Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-14 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 14, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Jr., Julie Nash, Windell Cullers, David Williams, Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hunnicutt Tom Hopper, Sam Rogers, Bill Champlin, Bill Brooks, Ken Parsons, Sam Miller, Mike Price, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Jim House, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press, and others The Minutes of the'Planning Commission meeting MINUTES of January 24, 1983 were approved as mailed. Julie Nash, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, moved the following slate of nominees be accepted: Secretary: Ernest Jacks Vice -Chairman: Melanie Stockdell Chairman: Newton Hailey, Jr. ELECTION OF OFFICERS NOMINATING COMMITTEE The motion was seconded by David Williams. Chairman Jacks asked if there were any other nominations and none were submitted. The slate was voted on and passed, 8-0. Next was to consider approval of REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT the revised preliminary plat of Rolling ROLLING MEADOWS - PHASE III Meadows, Phase III located north of _.AROGERS COMPANY Rolling Hills Drive, east of Sheryl Avenue and west of Loxley Avenue; Rogers Co., owner and developer; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Sam Rogers, owner, was present and Tom Hopper was present, representing Crafton, Tull, Spann and Yoe. Melanie Stockdell reported for Subdivision Committee, that the Committee recommends approval subject to the following: (1) that a streetlight at the corner of Eton and Elizabeth be moved to the south side of Eton and Elizabeth, that the streetlight between Lots 116 and 117 be moved to the south side of Lot 174 and other requests for streetlight spacing waivers be submitted in writing by 2-14-83; (2) that a letter be submitted by 2-14-83 stating the owner will draw up a contract agreeing to complete the development in two phases within 24 months from the date of final plat approval. 13 • • • Planning Commission February 14, 1983 Page Two At this point in Stockdell's report, Tom Hopper addressed the first two items of the recommendation and stated (1) some of the streetlights in question match lot lines and he submitted a letter requesting permission to have the streetlights match lot lines and that the 300 feet be waived; (2) although Clayton Powell has requested all public improvements be completed at one time, due to the state of the economy, Mr. Rogers feels it is unreason- able to expect the entire development to be completed at one time and asks that only the Eton Street portion be completed at the first phase, and that he is hesitant to state the remainder will be completed within two years. Ernest Jacks asked if there must be a set time, and Bobbie Jones stated at one time the Mayor refused to sign a contract for a five-year time period until it be reduced to 24 months. She said the ordinance doesn't set a guide- line. Hopper said the owner could guarantee 3 or 4 years for completion. Windell Cullers suggested the subdivision be split and Hopper noted that Clayton Powell preferred to do one final inspection on the total subdivision. Jones stated, at final plat filing, if public improvements are not complete, the owner must enter into a contract, or post a cash bond or performance bond. She stated, in effect, Hopper is asking to postpone the determination of the time requirement until the time of final plat approval. Stockdell continued the Subdivision Committee report and stated that there were additional contingencies to the approval: (3) that it is assumed that the wording in Street Department correspondence dated 5/12/81, "along the south side of Cortland Street" meant to read "...Eton Street" instead; (4) that a utility easement annotation on the northwest corner of the plat read instead "utility and drainage" easement; (5) that approval be subject to plat review comments where utility easements are concerned for the Gas and Phone companies. Bobbie Jones reported the distance between one or two of the streetlights was 350 feet, that one had 340 feet of spacing, that one had 320 feet of spacing. She stated that Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, has informed her that his wording was not meant to read Eton Street. It was moved by Melanie Stockdell to recommend approval subject to the following: (1) that a streetlight at the MOTION corner of Eton and Elizabeth be moved to the south side of Eton and Elizabeth, that the streetlight between Lots 116 and 117 be moved to the south side of Lot 174 and other requests for streetlight spacing waivers be submitted in writing by 2-14-83; (2) that a "utility easement" annotation on the northwest corner of the plat read instead "utility and drainage" easement; (3) that approval be subject to plat review comments where utility easements are concerned for the Gas and Phone companies. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook and passed, 8-0. Bill Champlin, resident at 3018 Sheryl Street, said he was aware of the existence of restrictive covenants filed by Mr. Stubblefield in the early to mid -60's requiring 100 foot wide lots. He said these are still binding and feels the 70 foot wide lots would be a violation of those restrictive covenants. He said he thinks some record should be made so that property owners are aware of this. He said the title company once refused to issue insurance because the title may be clouded. . Mort Gitelman advised that any existing covenants for the subdivision would be a private matter. Hopper stated before Sam Rogers purchased the property, the owner's attorney wrote a letter (which has been submitted to Bobbie Jones) in which he states there are no protective covenants for Phase III. ly • • Planning Commission February 14, 1983 Page Three The next item was public hearing REZONING PETITION R83-2 on Rezoning Petition R83-2, Jim House, HUNTSVILLE ROAD to rezone property located on the south JIM HOUSE side of Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road) between Lake Sequoyah Drive and Lewis Woods Lane from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Jim House was present. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented the rezoning application planning report. He did not recommend the C-1 District for the following reasons: 1. Commercial development at the proposed location is in conflict with the recommendation of the General Plan which calls for low density residential; 2. Commercial development at the proposed location would tend to encourage strip commercial development along Highway 16 East, and 3. The existing commercial location at Mally Wagon Road should be fully utilized before any expansion is considered. Windell Cullers commented that there was some commercial zoning in that area, but no commercial usage at this time. Chairman Jacks asked for comments in favor of the rezoning. Petitioner, Jim House, stated he has owned the property for ten years and has been upgrading it. He said, as far as use of the existing property, he sees the buildings as outdated and undersized. House distributed photos of the property. He said he thinks economics are to build on the property he owns and that it is a long way from Baldwin to any services for the rural community. He said he sees Woods' point as to strip zoning. He said he checked with all adjoining property owners explaining what his plans are and showing the approximate location of where he would build. He said he owns 80 acres, the front 300 feet of which are in the City Limits. He said the Washington County soils map tells him the area is poorly drained and would not be good for building a residence, and the property behind the store site is nearly prime farmland. Chairman Jacks read a petition submitted by 13 persons requesting the Planning Commission reject the rezoning petition (no reason was specified). Chairman Jacks asked for comments in opposition to the rezoning. Bill Brooks, neighbor to Jim House, stated he thought Mr. House had been a good neighbor and had cleaned up the property. He said his family had moved to the area in 1958 from Combs so their children could attend the Fayetteville schools. He has had numerous opportunities to sell his frontage for commercial purposes and he and his other neighbors do not want a store building there. He said there is a store in Baldwin not being used, which is available. He thinks the existence of the store will cause more traffic and a higher incidence of crime, any commercial development will be unsightly and will increase the disadvantages of living in the area He said he was aware the House family was in the liquor store business, and he also did not want a liquor store there. Cullers asked, if Mr. Brooks knew the requested zoning did not allow for a liquor store, would he change his attitude Mr. Brooks said his objection was not just to a liquor store but to any commercial building. Jim House asked the Chairman to check the names on the petition and Jacks did so and stated all of them seem to reside between the property and town. Ken Parsons stated it was his understanding a Mr. Mitchell had bought the old Wilson's Market Store in a bankruptcy sale recently and that he intends to put in a new Mart and gas station at that location. /S • • • L r Planning Commission February 14, 1983 Page Four Windell Cullers stated he did not think the proximity of a Quiki-Mart should have anything to do with the rezoning question. He said he is distressed that, by restricting C-1 zoning, the Planning Commission increases the value of property which is zoned C-2 and can be used for liquor stores. He does not think the other side of the highway would be sold out because of one commercial development. Cullers moved to approve rezoning to C-1 and stated he thinks it is a good use and doesn't see any other property that will be used out there for commercial purposes. The motion died for lack of a second. David Williams moved to deny the rezoning on the basis of its being in conflict with the General Plan and because of the MOTION tendency to encourage strip commercial development along Highway 16 East. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Cullers asked Williams to explain how this would encourage strip zoning. Williams stated he was a believer in "the domino theory" and said it doesn't take very long for other commercialization to get started. Cullers said Highway 62 was becoming a good commercial area but that it is useful to the people who drive along that road. He said he thought the Planning Commission has the discretion of turning down other requests for commercial zoning. Jacks expressed agreement with Williams and Julie Nash stated she thought it silly to hold out on zoning one lot commercial on Highway 62, for example, when most of that area is already zoned commercial, but she thought an instance such as this is a good point at which to stop commercialization before it begins. Gitelman thought if this was the only request in the area, Cullers would have a good point, but said there have been many such requests and the Planning Commission has consistently denied them. Cullers stated this was making it hard for a small development. House reiterated his point about the soils studies and stated if he could not use the frontage of his property for the development and built instead farther back he would be even closer to the neighbor who spoke in opposition. The motion was voted on and passed, 7-1, with Cullers voting "nay". Next was to consider a recommendation from the City Attorney that Chapter 18, Section 18-13, AMENDMENT CHAPTER 18, SECTION 18-13 CODE OF ORDINANCES Code of Ordinances (Ord. 1661 & 2010) be amended in view of a recent State Supreme Court Decision on the James T. Calabria et al case. Morton Gitelman stated he had not yet contacted City Attorney McCord regarding this item. Chairman Jacks said the "Bypass Ordinance" was put together when it was discovered the Highway Department gave away access points and the Planning Commission did not want the Bypass to be another thoroughfare for commercial properties; he said this ordinance is still important as far as maintaining the Bypass as a controlled access situation. 16 • • Planning Commission February 14, 1983 Page Five Bobbie Jones said McCord was wanting a committee appointed with both Ernest Jacks and Mort Gitelman as members. Ernest Jacks appointed a committee consisting of himself and Morton Gitelman. Larry Wood said a Master Street Plan amendment is being prepared to take a look at the service roads for some needed revisions and this should be completed in the next two months. Ernest Jacks appointed Mort Gitelman Chairman of the Committee, and said a report would be made at the next meeting. The last item on the agenda was to consider a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Sam Miller for property north of Fifth Street and west of Happy Hollow Road. Sam Miller and Mike Price were present. Mike Price explained that Charles Pope wishes to purchase 3.32 acres of an original tract totaling about 9.6 acres. Bobbie Jones said an additional five feet of right-of-way is needed for Fifth Street. David Williams moved approval subject to declaration of a five foot additional right of way specified by the City. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 6-0, with Morton Gitelman and Julie Nash absent. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR LOT SPLIT HAPPY, HOLLOW ROAD AND FIFTH STREET SAM MILLER Ernest Jacks reported that the OTHER BUSINESS Update Committee arranged for a meeting at which a total of ten persons were to be present and the only three persons who showed up were Planning Commissioners. He said the purpose of the meeting had been to solicit comments from commercial interests. He said the committee will proceed without those comments. Bobbie Jones said there had been numerous requests regarding mobile homes and she asked that this question be considered by the committee. Jacks asked Bobbie Jones to put her request in memo form. Larry Wood reported that House Bill #505 would prohibit any city or unit of government from restricting mobile homes, which means that any R-1 zoned property could receive a mobile home in the future. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 P.M. l9