Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-27 Minutes• • • A meeting of 5:00 P.M. in East Avenue, MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING the Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 27, 1983 at Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr., Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams and Windell Cullers Barbara Crook, Ernest Jacks, Melanie Stockdell and Julie Nash Larry Wood, James Rush, Mary Rush,David McWethy, Christine Childress, John Funkhouser, Jo Hall, Wendy Schafter, Danny Wright, Suzanne Kennedy, Bobbie Jones, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M. by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr., with five Planning Commissioners present. Chairman Hailey told the Secretary that MINUTES paragraph 3, page 6 of the Minutes of the June 13 meeting should be changed to read "...this item was passed, 6-0..." as Commissioner Gitelman had left the meeting. With this correction, the Minutes were approved, 5-0. The second item on the agenda was public hearing on Rezoning Petition R83-9, submitted by James M. and Mary E. Rush to rezone property located north of Stone Street and east of Highway 71 Bypass from R-1, High Density Residential. James and Mary Rush Bobbie Report in the error, REZONING PETITION R83-9 STONE STREET JAMES $ MARY RUSH Low Density Residential to R-3, were present. Jones, Planning Administrator, gave a copy of Larry Wood's Planning to the petitioners. The Chairman explained this had not been included agenda, but was mailed separately to the commissioners and, through an had not been sent to the petitioners. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, reported the R-3 District is not recommended but the R-2 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The R-2 District is compatible with the General Plan which shows a medium and low density residential land use pattern, 2. The R-3 District is the highest density residential district and should be restricted to desired high concentration areas, preferably with access to arterial or collector streets; and 3. The necessary public facilities are available to serve medium density residential. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the petitioners if they wished to address the Commission. h7 • • • Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Two Mr Rush stated that he had not seen Mr. Wood's report. He said since the area is not developed, he thinks it will lend itself to any development. He said although the property will not be on a main street, it will be close enough to Highway 62 and the Bypass, that with the completion of Highway 62, he thinks the area will become commercial and create a need for high density housing for workers. He said he saw no conflict with the adjacent R-2 districts, that the existing public facilities could be upgraded to serve high density, and will also serve the University population. Hailey asked Mr. Rush if he was aware of the allowable densities for the R-2 and R-3 districts. Bobbie Jones explained R-2 zoning allows a maximum of 24 families per acre whereas R-3 allows up to 40 families per acre; that 1i parking spaces per unit are required in the R-2, and 2 spaces per unit are required in the R-3 for 2 or 3 -bedroom apartment units. She said this meant a five -acre tract of R-2 zoned property could accommodate approximately 105 2 -bedroom units whereas the same tract of R-3 zoned property would accommodate approximately 181 of those units. Windell Cullers asked the petitioner, if the Planning Commission were to recommend rezoning instead to R-2, would he prefer to leave the zoning R-1 or have it rezoned to R-2. The Chairman asked the petitioner if he wished to table his request in view of the fact that he did not see the Planning Report prior to the meeting. Mr. Rush said he would prefer to have the Planning Commission vote at this time. Newton Hailey asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the petition and there were no comments from the audience. Hailey said any action taken by the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Windell Cullers moved to recommend R-2 instead of R-3, stating it is MOTION more consistent with the pattern of development there and that the Planning Commission doesn't know for sure that the necessary public facilities for R-3';exist:'.. The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Cullers stated this does not preclude the petitioner from re -petitioning the Planning Commission. Mr. Rush asked if the Commission would vote on his petition for rezoning to R-3. Hailey explained a motion had been made for R-2 zoning, and asked Mr. Rush again if he wished to table his petition until the next meeting. David Williams explained that if the Planning Commission votes at this time, the petitioner must wait one year before re -petitioning. Hailey added the Board of Directors may choose to vote for the R-3 zoning, or may choose to keep the zoning R-1, regardless of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Bobbie Jones said the Board also has the option to send the petition back to the Commission for restudy. With Mr. Rush expressing the wish that the Commission vote on the motion, it was passed, 5-0, with Nash, Jacks, Stockdell and Crook absent. X78 • : Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Three Next was to consider a request to amend the approved Large Scale Development Plan for. the First Pentecostal Church of God at 1351 Morningside Drive to allow use of a septic tank system rather than connecting AMENDMENT LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1351 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE FIRST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD to public sewer. Chairman Hailey said the Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a Large Scale Development for the following reasons: "Art. 4, Sec. I (4e): City water and sewer is not readily available to the property within the large scale development and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the development." Hailey also noted letters in the agenda from the Washington County Public Health Sanitarian and the City's Assistant Engineer. Bobbie Jones said, in this case, the Assistant City Engineer does not feel a private sewer service line would function well due to the distance from the sewer main and the shallow depth of the sewer main. David Williams moved approval of the request. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers and passed, 5-0, with four commissioners absent. The fourth item was a public hearing to PUBLIC HEARING consider the following described AMENDMENTS TO MASTER STREET PLAN amendment to the Fayetteville Master HUNTSVILLE ROAD AS A COLLECTOR Street Plan: Add as a collector street, requiring a 60 -foot right-of-way, Huntsville Road beginning at Morningside Drive and running northwesterly to Mill Street, thence following Mill Street to Rock Street, crossing Rock Street to Washington Avenue behind the Washington County Courthouse, continuing Washington Avenue to Meadow Street, turning west on Meadow Street to intersect U.S. 71 B (North College Avenue). Chairman Hailey said this request originated with the Board of Directors, was taken to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Springdale -Fayetteville Transportation Committee who recommended, along with other changes, this particular amendment, it was approved by the Policy Group of the same committee and now comes before the Planning Commission for input through a public hearing. Hailey said any Planning Commission recommendation would go to the Board of Directors for final resolution. The Chairman asked Larry Wood, member of the TAC, to describe the area in question. Wood said the recommendation is to add as a collector street those parts of Huntsville, Mill and Washington east of the courthouse, turning west at Meadow. He said the starting point is to be where Highway 62 (or Sixth Street) would meet the existing Huntsville Road as an arterial street, if Highway 62 were extended that far east, and would allow for traffic circulation east of the courthouse Wood said, if the Planning Commission approves, nothing will happen unless development occurs, at which time the City can ask for right-of-way off each development parcel or the City can acquire right-of-way on their own, move utilities and widen the road. '14 • • Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Four David Williams asked if Washington Avenue now extends through any residential properties, and Wood said several houses would be involved. Hailey said the Commission is asked to address whether or not to recommend a collector street as described but cannot decide at this time exactly where the collector would be located, until new development (other than single family housing) comes into the area. Cullers stated he thought it would only make sense to straighten out the jog at some future point. Don Hunnicutt asked what action the Board may have taken on the extension of Meadow Street in courthouse or jail discussions. Assistant City Manager David McWethy said the Board offered to make certain street improvements if the courthouse were kept downtown but that offer was not accepted by the County and no longer stands. Williams asked for the width of Mill and Huntsville and Larry Wood said they are probably 22 feet or less of pavement, with a 40 -foot right-of-way, that a collector would have a 60 -foot right-of-way. Bobbie Jones said she thought Washington presently has a 15 or 20 foot right-of-way. Chairman Hailey opened the public hearing. Christine Childress, owner of property at 130 East Mountain Street, asked if there were any Master Street Plan maps of the proposed location for widening. She said Washington Avenue presently intersects between her and her neighbor's property. Larry Wood said he did not prepare any larger scale maps. Ms. Childress asked if the collector would continue straight through where Washington goes from Center to Meadow, or if it would follow the jog that is presently there. Wood said he thought the intent would be to go straight through, but said he cannot answer the question without knowing what the desire of the Board of Directors will be. Childress said she is concerned about the possible widening of the streets to sixty feet without any concept of where the street will be located. Wood explained the first step in the process is to add the street as a collector on the Master Street Plan, then for the City to detail the actual locations. Hailey asked what parameters would be used to detail the locations and was the jog in the street discussed in the TAC meeting. Wood said it was not but the price and availability of property would dictate the location. Cullers pointed out, when the actual location is determined, some residents will be greatly affected and others not at all but, until that time, the Commission today cannot know who will be affected, but can only hear comments from the public on whether or not the street should be a collector. David McWethy told Don Hunnicutt that the Highway Department had turned this particular part of Huntsville and Rock over to the City, that both these streets are presently designated "local" streets. John Funkhouser, resident of 210 East Center Street, said he understood once this collector street is designated, part of the area east of County Lane will become future parking for the courthouse, affecting 11 or 12 homes there. He asked what kinds of financial relief these residents would be allowed. Newton Hailey said the City has no plans for building parking east of the proposed collector but Cullers commented it was no mystery to him that since the vote on the jail failed, the fact was not lost on anybody here that a designated collector street may very well have something to do with future plans around the county courthouse. Funkhouser asked the Commission if the collector street plan goes through, did they not think this would affect that whole area. So • • Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Five Jo Hall showed a map to the commission which she said she and her neighbors had received in the mail. David McWethy said this map appears to be a repre- sentation of the County's proposed plans for that area, which is not the same thing as the City plan, although the two might work together. He also said he sensed some of those present think if the collector street is approved by the Planning Commission the City can then acquire property to widen streets. He explained, if the City wants property bad enough to pay for it, they can exercise eminent domain and acquire property right now, so the passage of this plan has no effect on that. In answer to the question of how the value of property is determined, he explained the City generally obtains two registered professional appraisals of the fair market value of property, that the City would try to resolve any disagreements. Mr. Funkhouser asked if the appraisers would be City -appointed and McWethy said the City would hire the appraisers but a resident may hire an appraiser of their choosing whose appraisal can be introduced as evidence should a case ever come to court. McWethy stressed the request before the Commission today is, from a planning standpoint, should there be a collector street through the area in question and it is the City Board who must finally decide and come up with funds to build a collector street. David Williams asked on what basis this recommendation is being made by the Transportation Advisory Committee. Larry Wood said therecommendation was made to address the problem of circulation and inadequate parking around the courthouse and the problem of the Rock and College Avenue intersection, the thought being that an earlier turn is needed onto College from north going south and from east going west. Williams asked if the option of taking traffic up Willow to Spring had been considered, stating he thought this was more direct, it takes traffic two more blocks away from the courthouse area, would cause less economic effort and less potential upheaval to residents in the immediate area. Wood said the Committee did not look at this option, but he thought it would affect even more residential property. Wendy Schafter, resident of 124 East Mountain, said she thought traffic that goes up Huntsville Road up to Washington Avenue has already travelled most of the way up the hill and she did not think the proposal will change the traffic pattern that much. She said she thought it would make a whole lot more sense if a change were to be made farther down the hill. Don Hunnicutt said he thought tying Huntsville Road into College Avenue will be a design problem wherever the tie is located, because of the steep grade. He said the amount of property needed to cut a sixty foot swath and build retaining walls could otherwise be used for buildings and/or parking. He said he thought it would be better to have a street farther away from the courthouse, but that he agreed there needs to be a connection between College Avenue and Huntsville Road. Hailey said he wondered if the TAC might need to study the area in more detail and bring this back to the Commission. Williams asked what had changed in the volume of traffic to justify a sixty foot collector street, other than the courthouse problem which he did not think is enough justification. Windell Cullers said he would be in favor of tabling, but will not vote for the • collector as proposed. C1 • • Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Six Morton Gitelman said he was opposed to the proposal because 1) it does not fit the function of a collector street being one block parallel to College Avenue, since a collector street is supposed to empty out the neighborhood traffic towards the arterials. He said if this plan were to pass, the traffic will simply be funnelled up to Meadow Street which is a terrible place to turn onto College Avenue; 2)it reminds him of the time when the Master Street Plan indicated a collector street to run down Fletcher Avenue from Sequoyah Mountain, which the residents there did not want and which was subsequently rejected; 3) he thinks Huntsville Road and Rock Street serve the traffic flow as is and he cannot see any real reason to run the same traffic up to Meadow; 4) he is not sure this is needed to accommodate the kind of traffic circulation there will be around the courthouse and 5) the real problem is the street widening might never happen and showing it on the Master Street Plan now will only upset a lot of residents and affect property values. Hunnicutt stated he would like to see a traffic count on Huntsville Road before this proposal ever comes back to the Commission, to compare with another collector street. After further discussion on Gitelman's point that the proposed location does not meet the function of a collector street, Cullers said a traffic count would not affect his feelings one bit. Bobbie Jones said the only facility the Traffic Superintendent has for conducting a traffic count is to hire someone to sit at the area and literally count cars. She also pointed out that, with a denial by the Planning Commission, the proposal stops here, unless there is an appeal filed with the Board of Directors. The public hearing was closed. David Williams moved to deny the recommendation, seconded by Morton Gitelman. Williams asked that the Minutes reflect this MOTION motion constitutes a rejection of Master Street Plan changes in the courthouse vicinity as outlined in a memo from Elaine Walker of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission to Bobbie Jones and the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The motion passed, 5-0, with four commissioners absent. Chairman Hailey suggested concerned residents keep track of upcoming City Board agendas to see if this item comes up again or to ask Mr. McWethy to send an agenda to those who are interested. McWethy stated, if any Board member wishes to bring this before the City Board, they will decide to do so at the July 5th meeting and it would then appear on the agenda of the July 19th meeting. The last item on the agenda was to consider a request for a rehearing for the Arkansas Institute of Theology on their Conditional Use Request submitted by Attorney Danny Wright on behalf of University Baptist Church. Chairman Hailey stated this request may be moot, as Commissioner Gitelman abstains from voting on all UBC matters, leaving only four commissioners to vote. He said five affirmative votes are needed. REHEARING CONDITIONAL USE ARKANSAS INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH SR • • 1 Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Seven Danny Wright said an amendment was made to the Planning Commission Bylaws, dated February 28, 1977, which states under Article III, I: "A favorable vote by a majority of the members present shall be required before any matter upon which decisive action has been taken may be reheard." Chairman Hailey said he understood the Bylaws require a majority of the entire Commission to be present. Windell Cullers asked if the Planning Commission can table an item without the petitioner requesting they do so. Hailey said this could be done. Windell Cullers moved to table this item until the next meeting. MOTION Newton Hailey stated his Bylaws, dated November 1, 1977, state under Article III, I: "A favorable vote by the majority of the whole number of members comprising the Planning Commission shall be required before any matter upon which decisive action has been taken may be reheard." Bobbie Jones pointed out the revision date on Newton Hailey's copy of Bylaws is more recent. She said she had given Mr. Wright the copy he has and thought she was giving him the most recent copy. Don Hunnicutt seconded the motion made by Cullers, stating the Commission voted at the last meeting on approval for the Institute, and the vote failed because there were only four affirmative votes, that the Commission will be facing the same situation today. The vote on the motion was 3-1-1, with David Williams voting "nay", with Mort Gitelman abstaining, and with four commissioners absent. Danny Wright explained today's request is only that a rehearing be granted at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Cullers contended a majority of those present had effectively tabled the request, but Hailey stated business could not be conducted without five members voting. Cullers asked about the time limit and Danny Wright said he is required to appeal within thirty days from the last hearing, that this time period expires on July 13th. Cullers stated he wished to vote on the rehearing, and that he would vote against it. The Chairman asked if the Commission would entertain premise that a majority of those present can ask for find they cannot do that, it would negate any action thought the vote for approval of the conditional use because the Bylaws require five affirmative votes on a motion based on the a rehearing and, if they taken. Wright stated he failed at the last meeting a motion. Cullers moved that there not be a rehearing. The Chairman stated there cannot be a negative request in a motion. Cullers then moved to deny the request for a rehearing, which the Chairman would not accept as a motion. Newton Hailey said he wished to rule, until he is found wrong, that a rehearing can be called by a majority of those present. 73 • Planning Commission June 27, 1983 Page Eight David Williams moved to approve a rehearing, seconded by MOTION Don Hunnicutt. The vote was 3-1-1, with Cullers voting "nay", with Gitelman abstaining, and with four commissioners absent. David Williams stated, if the City Attorney says the Planning Commission does not have the power to pass a motion in this way, the request is moot. Bobbie Jones was asked to notify the petitioners if their request needs to come back at another time. Morton Gitelman stated he would give a committee OTHER BUSINESS report on the Controlled Access -Service Road regulations (Chapter 18, Sec. 18-13, Code of Ordinances) at the July 25th meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at about 6:10 P.M. rq