearing in the audience in opposition to the request. There was no response. C3 David Williams moved the rezoning request be approved. Newton Hailey seconded. Co David McWethy stated there had been a bill of assurance submitted with e; Randle's rezoning request which restricted some uses allowed in the I-1 from being carried out on the property. David Williams moved this item be tabled until later in the meeting to give the Burge's a chance to look at the mentioned Bill of Assurance. The Chairman of the Landscape Committee, REPORT ON LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Ernest Jacks, gave his report. He stated that at Director Sharp's urging, the Landscape Committee went to the Parks and Recreation Committee and discussed preservation of existing folliage in regard to Jefferson Park South. Also, included in the Agenda is a resolution to the Board of Directors requesting a City Board committment to preserving existing landscaping and existing natural materials. Jacks felt this resolution was before the Commission for action. Melanie Stockdell stated this is a step towards a general statement. Jacks said the City Board would go on record as doing those two things with its own operations and they would encourage private developers to do the same. Newton Hailey stated the 4th Whereas statement was a bit too specific for a broad policy statement. Gitelman felt the items contained in the 4th Whereas should be taken out also. He felt it may interfere with the City's power to take down dead trees. David Williams moved the resolution be taken to the City Board of Directors with the 4th Whereas stricken. to Morton Gitelman seconded. 0 The motion passed (7-0). �° Gitelman directed the Planning Administrator to see that the resolution gets to the City Board on its next Agenda. en • ri Jacks appointed Melanie APPOINTMENT - SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Stockdell to the vacant position on the Subdivision Committee. C3 rn CD hby 97 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page S The Commission brought REZONING PETITION R82-3 Rezoning Petition R82-3 off the table. Burge stated he would be willing to submit a bill of assurance restricting certain uses if the I-1 Zoning is approved. He stated there would not be too much carried out in an area a little over 17,000 square feet. David Williams amended his motion to approve the rezoning petition with acceptance of the Bill of Assurance by the owner restricting the uses on his property to those permitted in I-1, except Use Units 18, 27 and 28. Newton Hailey seconded the amended motion. Melanie Stockdell stated when she considered this application, she did not know that the rezoning was being requested so that the owners could put up a sign. She stated she has to vote against it because it is such a variation from the General Plan. Bobbie Jones stated the rezoning is necessary if Mr. Burge wishes to rebuild, after the highway department destroys part of his building during construction. The motion to recommend approval passed (6-1) with Melanie Stockdell casting the "Nay" vote. The next item of business was a REQUEST FOR REHEARING request submitted by Bryce Davis to have a FOR REZONING PETITION public hearing on a petition to rezone property BRYCE DAVIS within less than 12 months from date of previous denial. Bryce Davis was present to represent. Bobbie Jones read the ordinance regarding the 12 month lapse between rezoning petitions.. Bryce Davis addressed the Commission. He stated he had petitioned to have this property rezoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District was granted for this tract by the Board of Directors. He stated that persons interested in the property are interested in a C-2 zoning. Jacks asked what had changed since the petition had last been heard. Bryce Davis stated at the time he accepted the C-1 zoning, he had not felt it made a difference. Newton Hailey moved to allow a repetition for rezoning from Mr. Davis. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business VARIANCE LOT SIZE was a request for variance from the CHARLES LEFLAR lot size requirement applicable to a lot split NETTLESHIP $ LEWIS submitted by Charles J. F. Leflar for property South of Center Street, West of Hartman Avenue, and North of Maine Street. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Charles and Robert Leflar were present to represent. Charles Leflar stated he is requesting the split. His mother and father are conveying the property in question to himself and his wife. The purpose of the. split is so that Mr. Leflar and his wife can construct a single family home on the property for their own use. Bobbie Jones reported this is a first split, the split will consist of 1.55 acres zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. The City Engineer has indicated that water and sewer are available to the property being split off. This 2g Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page 6 property will be subject to a $105.00 parks acquisition contribution. The property is also subject to dedication to bring its side of Nettleship up to Master Street Plan right-of-way requirements. Ms. Jones asked Mr. Leflar about a 10 ft. strip that shows up on the plat. Mr. Leflar stated it is in another subdivision. The 10 ft. is used for a utility easement. Charles Leflar stated a survey has been performed on the property. When first examined, the exact dimensions of the property were in question; that has been cleared up. The Chairman stated this ordinance was originated to prevent subdivision without the installation of required improvements. Morton Gitelman asked why the proposed dedication for Nettleship does not appear to be 1/2 and 1/2. Bobbie Jones explained there is 15 ft. that has been dedicated South of this property. When the other 10 ft. is dedicated off that property to the South, the road should be centered. Mr. Leflar agreed that the 15 ft. lay South of this piece of property. David Williams moved the variance be approved. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion to approve passed (7-0). Ernest Jacks stated the ordinance on COMMERCIAL PUD ORDINANCE non-residential PUDs had been discussed. There was a committee formed to research a possible ordinance to allow for this type of development. When it was passed on to the Board of Directors for approval, there was opposition to private streets within the commercial PUDs. Jacks stated John Todd was the major opponent to the private street issue and that he and Todd had discussed it. Jacks stated Todd had convinced him that his objections were valid. Some of the reasons were the possible lengths of the streets and the fact that they are actually drives. Provision for private streets has been sticken from the ordinance. The committee recommends no further changes in the Commercial PUD Ordinance. If a question of interpretation comes up about what is a street and what is a private drive, the Planning Commission can interpret it or even waive it. Jacks stated that Larry Wood had COMPREHENSIVE PLAN informed him there is $10,000.00 budgeted to apply towards the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission can expect a like amount budgeted next year. Jacks stated that updating the ordinance rather than restructuring it is the general feeling of the Commission. Jacks asked that the Commission work up notes on any portion of the zoning ordinance they feel needs discussion. Newton Hailey stated the reason REQUEST FOR STUDY OF the minutes from the Febauray 23, 1981 AREAS FOR POSSIBLE ANNEXATION meeting of the Planning Commission were distributed is that the annexation of certain properties into the City Limits has come up again. He said there has been a mix up and the City Board of Directors is quoting the Planning Commission as having recommended these areas for annexation. Hailey stated the Commission did not recommend that the areas be annexed, but that they be studied for possible annexation. The I 3�� • • Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1982 Page 7 recommendation of areas to be annexed assures the Board that the Commission has considered fire protection, police protection, water and sewer services, etc. The Planning Commission did not study these matters but thinks they should be studied. The Board may have studied these matters, but the Commission has not. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.