Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, May 24, 1982, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Don Hunnicutt, MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey. Ed McCord, Claude Prewitt, Bill Storey, Arthur Mueller, Mr. $ Mrs. Jamie Jones, Robert Leflar, James Cramer, Charles Forbes, General Bruce Kendall, Chuck Hanks, Lois Stratton, Pat Pinnell, Andrew Ziser, F. H. Martin, Jim Boyd, Cyrus Sutherland, Bob Ashworth, Herb Lewis,BettyLighton, Danny Proffit, Diane Boyd, Jim Hall, Ted Bealer, Jim Lindsey, Olan Asbury, Gene Thrasher, Charles Banks, Roger Thurman, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, and others. The minutes of the May 10, 1982 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. At the request of the representatives, this item was postponed until later in the evening. MINUTES LEVERETT GARDENS II The next item for consideration LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT was the approval of the Large Scale PARK LAKE APARTMENTS Development Plan for Park Lake PARK PLACE PROPERTIES, LTD. Apartments located approximately 1/2 mile East of Highway 71 North, South of Zion Road and approximately 1/2 mile West of Old Missouri Road; Park Place Properties, Ltd., Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Claude Prewitt and Ed McCord were present to represent. The Chairman read a memo outlining the concerns of some of the residents in the area regarding traffic problems. He asked the Commission members to refer to the traffic count maps showing 3 locations around the area, passed out by the Planning Administrator. Jacks asked the Subdivision Committee Chairman to give his report. Don Hunnicutt stated there were no technical problems with the development plan. Most of the discussion centered around traffic concerns regarding the access onto Zion Road There were several neighbors from the area present to protest bad traffic conditions on Zion Road. The Chairman said he would like to hear from the Developer and the concerned neighbors. Planning Commission Meeting • May 24, 1982 Page 2 • Claude Prewitt addressed the Commission and introduced Ed McCord, the engineer for the project. Prewitt stated the developers of this site have been working on this project for a couple of years. The owners are in the apartment and property development business. When the traffic problem first came up at Plat Review, Prewitt said he talked to Perry Franklin, the City Traffic Superintendent. Mr. Franklin's main concern was the intersection at Zion Road and Highway 71 North, which pis without question, a difficult intersection. Franklin indicated the City is seeking cooperation from the Mall owners and perhaps some private developers in addressing the situation. Prewitt stated if the contribution to resolving this situation is not too burdensome, the developers would like to work with the City on a solution to the problem, however, the developers do not want to bear the cost of building an overpass that great a distance from their site. So far, the developers have had no indication of the contribution the City has in mind. (j Prewitt said the construction of an overpass and the signalization of the intersection have both been discussed. ;y• The proposed density of this development is half of the density allowable j in the R-2 district. Franklin indicated the effect of this development on the intersection is fairly minimal. Bobbie Jones said with this development, the developers will be required S. to dedicate 10 additional feet of right of way and widen the pavement on Zion Road 15 ft. from the centerline with the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk, along this developer's frontage on Zion Road. Prewitt said the widening of the road at this point, and the clearing out of foliage will greatly improve site distance around the entrance to the development. The developers do not see a problem with the approach to the entrance, however at the Subdivision Committee meeting, many.neighbors were concerned about the entrance. Jamie Jones, Zion Road, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives 3 to 400 yards from the property on the North side of the road. Ever since the by-pass went in he has been bugging the City and the State about installing signalization at the intersection of Zion Road and Highway 71 North. He said he was not only concerned about the intersection, but about the traffic conditions on Zion Road itself. It is not built to take very much traffic, but it is taking a lot of traffic from 265, including truck traffic. He said he was strongly opposed to any kind of development, multifamily or commercial which will intensify the traffic problem. He said he wanted to know that the problem at the intersection of Zion Road and 71 North would be taken care of in a reasonable period of time, and that Zion Road itself is built to handle the increased traffic before development begins, or it will be a very dangerous traffic condition out there. Arthur Mueller, Zion Road, addressed the Commission. He and his wife live immediately North of the proposed entrance drive to the development. Even though Zion Road will be widened for the frontage of this property, he did not feel the road would be adequate to support this development. Immediately to the West of the proposed entrance drive there is an s curve with no site distance. To the East, there is a rise in the road that you cannot see oncoming traffic over. The proposed access drive is located at the lowest part of the road. He felt it was a poor location for access to the site. If this project is approved and 101 units are placed in there, there is a potential of 200 cars entering and exiting this development at peak periods. Mueller said he and his wife have problems getting Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 3 out of their drive. He said many persons have gotten off the road when making the turn. In fact, he's lost a mailbox. Mrs. Jamie Jones, Zion Road, asked if there were any plans for the opening of Stearns Road to the South. Jacks stated there is no time table on completion, but Stearns is designated a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Mrs. Jones stated when the Doctor's Offices on Zion Road were constructed, she was told they would use Stearns Road for their access, that was 8 years ago. Jacks explained improvements such as streets have to take place as development occurs. Streets are seldom installed to standards prior to development taking place adjacent to them. Mrs Jones asked what is planned for Zion Road. Jacks stated it will be a 60 ft. right of way with 36 ft. of pavement. Edward Ivey, Zion Road, addressed the Commission. He stated he is an adjoining property owner. He said that development activity has been increasing in the area. He felt this was going to result in a tremendous traffic hazard. He felt the ingress/egress to the development would cause problems. He did not think the Commission realized how much traffic is on Zion Road at this time. He felt it would result in congestion and perhaps in fatalities. Jacks agreed that Zion Road is not adequate. Traffic will probably be increased. Mueller felt the entrance/exit to the development would be even more difficult in icy weather. It will be hard to get speed up to make the rise. Robert Leflar addressed the Commission, he stated he owns property immediately adjacent to this property. He did not feel the widening of Zion Road at this point would make much difference. He said in order to make a difference, right of way will have to be obtained from those with frontage and the street widened more than just at this point. Hunnicutt stated even though this property is the only property zoned R-2 at this time, this whole area is marked out on the general plan as being R-2 from the Commercial on 71 over to Crossover Road Nash asked how the road could be improved if development was not an issue. Jacks stated the property owners in the area could form an improvement district. Mueller said he felt that Stearns and Joyce should be the collector streets, there are no homes involved there and no one will have to lose their front yard. Barbara Crook asked Ed McCord if the grades at the entrance point were consistent with the standard grades for a Collector Street. McCord said contrary to the neighbors opinions, he feels that the entrance will be up on the hill a little bit. He was at the site today, and he looked at the entrance point and felt it could be seen fairly clearly. When the shrubs and overgrowth are removed, and the road widened, he felt it would further enhance visibility. Claude Prewitt stated that if Stearns ever becomes accessible, he felt people would use that rather than trying to get out at Zion Road and 71. Also, he feels the same as Mr. McCord, the entrance is not quite as low as the neighbors indicate. It is up on the hill and the developers are having to control drainage, which indicates it is higher than the property to the East. Also, people can take 265 or Old Missouri Road, rather than using the intersection at Zion and 71. Prewitt said this development is one half the allowable density, he did not feel it would impact Zion Road significantly. People can't be stopped from cutting through at Zion Road. 70 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 • Page 4 Morton.'Gitelman..moved the Large Scale Development Plan be approved subject to Plat Review Committee comments. David Williams seconded. Gitelman said his motion did not include any reference to the proposed overpass at 71 and Zion Road, because he did not feel off-site improvements can be required when you don't know what they are. Williams stated the safety concerns are legitimate, however, the developer has met the spirit and intent of the regulations. He wished there was some way of dealing with the increasing safety issues. The motion to approve passed (8-0). The Commission considered the approval CONCEPT PLAT of the Concept Plat of Winchester Square, WINCHESTER SQUARE located South of Highway 16 West and East JOHNNIE BASSETT of County Road 650 and West of Ozarks Electric, in the Growth Area. Johnnie Bassett, Developer and Owner. James Cramer was present to represent. Cramer addressed the Commission. He said Mr. Bassett proposes a subdivision consisting of 13 commercial lots fronting on Highway 16 West and the balance of the lots residential. Jacks asked why Henry Road has a jog in it. Cramer replied it was due to allocating at least an acre and one-half for each lot. Bobbie Jones explained if the jog is taken out of the road and one of the lots is less than an acre and one-half, the developer will have to get a waiver from the minimum lot area for a lot served by a septic tank from the Board of Directors. This concept plat will have to come back and go through Plat Review, Subdivision, and Planning Commission review. Jacks stated the Commission has a concept before them consisting of mixed commercial and residential development. Bobbie Jones stated she had an indication from Bud Allen that the Developer plans to pave the streets in the Subdivision. General Bruce Kendall stated that is correct, the streets will be paved with at least a double seal coat. Gitelman stated he had an objection to the 13 drives coming out on to 16 West. Gitelman felt if the concept was going to strip commercial, they ought to be limited to one or two entrance/exits, with easements to the other lots. He stated he was not objecting to the lay out of the subdivision, but to the problems the ingress/egress as proposed will create. Kendall felt these items could be negotiated at the preliminary plat level. Hunnicutt said he would like to see Winchester Road come out onto the County Road, and an intersection made. Jacks said this concept does not really require action. It is more or less to inform the developer of what he can expect down the line as far as problems or improvements. Crook said she has the.same problems as Mr. Gitelman about the multiple accesses to Highway 16 West and felt the Developers should take another look at that. She said she would find it difficult to approve the concept as submitted. 71 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 5 Jacks suggested the developer look at the possibility of providing water service to the site, this has been required in the past. He repeated that he has a problem with the jog in Henry Road. The next item of business was REZONING PETITION R82-4 a referral from the City Board of LOIS STRATTON Directors for the Planning Commission ONE MILE ROAD to review the rezoning petition R82-4 Lois Stratton to rezone property located at 1038 One Mile Road (East of One Mile Road, South of Velda Court, and North of Highway 62) from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Chuck. Hanks, Lois Stratton and Pat Pinnell were present to represent. The Chairman stated the Planning Consultant does not recommend the C-2, but a buffer zone between the Commercial to the South of this property and the residential to the North consisting of R-0. Chuck Hanks addressed the Commission and stated he represents Ms. Stratton. (o) He said he has drafted a Bill of Assurances and passed out copies to the Commission, the Bill of Assurances was drafted to meet some of Ms. Black's concerns over the commercial development near her property. The petitioners propose to assure that: 1. There shall never be any access to her property using One Mile Road. • 2. Fire protection shall be provided for the property. the North side of her property. Hanks said Ms. Stratton owns property surrounding the tract under petition, it is all C-2. If Ms. Stratton is forced to keep this parcel R-0, the uses allowed in that district will not justify the construction of One Mile Road as required by ordinance. Pat Pinnell addressed the Commission „ he stated if the concern is access of commercial properties to One Mile Road is the issue, the developers can covenant that there will be no access to One Mile Road. Hunnicutt stated when the Commission addressed this request originally, the only use that was proposed that would not fit in with the R-0 District was the proposed Parts Store. Pinnell said the R-0 would also cut off part of a proposed Shoe Store. Pinnell further stated that easements and parking requirements have taken up so much space, building is already going to be tight. He felt he could not restrict himself to the R-0 uses, and justify development. Andrew Ziser addressed the Commission representing Fred and Dorothy Black who live on the North side of this property. He said these people object to the commercial development in a residential area. If this property is rezoned, the amount of noise and traffic in the area will be increased. The General Plan shows this area as being developed Low Density Residential District. Ziser said his clients would like the property to stay as it is, but they would not object to the R-0 zoning. Morton Gitelman asked Larry Wood if he felt the restriction of access to 3. Ms. Stratton shall build and maintain a six (6) ft. high privacy fence along Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 6 One Mile Road would make a difference in his opinion of the request Larry Wood said it would improve the situation, however, the Commission should be cautioned that this might cause other requests to be submitted. There is no buffer established between the Commercial and the residential along 62 West. By continuing to rezone commercial, the Commission is endangering the livibility of the residential properties in this area. There has been no transition area established or precedent to protect against future applications. Limiting the access to One Mile Road would be something the Commission could defend. Windell Cullers moved the rezoning petition be denied to prevent further encroachment of commercial zoned property intoothe residential areas Melanie Stockdell seconded. There was some discussion about the possible adjustment of the line between R-0 and C-2. Gitelman reminded the Commission this was not a rezoning request but a referral from the Board of Directors for further study of the situation. Cullers withdrew his motion and Stockdell withdrew her second... Cullers moved the Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the Commission reaffirms its previous motion to deny the petition. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration REZONING PETITION R82-7 was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition DON CARLON BASSETT R82-7, Don Carlon Bassett to rezone property REBECCA STREET located South of Rebecca Street, North of Davidson Street, and 300 ft. East of North College Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District. F. H. Martin and Don Carlon f'Bassett were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated he does not recommend the proposed R-0 District for the following reasons: 1. An R-0 District zoning transition has already been established on the property immediately West of the property under application. 2. The extension of the R-0 District to the East is considered an intrusion into an existing single family area. 3. Access to the property is from streets that primarily serve residential uses Wood stated R-2 District might be considered to encourage development of the parcel and to recognize the difficulties of the flooding problems. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments in favor of the petition. F. H. Martin addressed the Commission and stated he represents the petitioner. He said the rezoning is being requested to allow a parking lot to be constructed. The petitioner has no intention of erecting any structures on the site. Martin stated the petitioner does not need to have the entire tract rezoned. There are several large trees surrounding the site, the petitioner would be happy to agree to leave the trees. Martin said in his opinion, the trees provide the best buffer. n7S Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 7 The Planning Consultant objected to the rezoning of the property because of the existing buffer zone, Martin said the buffer zone is narrow and he did not think it really buffered the club. There was concern when the club requested its license that there would not be enough parking, another concern was whether the club could operate without interfering with the EMS. Experience has shown that it can operate adjacent to the EMS. This rezoning request is an attempt to provide more parking for the club. Mr. Martin passed out pictures of the property in question. He stated the area that is presently gravel in the pictures, is all that the petitioners desire to be rezoned. They could have that portion surveyed, and split off from the balance. The trees can be left intact, and the petitioners are willing to assure this. Access to this property does not have to be from the residential street, it can be from the existing parking area. This property is in the flood plain, the petitioners do not wish to erect structures on the tract Martin felt the proper assurances and the greenery left intact, would make this a desirable situation for all concerned. Bob Ashworth asked if the site is presently being used for a parking lot. Martin replied it is. Ashworth asked if that is legal. Martin replied, he felt it was legal, but there are others who do not. Jim Boyd addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. He stated he is a resident of the neighborhood and that his property adjoins that in question. He asked the Commission to consider the petition passed out to them containing 120 signatures in opposition to the rezoning petition. He said that almost every adjoining property owner ;had signed the petition. The property is being. used for parking at this time, there is also storage of some automobiles being carried out on the tract. Boyd said the lot is unsightly he stated the Commission has a photo of the lot after the gravel was intalled, he .wished they could see a picture of the lot before the gravel was put in. Boyd said the lot was very beautiful and fit in well with the neighborhood. Boyd was concerned this area would end up a big ugly parking lot. He submitted the parking and storage presently carried out on the site are in violation of City Ordinances. The problem results from inadequate parking for the Y'All Come Back Saloon. Ever since the club was put in, he has been picking up beer cans and whiskey bottles, the permission to put more parking in this area will create more problems. He did not feel this neighborhood should be encroached upon any further. The property in question is located in the historic district, and one of the houses on this site has been there for one hundred years. The Bassett's knew how the property was zoned when they bought it, in spite of knowing that they built a parking:lot. The club creates noise past 12:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights. The parking will create more noise. He said this is a single family neighborhood and there are children living in this neighborhood that go to bed before 12:00. Both the land use and planning report indicate this is a single family area Cyrus Sutherland addressed the Commission. He stated he is president of the Washington County Historic District. The boundary for the Washington Willow Historic District is the line between the R-1 and C-2. The Washington Willow Historic District was created to protect this unique residential region. It has been recognized by the National Register of Historic Places which has no legal clout as far as protection. The only protection the historical district has is 9y A Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 8 the zoning laws of Fayetteville. For the Commission to rezone this property represents a dangerous erosion into the historic district. He felt this rezoning would be the thin edge of a wedge for future rezonings. Bob Ashworth addressed the Commission. He stated his property does not adjoin this piece of property but he lives in the neighborhood. He said ever since the saloon was installed he regularly has to pick beer cans and whiskey bottles up from his yard as well as his neighbors'.. Herb Lewis addressed the Commission. He stated he is a member of the Washington Willow Historic District and a resident of the neighborhood. He said he would like to reaffirm what Mr. Sutherland said He said he feels strongly about this and asked the Planning Commission to please not turn the property into a parking lot. Lewis said the saloon is too big a problem now, and asked the Commission not to add to the problem. Right now you can hardly drive up the street on Friday or Saturday night. The Saloon owners knew their parking was inadequate when they put the club in. Betty Lightonaddressed the Commission. She stated she owns two homes in the neighborhood. She seconds what Mr. Sutherland said. In the past the Commission has been concerned about the encroachment or changing of established residential areas She felt this was a particularly important decision because the issue occurs in the Historic District which the community as a whole is becomming more and more concerned about preserving. Danny Proffit addressed the Commission. He said he is not an adjoining property owner. However, he said the noise pollution in the neighborhood had greatly increased since the Club was put in and this has created stress among the neighbors. He stated he is a physician and is frequently on call; there have been times when he has had to call the police to have cars towed away simply to make his hospital calls. F. H. Martin stated that no beer cans or any whiskey bottles leave the saloon. Maybe people bring them to the area, but no liquor leaves the club. Martin asked the Commission and the neighbors to listen to what the petitioner is offering. Almost all of the greenery existing on the site would be left intact. If development occurs on that property, all of the trees could be cut down. The petitioner is offering by agreement, to leave them. He asked that the petitioner be allowed to improve a portion of this property into a parking lot. In return, most of the greenery will be left. Martin felt this arrangement would benefit everyone involved. Herb Lewis asked what the property owners plan to do with the old house that sits on the property. F. H. Martin stated that portion of the property could be ommitted from the rezoning petition. Diane Boyd addressed the Commission. She stated she is an adjoining property owner: She said a few months ago, the portion of the property in the pictures presented by the petitioner, now shown as gravel, was trees and shrubs. She heard machinery out there one day and the next thing she knew there was a parking lot built there. She stated she strongly objects to this. Melanie Stockdell stated she investigated the site today. The intersection at Rebecca and North College is a bad one. She said unless there was some compelling reason to rezone the property she would not be in favor of the request. Barbara Crook asked how much of the property the petitioners would be willing to omit from their petition. Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 9 Martin said they do not have to go all the way back. Barbara Crook said she felt this was a serious encroachment into a single family neighborhood. She also felt it would be an unfavorable use within the Historic District. Crook moved the petition be recommended to the Board of Directors for denial. David Williams seconded The motion passed (8-0). Julie Nash left the proceedings at 6:45 P.M. The next item of business REZONING PETITION R82-8 was the Public Hearing on Rezoning EOFF TRUST III Petition R82-8, Eoff Trust III, to rezone SOUTH HILL AVENUE property located at 518 South Hill Avenue from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Jim Hall was present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated C-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. C-2 District is compatible with the I-1 District to the East, South and • West. 2. The property already contains a structure constructed for commercial etg purposes. ca Jim Hall addressed the Commission. He presented pictures of the site and surrounding properties to the Commissioners. He said the property is across es the street from Brenda's Bigger Burger. It sits on the corner of Highway 62 and Hill Street. This portion of Highway 62 is scheduled for expansion between c]' 1983 and 1986. Hall said several of the houses shown in the pictures will have • to be taken when the Highway is widened. This is true of the house East of - this property and is also true about the house about 2 lots West of this property. 5 Most of the surrounding properties are zoned C-1 or I-1. The property has a L1 commercial structure on it, which has been sitting vacant for some time. The Trust intends to develop the site as a fast food restaurant. The rezoning is being requested because video games are not permitted in C-1. The property across Hill Street to the West is owned by Mr. Hunt. It is now being used as a cabinet shop and residence. The property immediately to the East is a house owned by Mr. Hanna who was present in the audience and stated he was not opposed to the rezoning. Hall said on..the::North,side of the property there is a trailer park which is zoned C-1. Jacks asked if there was anyone else in the audience appearing in favor of the request. There was no response. The Chairman stated he would entertain comments in opposition to the request. Ted Bealer, 631 West 6th Street addressed the Commission. He stated the property is about 200 ft. Northwest of his property. This property is also about three blocks from the elementary school and the high school is close by. He said he has to object to the proposed use for the property. He �� A Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 10 felt it would turn into nothing more than a hang out for people with nothing better to do. He felt with the video games there, it might be attractive to school children. They could stop off before school3at lunch and after school. He was objecting mainly because of the use and its proximity to the schools. Morton Gitelman moved the petition be recommended to the Board for approval based on the Planning Report. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business CONDITIONAL USE was a Conditional Use Request submitted S -S -L PARTNERSHIP by S -S -L Partnership to construct APARTMENTS IN C-4 approximately 30 apartment units on the 2nd and 3rd floors during remodeling at 29-35 East Center Street, zoned C-4 Downtown Commercial District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. He addressed the Commission,: and stated this building is separate from the Mountain Inn. Lindsey said the second and third floors might turn out to be office space or housing. The developers are not sure what will go in but would like to have an option. Housing mixed with offices is allowed in a C-3 district, but not in C-4. Lindsey said he is aware this will create an additional parking demand, he is currently working with Claude Prewitt on perhaps using some of the Mountain Inn's parking. Lindsey felt there is a need for housing downtown. Cullers asked why Lindsey was not concerned about lack of parking. Lindsey felt it was something that could be worked out. Williams moved the conditional use be approved. Windell Cullers seconded. Melanie Stockdell said she felt it was a wonderful idea to have residential property in the downtown area. Hunnicutt asked the Commission what the difference is between this request and the request previously submitted by Robin Hernreich. Lindsey said this building has direct access to a parking garage. The motion to approve passed (7-0). The next item of business was REQUEST TO CONVERT a letter from Charles G. Banks requesting SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX to convert an existing single-family CHARLES G. BANKS dwelling which encroaches into a future arterial street into a duplex. Mr; Charles Banks was present to represent. He stated he represents his daughter, Patty Foster, who actually owns the property. The site consists of a house and about an acre of land. It was purchased 4 to 5 years ago. Mr. Banks proposes to convert the house to a duplex. Bobbie Jones stated that in order to increase the density at the site, the owner would be required to construct sidewalk along this property on the North and West sides. Also, Banks will be required to dedicate 5 ft. of right of way for Chestnut and the right of way for the future arterial to the North of Mr. Banks' property ifheadds to the structure, however, this .is.not required for simply increasing the density of the structure. (77 A Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 11 By increasing the density of this structure, it may also increase the value of it. This may increase futute acquisition costs if the future right of way is acquired and the street constructed. Hunnicutt asked how much property had been dedicated for the future arterial. Bobbie Jones stated only from Chestnut West to Leverett. There is a 20 ft. dedication on the North side of this property. Jacks stated when the Master Street Plan was being developed, this looked like an ideal place for a cut across from Garland to Johnson Road. When Leverett Gardens I was developed, the City acquired that right of way for the future arterial. Bobbie Jones stated the City acquired that right of way and vacated the right of way for Elm. Banks stated he did not think this conversion would add very much value to the structure. Lindsey stated he owns property on the East side of Chestnut and that he sold Mr. Banks the house being considered at this time. When he sold the house to Mr. Banks, he was not psychologically aware that the house would be taken if that street were constructed. Lindsey said he had not developed his property on the East side of Chestnut that is now vacant for fear of being required to construct a bridge on the portion of the property where the creek crosses it. Jacks said he would be hesitant to abandon the right of way for the future arterial. Jacks said the construction at this time is not feasible and may not be for some time. He said he would like to obtain the right of way even if the developers do not enter into a contract to contribute for the construction of the future street. Lindsey stated he would be willing to dedicate the right of way. Banks said he too would give an easement., but needed to retain an adequate back yard. Gitelman said he felt the Commission should continue to get dedications. Sycamore is becoming the Collector. If the easements are obtained, and the street never constructed, the easements can be vacated. Crook wondered why the Commission was so willing not to require participation in construction. Gitelman explained it is highly unlikely that the University will ever contribute or develop to bring their side of the arterial up to standards. Cullers said he felt the same as Ms. Crook. He did not see any reason why the developers of property should not participate in paving the arterial. Roger Thurman addressed the Commission. .He stated development of this property creates a tax base. He wondered why money could not be escrowed from the tax base to pay for paving. The cost of development makes it very tough to develop now. Cullers said if this was any place else in town the developers would be required to install off-site improvements. Gitelman did not agree. He felt this situation paralleled.the Township Road situation where all of the right of way for the proposed arterial street has not been obtained, and there is no time table at all on construction. Cullers felt if this development was any place else, the Commission would require 1/2 the improvements on the streets on both frontages. Gene Thrasher addressed the Commission. He stated when he developed the existing Leverett Gardens, he paved the whole portion of Leverett from Poplar back. At that time the Planning Commission said if the right of way was dedicated by this developer that would be all that would be required. He was not required 75 • i • Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 12 to contribute on the construction of the arterial to the North, he felt the City should stick by its word. Lindsey said the Farmer's Daughter did not have to contribute and they front on the future arterial. Cullers moved that Mr. Banks be allowed to convert the single family home in question into a duplex, but not add to the structure. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT was the approval of the Large Scale LEVERETT GARDENS II Development Plan for Leverett Gardens CHESTNUT AND FUTURE ARTERIAL II located West of Chestnut Avenue, North of Poplar and South of the University of Arkansas Farm; Universal Properties, Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Olan Asbury, Roger Thurman and Gene Thrasher were present to represent. Olan Asbury addressed the Commission. He stated Leverett Gardens II was originally an extension of the existing Leverett Gardens. The existing Leverett Gardens has been sold, so the two developments will be under separate ownership. At the Plat Review Committee meeting, Clayton Powell recommended that Chestnut be improved on both sides to minimum City standards all the way to Ernie Jacks Boulevard/(arterial to the North). The developers would like to be required to construct Chestnut only to the Northerly most entrance to the project and that they not be required to construct Chesthut..completely, but only their half of the street. The developers would like a waiver of the recommended T-turnaround.and the obligation to contribute towards the construction of the future arterial. This developer has already dedicated 60 ft. of right of way from Leverett to Chestnut. The developer does not feel it is reasonable to also have to construct the street. The developer does not feel it is reasonable for the Commission to require the owners to construct Chestnut completely. Asbury stated he felt the University would never contribute their portion of any road. Mr. Bank's house sits in the right of way, the Commission has already jogged around Mr. Mayes' property. He felt for this developer to contribute to the construction of a road whose construction and configuration is dubious is unreasonable. Asbury said Mr. Lindsey owns property on the East side of Chestnut, he should be required to build his half of Chestnut when he develops his property. Jacks asked how many units are in the total development. Thrasher stated there were 144 units in the existing Leverett Gardens. 80 units are proposed for this construction. However, the construction costs are more expensive. Williams asked Mr. Thrasher if he would have any objection to naming the arterial Ernie Jacks Boulevard should it ever be constructed. Mr. Thrasher laughed. Don Hunnicutt moved the Large Scale Development plan be approved with the • following conditions: 1. The developer will not be required to contribute to the construction of 79 • • • SO@UUM Q WEAVE (it9 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 1982 Page 13 Ernie Jacks Boulevard. 2. This developer will construct his half of Chestnut to the North entrance, immediately, the remainder of Chestnut to be constructed at a later date. There was discussion on the adequacy .df 1/2 a street, -and alternatives. After discussion, Morton Gitelman moved the motion be amended to state this developer will not have access to the arterial to the North, if constructed, without approval from the Planning Commission. David Williams seconded the amended motion. Cullers said he would vote against this motion because it is not consistent with the ordinance. He said this sort of trade off causes problems in the future. If the boulevard does go in, Chestnut will he half a street ending in a dead end. He did not think that was good planning. Thurman asked where they are at variance with the ordinance. Crook said in not contributing to the construction of Ernie Jacks Boulevard. Thrasher said he had an agreement with the City thathe::would not have to contribute. Gitelman said he did not see Ernie Jacks Boulevard being developed. The motion passed (6-1) with Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. The information item under other business involved City Boards and.Cominissions dealing with suits by complainants regarding the Sherman Anti -Trust Act. OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 80