Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission May 10, 1982, in the Directors Room, City Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, Administration Building, Fayetteville, Chairman Ernest Jacks, Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Newton Hailey. Morton Gitelman, Melanie Stockdell. John Lisle, Jack Butt, Wade Bishop, Carol McDaniel, Mary Gladney, Suzie Stephens, Rick Cowdrey, Dawn Dunnuck, Don Elliot, Bryce Davis, Reverand Paul Dennis, Earl Casper, Stephen Manire, Harry Gray, Terry Spencer, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart and others. The minutes of the April 26, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. The next item for consideration was the referral from the City Board of Directors for the Planning Commission to review proposed street improvement district petition and determine if proposal will comply with the Master Street Plan, (Tabled at the April 12 and April Meetings). Jacks MINUTES APPLEBY ROAD IMPROVEMENT REFERRAL FROM CITY BOARD CONSISTENCY WITH MASTER STREET PLAN 26, 1982, Planning Commission asked the City Attorney, Jim McCord to outline the things the Planning Commission should consider. McCord stated the Planning Commission is not to consider: 1. Whether certain property is rightfully or wrongfully included in the proposed district. 2. Whether or not additional property should be included in the proposed district. The City Board of Directors has limited jurisdiction to address these questions. There is a letter from Jack Butt dated April 14, included in the agenda which outlines the alternatives open to the Planning Commission. McCord stated he concurrs with that analysis. There are three issues the Commission is to consider in this referral: 1. Whether or not the improvement, as proposed, is in conformity with the Master Street Plan. 2. Whether the facts indicate the improvement will not contribute to public safety and convenience. 3. Whether or not the improvement will contribute to vehicular and pedestrian 39 • Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 2 safety. If the Planning Commission does not take action within 60 days from the first consideration, the Commission's inaction will be taken by the Board of Directors as their approval. Ernest Jacks stated Appleby Road is designated as a residential street on the Master Street Plan. Julie Nash stated she would like a brief statement from those in opposition and those in favor of the proposed improvements, she would like to know why each party would like to see the road paved or not paved. Jack Butt stated he represents the proposed improvement district. He said the proponents of the district do not see how paving a street; turning it from dirt to pavement, could be anything but promoting safety. Butt stated he has two letters from persons in the proposed district stating they are in favor of the petition. Butt further stated the proponents of the district are not attempting to make Appleby Road a thoroughfare collector or anything else, they propose to pave it to minimum City standards. John Lisle addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed improvement district. He did not feel the paving of Appleby Road would harmonize with the City Plan, because presently, the Plan shows Appleby Road as a residential or minor street, he read the definition of a minor street: "A street used primarily to provide access to abutting properties". Drake Street is shown as a Collector Street on the Plan, a Collector Street is: "A street which in addition to serving abutting properties, intercepts minor streets, connects with community facilities and carries neighborhood traffic to the major arterial street system. Where possible houses should not front on Collector Streets." Lisle said that Wade Bishop has posted a bond for the construction of Drake Street, if Drake Street is not constructed in 5 years, he will get his money back. Bishop stated Lisle was mistaken about the term of the bond (10 years). Lisle said when the plat for Regency North Subdivision was brought in in October 1980, the ordinance required a developer to construct certain off site improvements. Lisle stated that this plan was presented as a concept plat, but that the preliminary plat review process was skipped. The Plat Review Committee never examined the Preliminary Plat for this subdivision. Comments were made at Planning Commission review that it had not gone through Plat Review. Lisle said the ordinance requires a developer to construct off-site improvements. If certain circumstances exist, that requirement can be waived. The ordinance provides for Plat Review Committee, Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission review. This preliminary plat was never reviewed by the Plat Review Committee. Appleby Road, where it runs East/West was approved under reduced minimum standards, even a residential street is required to have 30 ft. of pavement with curbs. A Collector Street, on the other hand, is required to be 36 ft. of pavement with curbs. This portion of Appleby Road is narrower than the residential streets in the subdivision that empty on to it. He felt it was a Collector Street. Lisle asked the Commission to refer to the minutes of the April 12, 1982 ,So Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 3 meeting of the Planning Commission in which Mr. Butt had stated that the paving of Appleby Road would provide the only thoroughfare between Township Road and the Bypass for traffic going towards Gregg Street, downtown, to the University and High School, or points West. The district proposes to provide something other than a dirt road for these purposes. Lisle said if this district is approved, the Commission will create a thoroughfare through this residential area Appleby Road has already been approved to less than residential standards. The Commission refused to approve the construction of Bois d'Arc because it would be directing traffic from one residential area to another. That construction has been postponed until Township Road is constructed. Lisle said the City will lose the bond posted for the construction of Drake if it is not accomplished within 10 years. Lisle said he felt the traffic on this road which is already narrower than a residential street, would increase the safety hazard to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, unless the street standards have no basis. Lisle said he suggests that if Mr. Bishop had gone through the proper channels, he would have had to pave the portion of Appleby Road the improvement district now proposes to pave. Julie Nash said she was not prepared to hear Mr. Lisle's case, only why he feels what the district proposes will not contribute to safety and harmony. Lisle stated he felt the Commission needs to be fully aware where City ordinances have not been followed. Lisle felt a subdivider had subdivided without putting in the proper improvements. Williams asked if the widths of Collector Streets verus Minor Streets were issues and whether that was consistent with the considerations of safety. McCord stated the Commission needs to look at what exists on the ground today in the area in order to determine if it will contribute to public safety. He did not personally consider waivers that may have been granted in the past by the Board as having a determination on the issues before the Commission at this time. He asked the Commission to consider whether the improvement of Appleby Road contributes to safety and does it harmonize with the Plan. Jacks asked if the paving of Appleby Road would effectively change the Master Street Plan was an issue. McCord stated the Master Street Plan identifies this portion of Appleby Road as a residential street. The district proposes to improve it to residential standards. Lisle said the Commission did rule not would make it a collector. John Lisle stated he is not saying the Street Plan, he is saying the Commission is Street Plan. David Williams said he has trouble defining harmony. McCord replied that if the Commission determines the street harmonizes with the Master Street Plan, there are still the considerations of public and vehicular safety. John Lisle said that Appleby Road has a legal designation as a residential street. By definition, it should serve only those who abut it. If Appleby Road is paved,its function will change to that of a Collector Street. By constructing Appleby Road before the actual Collector (Drake) is constructed, Appleby Road will serve traffic going through this area from 71 to Gregg, by to open another road because it Commission is changing the Master in effect changing the Master d1 Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 4 definition it will be a Collector. In that way, the street will not contribute to public safety and convenience. The ordinance specifically sets out standards for streets carrying traffic from one area to another. Those standards are based on safety. A Collector Street is supposed to have 60 ft. of right-of-way and 36 ft. of pavement. It also requires a longer field of vision. If the Commission recommends approval, they will make this street perform the function of a Collector with only minimum minor street construction. Lisle said at the time the Plat for Regency North was approved, Appleby Road should have been paved unless it was determined that the need was not there. Lisle said at the concept level, Tom Hawk, from Community Development, had recommended careful consideration of the improvement of Appleby Road. At that time, he felt it would become heavily used. He was concerned for the City at that time because it might be turning a minor street into a major collector street by improving it. Lisle said Mr. Bishop would have the Commission believe the paving of Appleby Road is essential, when barely a year ago, before the Board of Directors, he said it does not need to be paved. A subdivider is required, under the ordinance, to install off-site improvements where the need for such improvements is created in whole or in part by the development of the subdivider. A waiver can be requested for those improvements if: 1. The City determines there is no compelling necessity for the improvements. 2. If the Subdivision. already has primary access to improved streets or roads. 3. If the location of the improvement is so remote that it would cause an unfair burden to the subdivider. This portion of the road is remote in that persons in the subdivision can use 71. 4. If the subdivider proposes alternative measures for persons in the subdivision. Lisle said this plat did not go through the required preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission can require abutting roads to be paved. He pointed out that Bobbie Jones had stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting that there was a question as to whether or not to require improvements to Appleby Road. Jack Butt stated he did not see where taking a street that is planned to be a residential street and turning it from a gravel road to a paved road will conflict with the Master Street Plan. He stated the remarks as taken from the April 12, 1982 minutes were mistaken. He did not mean that Appleby Road would be a thoroughfare, but that it might 'be more convenient for those persons living between 71 and Gregg. It might be more convenient to use Gregg rather than College. To pave a street does not make it a collector. He did not feel that the argument that if the street is paved it will become a collector and therefore be substandard was valid. The bond money and the need exist for the construction of the Major Collector should the City choose to proceed with its construction. Williams asked what the feeling is on having a Minor Street function as a Collector Street. Does that enter into the safety issue. Jacks stated he feels this occurs quite often in the City. There is no schedule established for the development of different kinds of streets. He -62 J Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 5 felt this type of thing happens when a minor street'is paved before a collector. Cullers said there are many streets in the City that will someday be Collector Streets but are not to City standards for Collectors. Hunnicutt stated this street exists on the plan, it will not be closed in the normal course of events. Julie Nash said this whole thing could be summed up by saying a paved street is preferable to an unpaved street, but there are other issues. Windell Cullers moved the Planning Commission finds that the improvement district is in keeping with the Master Street Plan and is not detrimental to the safety of the area, it is not inconsistent with the City plan and is not detrimental to safety or convenience of the area. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion passed (5-2) with Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Windell Cullers, and Newton Hailey casting the "Aye" votes, and David Williams and Julie Nash casting the "Nay" votes. The next item of business CONDITIONAL USE was a conditional use request CAROL MC DANIEL submitted by Carol McDaniel 818 EAST ASH STREET to have child care for 10 children at 818 East Ash Street zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. (Tabled at the April 26, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting). Carol McDaniel was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated, by ordinance, a Child Care Facility in R-1 must have a minimum lot area of 250 square ft. per child, a minimum outdoor play space of 80 square ft. per child based on the number of children outside at one time. Outdoor play space shall be screened if it is within 50 ft. of other residentially zoned property. A child care facility can consist of no more than 10 children in R-1. The Planning Commission can grant a conditional use with such conditions or safe guards as they deem appropriate. There was some discussion about a conditional use for child care facility versus a home occupation. A home occupation allows for the care of 6 children and the child care facility allows for up to 10 children in R-1. Carol McDaniel stated she would like to keep 10 children. Barbara Crook asked if Ms. McDaniel's lot meets the minimum lot area. Bobbie Jones replied it does. Crook asked if Ms. McDaniel had the required amount of outdoor play space. Bobbie Jones stated she was not sure. Williams did not feel the Planning Commission should make these technical determinations. Williams moved this item be tabled until a clear and appropriate application has been received. Julie Nash seconded. Cullers said there are only two questions that need to be resolved, and he was against Ms. McDaniel having to come back before the Commission. Mary Gladney 843 Ash, addressed the Commission. She stated she was not appearing in opposition. She said she would like to be made aware of the rules of operating a Child Care Facility in R-1. She would be against a sign being placed on the property, and she wanted the children kept in the fenced back yard. 63 A Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 .Page 6 Williams withdrew his motion. Nash withdrew her second. Cullers moved the Conditional Use for a Child Care Facility for 10 children be approved for a period of one year, conditioned upon the site meeting back yard and screening requirements. Barbara Crook seconded. Cullers stated he would like to add to his motion that no sign will be allowed on the site. David Williams seconded the amended motion. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was the approval of the Final Plat of Southern Heights, Phase I, located off the end of Rodgers Drive, South of Lighton Trail, and North of Huntsville Road; S $ J Company, Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Suzie Stephens and Rick Cowdrey were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Barbara Crook moved the Final Plat of Southern Heights, Phase I be approved subject to the Planning Office receiving off site drainage and utility easements before signing of the Final Plat. Julie Nash seconded. Newton Hailey left the proceedings. Dawn Dunnuck addressed the Commission. She stated she felt Rodgers Drive was paved in an unsafe manner. She stated that her fence has been hit and a post knocked out of the ground. She felt the traffic on the road was too heavy for the pavement width. The pavement is only 18 ft. wide. She gave a history of her ownership of the property adjacent to Rodgers Drive. She did not feel that Southern Heights should be developed until there was some other access to the property. The motion to approve the final plat of Southern Heights, Phase I passed (6-0) . FINAL PLAT SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, PHASE I RODGERS DRIVE The next item of business was a referral from the City Board of Directors for the Planning REZONING PETITION R82-6 BRYCE DAVIS BETTY JO AND WEDINGTON Commission to review the Rezoning Petition R82-6, Bryce J. Davis to rezone property located South of Highway 16 West, and West of the 71 By-pass (3323, 3315, 3307, and 3257 Wedington Drive) from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Jacks stated the Board of Directors meeting minutes reflect there had been some misunderstandings when this petition was considered and that certain Planning Commission members had contacted Board members about sending this item back to the Planning Commission. Cullers felt this was voting on a Rezoning before the year waiting period is up. Bobbie Jones stated by ordinance, the Board may refer items back to the Planning Commission for further study. 1 A • Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 7 Newton Hailey returned to the proceedings at 6:20 P.M. Cullers objected to the petition being reheard again. Since Barbara Crook had been absent when the public hearing was held on this petition, Bryce Davis gave her an outline of why he wishes to rezone the property. Davis stated the main reason he wants the property rezoned is use He stated there are 66 uses allowed in the C-1 and 192 uses allowed in the C-2. Newton Hailey stated that based on the recommendation by the Planning Consultant, he moves that Rezoning Petition R82-6 be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Jacks said he was worried about the spread of C-2 at this intersection. Also, he felt it has been a policy of the Planning Commission to place commercial zoning only at Major intersections. The motion failed to pass (4-3) with Newton Hailey, Julie Nash, Windell Cullers, and Don Hunnicutt voting "Aye" and Ernest Jacks, David Williams and Barbara Crook voting "Nay". It takes a vote of 5 to pass a motion. The next item of business WAIVER OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS was a request by Sang Avenue SANG AVENUE BAPTIST CHURCH Baptist Church to waive 1425 NORTH SANG AVENUE view -obscuring screening along the North, South and West property lines at 1425 North Sang Avenue. Reverand Paul Dennis was present to represent. Cynthia Stewart reported that the Church was in the process of planting view -obscuring vegetation along the South property line when the Office of City Planning received a complaint about the plantings. Earle Casper, 2282 Lawson, addressed the Commission.He stated he and his neighbors do not object to the screening, however, the building is there, it is a large metal building and the plantings will not really make any difference as far as screening it. He said the Church has not kept weeds out of their yard and, in addition, they have created an embankment which is creating erosion. The church is illuminated by lights which shine into the houses in the neighborhood. Casper said the neighbors would just as soon the Church did not build the fence or plant the screening. Cullers said that some of the neighbors prefer to have the fence and some do not. Cullers said if it is waived, the Commission cannot come back and make the Church install screening at some later date. Reverand Dennis stated he is requesting a waiver of the screening requirement on the North, South and West sides of his property. He had received objections from five neighbors on the Church's South side. He did not want to go to the expense of installing the plantings if the neighbors did not want them there. To the West is Calvary Baptist Church and Dennis did not feel it was very necessary to screen between churches. On the North side there is 15 acres of undeveloped land. Cullers said he did not see any reason to not grant the waiver since the neighbors are complaining about the plantings. Crook said she could go along with the waiver on the South side with the neighbors feeling the way they do, but she was'reluctant to grant waivers on the North and West. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1982 Page 8 Bobbie Jones reminded the Commission that if the screening is waived, the area must be planted in 10% landscaping with a minimum height of 1'6" at the time it is planted. Dennis stated the Church has planted 500 pine trees across the West side of the property and 1/2 way across the North line. David Williams moved the screening requirement be waived for the South property line with the planting of 10% landscaping having a height of 1'6" at the time of planting, with the Church:solving the lighting problemAn some way. The motion died for lack of a second. Barbara Crook moved a waiver of the screening requirement be granted on the South property line with the planting of 10% landscaping having a height of 1'6" at time of planting David Williams seconded. Jacks said with this motion, screening will still be required on the North and West sides. The motion passed (5-2) with Crook, Hunnicutt, Nash, Hailey and. Williams voting "Aye" and Cullers and Jacks voting "Nay". The next item for consideration REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF was a request by Steven G. Manire, D.C., SCREENING AND ON-SITE PARKING for a waiver of the screening required along 221 NORTH EAST STREET the West and South property lines and approval of off-site parking for proposed chiropractic office at 221 North East Street, property zoned R-0, Residential Office District. Steven Manire was present to represent. He addressed the Commission and stated that parking cannot be provided on site. He did not feel the screening would be necessary because he would not change the building exterior. Cynthia Stewart reported that Dr. Melton had called the Office of City Planning and stated he had no objections to either of Dr. Manire's requests. Dr. Melton -owns property on two sides of Dr. Manire. Windell Cullers moved the screening be waived as well as the on-site parking. David Williams seconded. Cullers stated he would like his motion to go with this particular use The motion passed (7-0). OTHER BUSINESS Jacks stated Bill Bonner from PLANNING MEETING the University of Arkansas had informed him there will be a Planning Meeting in Little Rock June 24 and 25. Planning Commissioner's from around the state are invited to attend and are urged to request funds from their City Councils or Quorum Courts. Jacks said he attended a similar meeting a couple of years ago and found it quite interesting. 66 1 Planning Commission Meeting • May 10, 1982 Page 9 • Jacks stated the up date REVISIONS TO GENERAL PLAN committee has set a tentative meeting date for May 26, 1982 which is a Wednesday. He asked anyone involved to go over the goals and policies discussed and make notes for Larry Wood to look over. Coupled with that there is the question of whether or not the Planning Commission intends to engage Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning to do the update. Jim Vizzier has been proposing to the City Board that a much more detailed update be..performed, that perhaps the plan be redone. Jacks doubted that money was available to undertake such a task Jacks felt the up date should be followed up on. Don Grimes informed Jacks that the City Board needs a letter from the Planning Commission suggesting that somebody be hired to work with the Planning Commission on their update Hailey said he did not want to submit a letter, the Board of Directors has a procedure for the procurement of professional services. Hunnicutt stated that Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning would not be in competition with private planners. Jacks asked the Commission if they wish to hire someone to help with the update Jacks directed the Office of City Planning to ask the City Attorney if the Planning Commission needs to follow the Board's selection process for the procurement of professional services. Jacks said he had asked Grimes if the Planning Commission needed to advertise, and Grimes had indicated a letter to the Board of Directors ought to be sufficient. Harry Gray said Clayton Powell MEXICAN ORIGINAL LSD had had some discussion with DRAINAGE CONTROVERSY an employee of the Arkansas H±gh&ay..:and Transportation Department from the Hydraulics section of that department. Gray said he would have liked very much to have spoken with that gentleman. Gray maintains that the drainage proposed for the project site will be sufficient. There was much discussion about the site and the drainage.structures recommended by Clayton Powell. The Planning Commission was of the opinion they were not qualified to rule on the sufficiency of drainage structures. Windell Cullers moved the drainage for the Mexican Original site be approved contingent upon an agreement between Mexican Original and the City. Hunnicutt suggested a meeting between Grimes, Powell and Gray, and Bunn. David Williams seconded. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Hunnicutt abstaining. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:07 P.M. 67