Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-13 Minutes• A meeting of 13, 1984 at MINUTES OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 5:00 p.m. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr., Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Stanley Green, Fred Hanna, Melanie Stockdell, Sue Madison, David Williams, and Ernie Jacks. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Carnahan, Jerry Sweetser, Collier Pierce, Larry Wood, George Faucette, Jr., Don Mitchell, Wade Bishop, Mel Milholland, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Roy Cate, Mr. & Mrs. B. W. Graue, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler, members of the press and others. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 1984. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. NOMINATING COMMITTEE The second item on the agenda was a and the election of officers. Chairman Hailey requested a report Committee, Morton Gitelman. MOTION report from the Nominating Committee from the Chairman of the Nominating Gitelman advised and moved the following officers for 1984: Chairman -- Newton Hailey, Jr.; Vice -Chairman --Melanie Stockdell; and Secretary -- Barbara Crook. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 8-0 with one Planning Commission member being absent at the time of vote. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TOWNSHIP AND GREGG LINDSEY AND SEXTON, OWNERS/DEVELOPERS The third item on the agenda was the approval of the opment plan for the southeast corner of Township and Sexton, owners and developers. Property zoned Commercial District. Gary Carnahan was present Large Scale Devel- and Gregg; Lindsey C-2, Thoroughfare to represent this 93 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 2 matter. Chairman Hailey clarified for the benefit of the new Planning Commission members, that unless there is a variance/waiver which requires granting by the Planning Commission, the Subdivision Committee has the power to approve these items. Chairman Hailey requested Barbara Crook's report on this matter. Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the Large Scale Development of Lindsey and Sexton, as submitted with the granting of the Waiver of Maximum Width of Drives. MOTION Crook moved that the Planning Commission approve the Large Scale Devel- opment as submitted subject to plat review comments; that the Planning Commmission grant the Waiver of Maximum Width of Drives. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioner Gitelman asked if the 40 ft. driveway safety zone had been considered in the approval of this Large Scale Development. Crook stated that this was considered and at that time Mr. Carnahan explained that he had contacted the Arkansas Highway Department, receiving their approval. Barbara Crook stated that she wished to suggest that the Update Committee consider the matter of the Maximum Width of Drives as this seems to be a matter requiring continuous waiver. Crook stated that the City Code reads Maximum Width, and this has been interpreted as being from outside -to -outside of the radius. Crook requested that there either be clarification of the existing City Code or some way to handle this without continued need for waivers. Chairman Hailey requested that the Update Committee look into this matter. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 590 WEST POPLAR STREET JERRY SWEETSER, OWNER/DEVELOPER The fourth item on the agenda was the Large Scale Development plan for 590 West Poplar Street; Jerry Sweetser, owner and developer. Property zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Jerry Sweetser and Collier Pierce were present to represent this matter. Chairman Hailey requested that the Subdivision Committee give their report on this Large Scale Development. Crook advised that a Waiver of the Screening requirement was being requested, and that planting be allowed in lieu of the screening on the east boundary, and to use the existing planting to the north along Skull Creek. Sweetser advised that 1/2 of the planting along the north is on Sweetser property. Sweetser advised they would have control of the planting along the • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 3 west. MOTION Crook moved that the Planning Commission approve the Large Scale Develop- ment subject to Plat Review Comments; that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Board, acceptance of a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk and street improvements along Poplar Street, with construction of the street and sidewalk to take place at such a time as the anticipated bridge construction along Poplar Street is undertaken; that the sidewalk extend the full length of the property at the time of the street construction; that planting be accepted in lieu of screening. Stockdell advised that she would like to see something other than Lombardi Poplars used as the screening. Crook reiterated that the motion stated that the Planning Commission accept planting in lieu of screening, with specific plants not being identified. Sweetser stated they felt like the anticipated planting will be a great improvement over what is currently present. Sweetser stated that they wanted this area to look good. Sweetser advised they had consulted with a landscaper on their planting, and this is what they were advised to plant. The landscaper advised that the Poplars did have a short life, but by the time they were phased out, the slower growing shrubs would be of sufficient size to provide screening. Commissioner Stockdell advised that as long as the purpose of the screening is accomplished, then this would be fine. Jacks thought that as long as the growth was maintained, there should be no problem. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 9-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT DEANE STREET, WEST OF LEWIS AVENUE REALTY INVESTORS, OWNER/DEVELOPER Chairman Hailey advised that due to the fact no waivers were requested on this Large Scale Development, the Subdivision Committee has approved this plat as submitted during their meeting of February 10, 1984. REINSTATEMENT --PRELIMINARY PLAT SMOKE RISE SUBDIVISION PAT DEMAREE--OWNER/DEVELOPER The sixth item on the agenda was the Request for Reinstatement of a Preliminary Plat for Smoke Rise Subdivision, located on Shiloh Drive, south of Highway 16 west; Pat Demaree, owner and developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Don Mitchell was present to represent this matter. Chairman Hailey asked for the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. vs PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 4 MOTION Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended reinstatement of the Preliminary Plat of The Smoke Rise Subdivision and moved that the Planning Commission approve reinstatement. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. David Williams asked for clarification on why a plat would need rein- statement. Chairman Hailey advised that a plat would need reinstatement if the developer were to let the one year of approval time lapse. Jones advised that the City Attorney stated that this plat should be subject to the Parks requirement. Crook questioned the Planning Commission's responsibility for this Parks requirement. Jones stated she thought this matter went into effect automatically; that nothing was required by the Planning Commission. Jacks requested to know if anything had been changed in this subdivision. Mitchell advised that since the Subdivision Committee Meeting of Friday, February 10, 1984, he had discussed this matter with the Arkansas Highway Department. Mitchell advised that the Arkansas Highway Department did not want the Frontage Road abutting this property improved, i.e., no curb and gutter. The Arkansas Highway Department requested new plans on the developer's approach of the Frontage Road. The Highway Department stated they would take the drainage problem into consideration when they re -issued the permit, as well as requesting that the sidewalk be placed on the first 5' of the Arkansas Highway Department right-of-way. Motion passed 9-0. RE -REVIEW, FINAL PLAT CAMELOT ADDITION --PHASE I PAUL MARINONI, JR. The seventh item on the agenda was the re -review of the Final Plat of Camelot Addition, Phase I, originally approved August 24, 1981. City Attorney McCord has advised that the drainage is the only matter for consideration. Located South of Wedington Drive, between Lonnie Avenue and Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Chairman Hailey advised that he understood the Final Plat was approved by the Planning Commission; that the Final Plat had not been recorded. The City Board had requested that the Planning Commission look at this matter to coordinate with the Drainage Study which had been done since approval of this Final Plat. Chairman Halley advised that Mr. Clayton Powell and Mr. Paul Marinoni had met to work out the drainage problems and the drainage easement which was apparently agreeable to both parties. Hailey advised that he had discussed the matter with Attorney Jim McCord and he was not sure of exactly what was required. Hailey stated he felt that all matters had been resolved as requested by the City Board. Q6 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 5 Mr. Eldon Jansen, property owner on Berry Street, expressed concern of the definite water problem in the area. Jansen stated that he would like to be assured that whatever will occur in the trench will not compound the drainage problem, but be an attempt to alleviate the problem. Hailey advised that the proposed plan was to straighten and align the floor of the ditch at the east property line, leaving all the trees on the east side of the ditch on Lonnie Avenue right-of-way; secondly, to establish a floor of the ditch to carry the computed drainage run-off, slope the west side of the ditch to a 3:1. The developer would save as many of the mature trees as possible on the west bank. Hailey stated this may alleviate some of the upstream ponding. Jansen was concerned about the placement of drainage structures under the highway. Crook advised there was a good size drainage structure currently under the highway. Jones advised that the tile under Lancelot, which is the street that Mr. Marinoni is constructing, must be approved by the Arkansas Highway Department due to the fact that Highway 16 is a State Highway. Hailey stated that drainage calculations had been performed as Highway 16 East was constructed, and possibly the City Board could request the Highway Department to check calculations, based on the new Drainage Study. Chairman Hailey requested that Planning Administrator Jones check with Clayton Powell regarding the drainage issues in this area. RECOMMENDATION ON STREET PATTERN LOCATED AT UNOPENED SYCAMORE AND PORTER ROAD SUBMITTED BY ROY CATE The eighth item on the agenda was a request by Roy Cate for recommendation on street pattern at (unopened) Sycamore and Porter Road. Chairman Hailey explained that this would be at the Southwest Corner of the intersection with Sycamore being unopened at that corner. Chairman Hailey stated that Mr. Cate's proposal will be addressed in the manner of a concept plat from the Planning Commission's standpoint, to listen to the options present and perhaps render some guidance as to what the Planning Commission would like to see at that point. Chairman Hailey requested to know if Mr. Cate would like anything to be added other than that information which appeared in the agenda. Mr. Cate stated he would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission due to the fact that his entire development depends upon the amount of improvements which will be needed along Sycamore. Chairman Hailey asked Larry Wood for background information on this matter. Wood advised that a cul-de-sac was located in the middle of the property, not realizing the existing Sycamore location. Wood stated he recommended use of the existing Sycamore location and suggested that the City might consider reducing the paving requirements from 31' to 20' on the south side of Sycamore, which would give two 10' driving lanes and let the additional paving be the responsibility of the property owners to the north when that property develops, which would add the remaining 11', thus making the 31'. The reason for shifting to the • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 6 Sycamore location is that there is is involved here. If the Sycamore ✓ oad in the middle of the property a house west of the property which location were not used, the new would run into the existing house. Jacks wished to know why the service road was moved to Sycamore. Wood explained that it was basically an existing location. Some of the right-of-way for Sycamore currently exists but has never been opened. Crook requested to know if the developer would be getting with an engineer to have this plat drawn up for approval. Mr. Cate advised he would be doing this, and he now knows where he stands with Sycamore. REZONING PETITION R83-22 4041 WEDINGTON DRIVE B . W. GRAUE The nineth item on the agenda was Rezoning Petition R83-22, B. W. Graue to rezone property located at 4041 Wedington Drive, from A-1, Agricultural, to R-0, Residential Office District. This appeal was denied by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1983. Mr. Graue appealed to the Board of Directors on December 20, 1983. The Board of Directors referred the appeal back to the Planning Commission on January 9, 1984, and at that time it was tabled until it could be determined if the "Share - A -Home" which the Graues wished to operate could be approved adminis- t ratively as previously established, legal, non -conforming use. The Planning Office has received a notarized statement confirming that use on the effective date of the annexation. Chairman Hailey explained that this was an informational item that the "Share -A -Home" determination has been made and approved by the Planning Administrator. Hailey advised that this had been tabled at the January 9, 1984 meeting. Hailey explained that this would need to be removed from the table and to either approve or deny Rezoning Petition R83-22. MOTION Crook moved that Rezoning Petition R83-22 be removed from the table. Motion seconded by Stockdell. Motion passed 9-0. MOTION Stockdell moved denial of Rezoning Petition R83-22 with denial not being based on applicable land use, but that it is simply not necessary at this time. Motion seconded by Sue Madison. Motion passed 9-0. Mr. Graue wished confirmation of the fact that this would still enable him to use the existing structure as a legal, non -conforming use, as it has been in the past. Hailey explained that they can continue on with their "Share -A -Home" in the same manner as they have in the 9g • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 7 past. PRELIMINARY PLAT--YORKTOWN SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF STUBBLEFIELD ROAD AND EAST OF SUMMERHILL DRIVE WADE BISHOP -DEVELOPER The tenth item on the agenda was the Preliminary Plat of Yorktown Subdivision located north of Stubblefield Road and east of Summerhill Drive (Summerhill Subdivision). Wade Bishop, developer. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Tabled January 23, 1984. Chairman Hailey explained this was tabled due to question of notification of adjacent property owners within 100' of the proposed development. Hailey advised that an additional preliminary plat was looked at by the Subdivision Committee on Friday, February 10, 1984. Hailey advised that the 1st order of business would be to remove.the plat from the table. MOTION Crook moved that the Preliminary Plat of Yorktown Square Subdivision be removed from the table. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell and Morton Gitelman. Motion passed 9-0. Chairman Hailey stated the Commission can now address Plat I of the Yorktown Square Subdivision. Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval subject to Plat Review Comments; that the tandem lot request be subject to the approval of conditional use and waiver of tandem lot requirements by the Planning Commission; that the drainage will be worked out to the satisfaction of the Street Superintendent; that there will be a street light at the east end of Manchester Drive with a Waiver of street light spacing as shown otherwise; that the minimum block lengths shall not be waived due to unnecessity; that the Phase I boundary be located along the north boundary of Manchester Drive with note that it will be built to the Standards applicable at the time of the building; and that the waiver of the offset between centerlines of Loxley Avenue and the entrance be subject to approval by the Planning Commission; that the jog distance between Loxley and the proposed entrance along Stubblefield Road be at least 150'. Crook explained that, in the meantime, the City Attorney has rendered an opinion to the Board that by denying the matter of the jog and the tandem lot, that this plat has effectively been denied as submitted. MOTION Crook moved denial of the original Yorktown Square Subdivision plat as submitted. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. 21 30 .A • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 8 Jacks stated that neither the tandem lot nor the jog disturb him one way or the other. Jacks stated that the tandem lot may have disturbed him somewhat due to the fact that this is taking advantage of an ordinance which specifically was designed for other purposes. Motion passed for denial of the original plat as submitted, 8-1 with Fred Hanna voting "nay". Chairman Hailey then requested report of the February 10, 1983 Subdivision Committee meeting. Crook advised that the developer submitted a plat which had eliminated the tandem lot, but still has the 90' jog. Crook advised that a plat had gone through plat review which was minus the tandem lot, but with the entrance moved to the east so that there was a 150' compliance. However, when this was brought back to the Subdivision Committee on February 10, 1984, the plan was back to the 90' jog. MOTION Crook moved denial of the plat which was submitted to the Subdivision Committee on February 10, 1983, the reason being the 90' jog. Milholland advised that they had attempted to move the entrance to the east, but ran into a great deal of complications with the utility companies. At that point, Milholland stated they came back to the plat which was originally desired for even traffic flow. Milholland stated the tandem lot had been dropped and would request consideration in granting this Waiver of the jog. Hanna stated he could not understand how the jog would be any more dangerous than if the plat were redrawn and the entrance was straight through the subdivision. Stockdell advised that the danger of a jog has been documented by the Police Department, etc. and is a safety hazard and traffic problem. Milholland advised the street would be improved 125' to the east and 750' to the west. Jacks stated that he felt the principles of planning indicate that three way intersections are safer than four way intersections with less liklihood of people running stop signs, etc. Jacks requested a history on this matter. Wood advised that Jacks was correct in stating that three way intersections are safer than four way intersections. Wood advised that the issue at hand was the degree of the offset. The general planning rule of thumb is that 150' is as close as the offset should be. Madison stated she had two additional problems with the plat as submitted; that being the fact that the plat states that no green space is required. Madison stated this was an error as McCord had already established that green space is required; secondly that she felt as though there should be additional access out of this subdivision, citing Perry Franklin's comments of the Plat Review Committee meeting of January 12, 1984 stating that he would like to see access through Masonic Drive. Madison stated that if traffic were to be allowed to go through • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 9 to Masonic, this would greatly reduce the traffic on Stubblefield Road. A concerned citizen stated he did not see how this could be done since the property which was being referred to was privately owned. Crook advised that Summerhill Land Development owns Lot 8. Chairman Hailey asked Mr. Milholland if this had been investigated at all. Milholland advised this had not been investigated and that there is not an easement on the Summerhill Property for this to be accomplished. Gitelman stated that this subdivision was somewhat troublesome to him due to the fact that all of the new lots on Stubblefield Road would empty out onto Stubblefield, again compounding the problem. Jim Turner, property owner, stated that he was much more concerned about the increase of traffic in the area, stating that the issue seems to be the jog, etc. However, he could not continue to listen to the thoughts that there would be just a few houses and that this is a small deal. Turner stated the concern of the jog as well as Madison's recommendation that there be another entrance/exit to this subdivision is very good, but that Stubblefield still must be recognized as the street that this subdivision empties out upon, and is extremely concerned about future development. Milholland stated that the street existing to the east called Manchester Drive will eventually be developed, feeling like at least 1/3rd of the subdivision will exit on Manchester Drive. Jacks requested to know if the jog was the only thing that was wrong with this plat as far as the Subdivision Committee is concerned. Crook explained that the original Plat Review comments would still need to be addressed. Jacks stated that he agreed with Madison in her statement about the green space. Milholland stated that the original plat was submitted on January 12, 1984 and at that time, the City was not enforcing the green space ordinance. Stockdell advised that this plat was under a green space ordinance even at that time. Hailey advised this would be a legal problem or a matter to be taken up with the City Board. Milholland requested background history on the granting of jogs and had the 150' jog been enforced in the past. Jacks stated he felt that the Planning Administrator could probably aid in this more accurately; however, Jacks stated he does remember the jog issue coming up over a number of occasions with the jog being waived in some cases. Jacks stated he was not sure of the extent of the waivers. Hailey stated he did remember at least one jog in the past which may have been waived, but did not think the extent of the jog was as great as this request. Crook requested to know if Milholland had attended the Street Committee Meeting. Milholland stated this matter was taken to the Street Committee for comments to take to the Board. Milholland stated the Street Committee did not have any official comments, and would rather not quote what was said. Jacks asked if it could be assumed that Stubblefield eventually will become a collector. Green stated that the east side of Stubblefield was extremely bad now, and would have to go through houses to turn it into a collector street. Hanna stated he really did not understand the property owners in the area, that the property needed to be developed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 10 before the roads would be improved, widened and made to hold the traffic. Stockdell stated there must have been some underlying reason, probably safety, that the 150' offset was placed in the ordinances. Stockdell stated she would be very hesitant to give any percentage to hazard; that the Planning Commission should be as safe as it possibly can be. Dale Johnson, owner of property east of subdivision, stated that he was extremely concerned with the traffic which would be generated by this subdivision. He stated that his children walk to school daily. There are no sidewalks along Stubblefield Road, with it being very difficult to put sidewalks along Stubblefield Road at all. Crook stated that there would be an option for the property owners in the neighborhood if they were extremely concerned about the safety factor, and that would be to form an improvement district. Johnson stated that the cost would be extensive to place a sidewalk along Stubblefield. Mr. Bishop stated that the property owners knew the condition of the street when they purchased the property. Bishop stated they are trying to improve the street, and that a portion of Stubblefield Road will be improved with the proposed subdivision. Motion for denial passed 6-3 with David Williams, Fred Hanna and Ernie Jacks voting "nay". MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING "GREENSPACE" PARKS PLAN AND APPENDIX C--FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES The eleventh item on the agenda was a memo from the City Attorney concerning amendments to "Green Space" Parks Plan and Appendix C, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances as it regulates the Parks Plan. These amendments were approved by the Board of Directors with an emergency clause making the plan apply to Yorktown Subdivision or any Preliminary Plat. Madison advised that on Page 17, there appears to be a typographical error, paragraph 2, referring to neighborhoods 1, 2, & 4 should read 1, 3 & 4 according to the chart. Crook requested to comment for the record stating that the Commission has been faced with items described as "housecleaning" items by City Attorney McCord over the past few months. One was the Mobile Home Ordinance which was described by the Board as simply a "housecleaning" item and has subsequently been deemed unnecessary. Now, this green space ordinance was described by the Board as simply a "housecleaning" item with the City Attorney seeming surprised that the Planning Commission did not understand that thus, going ahead with approval this. Crook stated she felt she was the one that brought up the issue of not having enough information. Crook stated this was sent to the Planning Commission for consideration, and that she took the matter seriously. Crook stated she did not find there was enough information in the packet and asked for more information. Other Commission members agreed and 32 J • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 PAGE 11 the matter was tabled. Crook stated that in the future, if a matter is simply a "housecleaning" item and only needs the approval of four individuals, that they just take it to those individuals, but if it is sent to the entire Commission, that she expects to take the matter seriously. Stockdell agreed and stated that a number of hours had been spent on these items. Jacks stated he felt that he was on the other side of the coin, feeling as though this matter could have been explained in a short period of time at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 1984. Jacks stated he felt the Board did what it should have done. Stockdell stated there was no intent to delay the issue, but more to understand what was being voted on. Hailey stated there were three new members who were unaware of the Parks Ordinance. Hailey stated he did not feel he could vote to make the Parks Plan sufficiently definite at that particular time, and that the request of the City Attorney was poorly worded. Mr. Turner again requested to address the Commission and stated he was extremely concerned about the issues and powers placed upon the Planning Commission; that the Planning Commission ascertain that the Ordinances impact the environment much more than just leaving outdated ordinances in effect. Williams stated he wished to respond to Mr. Turner's comment advising that the Planning Commission's hands are tied at this point. Williams advised there are two things citizens can do about the issue of streets and sidewalks: 1) Form an improvement district and go ahead and make the improvements, 2) Change City Policy. This would require a citizen's movement that collects taxes in advance from citizens to pay for streets and sidewalks. If there is a citizens movement to do this and you want to pay the price of getting the streets laid out before development instead of afterwards, then the hands are no longer tied. Williams recommended that Turner lead this charge and stated he would be willing to vote for this. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.