Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING' A meeting of the Planning Commission April 12, 1982, in the Board of Directors Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, Room, City Administration Building, Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Newton Hailey. Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook. Terry Spencer, Harry Gray, Bryce Davis, Donald Nickell, John Lisle, Jack Butt, Nelson Driver, Wade Bishop, Bob Brandon, Jim Powell, David McWethy, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones and others. The minutes of the March 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. The next item of business was the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan for an addition to the Mexican Original located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Huntsville Road (Hwy. 16 East) and Happy Hollow Road (Hwy. 16 Bypass); Mexican Original Products, Inc. Owner and Developer. Property zoned C-1, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Harry Gray and Terry Spencer were present to represent. The Chairman opened _discussion:on the addition and referred to the Plat Review Committee minutes of April 1, 1982. He asked the representatives of the developer if they had any problem with the recommendation by the Fire Inspector that a fire hydrant be placed on the site. Harry Gray stated they do not. There has been extensive fencing installed on the site for security purposes and from a safety standpoint, the hydrant is necessary. Jacks stated that Wally Brt has indicated there is a need for another. container with this addition, but there is not room for it at the location of the existing container. Gray stated there would be no problem, that he would work with Wally Brt on the location of the second container. Jacks asked about the comment made by the Ozarks Electric representative at the Plat Review Committee meeting that there is a transformer and a vault that need to be relocated. Gray replied the building will be constructed around the vault; the transformer is outside the proposed addition. Jacks asked if there was any problem providing the required handicapped parking spaces. Gray stated they would be furnished. The Chairman asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified as required. Gray said they had and that Bobbie Jones had been furnished proof of notification. Bobbie Jones stated some easements had been required by the utility companies MINUTES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MEXICAN ORIGINALS HWY. 16 BYPASS AND HUNTSVILLE RD. 38 • • • Planning Commission Meeting Ca) April 12, 1982 Page 2 as well as right-of-way easements for Highway 16. She stated the right-of-way easements on the North and West sides had been executed. Jacks asked the representatives if there were any objections to the Plat Review Committee comments. Harry Gray said no, however, he does have some Lzi problems with Clayton Powell's written comments. U^ Bobbie Jones stated there was concern about running a hydrant in such a dway that the residential area to the East might have access to the hydrant. Gray stated he would work with the City. He said he is currently negotiating with Don Bunn, City Engineer on working out the placement of the hydrant and installing a loop in the water line to increase water pressure on the site. Jacks referred to the written recommendations by Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent. He stated Powell has recommended that elevated sidewalk be installed along the North line of the property where it is presently open into the highway. He suggested that drives be installed at safety zone intervals Terry Spencer addressed the Commission. He stated the developers have no objection to this recommendation provided that is what the City wants. He felt a greater traffic problem will be created if the curbs and sidewalks are installed as suggested by Mr. Powell. He felt a lot of traffic would be tied up on Highway 16. The open parking area is primarily for Watsons, Colliers and a few other retail establishments; the amount of traffic involved is small. The Mexican Original employees will be using the South parking lot and will not be entering from the North. He felt that traffic would be backed up waiting to turn into the restricted entrances if they are installed. Jacks stated that asphalt from 71 used to run into the parking area at Evelyn Hills. Spencer stated that College Avenue at that point is a four lane highway with a large amount of traffic. Don Hunnicutt stated if the Highway Department comes in and improves Huntsville Road, they will probably tear out these improvements. He said he would hate to see the money spent and then have the improvements torn up. [r Windell Cullers moved the recommended improvements for Huntsville Road be waived and that the Developer comply on 16 Bypass. Hunnicutt felt that this should be discussed with Clayton Powell and Jacks agreed. Windell Cullers withdrew his motion. `- Gray stated the Developers realize that sidewalks have to be built, what vim" they are concerned about is the elevation of the sidewalks and the installation of the recommended accesses at safety zone intervals. Jacks referred back to Clayton Powell's comments concerning Ray Avenue. GS The letter states that sidewalks are installed on part of Ray Avenue on the West side. However, Mexican Original has apparently installed a chain link fence and placed posts in the sidewalk. Spencer stated there has been quite a bit of dispute over the boundary U ° of the property at this point. The line has been surveyed. Before the chain link fence was constructed,Mexican Originalpersonnel asked the Cityif a L1. g building permit would be necessary to construct the fence and were told as long as it is constructed on Mexican Original property there would be no permit required. Spencer said the developer has no problem with installing sidewalk along Ray, it may get into their property if it is extended as it is presently laid out. He said they would have no objection to taking the sidewalk out and placing it further away from the fence. Spencer said Mexican Original was told Planning Commission Meeting • April 12, 1982 Page 3 • • before they could begin construction on the additions, they would have to dedicate a 10 ft. easement all around the property. They have spent in excess of $15,000.00 on the fence and it now sits on the City property. He said they would like to know if they have to move the fence. Bobbie Jones stated this fence is partially barbed wire, the ordinance states barbed wire fences cannot be placed adjacent to a sidewalk. She did not feel the Planning Commission has the power to waive this, the City Board might. McWethy asked who had surveyed the property line.for Mexican Original• Gray stated Neal Albright. McWethy stated that:in.:connection-.with the installation of sidewalks with community development funds, there had been a survey, one of:the surveys is wrong. Jacks asked how much of an overlap exists between the sidewalk and the fence. Gray replied 6 to 8 inches. Spencer stated actually, the posts were not placed in the sidewalk, there were a couple of notches installed on the edge of the sidewalk and the posts placed there. Jacks asked if the Developers had any problem installing sidewalk for the full length of Happy Hollow Road adjacent to this property. Spencer said no problem. Jacks addressed Clayton Powell's comments on drainage. Apparently, the box culvert in association with 16 Bypass has been reduced on the site and concerns Mr. Powell, he asked for the engineer's comments. Gray stated he does not know the size of the mentioned box culvert. He stated he has studied the site and proposes drainage construction sufficient to handle the site. David Williams stated it appears the Developers are willing to comply with the Plat Review Committee comments. The developers are willing to go along with whatever the City decides on the access on Huntsville Road Jacks said he felt Traffic control was needed at Huntsville Road. Cullers asked if it would be acceptable to the Developers if the Large Scale Development plan was approved subject to the Plat Review Committee comments. and working with Clayton Powell on his comments, with a final determination made by the Planning Commission. Gray said that would be acceptable. Windell Cullers moved the Large Scale Development Plan for Mexican Original be approved subject to Plat Review Committee comments and that Clayton Powell's comments be worked out between the Developer and the Street Superintendent David Williams seconded. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt abstaining. Cullers moved that Clayton Powell's commentsbe tabled until thenext meeting to give the developers a chance to get with the Street Superintendent and work out his recommendations. David Williams seconded. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt abstaining. The next item of business REZONING PETITION R82-6 was the Public Hearing on Rezoning BRYCE DAVIS Petition R82-6, Bryce Davis to rezone HIGHWAY 16 WEST property located South of Highway 16 West and West of the 71 Bypass (3323, 3315, 3307, 3257 Wedington Drive) from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District to C-2, Thorough- fare Commercial District. Bryce Davis was present to represent. Leo J Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 • Page 4 The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated he recommends either C-1,or C-2 district for the following reasons:' • • 1. There currently exists sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed commercial development. 2. There currently exists transition and buffering uses with the offices and apartments to preclude the eventual commercial stripping of Highway 16 West. 3. The traffic generation and access points will likely be the same whether developed as offices or commercial. Jacks stated the Commission originally desired this tract be R-0 instead of commercial to prevent the tendancy to strip Highway 16 commercially. Bryce Davis stated the tract was R-0 before he purchased it. He is asking the Planning Commission to rezone 4 lots that are all fronting on Highway 16 West. The property on the North and South side of Highway 16 adjacent to this property on the East is presently zoned C-2. However, that property is not for sale, in effect, there is no C-2 West of the Bypass on Highway 16 West. There was some interest in the property for a Pizza Hut, however, when the prospective buyer discovered the property was zoned C-1 they did not pursue it. Julie Nash asked if the property would be sold for a Pizza Hut if it is zoned C-2. Bryce Davis stated some interest has been shown in the property but he does not have a prospective buyer. Melanie Stockdell asked what would buffer the commercial from moving further West. Larry Wood stated the Federal Land Bank property'is an office district which would effectively prevent the commercial from moving further West. Williams asked what would prevent a Pizza Hut from being placed in the C-1. Bobbie Jones stated nothing. The ordinance allows a restaurant with alchoholic beverages served, however, it does not allow for a tavern or liquor store in C-1. Davis stated he would rather have the C-2 district to keep his options open. C-2 is not as restrictive as C-1. Jacks asked if there was anyone else appearing in favor of the request. There being no response, the Chairman stated he would entertain comments in opposition to the request. Boyd Cox addressed the Commission representing land owners in the immediate vicinity, opposed to the rezoning petition. In addition to the request being contrary to the general plan, the C-2 zoning would allow uses and establishments that would in their opinion cause problems that the property owners in the vicinity do not want to live with. Stockdell stated it should not make any difference what the use would be, the Commission is to look at whether or not this is a good place for C-2 district. Williams stated the developer wants to increase his options and the land owners want them limited. Newton Hailey stated he is in agreement with Larry Wood, the facilities are there, the use would be buffered and he did not think traffic would increase heavily. He did not see any pressing reason to deny the request Hunnicutt stated the Commission rezoned property on the East side of the Bypass commercial with adjacent residential properties. He did not see any reason to deny the request. yl K2 J • • Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 5 Cox stated the commercial zoning would create traffic problems. The owners feel the commercial zoning will detract from the rentals of apartments nearby and the land itself. He said there is not as much of a problem with C-1 as with C-2. Cox said the primary objection is that the C-2 designation would allow a liquor store. Cullers asked if the persons in opposition had considered the fact that a liquor store could be installed by right 50 to 100 ft. away from this property to the East? Bryce Davis stated he owns property adjacent to this site and he did not feel it would detract from its value at all Newton Hailey moved a recommendation be made to the Board of Directors that this property be rezoned from C-1 to C-2. Windell Cullers seconded. • Jacks stated he is against the rezoning. A buffering system has been developed by the Commission where commercial would be placed only at major intersections and buffered by R-0 and R-2 down to R-1. Melanie Stockdell stated she would be against this petition because it is in variation with the general plan. She felt it would increase traffic. in the apartment areas and on the streets that are not through streets. Julie Nash stated the traffic and access points: -will be the same whether or not the property stays C-1. She felt the Commission was being asked to make a moral determination. Hunnicutt stated the General Plan changes as each area develops. Williams stated the Commission's job is not making moral decisions. He said h temptation and pressure is placed on the Commission whenever this type of situation comes up However, some of the persons adjacent to this site are against the C-2 and therefore, he would vote in the negative. The motion to recommend approval failed to pass (4-3) with Don Hunnicutt, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash and Newton Hailey voting "Aye", and David Williams, Ernest Jacks and Melanie Stockdell voting "Nay" a vote of 5 is needed to carry a motion. The Chairman informed the petitioner that he has the right of appeal to the Board of Directors. The next item of business was the request by Donald W. Nickell for waiver on street REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FRONTAGE DONALD W. NICKELL 1553 DEANE STREET frontage requirement for tandem lots at 1553 Deane Street. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Donald W. Nickell was present to represent. He addressed the Commission and stated he is present representing the heirs of Angie Eldridge and himself. He said the property in question is part of Ms. Eldridge's estate He has discovered the property is not in compliance with the ordinance. The drive going back to the property is 15 ft. 8 inches, where 25 ft. is required. He said it is his understanding that the Planning Commission has the power to waive this requirement. Bobbie Jones concurred „under article 8, section 6, the Planning Commission may waive the minimum street frontage requirement for a lot. Jacks stated the 25 ft. was adopted for a drive into a tandem lot based on • • $0gaum. f3 ARA@ Lel®mit e (3p)©CatJfv4 4 & f3 Gi@oVg6SS ) Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 6 15 ft. for vehicles and 10 ft. for utilities. Mr. Nickell stated all the utilities are presently in place to serve the house. Don Hunnicutt moved to waive the minimum width for a drive to a tandem lot from 25 ft. to 15 ft. 8 inches. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed unanimously.(7-0). The next item of business REFERRAL FROM CITY BOARD was a referral from the PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT City Board of Directors CONCURRENCE WITH MASTER STREET PLAN for the Planning Commission to review proposed Street Improvement District Petition and determine if proposal will comply with the Master Street Plan. There was some discussion about Appleby Road's designation on the Master Street Plan. It is a local street requiring 50 ft. of right-of-way, 30 ft. of pavement, 6" curbs on each side, and a 4 ft. sidewalk.on one side. Sidewalk to be installed as each lot is developed. Jack Butt addressed the Commission representing the proponents of the proposed improvement district. He showed the Commission the proposed improvement district boundaries. He stated the road is presently dirt and the improvement district proposes to improve Appleby Road to minimum standards. Butt asked the Commission to refer to City Attorney, Jim McCord's letter dated April 8, 1982, outlining the specific areas under which the Planning Commission could make a negative recommendation: 1. If the proposed improvement district does not harmonize with the Master Street Plan. 2. If the proposed improvement district does not contribute to public safety and convenience. 3. If the proposed improvement district does not contribute to the service and safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Butt further stated the street speaks for itself, it provides the only thoroughfare between Township Road and the Bypass for traffic going towards Gregg Street, to get downtown, to the University and Highschool, or points West. The improvement district proposes to improve the road to provide something other than a dirt foad for these purposes. Windell Cullers asked why the boundaries of the district did not incorporate the whole subdivision East to the Commercial property on Highway 71. Butt stated the proponents of the district wished to pick a point at which the actual benefit stops. Bishop stated that is correct, that the persons drawing the boundary determined that benefit stopped at that point. Cullers asked why it would benefit only 1/2 the people in the subdivision. Bishop stated in researching the formation of improvement districts, he found that normally, the district boundaries are 200 to 300 ft. off the item being improved. He pointed out that the boundary is drawn 750 ft. North and South of Appleby Road. In setting up the boundaries he consulted with City Officials and legal council. At the time, he proposed the district, he knew it would be 43 Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 • Page 7 • • contested. He asked these officials if there was anything about the district that would not stand up in court. Those persons felt the boundaries were fair and honest. Butt stated that the boundary itself will be an issue to be decided by the City Council or a local court He felt this matter was beyond the bounds of the Planning Commission's inquiry. Jacks agreed, the Planning Commission is to rule whether or not the proposed street services meet the Master Street Plan requirements. John Lisle, representative of the opponents of the proposed Improvement District, addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission to consider another factor, the Planning Commission is directed to look at overall planning for the City, public safety and convenience of subdivision streets, as well as other responsibilities. He presented a drawing to the Commission and stated the improvement district proposes to improve approximately 3800 ft. of street. Presently, the Master Street Plan designates Drake Street as the major collector street to carry through traffic from College Avenue to Gregg. Appleby Road is presently partially paved. He pointed out on the map the properties that Mr. Bishop presently owns and properties that he may purchase in the future. He also showed the properties owned by the persons opposed to the proposed improvement district. Lisle pointed out that most of the property fronting on the portion of Appleby Road to be improved is not owned by Mr. Bishop. Lisle addressed the 51% property value needed to get the improvement district passed. He stated most of the property fronting on the undeveloped portion of Appleby Road is farm land, Mr. Bishop has taken the improved lots in his subdivision to make up the 51%, naturally, the improved lots have a much higher valuation than the farmland. As a result, the owners of the farmland, who also object to the proposed improvement district will end up paying for the improvement of the street because by law they will receive the most benefit from the street. Mr. Bishop will incorporate his costs into the price of his future lots. Lisle stated a representative from McClinton was sent to look at the road. His estimate of the improvement of the unpaved portion was $300,000.00 to $325,000.00 which does not include the engineering costs which will run about 7% of the cost and it does not include the cost of three culverts that will be required. When the current interest is added to these costs, the total amount of the improvements will run about $800,000.00 which comes to about $40,000.00 a year for 20 years. He stated assessments of this magnitude could result in the taking of some of these people's property. The burden of paying these fees is placed on the property owners, the greater portion of the burden on those property owners who own property fronting on the street. Lisle said the Planning Commission has the responsibility of determining whether or not this proposal meets with the Master Street Plan. He felt the Commission should consider whether this improvement would benefit the entire community with only a small group of persons bearing the cost, which could force them to develop their property or sell their land. He felt the Planning Commission had the right and the duty to see that burdens such as this are distributed equitably. He felt the district boundaries should be expanded or reduced to those who actually own property fronting on the portion of Appleby Road to be improved. He did not think the Commission should solely consider the Master Street Plan and not the overall impact. dm Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 8 Cullers asked if the improvement district were expanded if it would benefit those in opposition to the proposed district. Lisle stated possibly, assuming more persons were opposed to it. He pointed out that once a person signs a petition such as the one submitted representing 51% of the property values, he cannot take his signature off unless it is proven there was some type of misrepresentation. People are not allowed to change their minds. He said some of the: persons whose signatures appear on the petition have changed their minds. The Chairman asked if there were any further comments in favor of the proposed improvement district. There was no response. The Chairman stated he would entertain further comments in opposition to the improvement district. Nelson Driver, 389 Pharris, addressed the Commission. He stated he purchased property in this subdivision about a year and a half ago. He has two small children. As it is now, there is not much traffic in the neighborhood. He said as a parent, he is concerned about the traffic that would be created should this street go through. He stated a thoroughfare street has no business going through an area such as this. Bob Brandon, 649 Wilson Street, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives in the Wilson Park area. There is a current traffic problem in his neighborhood, which he has brought up before various City committees, as well as the Board. The traffic problem is created by the North/South traffic from Gregg. He felt the improvement of Appleby Road would create more North/South traffic and contribute to the problem. He did not feel the Master Street Plan adequately addresses this traffic problem. He requested that no further development be approved in connection with Gregg until this problem is dealt with. He said his understanding is that funds are being made available to improve the bridge East of Gregg on Appleby Road. His feeling, as well as those he represents (about 100 persons) is that if funding is going to be allocated for the bridge area, the traffic problem downstream should be addressed first. Jim Powell, 180 West Appleby Road, addressed the Commission. He stated a portion of Appleby Road from Gregg East is already paved and showed the Commission that portion on the map. Jack Butt addressed the Commission. He stated people will still use Appleby Road. The paving of the road would probably decrease some of the traffic on College Avenue. As far as being a traffic hazard, he felt the paving, curbing and guttering of the street may improve visibility. The street, if paved, would service vehicles traveling from 71 to Gregg. People in this neighborhood would have the choice of using College for North/South traveling or Gregg, which is relatively less travelled. Lisle stated the law requires that the opponents of the district pursue every administrative channel to its limits. He said he is requesting each respective body to fulfill its responsibilities. He felt the street is a function of the City and that the City should pay for it. He pointed out that if this goes to court, and a ruling is made in favor of the opponents, the City may be held liable for a large amount of money. He felt it was bad for the Commission to act as the arm of someone who wants others to pay for his responsibilities in developing his property. The Commission can say it is not supposed to consider these issues, and look only at Appleby Road's consistency with the Master Street Plan, but in essence, the Commission could be acting as the arm of someone wishing to develop his property. He felt if the improvement district is in yS� • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 9 fact a desirable thing, that Drake Street should be developed and used for the Collector designation as laid out on the Master Street Plan rather than Appleby Road whose designation is a neighborhood street. Wade Bishop addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed improvement district. He stated that when the improvement district was first considered, he went to the respective City officials He appeared before various City committees with the idea that if the street was improved, the City would perhaps allocate funds to improve the bridge. He said that Mr. Grimes had stated the bridge on Appleby Road is where the City has the most liability, because of its danger of collapsing. Opponents of the proposed street improvement district attended the street committee meeting and no one objected at that time. He said he called a meeting for everyone in the proposed district for the purpose of explaining the proposed district. He said he advised everyone in the proposed district of this meeting. The City officials clarified at the meeting that they were neither in favor of nor against the district.. Bishop stated the road is existing, the question is whether or not it should be paved and curbed and guttered. The Chairman stated the City Board is asking the Planning Commission to either confirm or deny that the paving of Appleby Road will contribute or harmonize with the Master Street Plan. Newton Hailey stated it would be difficult to say that the improvement of Appleby Road would not improve public safety. He stated the harmony of the plan is another thing. There has been a precedent, in that Bois d'Arc was terminated between East Oaks, Phase II and Jerry D. Sweetser's subdivision. The Commission determined that local street would bear thoroughfare traffic through a residential neighborhood. Also, the Commission felt it might be detrimental to the future construction of Township Road which was designated to handle the thoroughfare traffic. He felt there was a parallel between this situation and the situation with Appleby Road and Drake Street. People were cutting across the subdivision to get from Highway 45 and Old Wire Road to Highway 265. In this respect, Hailey saw a problem with harmony, if the Commission does in fact feel that the traffic should be placed on Drake Street rather than Appleby Road. Hunnicutt stated the Commission is not supposed to determine the fairness of the improvement district, the Commission is charged with determining if Appleby Road improvement fits in with the Master Street Plan. Hunnicutt stated he did not agree with releasing Drake Street from its Collector Status, however, he could not see where paving of Appleby Road would not conform to the Master Street Plan for a neighborhood street. Windell Cullers asked Jim Powell why he did not want Appleby Road paved. Powell stated he felt the amount of traffic on the street would double by virtue of the fact that it will be the only cut across point from 71 to Gregg. He stated he lives on Appleby Road and the traffic has increased tremendously since the construction of the new Walmart. He did not know how much more it would increase by the time the shopping center is finished. With the paving of the road it would increase tremendously Windell Cullers stated that naturally traffic on Appleby Road will be greater if it is paved. He said he thought the paving of Appleby Road is a good idea. Cullers said he did not like the way the improvement district was formed, and that he did not like the idea that the portion of Appleby Road adjacent to Mr. Bishop's subdivision was not paved when the subdivision was developed. Cullers stated that if Bishop develops that portion of his property 414 • Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 10 on the unpaved portion of Appleby Road he will have to pave it. However, that is not what the Commission has been asked to decide. Jacks agreed. He wondered if the Commission approves Appleby Road would it replace the recommended collector, Drake. Hunnicutt stated the right-of-way is there for Appleby Road. He said it is only a matter of time until it is paved, in this manner, or with development. Jacks agreed with Windell Cullers on the way the improvement district was formed. But he did not see how the Commission could recommend denial from a planning standpoint. Melanie Stockdell disagreed. She felt that judgement enters into every decision the PlanningtCommission makes. She did not think the Planning 4g Commission should put its judgement aside in light of what they have heard, d3 and make a decision based on some limited knowledge as though the other information had not been placed before them. Windell Cullers said the Appleby Road as proposed complies with the Master Street Plan. Q Julie Nash stated the Master Street Plan is a long range plan. She did Esti not feel it should be changed, which would basically happen with the paving of Appleby Road, simply because ittsbeneficial to someone. She did not e6 feel the plan should be changed for so little an improvement. She did not feel it contributed that much. David Williams said the Commission has to decide if it has a negative impact, or if it will help. �, Hunnicutt stated he could not see saying the paving of Appleby Road does • "‘ not comply. Julie Nash asked what about where the Collector is supposed to be (Drake). Hunnicutt stated he would recommend to the Board that the Street as proposed would conform with the Master Street Plan. Windell Cullers seconded. Williams stated he could not support that motion. He stated he could not ignore the other issues. He felt it overlapped safety issues as well as the disproportionate share born by some of the persons within the district. He did not feel that harmony was considered with this recommendation. He stated the technical specifications will not be inconsistent with the Master Street Plan but there are other issues. Larry Wood said the only issue is whether or not it conforms to the Master Street Plan. He did not think the issue was whether or not it replaces Drake Street. Jacks stated paving of the street as proposed is not inconsistent with the Master Street Plan. Williams said from a technical standpoint, the paving would comply, however from the standpoint of impact on the neighborhood and public he could not make a straight line correlation. He did not feel only consideration of the technical considerations was adequate. The motion to recommend to the Board that the Improvement District was in keeping with the General Plan failed to pass (4-3) with Don Hunnicutt, Newton Hailey, Windell Cullers and Ernest Jacks casting the "Aye" votes and David Williams, Melanie Stockdell and Julie Nash casting the "Nay" votes. (NJ It takes a vote of 5 to pass a motion. • Butt reminded the Commission that a negative recommendation should be based on one of the issues pointed out in the City Attorney's letter dated April 8, 1982. til Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 11 David Williams moved that it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the proposed improvement district is not in keeping with the Master Street Plan, in that it does not indicate sufficient evidence that it will contribute to public safety and convenience or to the service and safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Julie Nash seconded. The motion failed to pass (3-4) with Julie Nash, Melanie Stockdell, and David Williams casting the "Aye`.' votes and Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Windell Cullers and Newton Hailey casting the "Nay" votes. Since the Commission was unable to get a majority vote on the question, Newton Hailey moved to table this item until the next Planning Commission meeting when, perhaps, the question could be voted on with the benefit of the full Commission. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was a discussion to set up future meetings to discuss MEETING DATES FOR DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN GENERAL PLAN proposed changes in the General Plan. After discussion, it was agreed the Planning Commission would meet at 5:00 P.M., April 20, 1982 in the conference room on the 7th floor of the 1st Place building, to discuss proposed changes in the General Plan. The next item of business DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE was the discussion of whether MEETING TIME CHANGE to change the meeting time FOR PLANNING COMMISSION of the Planning Commission from 5:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. Cullers stated he did not want the meeting time to be changed. For one thing, he felt it would be inconvenient to those persons who work. His other reasons being personal. Newton Hailey stated he was in favor of changing the meeting time. He stated Rogers and Bentonville Planning Commissions meet during the afternoon and do not seem to have any problem. Melanie Stockdell recommended a compromise and moved the Planning Commission meeting time be changed from 5:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. The motion failed to pass (4-3) with Newton Hailey, Melanie Stockdell, Julie Nash and Ernest Jacks casting the "Aye" votes and Don Hunnicutt, David Williams and Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" votes. The Planning Commission considered a letter from City Attorney Jim McCord and OTHER BUSINESS BARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS F, SCHOOLS dr? • • • Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1982 Page 12 City Manager Don Grimes. Bobbie Jones briefly outlined the City Attorney's letter in which McCord states that Schools must comply with the Large Scale Development process like everyone else. Ms. Jones stated Mr. Grimes had directed the Planning Office to run the Large Scale Development for the High School through Plat Review Committee only. Cynthia Stewart stated there were no waivers requested or required with the addition. Jacks stated that the School Board should meet the same Large Scale Development criteria as any other body. Windell Cullers moved the City Attorney enforce compliance with the present Large Scale Development ordinance when dealing with the Fayetteville Public Schools. David Williams seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The Commission considered a memo LOT SPLITS to Jim McCord, City Attorney from Bobbie Jones, City Planning Administrator concerning enforcement of the lot split ordinance. Bobbie Jones stated the City Planning Office has discovered that deeds are not being run through the Planning Office for approval prior to recording in the County Courthouse. She stated this results in lack of enforcement of the lot split ordinance. She asked the Commission to refer to McCord's letter to Alma Kollmeyer requesting that she continue to enforce this statute from her end. Bobbie Jones stated she has learned that Ms. Kollmeyer has agreed to enforce the statute. There being no action required, the Commission went on to the next item of business. Bobbie Jones stated this memo is strictly informational and was drafted in response to action by another body. AUTHORITY OF CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.