Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, October 22, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Director's Boom 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, Fred Hanna, Barbara Crook, Stan Green and Dr. David Williams Joe Tarvin Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey at 5:10 P.M. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was consideration of the minutes of the October 8th meeting. The following corrections were made by Commissioner Green: 1. On Page 4, the motion should read "Green said he was not in favor of this motion but was in favor of the recommendation by Ernie Jacks"; 2. On Page 10, paragraph 3, should read "He added that he did not want to change the rules for the church and so he would not be in favor of the approval as stated, if the church desired to make these improvements"; 3. On Page 10, paragraph 6, should add "In response to Green's question, Albright said he would have to discuss with represent- atives of the church whether they preferred a waiver of the requirement to widen Zion Road"; 4. On Page 18 (in the motion) his intent was that "therefore he would not be in favor of the motion"; 2/7 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 2 5. On Page 19, paragraph 2, should read "...although the Planning Commission turned down the rezoning request, the Board of Directors overruled the denial and accepted a Bill of Assurance eliminating access onto Elm Street". Commission Crook made the following correction: On Page 3 at the bottom, should read "...added that she did favor a traffic light, the extension of two north lanes and a left-hand turn lane." With these corrections, the minutes stood approved. LOT SPLIT LAWRENCE flESTER 5500 BLOCK HUNTSVILLE ROAD The second item on the agenda was a request for waiver of the three acre minimum lot size for a first lot split by Lawrence Hester on behalf of the A.K. Kohler Estate for property located in the 5500 block of E. Huntsville Road. Chairman Hailey advised Hester that, if approved, sewer connections will be necessary unless the 1.5 acre requirement is waived by the City Board. Hester replied that one portion of the split was only to be used for a storage building and the other has an existing house with water and sewer already extended to it and both services are available to both pieces. MOTION Jacks moved approval, seconded by Stockdell, the motion to approve this lot split passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER MIISAP ROAD, EAST OF HWY. 71 The third item on the agenda was a request for approval of a Large Scale Development located at 1285 E. Milsap Road; Red Dixon representing. Green, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported on the results of the discussion held at the Committee meeting of October 19. 2)8 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 3 MOTION Based on the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee, Green moved to approve this LSD subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. Installation of 18" diameter drainage culvert as shown on the plat; 3. sewage being taken care of in one of two ways: a. by a leach field approved by the County Sanitarian or b. liquid waster being lifted into the City sewer system approved by the City Engineer; 4. a 50 ft. right-of-way to be dedicated for the future extension of Milsap Road with the eastern most portion of that right-of-way subject to change at a future date when the property owner determines exactly where and in what fashion they will develop their land; 5. Milsap, from Hemlock to the western property line of this developer will be maintained by the developer until the street is improved to City Standards and that the portion of the road to be installed from this development western -most property through their driveway will be improved to the same standards as the existing street; 6. a recommendation that a waiver be granted for a 25 ft. building setback on the eastern boundary and that the screening requirement be waived on the east, south and west boundaries to be replaced by a permanent 10% landscaping. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion. Jacks asked if these conditions address off-site improvements and Green replied that the portion of the street that is on this property is almost incidental and that the developer has indicated he is willing to improve Milsap to City standards as they develop the in the future. Stockdell stated that she was concerned with what she felt was a tendency that is beginning to develop in the Subdivision Committee to, not only not insure that the existing ordinances are taken care of but, to reverse the process of some ordinances. She cited off-site improvements as being one of the ordinances that she felt there was no justification in not requiring. Stockdell said she thought there was no way to justify not making the improvements that this developer had already agreed to make. She said she thought it was by a suggestion of one of the members of the Subdivision Committee that the off-site improvement was omitted from the motion and not by a need requested by the developer. Green replied that, because he was not at the first meeting of the Subdivision Committee regarding this development (which was tabled), he had only the minutes to refer to. He said he did not read anything regarding improvements to Milsap in those minutes. Green added that, at the most recent Subdivision meeting, he did not hear the developer agree to widen Milsap to full City standards at any point of the dis- cussion. He said there is a letter, dated well in advance of the meeting, in which the developer indicated willingness to work with the City in the future regarding said street improvements, but that they did not wish to widen Milsap to City standards at this time. 219 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 4 Jacks stated that there is an existing City Ordinance requiring a developer to contribute to off-site improvements on a rational nexus basis and, he said the Commission has traditionally accepted a Bill of Assurance or a contract to make said improvements at the call of the City. Green said that the portion of road that borders the portion of property this developer is currently addressing is about 140 ft. He added that the only portion of the road that may be considered is the roadbed itself because of the fact that there is no defined right-of-way. Administrator Jones said Judge Lineberger has ruled that, in the absence of a definite, specific right-of-way dedication, the City may use only the existing roadbed. Jacks said he thought a Bill of Assurance was necessary for off-site improvements contiguous to Tract A. Green stated that Milsap is not platted as a City street and, because there is no definite width dedicated on there, any improvements other than the roadbed would require the developer to negotiate for additional right-of-way with adjoining property owners. Green repeated that Dixon has agreed to improve Milsap from Hemlock through this project as it develops sometime in the future and Jacks added that, in the absence of a City street, off-site improvements are not required. Crook said that on a rational nexus basis, something could be worked out from Hemlock up to the subject property. Madison expressed her concern regarding the existing portion of Milsap from Hemlock to this property's west line which is barely passable. She said she was concerned about 200 people trying to gain access and exit at least twice a week in a one-way situation. Madison said she agreed to this plat with the stipulation that provision would be made for two cars to pass in a reasonable fashion. Dixon said he has visited the site since the Subdivision meeting and he found that there is a ditch on both sides of the roadbed, which if included in the paving, would bring the total width to about 16ft. Crook clarified that the Conditional Use granted was for the church only and not an educational facility. She said if that were not the case she would have even more concern than she presently has regarding the amount of traffic being added to the Hwy. 71/Milsap problem area. Crook pointed out that a recently approved LSD in this same area has been required to provide two points of access (one directly on Hwy. 71 and one onto Milsap) and she said until the traffic problem is resolved here, she is reluctant to introduce more traffic to the area. 290 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 5 Hanna advised that people gaining access to or exiting from the church have the alternative of turning into Frontage Road and using the stop light further north as well as turning at Joyce Street. Madison said she wished to amend the motion to state that Milsap from Hemlock to the subject property's west line would be paved to accomodate two car widths. Green said if the developer was agreeable, he would amend his motion as suggested by Madison. The motion was amended as follows: Milsap will be paved from Hemlock to this developer's west property line to accomodate two car widths with a Bill of Assurance for future participation in improvements to Milsap as development takes place on this property. Hanna agreed with the amendment. The motion to approve, as amended, passed 8-0-0. JIM—BOW ADDITION WEST VIEW & JIMMIE AVE. J. B. HAYS — DEVELOPER The fourth item on the agenda was the consideration of the preliminary plat submitted by J. B. Hays for property located at West View and Jimmie Ave. known as Jim -Bow Addition. Ervan Wimberly representing. MOTION Crook made a motion (based on the Subdivision Committee recommendation of October 5) to approve this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. sidewalk being shown on the north side of West View Street if required by the Master Sidewalk plan; 3. the sidewalk on Jimmie Ave. being extended into Lot 11, completing the cul-de-sac; 4. proof of notification of adjoining property owners (completed); 5. drainage at the northwest end being sized to meet the requirement for run-off on the eastern half of the subdivision; 6. utility companies reassessing their require- ments so as to avoid front yard easements and; 7. the developer's lawyers reaching an agreement on where the property lines are to be located (a property line adjustment is necessary between West Wind Phase III Lots 31 & 32 and Jim -Bow Addition Lots 1, 2 & 3). Stockdell seconded, followed by discussion. Hailey asked the developer if the motion was understood and Wimberly replied that it was. Hailey asked if there was any opposition. Mrs. Jo Bennett, 2582 Jimmie Ave. representing several residents of this neighborhood (the Currys, the Stewarts, the Harrisons, the Streetts and the Noorbakhshs) wished to speak in opposition to this development. She handed out photos of the area to Commissioners and stated that she lives adjacent to the proposed development. Bennett said she felt there was a great danger in entering Township from Jimmie Ave. which is nearly at the crest of the hill. She said that residents are very cautious at this intersection, but they expect a traffic accident X91 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 6 could occur any time because of the limited visibility. Bennett said she and her neighbors would like to urge the City not to increase the traffic entering Township from this street. She said that, because Dr. Hays owns the 5 acres to the north of Jim -Bow Addition, she would suggest entering both those fives acres and Jim -Bow from the north at College. Bennett said the 19 proposed houses in Jim -Bow could bring the number of cars to 90 entering Township via Jimmie. She said she and her neighbors protest the manner in which they informed of this development which involved Wimberly visiting them at her home at the time the last Planning Commission had begun it's session. Crook stated that traffic patterns in this area had been discussed and the option of taking the subdivision traffic north to Hays' additional 5 acres did not exist by virtue of a City Board ordinance. Wimberly explained the history of the rezoning and stated that Jimmie Avenue will end in a cul-de-sac. In answer to Bennett's question, he said Hays' northern 5 acres is zoned R-0 with no access allowed into Brophy Circle. Wimberly agreed that he was late in notifying these adjoining neighbors, which is why he requested that consideration of this plat be tabled at the October 8th meeting, in order to give them time to prepare their statements of opposition. In answer to Hailey's question, Jones states that, prior to consideration subdivider will give notice to owners the boundaries of the subdivision. said there is an ordinance which by the Planning Commission the of all property within 100 ft. of Crook said she thought the residents of this area use Karyn Ave. because they consider it safer than Jimmie and she added that that will probably be the case with the residents of the new addition as well. Wimberly said he was willing to have Jimmie Ave. end in West View Street with an off -set and Crook said this might encourage people to use Karyn Ave more often. Crook clarified that the remark in the motion regarding the utility companies was to, hopefully, locate the utility easements in a place other than the front yards. Jones stated that sidewalk is required only on the south side of West View Street. Hailey called the question and the motion to approve this plat passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING PETITION R84-18 BRYCE DAVIS - N. SIDE OF HWY. 16 WEST The fifth item on the agenda was a R84-18 for Bryce Davis to rezone Highway 16 West approximately 100 zoned A-1. Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition 90.08 acres on the north side of feet from Betty Jo Drive. Property 229 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 7 Two errors in the agenda indicated the total amount of land in this request as 162.83 and the location as 1000 ft. from Betty Jo Drive. Upon Hailey's request, Larry Wood gave his Planning Report: He said he recommends R-2 District north to a line even with the R-2 District to the west of this property and R-1 District for the remainder of the property for the following reasons: 1. The R-2 District portion would complete the R-2 District pattern established east and west of this property; 2. The R-1 District portion would allow the remainder of the property to develop as single-family homes; 3. The two districts would allow continuation of the development pattern established for this area; and, 4. Both water and sewer facilities are available to serve this property. In answer to Crook's question, Wood replied that both force main and gravity feed sewer service are available at Hamestring Creek. Petitioner Davis was present to represent this appeal. He demonstrated (on a zoning map) that 20 acres adjacent on the west of subject property have been rezoned R-2 and he added that his property is not subject to the sewer or drainage problems experienced by other parcels in this part of Fayetteville. Davis said he would like to modify his original request to include that: 1. the portion lying immediately north of Highway 16 up to a point even with the northern line of the adjacent R-2 (on the west) be zoned R-2 with the required density for said district. 2. the central portion (extending from #1's north border to the section (7) line) be rezoned to R-2 with a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 12 units per acre; and, 3. the northern most 37.3 acres (in Section 6) be rezoned R-1. He also offered to sign a Bill of Assurance dedicating a 60 ft. north/south right-of-way through subject property to eventually connect with that of Dr. Harris' property (and on to Mt. Comfort Rd.) providing an alternative north/south route. Hanna said he thought Davis' modified proposal was similar to that area south of Highway 16 on Betty Jo Drive and he felt it was reasonable to extend to the section line with R-2. Crook expressed concern that approving of this modified request would trap some R-1 property to the east of this proposal. Williams said that Davis' modified proposal with the Bill of Assurance provides for a transition area between R-1 and R-2. He said that this solution was discussed as ideal interim zoning at a recent meeting of the Update Committee because it serves as an economic feasibility for the developer and as buffer -zone feasibility to adjacent R-1. 223 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 8 MOTION Williams moved approval of the rezoning as amended by Davis for R-2 with regular density from Wedington north to a point even with the R-2 adjacent on the west, R-2 with a Bill of Assurance limiting dwellings to no more than 12 per acre from that north border to the section line (Section 7) & R-1 for the remaining 37.3 acres lying in Section 6. Madison seconded and upon roll call, the motion to approve this rezoning passed 8-0-0. Chairman Hailey advised that this would be presented to the Board of Directors as a recommendation. He added that he has been advised that the probability of this being discussed on election night (next scheduled meeting of the City Board) is very slim and if this presents a problem, to contact City Manager Grimes. PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING PETITION R84-19 GEORGE FAUCETTE - NORTH ST. & GARLAND AVE. The sixth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-19 submitted by George Faucette Jr. for property located at the southeast corner of Garland Ave. and North Street. Property is zoned C-1; requested is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. In addition, requested is a waiver of the driveway safety zone from 40 to 20 ft. Hailey asked Consultant Wood to give his recommendation which is as follows: C-2 District as requested is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The property is located at the intersection of two arterial streets which is the location standard suggested for commercial development; 2. Commercial development currently exists on two intersections north of this property; and, 3. All necessary public facilities are available to serve the anticipated development. Faucette was present to speak for this appeal. He read a letter that he had presented to Commissioners in which in he states that there are many non-offensive uses which are prohibited in C-1 District and that, due to the vehicular activity at this intersection, the surrounding zoning and property use, and the potential uses for this property (due to its small size) he did not see any conflict with the C-2 zoning. Faucette advised that the property owner to the east of subject parcel (Lothar Schafer) objects to the rezoning if there is not a Bill of Assurance which would exclude the following uses of the lots to be rezoned: 224. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 9 From Use Unit 4: From Use Unit 14: From Use Unit 16: And all named Detention Home, or Lodge; Dance Hall, Restaurant with entertainment, membership Lodge theater, Night Club, Tavern, All named under Transportation Theater, Zoo, Private Club under Use Unit 19 and 20. dancing and/or , Motion picture Service; Vernon Wilson, a property owner on the north side of North Street, west of Garland, stated that he would be opposed to this rezoning unless there was a Bill of Assurance restricting any uses having to do with liquor because of its close proximity to the college. Faucette said he would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance for all the uses mentioned above as well as a restriction from any use involving alcoholic beverages. He added that he has a prospective tenant who will occupy approximately one-third of the building for the rental and sales of video equipment. Faucette pointed out that liquor sales are allowable in the present C-1 zoning of this parcel. Lothar Schafer, owner of an adjacent apartment building on Hughes Street, wished to emphasize that he felt if the subject property were rezoned and one of the uses mentioned above were allowed, it might make his apartments uninhabitable due to noise at late hours. Hailey advised that a Bill of Assurance would include all of the uses as stated. Dan Vega, 919 Lindell, stated that he was opposed to this rezoning and he presented the Commissioners with a petition signed by himself and other residents of the neighborhood. He advised that there are two corners of subject intersection that are not developed commercially. He said that C-2 represents Thoroughfare Commercial, designed to cater primarily to highway travelers and he felt that this intersection is not accessible to travelers on North Street and is minimally accessible to travelers on Garland. He pointed out the unusual configuration of the curve feeding traffic onto North from Garland at the bottom of a hill which most drivers traverse at a fairly high speed. He said he agreed with Schafer in that many of the uses allowed in C-2 District are incompatible with a residential neighborhood. Vega said that most of the residents he has spoken with feel that this piece of property should never have been rezoned Commercial and would like to request Commissioners to consider the possibility of rezoning it back to residential. Roger Henry, 2910 Second Street, visitor at the Vega residence. was heavily treed and was very university students use Lindell Johnson, stated that he is a frequent He said seven years ago, this area quaint. Henry pointed out that many Ave. to access their homes. He said 995 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 10 Lindell has no exit onto North Street except for a stairway provided for foot traffic which is where the students cross. Henry said he felt that adding Commercial zoning at the proposed site would increase traffic and create more of a hazard than that which already exists. He referred to cars trying to turn right into the proposed development with cars backed up behind them trying to turn right on North. He then referred to Lindell between Maple and North which is frequented by motoring students (usually speeding) to gain access to the North and Garland business area. Henry said he was in agreement with Wilson regarding the restriction of alcoholic beverages. Wilson wished to add that he was not opposed to this rezoning as long as it was quite clear that it would not involve alcohol. Hailey closed the Public Hearing to Commission discussion. Crook pointed out that the Planning Report contained an error in the amount of land in this request. She said she thought it should read .049 acres and not 49 acres as stated. She added that she felt the traffic issue must be addressed. Madison said she was opposed to the rezoning because, although she said she could understand the rationale applied here with regards to this parcel's status of "major intersection", she said she thought that this particular block, with its' proximity to the university was a special case. She said it is some of the closest student housing to the university and unless it is maintained in a decent condition, it could erode. Madison added that if this parcel was rezoned there was a possibility of the next piece behind it, perhaps Schafer's apart- ments, also becoming Commercial, followed by the remainder of the block. Madison advised that there is also an elementary school very close by from which children walk to their homes via this intersection. She said, by it's very nature, this proposed C-2 zone would generate more traffic for the children to contend with, as it draws from the City as a whole rather than just the immediate neighborhood. Crook advised that the parcel in question is currently C-1 and could include such uses that are much more offensive than some suggested by Faucette, including gasoline station and drive-in restaurant. She pointed out that these uses, already allowed by right, could create traffic problems equal to that which is being proposed. Vega commented that he had been unaware of the initial rezoning and would have protested at that time if he had known of it. Crook said she had objected to the strip along North Street being rezoned, but she said she accepts a decision once it is made. Hanna said he thought it would be much more dangerous to use this property as a gas station or a drive-in restaurant. He added that the business of video rentals and sales is one that does not currently 9,2b • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 11 fit into any use unit and is being addressed by the Up -Date Committee and is the fact that has generated this rezoning. Hanna advised that the petitioner has offered a Bill of Assurance limiting this parcel to all of the uses requested and he thought Faucette deserved assistance in achieving the kind of business he intends to begin at this location. MOTION Hanna moved approval of this rezoning contingent upon a Bill of Assurance restricting the uses stated by Lothar Schafer and Vernon Wilson and agreed upon by Faucette. Williams seconded followed by discussion. Green asked if there was a screening requirement and Jones replied that it was required between Commercial and Residential property. Stockdell, although she thought C-2 was an appropriate use of the property, said she would vote against this motion because she thought it was inappropriate to grant a rezoning such restraints. She said she would prefer to rely on the good judgement of the developer. Jacks said that for many years Commissioners had desired to approve of rezonings with particular limitations but from a legal standpoint, were unable to do so. He said the creation of the "Bill of Assurance" was a panecea. Crook said that, although this developer may use good judgement in restricting the use of the property to those that are non-offensive, it did not necessarily mean that subsequent buyers of the property would use the same judgement. Dr. Schafer said this was a concern of his as well. Hailey assured Schafer that the Bill of Assurance would go with the property. The motion to approve this rezoning passed 6-2-0, Stockdell and Madison voting "nay". Faucette stated that when the Highway Department provided the improvements to the Garland portion of North Street on the southeast corner, they omitted a 30 ft. portion without a curb (on Hughes St. between Garland and his western property line). He said he felt this location was not a conducive to proper access to his parcel and that better access was available directly from Hughes Street. Faucette added that the first thirty feet from the curb east is right-of-way, belonging to the Highway Department and sidewalk has been planned in that area. He said he is requesting a waiver of the 40 safety zone to allow only 20 ft. which will still place the drive 50 ft. from the curb on Garland. Henry asked how much parking will be be provided on this lot and Faucette replied that he is allowing one per 200 sq.ft. or a minimum of 16 parking spaces (presently, 22 are planned). 2.27 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 12 Crook asked about total building area and Faucette replied that building setbacks require 50 ft. from North and Garland and 25 ft. from Hughes which leaves a very small space for the building. He said if the drive were placed 40 ft. back, it would need to be curbed dramatically to the west in order to miss the building. MOTION Williams moved approval of the waiver of driveway safety zone. Stockdell seconded followed by discussion. Crook expressed her concern regarding the amount of space available when exiting onto Hughes, waiting to turn into Garland. Faucette said there was enough space for approximately 2 and 1/2 cars. The motion to approve the waiver of driveway safety zone passed 8-0-0. Chairman Hailey advised those objecting to this appeal that they had the right to appear before the Board of Directors and that this approval would reach the Board as a recommendation only. He added that this motion was tied to the stipulated Bill of Assurance. IAT SPLIT FOR RICHARD WALDEN WOOD AVE. NORTH OF FAIRLANE The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the 3 acre minimum lot size applicable to a first lot split submitted by Richard Walden for property located east of Wood Avenue and North of Fairlane Street. Halley advised that the map that appears in Commissioner's packets is in error and the actual parcel ends directly above the word "McClinton". Jones added that the area shown in the map is the entire property with the west 200 to be split off from it. Crook asked if there was to be right-of-way dedicated on the west end of this property and Jones said it is required unless a waive is requested and granted from the Board of Directors. Walden reported that the previous owner was supposed to take the responsibility for this lot split and had not. MOTION Jacks moved approval, seconded by Madison, the motion to approve this request for a lot split passed 7-0-0. (Stockdell having left the meeting at 6:40, prior to this vote). 22( • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 13 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF LOT SIZE BOTH 3 AND 5 MINIMUMS FOR 1ST & 2ND SPLITS HOWELL TRDMBO - BLOCK 5 WESTWOOD ADDITION The eighth item on the agenda (part a and b) was a request for a waiver of minimum lot size for first & second split submitted by Howell Trumbo. Property located Block 5, Westwood Addition, zoned I-1. MOTION Crook advised that this property is located in a developing industrial area south of town. She moved approval for both of these requests. Seconded by Jacks, the motion to approve both requests passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT STARR - GMAC BUILDING, ZION & FRONT RD. The ninth item on the agenda was the approval of a Large Scale Development (Starr -GMAC) submitted by Gary Carnahan for Lindsey Construction located at the southeast corner of Zion and Front Street. Green reported that this item had been tabled at the Subdivision Committee meeting because there was no representation at that time. He advised that the plat was fairly straight forward and he suggested that the Commission address it this time. Carnahan stated that he had missed the meeting because he mistakenly believed that the Committee met at 4:00 P.M. which is what he had planned on. MOTION Madison said she objected to addressing the plat at this time, especially because there were two members of the Subdivision Committee absent from the Commission and she thought this plat should be reviewed in detail before being presented to the Commission. She added that she did not think it was appropriate to by-pass Subdivision meetings. She moved to table this item until it has been discussed at the regular Subdivision Committee meeting; Crook seconded. Green agreed with Madison, but he repeated that, because this plat is so uncomplicated, he felt it would not take much time to consider. The motion to table failed to pass 2-5-0, Madison and Crook voting "aye". Green proceeded by asking Carnahan if there were any problems meeting the requests made by utility companies at the Plat Review meeting and Carnahan replied that there were not. Carnahan added that he has complied with the request for additional 5 ft. of right-of-way (because of collector street status on Front St.) as well as sidewalk all the way around the property, even though this plat was preliminarily approved without it. 229 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 14 Green explained that, at the time this development was originally platted, Front Street was a service road and has subsequently been designated a collector street which requires 5 ft. of additional right- of-way from each side and the sidewalk was required only on the west side of Front Street. (Ordinance #2847, August 1982, states that sidewalk will be installed on any side of a service road where there is potential for development). Green said the only other item of consideration was the request for a waiver of driveway width from 40 ft. to 55 ft. Green said he thought the measurement was a matter of interpretation based on where in the drive the measurement would be taken. Madison wished to know the intent of the driveway encircling the rear of the building. She suggested it be posted one-way; Carnahan agreed. MOTION Green moved approval of this plat with a recommendation that the driveway width be waved and the encircling drive be designated as one-way. Madison seconded and the motion to approve this LSD passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LSD POINT WEST ADDITION - M.A.P. GROUP N. SHILOH DRIVE, E. OF HWY.71 BY-PASS The tenth item on the agenda was the request for approval of Point West Addition LSD submitted by M.A.P. Group and located on N. Shiloh Drive east of Hwy. 71 by-pass, zoned I-1. MOTION Based on Subdivision Committee review, Green made a motion to approve this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. a Bill of Assurance stating that if Shiloh Drive (south) and Point West Street are not continued within one year of the completion of construction of said streets, that culs-de-sac will be constructed at the ends of said street in accordance with City specification and; 3. the developer's guarantee that the sidewalk between Porter Road and the edge of Lot 1 of this development will be constructed within five years. Madison seconded and the motion to approve this LSD passed 7-0-0. Crook inquired whether the question of collector street status has been resolved and Green replied that it has not and this developer will need to request a waiver of the additional right-of-way from the Board of Directors. He added that, if the waiver is not granted, the Planning Administrator will be required to obtain said right-of-way each time a building permit is applied for (as per City Attorney). 30 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 15 CLARIFICATION OF INTENT FOR BILL OF ASSURANCE WHITE RIVER HARDWOODS The eleventh item on the agenda was a request for clarification of intent for a Bill of Assurance by White River Hardwoods, represented by Attorney Lynn Wade and owner Joan Johnson. Hailey reviewed the stipulations in the present Bill of Assurance submitted by Wade for Johnson: 1. Upon completion of construction of the new building to be located south of an existing building on above real estate, the owner and tenant agree not in install or operate an additional wood planer in said new building; 2. White River Hardwoods will operate no woodworking equipment on Sunday; 3. White River Hardwoods will construct a visual screen on the north and west sides of cyclone tower on above property; and, 4. White River Hardwoods has constructed a fence on a portion of the north boundary line at 1159 S. Happy Hollow Rd. 5. This Bill of Assurance will be binding upon owner, tenant and their successors and assigns. Discussion of the items was as follows: Jacks said he thought the intent of 1/1 was to prohibit any business on Sunday and Hailey commented that he believed it was limited to the operation of noisey equipment only. Hanna said he believed that the loading and unloading of trucks had been deemed acceptable on Sunday. Madison said she thought Commissioner's discussion, at the time, spoke of restricting working of equipment of Sunday and when the motion was made it specified "no business" on Sunday. She said she felt "no business" was too restrictive and was not her intent. Crook said her vote in the original motion had been for "no business" on Sunday because of the further intrusion on this residential neighborhood. She added that, if this business were in Commercial or Industrial areas, she would feel restricting business on Sunday was unreasonable. Green agreed with Madison in that the intent was to restrict disturbing noise on Sunday. Williams said he thought that, if the business is restricted any more than it already is, it would represent an arbitrary restriction and Crook replied that that is exactly what Conditional Use is meant to be used as. 231 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 16 Wade stated that, in the confusion regarding what was required in the Bill of Assurance, he had received a message that only the restriction of having no planers in the new building was necessary in the Bill and that the other restrictions could be submitted in letter form. He said he has subsequently included all the restrictions in the present Bill of Assurance. Wade indicated that it was his and the Johnson's understanding that there would be no woodworking on Sunday. Madison questioned the reason for Item #4 specifying that only a portion of the boundary line be fenced and Wade explained that the fence was not taken out to the street (because it would obscur traffic vision) and he added that the buildings act as screening; the fence has been installed in the gaps between the buildings. Madison asked if residents to the north can see the business and Wade Bishop, developer of the adjoining subdivision, replied that residents can see the business but that the objectionable parts (sawdust pile) has been screened from view. Bishop said he thought an ordinance specified that a fence will be erected on all sides of a property viewed by the public He added that he felt White River Hardwoods has not yet complied with the restrictions imposed upon them by the Planning Commission. Hailey asked if the fencing along the north side was adequate. Madison said she believed the intent of the motion was that the fence be extended along the entire north boundary and not just a portion. In answer to Jack's question, Wade stated that the buildings are set back from the north property line approximately 10 ft. Joan Johnson, owner of White River Hardwoods, said it seemed redundant to fence the portion of boundary that was already blocked by buildings. Madison said the motion stipulates "...fence along the north property line." Chairman asked for a vote on the wording of the items as specified in the current Bill of Assurance presented by Wade: Item #1 passed as stated 7-0-0; Item #2 passed 6-1-0, Crook voting "nay"; Item 13 passed 7-0-0, Item #4 needs to be reworded to read "White River Hardwoods will construct a fence along the north boundary line of their property, the extension of which will be determined by the applicable regula- tion, this rewording passed 7-0-0, and, Item #5 passed 7-0-0. Jones said the fence should be far enough back so as to allow vehicles to see around it while exiting the property. (At least one full car length). 23Q • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING ON APP.A & APP.0 PRIVATE STREETS IN PUDs AND LSDs Item 12 on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appendix C and Item 13 was a Public Hearing on Appendix A, both referring tothe maintenance and/or regulations regarding streets in Planned Unit Developments and Large Scale Developments. Commissioners agreed to address these two items simultaneously as they are of a similar nature. Crook stated that original amendment of App.A as drafted by McCord, "...provides that private streets within a PUD shall be maintained by the developer or abutting property owner" while the present ordinance states that responsibility lies with the developer or a neighborhood property owner's association and shall not be the responsibility of the City. She said that, as a result of much thought and input by both Committee members and some engineers and developers, "neighborhood property owner's association" or abutting property owners should all be included as those responsible for maintenance of said streets and she advised that the City Attorney is in agreement with this wording. Crook said it is felt that this wording is necessary for the protection of some developments where one person has ownership. • The proposed ordinance regarding the regulation of private streets in LSDs reads: • "Vehicular travel within a residential large scale development, where there are more than 40 units per single access to a public street, shall be on public or private streets. Private streets within a large scale development shall be permitted subject to the conditions prescribed by Article 8, Section 12, Paragraph 4.15(b) of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordi- nances; provided, the Planning Commission may waive or vary any of said conditions (1) due to practical difficulties caused by terrain or other physical features, or (2) in the case of parking lot access involving minor street work, where the proposal by the developer will not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian safety.". Crook interpreted this ordinance to mean that when more than 40 units are proposed, a developer will have the option of providing an additional point of ingress/egress or will provide travel on a street. Crook said this ordinance will address both safety and maintenance issues and she reviewed comments received regarding this proposal: The question was raised regarding the dividing line in number of units; the opinion was expressed that the City already has the authority to require two points of ingress/egress; it was said this ordinance would restrict developers by making development too costly; it 233 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 18 was expressed that most developers will build to standards without any intervention by the City; it was thought the ordinance would add clarity to the existing LSD requirements and let developers know what is required from the beginning. Crook advised that she was in possession of a letter from engineer, Ervan Wimberly, stating that he was opposed to the LSD ordinance because he felt that the City should not impose more complications in the system, and that an ordinance passed today may be difficult to interpret in the future requiring additional time from the Planning Commission and Planning staff to determine what the intent is. (Included in this letter was a request for clarification on where the measurement for driveway width should be taken). MOTION Crook made a motion to recommend approval of both ordinances as stated above to the City Board; second by Madison and followed by discussion. In answer to Jack's inquiry, Crook said that although it may be true that most developers will build to standard without additional interference she did not think this would apply to numbers of ingress/egress. She added that Fayetteville is beginning to see larger complexes being developed and she felt that these regulations are necessary. Jacks agreed that, although the numbers are arbitrary, it is sometimes necessary to set limits. Madison said the important issue to her was the long range plan for maintenance of streets, which at present is not provided for in large scale developments. Green stated that one reason he is opposed to the LSD ordinance is because he feels that the Commission has enough control over one of these issues presently in that they can require more than one point of ingress/egress. He said that part of the LSD ordinance requires people who are building streets for their own use to build them to City standards and yet the City will not take over the obligation of maintaining said streets which he did not feel was fair. He said that developers who do not meet City standards on private streets are not placing a burden on the City or its resources (as the City is not required to maintain private streets). He expressed some confusion over the part of the ordinance pertaining to the maintenance of streets by Property Owners Associations or property owner(s). He said he thought that in a PUD there are trade-offs for building streets to City standards while in LSDs there is no gain for the developer. Crook said she felt the safety issue has been considered by addressing the maintenance of streets in a residential LSD of a size beyond a certain number of units, so that emergency vehicles can reach them without difficulty, as is currently required in a PUD. 234 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 19 Jacks said that sometimes both an ordinance and performance standards are needed. Madison compared sidewalks to the ordinance currently being considered. She said while sidewalks must meet certain regulations, they must be maintained by private owners because they are in public domain. She said, also, that it may be the good intent of neighbors to maintain the streets in front of their houses, but the manner in which they get together and perform their obligations is being left to them. Green said he saw two options: 1. that the code require LSDs to form Property Owners Associations; and, 2. that the requirement be set forth that the maintenance of streets be such that will allow emergency vehicles to enter and leave safely (which may be determined, perhaps, by the Fire Department or the Street Superintendent) without additional regulations. Green added that he did not think most people wanted more than one way of entering and exiting their subdivisions even for safety sake, but preferred their privacy instead. He said the situation of subdivisions emptying into major streets is not particularly desireable to him. Crook said she felt that the ordinance will add clarity needed by some developers as to ingress/egress and gives the developer two options to provide alternate means of exit when a development is over a certain size (both in a PUD and LSDs). The question was called and the motion to recommend both of these changes to the Master Plan failed to pass 4-3-0, Hanna, Hailey and Green voting "nay". Chairman Hailey announced that notice of this action will be forwarded to the City Board. REPORT FROM JACKS ON LAND STUDY HWY. 62 AND FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY The fourteenth item on the agenda was a report from Ernie Jacks, Chairman of a Committee studying land use for the area bounded by Highway 62 on the south and Fulbright Expressway on the east. Jacks said that, after much discussion, the Committee drafted the map that he has included in Commissioners packets. He said the Committee agreed that they did not want to strip Hwy. 62 West but they liked the idea of extending the depth of the multi -family recommendation both north and south in the flatter areas and retaining the slopes for R-1 development. In answer to Hailey's comment regarding the area in this study, Jones replied that there has been a request from the Board of Adjustment to study the south side of 62 in the Farmers Drive area and perhaps, initiating the rezoning of the small residential which is now A-1. 235 Planning Commission October 22, 1984 Page 20 Hailey inquired as to why the Committee has left R-1 along the by-pass north and south of Hwy. 62 and Jacks replied that the question was whether or not to strip the by-pass with multi -family. Wood added that the Committee felt it best to keep the R-1 zone south of Old Farmington Road. Wimberly asked why the slopes are being reserved for R-1 and Jacks replied that it is easier to build single-family dwellings on slopes than apartments. Crook added that drainage might be easier to handle from single-family dwellings than large developments in these areas. MOTION Jacks made a motion to advertise for a Public Hearing to amend the Land Use Plan as recommended by this committee. Williams seconded and the motion to advertise for Public Nearing on the Land Use plan passed 6-0-0, Madison having left the meeting at this time. DISCUSSION OF PARRS & RBC. ADVISORY BOARD MEETING The fifteenth item on the agenda was a discussion of the Park S Recreation Advisory Board meeting held October 9, 1984. Hailey advised that, at subject meeting, it was decided to accept cash in lieu of land for Jim -Bow Addition. NOTION Crook moved that this Commission concur with the Parks and Recreation vote; seconded by Jacks, the motion to concur passed 6-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Williams reported that the Up -Date Committee will be ready to report on their activities on Nov. 13 and he requested the Commission to plan a Public Hearing for that time. He added that the Committee will be reporting their suggestions piece -meal. After discussion, Commissioners decided to ask the Committee continue it's activities and report their advise at a Public Hearing to be held on December 10th, this year. MOTION Williams moved to advertise for a Public Hearing to discuss the changes recommended in the Master Plan as per the Up -Date Committee on Dec. 10th; seconded by Jacks, this motion passed 6-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. 2 36