The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-08-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 8, 1983 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and East Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Windell Cullers, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr. Ernest Jacks, Melanie Stockdell, David Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, Julie Nash Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M., by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr., with five commissioners present. With no additions or corrections, the Minutes of MINUTES the July 25, 1983 meeting were approved as mailed. The second item on the agenda was to consider a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a fourth lot split submitted by Leonard VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOURTH LOT SPLIT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LEONARD LINSTEAD Linstead for property outside the City Limits, south of Highway 45 East and West of Fox Trail. Chairman Hailey explained this request must also go before the Board of Directors because one lot is less than 111 acres and also because only the Board has the authority to approve more than three lot splits. As background information, Chairman Hailey explained Lot Split #1 consisted of the parcel of land comprising "Fox Run Addition" (shown on Drawing A). He said, as a result of a divorce settlement, 39.6 acres east of Fox Trail (see Drawing B) was deeded to Mr. Linstead (shown as Tract I), and Tract II west of Fox Trail was deeded to Mrs. Linstead. The rest of the property, with frontage on Highway 45 (shown as Tracts III and IV) was also deeded to Mr. Linstead. Hailey said, according to City Attorney McCord, these divisions of the property use up the maximum number of lot splits allowable. Mr. Linstead is now asking to be allowed to split off part of Tract III which fronts on Highway 45 and all of Tract IV (shown in Drawing C) to the Goshen Fire Department and to Rick Stroud while he wishes to retain a 30 -foot road easement to the back of Tract III. Hailey said, if the Board of Directors were to approve these additional lot splits, the Planning Commission could then consider a request for a variance from the lot size requirement. Hailey said, in his opinion, the Board needs to make their determination first. (Commissioner Stockdell arrived at this point.) Ernest Jacks moved the Planning Commission take no action on this MOTION request. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Newton Hailey explained the request for • additional lot'splits must go before the Board of Directors. The motion passed, 6-0, with Crook, Hunnicutt and Nash absent. qg • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1983 Page Two Morton Gitelman reported on COMMITTEE REPORT a study of the Controlled CONTROLLED ACCESS ORDINANCE STUDY Access Ordinance. Gitelman MORTON GITELMAN explained that, when the Arkansas Highway Department agreed to construct the Bypass and acquire right-of-way, they gave 52-54 property owners direct access from the Bypass in order to acquire the land as cheaply as possible. Gitelman said the Planning Commission, at that time, felt that 1) the Bypass was constructed to carry traffic around the City and direct accesses could pose safety problems; and 2) there was a fear that, with direct accesses, there would be a tremendous push for commercial strip development such as that along College Avenue. As a result, the Planning Commission came up with the Controlled Access Ordinance which was designed 1) for traffic safety, whereby developers along the Bypass were required to build frontage roads for access, after which they had to give up their direct access; and 2) to slow down development by making it imperative that the necessary improvements be required. Gitelman explained that, six months ago, someone challenged that part of the ordinance which required the construction of the frontage road and the Court declared that part of the ordinance to be invalid. Gitelman said he and City Attorney McCord have concluded that, since the time when the ordinance was first adopted, the biggest fear from direct access has been overcome, since much frontage road has been constructed, and those few instances of direct access are not enough to be concerned about. They also feel that planning and zoning have managed to keep commercial development from "stripping" along the Bypass Gitelman said City Attorney McCord has suggested a public hearing be held to consider an ordinance to delete that portion of the Bypass Ordinance which requires the construction of a frontage road, leaving the rest of the ordinance intact which requires developers to bring in large scale development plans, and that the Committee so recommends this to the Planning Commission. After some discussion on how much frontage road has already been constructed, Gitelman stated it is the City Attorney's opinion the City can no longer require the construction of frontage roads, but can still have control in terms of development. Phyllis Rice, reporter for the Northwest Arkansas Times, asked if developers could still be required to dedicate right-of-way for a frontage road, and'Bobbie Jones said the frontage roads are still shown on the Master Street Plan, although that Plan needs to be amended to align with service roads already constructed. Morton Gitelman moved the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to MOTION delete that part of the Bypass Ordinance which requires the construction of frontage roads and to amend the Master Street Plan to realign the service roads, as soon as practical. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Morton Gitelman asked that Bobbie Jones check with McCord as to when he will prepare the revised ordinance. The motion passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. • • • .Planning Commission August 8, 1983 Page Three Newton Hailey reported that a committee COMMITTEE REPORT to study the Bylaws, composed of STUDY OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Barbara Crook, Ernest Jacks and NEWTON HAILEY himself, met last Monday and reviewed two sets of Bylaws: 1) The "November, 1977" Bylaws which state there must be five affirmative votes, regardless of the action taken, and regardless of the number of commissioners present; and 2) the "February, 1977" Bylaws which state business can be conducted with a majority of those present, assuming a quorum is present. These bylaws only require five affirmative votes for rezonings and changes to the Master Plan. Hailey said the committee has decided to recommend a:.majority of those present (assuming a quorum is present) should be able to conduct business, and that five affirmative votes should only be necessary to conform with state statutes on rezonings, changes to the Master Plan, changes to the Bylaws, and approval of conditional uses Hailey said, from research done by Bobbie Jones and from the opinion of the City Attorney, the November 1977 changes to the Bylaws were never officially adopted. Ernest Jacks moved the committee bring back, for final consideration by MOTION the Planning Commission, a revision to the Bylaws in accordance with the discussion at this meeting, that there will only be four instances in which the majority of the entire Planning Commission must vote affirmatively. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers. Newton Hailey stated the re -draft of the February Bylaws should be included with the next agenda. Morton Gitelman said he thought this action will make an abstention a negative vote. Bobbie Jones and Ernest Jacks both stated they thought the Bylaws already say an abstention is a negative vote, although Jones said a revision may have been made to say an abstention does not count as a vote either way. Gitelman pointed out that, with five persons present, iri the case of a tie vote with one abstention, the abstention in effect becomes a negative vote because the motion fails. Bobbie Jones said the City Attorney's opinion is that, unless the Bylaws state an abstention does not count either way, it either goes with the motion or with the majority of those voting. There was some disagreement with McCord's opinion and since the problem of a tie vote still remains, Gitelman asked that the committee consider this area when revising the Bylaws. Ernest Jacks amended his motion to include consideration of the abstention problem. Windell Cullers agreed to second the amended motion and it passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 P.M. MOTION foo