HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-09 Minutes•
•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday,
July 9, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room of the City
Administration Building, 113 west Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Newton Hailey, Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks,
Sue Madison, Stan Green, Joe Tarvin, Fred Hanna
and Barbara Crook
Dr. David Williams
Larry Wood, Bruce & Joan Johnson, Tim Bole, Attorney
Lynn Wade, Bill Lazenby, Attorney Jim Hall, Wade
& Peggy Bishop, Phil Pendergraf, Larry Mitchell,
Edith & Rufus Lewis, Alvin Edens, Magene Gordon,
Jerry Berry, Pearl Putnam, Officer Angela Munson,
Howell Trumbo, Harold Gately, Al Hughes, Mrs. Shaddox,
Mr. Wilson, Joe Kupchin, Ray Rastall, Bobby Mayes,
Tom Hopper, Z.L.Thomas, Mary Thomas, Bobbie Jones,
Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission
was called to order at 5:10 by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr.
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 25, 1984 Planning Commission meeting were
approved as distributed.
REQUEST BY WHITE RIVER HARDWOODS
CONDITIONAL USE ADDITION AT
1159 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD.
BRUCE JOHNSON - ZONED C-2
The second item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use
for an addition to an existing building at 1159 S. Happy Hollow Rd. by
Bruce and Joan Johnson. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
This had been tabled at
of whether this was an
ruled on July 2, 1984
in placing the use under
the May 29, 1984 meeting for a determination
"authorized use". The Board of Adjustment
that the Planning Administrator was correct
Use Unit 21 as applied for in April, 1982.
Melanie Stockdell said she didn't think it was appropriate of the
Board of Adjustment not to hear all the information offered by Wade
Bishop at the July 2 meeting.
/40
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 2
MOTION
Stockdell moved to turn this case back to the Board of Adjustment
to complete the task the Planning Commission had given them. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Lynn Wade, Attorney representing White River Hardwoods explained his
clients position in this matter. He said Johnson had not made a rebuttal
at the Board of Adjustment meeting because he felt that the opportunity
for rebuttal would occur at today's meeting.
Wade said that Use Unit 21 has a heading of "Warehousing and Wholesale"
and he said he felt that some of the uses listed in the ordinance
book under Use Unit 21 were more intrusive than White River Hardwoods.
He stated that the use of the premises at 1159 S. Happy Hollow Road
has been engaged in since April, 1982 and that the representatives
of W.R.H. have had, ongoing consultations with the Planning Commission
and the Planning Office and have not been trying to hide anything.
Wade referred to a letter written by Mr. Johnson stating that W.R.H.
is engaged in wholesale/retail supply of lumber and hardwood items
such as plywood, stair parts and molding; wood is shaped but nothing
is manufactured or assembled. He said the proposed addition will
make the business more efficient and at the same time comply with
City code and cure some complaints that have been raised against W.R.H.
Wade next referred the Commissioners to a letter received from the
Department of Pollution Control stating that the sawdust pollution
was brought into compliance. He said the next issue concerned noise
pollution and he referred the Commissioners to a letter received from
Officer Angela Munson, Fayetteville City Police Department. He said
all of the readings in this report are within the noise ordinance.
Wade said the highest reading was taken from in front of two doors
opening to the south of the western -most building of the business
and, that if the building permit is granted, the doors will be closed
and an opening will be created on the east side towards the highway.
Wade next addressed the screening issue. He said that the owner of
the property, Bill Lazenby, had planted shrubs on the west property
line He said Mr. Lazenby was in possession of a receipt for purchase
and installation of said shrubs. Wade said the shrubs were removed
without Lazenby's knowledge but he said the present tenant W.R.H. would
be willing to construct a fence on the north side of the property.
Wade said there is some on-site storage that occurs between the buildings
and that the purpose of the permit requested is to provide more covered
space for these materials.
Madison asked when the cyclone (sawdust pollution control device)
had been installed and Wade replied it was between April 2 and April
17 of this year. She asked if the main noise was generated by the
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 3
cyclone or by the equipment on the inside of the building. Wade replied
that there is some noise generated by the blower fan on the cyclone
but it is well within the limit allowed by ordinance.
Attorney Jim Hall, representing Wade & Peggy Bishop wished to speak
on his clients behalf. He said the Bishops have spent a considerable
amount of money developing Heritage East Subdivsion. At this time
18 houses have been completed and 17 or 18 of these have been sold.
Hall referred Commissioners to a petition signed by the residents
of this subdivision stating their opposition to granting of this request.
Hall said he has submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Admin-
istrator or someone from the Planning Commission try to determine if
the property in question, as it is presently being used, is in conformance
with the use that was approved at the time the Johnsons were issued
the Certificate of Occupancy. (He said that the Board of Adjustment
only determined that the Certificate of Occupancy was valid based
on the information given to Mrs. Jones at the time it was issued).
Hall said that the planer was not in operation at the time of the
most recent decibel readings submitted by Angela Munson. He added
that his client feels that this business belongs in Use Unit 23 which
is possible under 1-2 zoning. (Use Unit 23 has a listing for lumber
and wood products with a subheading for millwear products, plywood
products, pre -fabricated structural wood, vaneer wood, etc.) Hall
stated that the problem here is with the volume of business and the
noise from the equipment inside. He said that there is restriction
against the Johnsons adding more planers and increasing the noise
and storing the scraps outdoors as they have done in the past.
Hall said the only existing fence is one that is 10 ft. into the property
owned by Mr. Bishop which Bishop has built himself. He requested
how high a fence would have to be if required of the Johnsons.
Property owners in Heritage East Subdivision expressed their opposition
to the request for a building permit for the proposed addition:
Phil Pendergraf, 1104 Emily Drive, said he lives directly behind White
River Hardwoods. He stated that his house fills up with sawdust if
he leaves the door open and the noise is unbearable. He added that
the cyclone is very unsightly and that if the hardwoods shop if allowed
to expand, he feels they should correct these objectionable conditions.
Larry Mitchell, owner of the first home sold in this subdivision,
stated that the purchase of a home was a large investment for him,
as well as others. He said he wasn't sure if the proposed expansion
would harm him but he did not think it would help.
Edith Lewis, 1023 Emily Drive, said she thought manufacturing in such
close proximity would lower the value of her property.
/H
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 4
Alvin Edens, 1231 Sherman, stated that he was probably the furthest
resident from the shop and he still hears a small amount of noise
and, while driving down the street, he is able to see the sawdust.
Magene Gordon, 1529 Sandy Lane, said that this issue concerns her
future and she feels the area should be kept residential.
Rufus Lewis, 1023 Emily Drive, stated he is opposed to having a manu-
facturing shop so close to this subdivision.
Jerry Berry, 1173 Emily Drive, stated that the cyclone is unsightly
and he said some of the hours of operation of the shop are unreasonable.
Berry stated that the noise is a problem when they operate late Saturday
night and Sunday morning.
Pearl Putnam, future resident of 1063 Emily Drive, asked to know why
this business is not located in the Industrial Park instead of here.
James Wiles, 1215 Emily Drive, stated he is home during the daytime
hours and even when he shuts down his house completely, he can still
hear the noise.
Wade Bishop, developer of Heritage East, wished to address the findings
of the Board of Adjustment. He expressed his belief that Mrs. Jones
had been correct in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the use
stated by White River Hardwoods at the time of application but said
that the same use is not currently being adhered to. Bishop stated
that he had planned his development, to the knowledge of White River
Hardwoods, before the hardwoods shop was established.
Bishop stated that the day the decibel readings were taken, it was
very humid and the wind was not right to get a valid reading. He
said he didn't understand why the further away from the noise that
the readings were taken, the higher the decibel level was.
Bishop stated that the sawdust, although somewhat controlled, is still
a problem and he added that he had no knowledge of the planting of
a shrubery fence on the north side. Bishop also objected to the operation
of the hardwood shop on Saturday evening and Sunday morning.
Chairman Hailey inquired as to the hours of operation of the hardwood
shop and Mr. Wade replied they were Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. and on Saturday from 8 a.m. until 12 noon.
Madison asked if the planer had been running at any time during her
visit to the shop today and Johnson replied that all of the equipment,
including the planer had been running at the time.
• Green asked how many hours of the day the planer was operated and
Johnson replied that it is run all day long on an off -and -on basis.
1q3
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 5
He also said the proposed addition will deflect the noise of the planer
towards the east away from the subdivision. Green said he has driven
by several times in the past few weeks and has never heard the noise.
Hanna inquired of Bishop as to when this development had begun and
Bishop replied that he first put up the money in March, 1978 and the
first house was bought by Mr. Mitchell in November 1982. Hanna remarked
that the first permit issued to White River Hardwoods had been issued
in April of 1982.
Hanna asked Jones what effect a denial of permission to construct
an addition would have on the hardwood business. Jones replied that
she did not know. Hanna asked if the Commission could limit the new
building to storage only and Crook asked if restrictions could be
added to the existing Conditional Use.
Hanna suggested limiting hours of operation; limit the use of the
new building to storage only; not allow any additional planers; and
have the tenants build a screen around the cyclone tower. He said
he felt if permission for the addition were granted as thus listed
the people in this subdivision would be better off than they are now.
Madison asked Jones who can determine whether or not the hardwood
business if operating legally at this time. Jones repeated that the
Board of Adjustment had ruled that she was correct in placing this
business under Use Unit 21 at the time the Certificate of Occupancy
was issued in April 1982. She advised that the Board of Adjustment
had said that if there were any changes of use or alledged changes
of use, that the Planning Commission would need to consider the issue.
Madison reported that she visited the subdivision today and she did
see the need for screening along the north side. She said she did
not find the noise overwhelming from the street but added that if
she had to listen to it every day, it might become annoying. Madison
said she toured the inside of the building and was able to carry on
a conversation just outside the equipment while it was running. She
said it is her understanding that the business has not been expanded
or changed since the original permit was granted.
Tarvin asked if the Commission did grant a permit as suggested by
Hanna whether that would indicate endorsement of the existing operation.
Hanna said that to leave the operation "as is" will go on disturbing
the residents and he thought the Commission did not have the authority
to request the Jonhsons to shut down the business.
Stockdell said she thought that Bishop should have made it very clear
to prospective home buyers in this development that the property abuted
a C-2 zoning area and a possibility existed for some heavy business
operations to take place in close proximity to their homes. She added
luy
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 6
that she didn't feel it was appropriate to permit a business to operate
in a zoning area deemed allowable and then withdraw that permission.
Mr. Hall stated that he didn't think the Board of Adjustment was willing
to address his main contention in this case. He said he felt that
the applicants had misrepresented their operation at the time of the
original Certificate of Occupancy. Hall said he would like someone
to address the question of whether the applicants are doing what they
said they were going to do.
Crook said she thought the business was in violation of the code but
that did not have any bearing on whether they should or should not
be operating. She said she didn't know what the City's remedy is.
Mr. Wade stated that there has been more than just a single isolated
contact with the Planning Office. He said that the information supplied
by the Johnsons has not been restricted nor misrepresented.
Joan Johnson stated that she leased the building prior to seeking
the Certificate of Occupancy. She said she spent a lot time going
through the zoning book together with Mrs. Jones and they found the
hardwoods business comparable to a lumber yard and a cabinet shop
because the business is a cross between the two. Johnson said she
has never misrepresented any information as to her operation.
Green asked Jones if she felt she knew what the Johnsons would be
doing when they made application and Jones replied that they had told
her there would be some shaping of lumber. Jones added that she asked
Johnson if the operation would be close to the type of operation of
a cabinet shop and Johnson had said it was.
Green said he saw no evidence of any misrepresentation. He asked
Bishop if it was his understanding that the recent decibel reading
was done on a day incondusive for a valid reading. Bishop affirmed.
Officer Angela Munson, Fayetteville City Police Department, stated
that when she took the decibel reading, all the machinery had been
in operation. She said the reason the reading is higher at #9 on
the table is because she was directly outside the open garage door.
Munson said the wind was 15 m.p.h. from the southeast. She said if
it had been a still day, it may have increased the reading by, perhaps,
one or two decibels and the humidity would have needed to be equivalent
to a "London fog" to effect the decibel levels.
Phyllis Rice, Northwest Arkansas Times, inquired if the decibel reading
from November 1983 was available and Munson replied that the person
that took the reading did not make a report or take any action which
led her to believe that the reading was within the limit.
Tarvin asked Munson if the fan motor had been running; Munson affirmed.
14/5
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 7
Jacks said he thought this operation fell into Use Unit 23 and although
a misunderstanding may have occurred in this case, he thought that
Stockdell had a good point in that Bishop should have informed his
potential home buyers.
MOTION
Jacks said he felt White River should not expand and moved to deny
the request. Tarvin seconded, followed by discussion.
Stockdell said that one recourse the residents have would be to approach
the E.P.A. and let them know that the noise level is still too high.
She added that she thought the problems have all been addressed and
that she would vote against this motion.
Green inquired of Johnson whether he intended to add more planers.
Johnson replied that he did not and Green said he would vote against
the motion because he felt the residents would be better protected
with the proposed new addition.
Crook said she would vote for the motion because she thinks the operation
is incompatible with the residential section of this area.
Madison said she would vote against the motion because she felt there
needs to be a separation of uses and she added that it was a sad situation
that there is no City official to determine the standing of this case.
Hailey repeated the motion: Jacks, Tarvin and Crook voted for; Green,
Hanna, Madison, Stockdell and Hailey voted against. The motion to
deny the request failed 3-5-0.
MOTION
Tarvin moved to send this issue back to the Board of Adjustment to
determine if this business is compatible with Use Unit 21.
Stockdell said that had already been requested and the Board had sent
back their (rather narrowly defined) decision.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Jacks said it was his understanding that the residents and the business
owners were to have gotten together to try to work out their problems.
Wade stated he has made an attempt to work out the differences but
gotten no response. Hall said he was willing to communicate on this.
MOTION
• Green moved to table until petitioners had a chance to work on the
issues of difference. Jacks seconded; motion died on a tie vote.
/Nb
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 8
MOTION
Stockdell moved to approve the request subject to a signed Bill of
Assurance that there will be no additional planers; no operation of
the business on Sunday; screening around the cyclone blower and screening
on the northern property line. Madison seconded the motion.
Bishop asked if the motion could include a restriction of the addition
of any new equipment and Stockdell replied that she would not that.
Johnson volunteered to paint the blower to blend in with the sky.
A citizen in the audience inquired as to whether manufacturing is
allowed in a C-2 zoning and Tarvin said that that need to be determined.
Stockdell advised that the Planning Commission could make their decision
based only on what the Board of Adjustment has determined as correct.
Green stated that are many operations allowable in a C-2 zoning that
may be much noisier and incompatible with a residential neighborhood
than the one currently being employed.
• The motion to approve the request passed 5-3-0; Crook, Tarvin and
Jacks voted "nay".
•
APPEAL R84-10
HOWELL TRUMBO AGENT; FORT SMITH CHAIR CO. d/b/a
ATERS FURNITURE INDUSTRIES: REZONE FROM I-2 TO C-2
8.54 ACRES SOUTH OF WEST 6TH STREET - RAZORBACK RD.
The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal R84-10,
to rezone property located south of West 6th Street both sides of
Razorback Road from I-2 to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District.
Represented by Howell Trumbo, agent for Fort Smith Chair Co., d/b/a
Ayers Furniture Industries.
Larry Wood, Planning Consultant stated that he recommends the Planning
Commission to consider this change because he feels the C-2 district
is more compatible with the general plan recommendation of Commercial
and Multi -family dwellings and more consistent with the existing uses
in the area than is the present zoning (I-2). He said the property
fronts on both a principal arterial and a minor arterial. He added
that the public facilities and services are available to serve either
zoning qualification.
Wood explained that, in this case, there is no difference in the setbacks
because there is no abuting residential property. He added that if
Jones considers measuring the rear setback from the railroad right-of-way
then the setback would be more severe in an I-2 district.
�N4
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 9
Hailey opened the Public Hearing and Mr. Trumbo stated that the present
zoning is very limiting.
There being no one else present in the audience to speak either for
or against this appeal, Hailey closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION
Jacks moved approval of this appeal and Hanna seconded.
Crook said that the Planning Commission has operated on two premises
regarding highways leading into town. The first is that Commissioners
agreed to not allow any more "stripping" of commercial zones. The
second is that the Commission had agreed that where commercial zones
were allowed it would be at approximately one mile intervals and only
at major intersections rather than stripping the highway. She expressed
her strong concern that all of the entrances to the town and to the
University would become "stripped".
The motion to approve failed on a tie vote. Tarvin, Stockdell, Hailey
and Crook voted "nay".
WOODLAND HILLS — A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
100 UNITS ON 7.33 ACRES NORTH OF WEDINGTON
BETWEEN STEPHEFIS AND GARLAND AVENUES
PROPERTY ZONED R-2
The fourth item on the agenda was the approval of the plat for Woodland
Hills, a Large Scale Development of 100 units on 7.33 acres located
north of Wedington Drive between Stephens and Garland Avenues. Property
is zoned R-2 and the developer is Ralph Gray of Joplin, MO.
Barbara Crook gave the report from the Subdivsion Committee, which
met July 5, 1984.
In answer to Crook's inquiry, Jones stated that she had not yet received
the signature of the adjoining property owner, Vernon Wilson. Jones
told Joe Kupchin, representative of Woodland Hills, that Wilson needed
to be notified because he shared a common boundary with this proposed
subdivision with a different zoning classification.
The clerk stated that she had spoken with Mr. Wilson and had explained
to him that signing the plat indicated that he has seen the proposed
plans and that it did not indicate his approval or disapproval. Mr. Wilson
was present in the audience.
MOTION
• Crook moved to approve the first recommendation of the Subdivision
Committee which was to approve the plat subject to:
/N,
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 10
1. Plat Review comments; 2. that the developer acquire official dedication
necessary for right-of-way along Wedington Drive from the State Highway
Department; 3. that the entrance be moved west to align with Hall
Street; 4. that the developer bear 40% of the cost of 360 feet of
improvements to bring James Street up to City standards; 5. that
the drainage be split between the east and west sides; 6. that a con-
crete -lined drainage easement be procured on the northwest corner;
7. that the Planning Office receive proof of notification of adjacent
property owner; 8. that a temporary single exit with a cul-de-sac
be constructed for use with up to 40 units or a period of no longer
than one year from the time construction commences and at that time
an exit onto James Street will be required; 9. the developer agrees
to install streetlights every 300 feet along the private streets.
Madison seconded the motion followed by discussion.
Harold Gately, representative of the Washington/Madison Baptist Assoc.
at 1211 James Street asked where the easement will be between Woodland
Hills and James St. Crook stated that the developer would have to
secure the easement.
The developer said that he was not addressing the easement at this
time and Chairman Hailey said the Planning Commission was not giving
the developer authority to gain access across the Associations' land.
Al Hughes, a nearby resident, stated that his main concern has always
been safety. He said he thought that a traffic safety problem existed
at this site. Hughes said he felt that having only one point of ingress/
egress would be especially dangerous in the wintertime even with only
40 units being constructed. He spoke of a traffic accident that had
occurred on Hall St. a day or so earlier and he added that the State
Highway Department comes around about once a year to check on conditions
and they may not have a good idea of the traffic flow. Crook said
the Subdivision Committee had addressed this issue by requesting the
subdivision entrance to align with Hall St., eliminating the jog that
would have existed. She said the condition would exist for a year
or less.
Hughes stated that he thought an area of 30 ft. of level highway had
been suggested at a previous meeting regarding this development.
Madison said she thought the easement had been procurred for access
to James St. and she said she would not approve the plat on the basis
that it had not.
Hanna asked what would happen if the developer constructs 40 units
and then could not gain access to James St. Green replied that he
thought the City could condemn the land in order to provide access
if they thought it necessary.
1219
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 11
Jones said that she had interpreted the motion to mean that the developer
would furnish the easement prior to the issuance of the first building
permit and that the construction would have had to be completed by
the 40th unit or within one year.
MOTION
Madison moved to amend the original recommendation to include that
no building permits would be issued before procurring access to James
Street. Stockdell seconded; the motion as amended passed 8-0-0.
Jacks said he agreed with Hughes that this was an unsafe situation
even with only 40 of the units being constructed with single access.
MOTION
Crook moved to approve the second recommendation of the Subdivision
Committee which was approval of a partial waiver of the parks fee.
The total amount due was to be $8,500 and the accepted amount was
$6,000. Green seconded the motion based on the developer constructing
a swimming pool and clubhouse for the residents. Discussion followed.
Jacks stated that the intention of the Green Space Ordinance was to
provide public park facilities, not private. Crook advised that the
City Board had amended that ordinance.
The motion to approve a partial waiver of the parks fee failed to
pass 2-6-0; Green and Madison voted affirmatively.
MOTION
Jacks moved to accept the full amount requested; Stockdell seconded
and the motion passed 6-1-1; Green voted "nay", Madison abstained.
MOTION
Crook moved to approve the Subdivision Committee's third recommendation
for this development which concerned the construction of sidewalks.
The recommendation read as follows:
To recommend that the City review the Master Sidewalk Plan to decide
whether or not sidewalk is necessary and/or practical on the north
side of Wedington Drive and if the City decides that it is necessary
that the City will bear part of the expense of building that sidewalk
and if the City decides it is not practical then this developer will
bear part of the expense of building sidewalk on the south side of
Wedington Drive (or sign a Bill of Assurance for future construction
of same); if the City, after reviewing the Master Sidewalk Plan,
decides that a sidewalk is necessary on James Street that it will
be considered as part of the 40% cost of bringing James Street up
to City standards; that the developer install sidewalks along the
Isp
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 12
access drive to connect the internal sidewalks of this development
with the proposed sidewalk on Wedington Drive.
Crook advised that building a sidewalk on the north side of Wedington
Drive would be very costly and difficult.
Madison stated that it was her preference to have sidewalk on both
sides of Wedington Drive with the developer bearing part of the cost.
Hughes stated that, as a resident of this area, he has observed the
foot traffic here and has noted that there two groups of people needing
access to Garland from Wedington Drive, those going to the bank or
shopping center who use the north side of Wedington and those going
to the University who use the south side of Wedington.
The motion to recommend that the City make a study of sidewalk feasibility
on the north and south sides of Wedington Drive passed 8-0-0.
MOTION
Madison advised that she had made a motion at the Subdivision Committee
meeting to recommend that the developer form a Property Owners Association
to maintain the private streets, maintain the pool and clubhouse and
to pay the electric bills for the streetlights. She said the motion
failed to pass but she felt very strongly about this issue. She stated
this same motion; it was seconded by Jacks and followed by discussion.
Crook questioned the Commission's authority to request this of a Large
Scale Development. After some discussion it was decided to ask City
Attorney, McCord, for clarification in this matter.
The motion to request the developer to form a Property Owners Association
passed 5-3-0; Crook, Green and Hailey voted "nay".
APPROVAL OF PLAT FOR ZION ESTATES
7 LOTS ON 33.42 ACRES IN THE GROWTH AREA
NORTH OF ZION RD AND EAST OF HWY. 265
OWNER—ZAMBERLETTI; DEVELOPER—LINDSEY
The fifth item on the agenda was the approval of the preliminary plat
for Zion Estates; a proposed development of 7 lots on 33.42 acres
in the growth area north of Zion Rd. and east of Hwy. 265 owned by
Mr. Zamberletti and developed by Lindsey and Assoc.
MOTION
Crook made a motion to approve the Subdivision Committee's recommendation
of approval for this plat subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2.
dedication of street right-of-way of the cul-de-sac through to the
north end of the property; 3. a storm inlet that meets the requirements
/51
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 13
of the Street Engineer on the south end of the street.
Jones announced that she had received proof of notification of adjoining
property owners.
Madison seconded the motion which passed 7-0-0, one Commissioner being
temporarily out of the room.
REQUEST FOR RELEASE FROM BILL OF ASSURANCE
LIMITING STRUCTURES TO NO MORE THAN DUPLEX
RAY RASTALL — NORTH OF WRDINGTON, CARLSBAD TRACE/CARRIAGE WAY
The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a release from a Bill
of Assurance posted on the entire subdivision in 1978 when the property
was rezoned from A-1 to R-2. Request is for Lots 5 through 8, Block
1, owner: Ray Rastall.
Rastall was present to represent this request. He stated he would
like to use the lots spoken of to construct four-plexes on as the
lots are twice the size as the remainder of those in this subdivision
where duplexes have been built.
MOTION
Jacks moved to approve this request because he had no objection to
the increase in density but he said he thought the drives should exit
onto Carlsbad Trace and Carriage Way instead of onto the highway.
Stockdell seconded the motion followed by discussion.
Crook remarked that the present residents of this subdivision had
purchased their property with the understanding that there would no
denser building than duplexes allowed here.
Madison said she thought that Bills of Assurance were absolute and
she felt that this one was now being taken lightly.
Crook said she would not like to see the density increase to anything
more than what the duplex restrictions would allow.
Rastall explained he was requesting to be allowed to build four 4-plexes
or at least tri-plexes. Jacks stated that his motion had been based
on the construction of only two 4-plexes and he,therefore, withdrew
his motion.
MOTION
Jacks moved to table this request until Rastall could produce information
from the neighboring property owners in this subdivisions' stating
their feelings about increasing the density of the development.
/.5d
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 14
Madison seconded the motion and Jones advised that Rastall would need
to provide her with the names and addresses of all people involved
with this issue by one week from today.
The motion to table passed 8-0-0.
APPROVAL OF UNION SPECIAL: A LARGE SCALE DEV.
120 CONDOMINIUM UNITS - PROPERTY ZONED R-2
EAST SIDE OF GARLAND SOUTH OF UNNAMED ARTERIAL
The seventh item on the agenda was the approval of a Large Scale Devel-
opment, Union Special. Property is located on the east side of Garland
south of an unnamed arterial street and zoned R-2, owned by Housing
Development South, Inc. being represented today by Tom Hopper of Crafton,
Tull, Spann and Yoe of Rogers, AR.
MOTION
Crook made a motion to approve the Subdivision Committee's recommendation
that this plat be approved subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2.approval
of a waiver for the driveway width for both drives from 40 to 80 feet;
3. extension of the sidewalks within the development to connect with
boundary sidewalks at both entrances. Madison seconded the motion
and discussion followed.
Bobby Mayes, adjacent property owner on the north side, wished to
address the issue of this development. He expressed his concern about
the roadway being 80 feet on the northern boundary of this development.
Crook explained that there are 54 feet shown on the plat as the north
side right-of-way and that the finished street will need to be 31
ft. back -of -curb to back -of -curb to meet City standards. She added
that it is only the driveway entrances to the development that the
80 foot width is being requested for.
Hailey stated that the unnamed arterial street needs to be named at
this time and that Hopper, speaking for the developer, has indicated
that they have relinquished all rights to name this street.
MOTION
Crook moved to name the street Ernie Jacks Blvd. (as it has been referred
to recently). Stockdell seconded; motion passed 6-0-2 with Madison
and Jacks abstaining.
Mrs. Mary Thomas, another area resident, asked if the intent was to
turn Ernie Jacks Blvd. into a major arterial street and Crook replied
that it was planned for some future date. Jacks explained that the
need was recognized years ago to have a major street across town between
Garland and Leverett.
/53
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 15
Thomas asked if this subdivision would have a board fence built around
it as she has noticed of other developments and she added that she
objected to the placing of a dumpster on the south side of the property,
as planned by this developer.
Z.L. Thomas, a resident to the east of this proposed development explained
that he has been cleaning up trash and golf balls from a subdivision,
similar to the one being proposed, for some time and is worried about
having additional messiness in the neighborhood. He stated that he
only found out about this meeting two days earlier and requested to
table this hearing until the next meeting so that he could have a
chance to speak to City engineers regarding the easements and legal
descriptions ascribed to this project.
Crook explained that the legal descriptions and the easements are
shown on a plat that Thomas had not seen.
Mrs. Thomas inquired again if the developer will be required to build
a board fence around the development and Jones explained that a fence
is only required between an R-1 zone and a parking lot (for any use)
and between any Commercial or Industrial use and residentially zoned
property. She suggested that the board fences that Thomas is referring
to were placed there by the developer of his own accord.
Hopper said he wished to continue the Planning Commission's consideration
of this plat because delays in construction would be very costly.
Likewise, he said it would be very costly to construct a board fence
around the development and he could not commit the owner to doing
so at this time although he said he would speak to him about it.
Jacks suggested that the Thomas' contact the builder of this subdivision
to try and work out some of their concerns directly with him.
Jones advised that there has been an amendment to the Master Street
Plan that shows this major street (Ernie Jacks Blvd.) running just
south of the University Farm and when it approaches the Mayes property
it curves to the south.
Mrs. Thomas was concerned that the easement for this street would
take so much footage from her property that she would not have enough
room to meet the setbacks and still build on the property.
Jacks said the easement seems to be in the negotiable stage and Crook
added that she thought the best the Thomas' could hope for was the
good will of the developer.
Hopper interjected that this developer will set up a Property Owners
Association to handle maintenance concerns.
154-
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 9, 1984
Page 16
Chairman Hailey explained to the Thomas' that the developer has met
all of the City's requirements for this subdivision and that the Planning
Commission does not have the authority to stop this development.
Hopper explained that the internal drainage plan had been originally
over -designed and that it will be re -vamped and submitted to the Street
Department for the Superintendent's approval.
The motion to approve this development passed 8-0-0.
APPROVAL OP SUNNY LANE ADDITION
OLD WIRE RD. & OLD MISSOURI RD.
DEVELOPER - JIM HATFIELD: 13 IDTS/4.72 ACRES
The eighth item on the agenda was the approval of the preliminary
plat of Sunny lane Addition located at the intersection of Old Wire
and Old Missouri Roads by Jim Hatfield for 13 lots on 4.72 acres zoned
R-1, Low Density Residential.
Hailey announced that the developer had requested to table this item.
MOTION
Hailey moved to table this item; Crook seconded and it passed 8-0-0.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ORDINANCE
STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE "STREETS"
WITHIN A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
The ninth item on the agenda was a discussion of a draft ordinance
to set standards for private "streets" within a Large Scale Development.
Hailey advised that the report from City Attorney, McCord, was included
in the Commissioners' agenda packets.
MOTION
After light discussion between Commissioners, Joe Tarvin moved to
hold a Public Hearing on this issue. Crook seconded the motion and
it passed 8-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
/55-