Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting'of the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville vas held on Monday, April 8, 1985 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison and Stan Green MEMBERS ABSENT. Newton Hailey, Barbara Crook, Joe Tarvin and Trey Trumbo OTHERS PRESENT: Consultant Larry Wood, Bert Rakes, J. B. Hays, Sam Mathias, Malcolm McNair, Walter Niblock, Steve Singleton, Ervan Wimberly, Bryce Davis, Hoyt Greenwood, John Eldridge, Millard Goff, F. H. Martin, Keith Cearly, Wanda Yoe Smith, Joe Henley, Mr. &Mrs. Lucian Phillips, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair, Melanie Stockdell and the minutes of the regular and special meetings of March 25 were considered. MINUTES Commissioner Green made the following correction to the minutes of the regular meeting: Reason given for abstaining on Page 5 and 6 is because he is an officer in the AW Realty Co. With this correction, the minutes stood approved as distributed. /REQUEST TO TABLE REZONING PETITION CART BEBNER - 308/310 WEST MOUNTAIN The second item on the agenda was a request to table a rezoning petition submitted by Carl Behner for property located at 308/310 West Mountain. Reason for tabling is the petitioner's temporary absence. MOTION Madison moved to table this request; seconded by Jacks, the motion to table passed 5-0-0. 9S • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 2 Stockdell noted that it would require a unanimous vote of the five Commissioners present to either approve or deny a re -zoning petition and she advised that petitioners might consider tabling their request until such time as more Commissioners were present. REQUEST TO DISCUSS CITY INITIATED REZONING BERT RAKES FOR HARRY TUNSTILL - 1500 S. COLLEGE The third item on the agenda was a request to discuss a City initiated rezoning by City Representative Bert Rakes for property located at 1500 S. College which is owned by Harry Tunstill. Stockdell advised that the Commission was being asked to indicate whether they have any opposition to the change or the manner in which it is being done, no vote is required. Rakes, Land Agent for City of Fayetteville, stated that it is his job to secure easements and rights-of-way and he noted that, in the course of obtaining easements in the south part of town, he came across a 95 year old man (Tunstill) whoe was desparately in need of someone to live on his property and take care of him. Rakes said that Tunstall has no family but does have a friend who is able to care for him if that friend can live in a mobile home on Tunstill's property. Rakes advised that he is aware of the regular procedure for re -zoning petitions and that he was presenting this case at this time because City Manager Grimes wished to know the attitude of the Planning Commission regarding this issue before it is presented to the Board for rezoning. Rakes said the request would be for 8+ acres of R-2 rezoned to A-1 which is the only district on which a mobile home may be placed in the City of Fayetteville and he added that Tunstill is willing to agree that the property revert to R-2 upon his death. Jacks expressed his concern regarding elderly people in this type of situation and also expressed his concern in setting a precident of irregular procedure for rezoning appeals; Stockdell agreed. This item goes to the City Board. REZONING PETITION R85-11 J. B. HAYS -MASONIC DRIVE & HWY. 71 The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal for rezoning petition R85-11 submitted by J.B. Hays for property located on Masonic Drive and Highway 71 N. This property is two acres and the request is from R-1 to C-2; represented by Malcolm McNair of First Federal of Arkansas. • Consultant Wood reported that C-2 District is not recommended for the following reasons: q6 • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 3 1. The extension of the C-2 District to the east tend to commit properties north and south of commercial uses; and, 2. The adjacent properties would thenhave thei to a local street as opposed to access oriented as requested would this property to r access oriented to Highway 471. Malcolm McNair, First Federalof Arkansas, 201 N. East Ave., advised that this petitioner is not requesting access onto Masonic Drive. He introduced Sam Mathias, potential purchaser of the property who said that the only reason a rezoning is being requested is that the size building he wishes to construct at this location will be 60 X 250ft. which would place the building about 25 ft. into the R-1 zone behind it. He noted that the building is to be constructed on C-2 property facing Hwy. 71 with the exception of the aforementioned 25 ft. Mathias explained that there is a 75 ft. building setback. Madison said she agreed with Wood's see any problem because he felt that, surrounding this request are R-1, as R-1. Hanna said it seemed like a findings but Green said he didn't even though some of the properties they probably would not develop good use for the property. McNair directed Commissioners attention to letters which have been presented to them from adjoining residents in support of this rezoning petition and noted that this is the only portion of a tract purchased ten years ago that was not C-2. Stockdell advised Hays (having just arrived) of the unanimous vote required to approve of a rezoning and Hays agreed to proceed. MOTION Green moved to recommend approval of this request. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Hanna moved to table this appeal. Jacks seconded and the motion failed to pass 2-3-0, Hanna and Jacks voting in favor of. MOTION • Green again moved approval of the appeal expressed concern regarding changes from Ave. Upon roll call, the motion failed Stockdell and Green voting in favor of. with Hanna seconding. Jacks R-1 to C-2 along College to pass 3-2-0, with Hanna, qry • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 4 REZONING PETITION R85-12 THEIIIA POND AND MARY ALICE STASTNY 1148 W. CLEVELAND - R-1 TO P-1 The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning appeal R85-12 submitted by Attorney Walter Niblock on behalf on Thelma Pond and Mary Alice Stastny for property located at 1148 W. Cleveland. Property is zoned R-1, requested is P-1 in order to sell to Fayetteville School District 111 for expansion of Leverett Elementary School facilities. Consultant Wood recommended P-1 for the following reasons: 1. The property is proposed to be added to the adjacent elementary school which is zoned P-1 District; and, 2, P-1 District is the appropriate zoning classification for school property. Niblock stated that Pond and Stastny (sisters) wish to sell their family home in order to provide the school district with additional land on which to construct parking and playground facilities. Lamar Pettus noted that several years ago, Niblock had considered giving Leverett School to the University of Arkansas. He said he objected to buying any more land for the school if those intentions are the same but Niblock assured Pettus that the school will not be sold largely because of objections from patrons of the school. Steve Singleton, an adjoining resident on 816 Hall Avenue, said that his home abuts this property and he expressed his concern in that the plans for the expansion are unknown to him and his neighbors. The Superintendent of Schools stated that the intent of the additional parcel is to provide playground facilities as well as parking on some portion of it. He said the only bulldozing that will be done is that which will accomodate the development of the playground and parking. He said the long-term use of the land includes several new classrooms. Singleton inquired whether neighboring residents could be involved in the planning process and Superintendent invited that involvement. Madison inquired whether this property will be required to go, through the large scale development process and Jones explained that they would if they added over 10,000 sq.ft. of floor area, cut another drive or provided an additional 25 or more parking spaces. NOTION • Jacks moved to recommend approval of this request and seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 5-0-0. 98 • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 5 WALNUT GROVE -PRELIMINARY PLAT WEDINGTON DRIVE - BRYCE DAVIS The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of the preliminary plat for Walnut Grove Subdivision located on Wedington Drive west of the by-pass, submitted by Bryce Davis and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Stockdell noted this request includes approval of a waiver for the length of a dead-end street. Madison spoke for the Subdivision Committee having heard this devlopment plan at the meeting of Friday, April 5. She noted that there had been only two members attending that meeting (herself and Crook) and they did not agree on a recommendation. Wimberly presented proof of notification of adjoining property oweners and Jones advised that she had received a copy of the covenants and would comment on several points at the appropriate time. Madison noted that the Committee did approve of the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in accepting 8+ acres within this development for public park. Madison advised that the Street Superintendent Powell, in view of the potential density of Walnut Grove, recommended a second point of access onto Highway 16 for safe ingress/egress and also to help disipate the traffic. He had said that with Street "A" being only a local two-lane street, he felt that there definitely needed to be a second access. Madison said that the Fire Inspector agreed, noting that even if Street "A" went through to Mt. Comfort Rd., an additional access to Wedington was necessary. She advised that the Traffic Super- intendent agreed with the Fire Inspector and the Street Superintendent even though he had not attended the Plat Review meeting nor commented previously. Stockdell asked what Crook's reasons had been for not requiring a second access as recommended by Powell and Madison replied that Crook had felt that widening the shoulders of Street "A" to 10 ft. beyond the curb for emergency vehicle access was an appropriate compromise. Madison repeated that the City representatives did not feel that this was a good solution but could only make recommedations. She noted that Powell has said Street "A" would flood in a 50 year flood. Wimberly said he avoided connecting the loop streets together in an attempt to create small neighborhoods without through traffic. He said that another point of access on Wedington will be provided when future development takes place in that phase. He added that two stub -outs to the east, two to the west and one to the north have been planned and noted that preliminary work has begun on the parcel lying north of this with a through street will probably be constructed from Wedington to Mt. Comfort Road. • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 6 Wimberly said he did not feel it was fair to require one developer to build that through street, including a bridge, without others' participation. He said he did not agree with Powell's comment regarding the flood plain, noting that the property is not near the 50 year flood plain and he did not expect water to cover the road at any time because the internal drainage will be designed to handle the 100 year storm. He also advised that if the ends of the loop streets are connected the resulting street would run through the middle of the proposed park which he felt was poor planning. Wimberly said he didn't feel anything was to be gained by having two parallel streets and that a four -lane street would not gain any access because Wedington has no plans for being four laned in the near future. Jacks asked if Wimberly agreed with compacting the shoulders of Street "A" and Wimberly replied that he did and that it would support vehicles. Madison said she was still concerned about the density of this development and she noted that some developments have not progressed very far because of difficulties and that the possibility exits here, too, with the stub -outs to the east leading nowhere until that land develops. Wimberly said it has been City policy to encourage, not discourage, development. He advised that the 40 unit maximum which has sometimes been applied to large scale developments was intended as a guideline for PVDs and that no ordinance exists restricting the number of units per access. He advised that a public hearing should be held if this guide is to be applied as a requirement. Hanna said he thought logic will dictate that, as the subdivision is occupied, more will be developed and if it does not fill up, the density will not exist. He said he didn't feel it was fair to ask a developer to construct two streets to begin with. Madison said that Committee members had been sympathic to the cost involved in building these streets and had tried unsuccessfully to arrive at some arrangement such as a time frame to tie the consturction to but it did not work out. She pointed out that three City represent- atives have indicated that they are not satisfied with the solution arrived at and that her concern was with safety and traffic blockage. Green said he did not think there was much of a possibility that Street "A" would ever be blocked and that it was unlikely that a major accident or a natural disaster would occur to such. an extent as to make it impassable to emergency vehicles. He said if the build-up of the shoulders will work, it will decrease the risk and he suggested accepting the should build-up with the anticipation that the other access problems would be solved in time. Green asked Wimberly if there were any other problems with the conditions • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 7 in Crook's motion and Wimberly agreed to review the conditions for clarification. Crook had moved to recommend approval subject to 1. Plat Review comments made by Arkansas Western Gas, Ozarks Electric, Southwestern Bell, Warner -Amex Cable, the Water Meter Superintendent, the Sanitation Department and the City Engineer; 2. the Planning Commissions acceptance of the PRAB recommendation to accept 8+ acres of land for a public park; 3. right-of-way dedication for Street "A" being 60 ft. and said street being built to local street standards (31 ft. as per code) unless the City decides to bear the cost of participating (at this stage) in the construction and development of said street to collector standards; 4. clarification by reference to City Administration as to whose jurisdiction the maintainance of the storm water detention ponds and easements will fall (the choices being either the Parks Department or the Street Department); 5. storm drainage being as shown pending final figures and designs for same; 6. dedication of additional street r/w extending from the west end of Street "E" to the west edge of property; 6. off-site improvements including the construction of Street "A" to local street standards from the south edge of this phase to Wedington Drive with sidewalks on one side at this time and sidewalk on opposite side to be constructed at such time as future development takes place; 7. dedication of a 16 ft. pedestrian easement between Lots 124 & 125 with a sidewalk and prohibition against cross fencing of that easement; 8. the shoulders of Street "A" being improved for a width of 10 ft. beyond the back of curb on both sides of the extention of said street to a condition capable of supporting travel by a vehicle, from the south edge of this phase to Wedington Drive; and 9._ proof of notification of adjoining property owners and a copy of the covenants available on Monday April, 8. Davis stated that the dedication in 116 should be between the City departments as the park will already be dedicated to same. Madison advised that this easement dedication was requested because it would provide a potential outlet for this high density cul-de-sac. MOTION Green made a motion to approve this plat subject to the conditions as stated by Crook with the deletion of 116. Hanna seconded followed by discussion. Jones advised that there were some problems in the covenants; page two, section 6, second sentence specifies a setback of 15 ft. from a side street while City code requires 25 ft.; same page and section, covenants specifiy that an accessory building shall be at least 5 ft. from the rear lot line and 10 ft. from other lot lines and any other buildings on the same lot while City code requires an accessory building to be considered as any other building with the same setbacks, 8 ft. from sides, 25ft. from front and 25ft. from rear in R-2, 20ft. from l of • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 8 rear in R-1. She noted section 8 specifiers a minimum width width which differs from City code and Wimberly said he would revise his lot sizes to meet City requirements. The question was called and the motion to approve this plat passed 4-1-0, Madison voting "nay". RECOMMENDATION • Madison noted that the•Subdivision Committee recommended that the loop streets in this project shall have no more names assigned to them than they have access points to a collector street. MOTION Madison moved to hold a public hearing to establish a north/south street between Mt. Comfort and Highway 16, intersecting with Salem Road and to be added to the Master Street Plan as per a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Jacks seconded and the motion to hold a public hearing passed 5-0-0. MOTION Hanna moved to waive the maximum length of a dead-end street for this development. Jacks seconded and the motion passed 4-1-0, Madison voting 'bay" SPEE-DEE MART - LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT HOYT GREENWOOD - WEDINCTON DRIVE/RHPPLE RD. The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of a large scale development for Spee -Dee Mart located on highway 16 west at Rupple Road submitted by Hoyt Greenwood and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Stockdell advised that this plat had not been approved by the Subdivision Committee but a recommendation by Crook has been made. Wimberly said that the drainage study made by the City in this area indicates that a storm drainage system be built from the corner of Rupple Road, under Highway 16 and continue about one-half mile south to Owl Creek. He said the intent was to implement the study and require the improvements to be made as development occurs. Wimberly noted that this Spee -Dee Mart is the first development in the area since that study which indicated 2 curb inlets and 27" diameter storm drain pipe be built under the highway. He said to implement this,' a drainage easement, installed by the City and extending one-half mile south, is necessary. He said that, based on rational nexus, Crook felt that this developer should pay for 30% of the under -road storm drainage with the money to be placed in a fund so that when the City is ready to proceed, the funds will be available. Wimberly said storm drainage must be built now lot • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 9 and he plans to build a curb inlet on the northwest corner of Rupple Road and 16 as well as extend the storm drainage pipe to the west side He said currently, but not historically, the intersection drains to the west and he proposes to provide the pipe to the west as a temporary outlet for the storm drainage structure. Wimberly said he has spoken to the State Highway Department and been advised that they, too, are working on the drainage problems in this area but they are in need of a copy of the City's drainage study. John Eldridge, representing nearby property owner Millard Goff, stated that the problem is that all of the storm drainage travels to the properties to the west of Rupple Rd. because Highway 16 and Rupple Rd. tends to serve as a dam keeping the water from flowing south or east where it originally drained. Eldridge said that each development which occurs in this area compounds the water problem, directing more of it to the west and ultimately south. He said that the City has previously indicated to area property owners that, when development occurs, the improvements will be made thereby relieving the concerns that this current proposed development will place on the property owners. Eldridge said the residents are not opposed to the development but wish to have the water problem taken care of. Goff said that he had thought that the purpose of the proposed study made in 1983 was to examine the problem and do something about it. He expressed his concern that the City would not keep their committment. Jacks inquired if adding the culvert suggested by Wimberly would be an immediate and viable solution. Eldridge said he was not sure it would solve the problem but it would keep the problem from getting any worse because it would allow some of the water to travel to the east. Goff agreed that he could live with the culvert until something else can be done. No noted that some of the problem has occured because of continual building up of blacktop in front of Williams Grocery which is now closed. Wimberly stated that Greenwood is finding a solution to this problem Mr. Greenwood that Crook's suggested willing to work with the City in and that he felt he could assure 30% figure was a reasonable amount. Madison explained that Crook indicated this property as being 30% responsible for cost of improvements because the drainage designed to pass under the road should accomodate 7.2 acres and this development is 2.4 acres or 1/3 of the total land to be served by the improvements. Wimberly clarified further that the study calls for culvert under Hwy. 16 with curb inlet junction boxes on the north and south sides but the original plan was to storm drain down the east and south sides of the property. 103 • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 10 Jacks asked what,in addition to the culvert, would be required to make the system work and Wimberly said that the undedicated road on the south side of Highway 16 would need to be cleaned out. Goff said he didn't think that step was necessary at this time,and he added that he thought if this area were properly engineered with a culvert under Rupple Road taking the flow eastward it would solve the problem. Goff advised that it would be extremely costly to carry drainage south. Wimberly said that Greenwood has agreed to install a culvert under Rupple Road to the east if the City would clean out the ditch to the east as far as the low point. Mr. Davis expressed concern that diverting the water from here to the east would dump it on his property which the Commission would later require him to take care of. Wimberly stated that there is another low point between Greenwood's property and Davis' that the water will flow to. MOTION Jacks moved to table this request until the City engineer and a State engineer can confer and arrive at a solution. Madison seconded and the motion passed 5-0-0. SPEE-DEE MART - PRELIMINARY PUT HWY 62 AND RAZORBACK RD - HOYT GREENWOOD The eigth item on the, agenda was the approval of a Spee -Dee Mart large scale development plan located on Hwy. 62 and Razorback submitted by Hoyt Greenwood and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Madison noted that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments with the exception the easement request on the south side with the need for said easement to be determined at the time of future development; and 2. a Bill of Assurance being executed stating that sidewalk will extend from the west edge of the property and from the south edge of the Razorback Road driveway to the south edge of the property. (If the balance of the property develops within 5 years, the sidewalks will be installed at that time and if not, the City may call the Bill at any time after that five year period). Ivy • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 11 PUBLIC REARING - COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PIAN FOR HIGHWAYS 265 AND 45 The ninth item on the agenda was a public hearing on the comprehensive land use plan for the area of the intersection of Highways 265 and 45. Maps of the existing plan and the proposed plan were handed out. Consultant Wood, at Crook's request, gave some background on the study made in this area. He said the City Board had requested that the Planning Commission look at the general plan recommendations at this intersection and the Planning Commission appointed a Committee who have met twice to discuss this issue, resulting in this evening's public hearing. Wood said the Committee's recommendations to the Planning Commission are shown on the map indicating the proposed plan. Wood discussed the separate corners of intersection as proposed: Northwest corner; the committee recommended that the plan reflect what the current zoning is. Southwest corner; basically the same as above with the exception of the square of office that has been talked about but not yet zoned (Zed Johnson). Southeast corner; committee recommended cutting back the existing C-2 and on the east side (adjacent to Sequoah Woods) to reduce the C-2 by approximately 400 ft. and tie that into the existing office zoning, and to expand the multi -family as far south as Wipporwil which the existing plan does not include. Northeast corner; recommendation to expand the multi -family north to match with the multi -family on the west side of 265, expand the commercial slightly to the north and introduce an office zone in place of the multi -family on Box Avenue. In answer to Jack's inquiry, Wood said that, for the most part, the proposal reflects current zoning with the exception of the office introduced on the southeast corner and the expansion on the northeast corner. Wood explained that the general plan is used as a guide for the Planning Commission and the City Board in reviewing rezoning applications and if the application is in keeping with the plan, it is usually judged to be a good application and if not, then the Commission must decide if the general plan or the rezoning request is more appropriate. F. H. Martin, attorney representing Keith Cearly, advised that Cearly owns the property at the southeast corner of the intersection with the exception of the liquor store He said that Cearly is opposed to the reduction of his C-2 zoned parcel as per the proposed plan. 105 • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 12 Cearly explained that the proposal would take 400 X 1300 ft. off of the east side of Cearly's property to zone as "office". Martin continued, noting that. Cearly had relied on the zoning when he purchased this property many years ago and has spent a good deal of money in hopes of developing this parcel. Martin noted that a reason stated for changing the 400 ft. of C-2 to office is to create a buffer between the commercial and the neighboring residential and he pointed out that this property existed here as C-2 long before the residential neighborhood was developed and that the property owners in this neighborhood could have been aware of this zoning before puchasing Wanda Yoe Smith stated that she has a as she is the former owner and in the Commission could rezone property business. She said she was unsure and she added that Cearly's plans in the way of a parking area between financial interest in this property general she said she wondered how and still expect people to conduct as to how this rezoning came up for this parcel include a buffer the shops and residential homes. Cearly advised that he has previously met with Wood to discuss his plans for this property and had been told that there would be no further C-2 zoning in the 265 corridor until existing commercial property was developed. He noted that his C-2 has been reduced in the proposal while other "C" areas have been increased on the other corners of the intersection. Joe the his the Henley stated that he has an office at the northeast portion of southeast corner and said that if the commercial concern neighboring property were of a high quality he would be in favor of leaving general plan as is. Stockdell expressed concern that a development is in the offing and yet she said she has not seen anything regarding said development come through the Subdivision Committee or the City offices that might indicate that. She said that, as far as planning, she would have to use what information is available to make a determination. Stockdell said she felt apprehensive about updating an area of land that hasn't developed and would like the chance to plan it out and offer some alternatives to develop it particularly in that there have been no concrete plans submitted by Cearly. Martin said that he picked up a large scale development application in January of this year and expects to submitt plans within several months. He advised that it is a very involved process. Madison said that she was on the committee which studied this area and she noted that feelings had been expressed that perhaps there was not an applicable plan to go by. She said that the committee was not trying to pull the rug out from anybody and the committee was unaware that this developer had a prospective plan. Madison said lob • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 13 the committee felt that introducing the office area between the C-2 and Sequoah Woods would merely reflect the existing use. She noted that there are plans for a full campus school on the north side of 45. Cearly said he was concerned that his property could be considered for rezoning without notifying him. Smith noted that this property has been very difficult to develop which is one reason it has not proceeded until this time. She said Cearly has planned a medium sized shopping center which takes time. Hanna clarified that this proposal is not intended to change the zoning but to use as a plan for land use. He said if Cearly presented a plan that fit in C-2, it would not be any problem even if this proposal were adopted. Martin inquired whether the proposed land use plan would influence Commissioners thinknig on future rezonings. Stockdell said the use of the plan is not as an afterthought but more as a guide and not a dictatorial design to gage the mind. She said, however, that she could not be sure that she wouldn't be influenced by the proposed land use plan. Stockdell said that, in this case, she was more concerned about the fact that this property has not developed and while she said she understood that plans can take years to develop, she felt there has been ample time for this particular parcel. She said that in looking at the intersection, part of her thought process includes "where has this parcel been in the past and where do we see it going in the future". Green stated that his company has owned a certain parcel of land for for about 15 years and has only in the last two years sold a lot because there was no demand in that particular part of town. He said he can understand Cearly's point of view regarding the length of time sometimes necessary for property development. He said he couldn't agree with changing the general plan when a property owner is indicating that he has plans for it as is. Green said he would be hard pressed to vote for rezoning this property if it ever got that far and he thought that that is what the Commission would be saying if they changed the plan. He said that changing the plan in contradiction to what the property owner has planned to develop would not serve anyones purpose. Stockdell reflected that concern was being heard regarding a part of the plan and she suggested sending the proposal back to committee with that concern so that they might consider it in the proposal. Hanna said he was hearing that people would like the general plan left as it is. Stockdell replied that she did not feel concern had been expressed regarding any portion of the proposal beside Cearly's. 101 • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 14 Stockdell and Green agreed that the entire land use plan might need reviewing but Stockdell said she thought it was not affordable. Smith wished to add that she thought the Commission could not always see development plans even though those plans are being made MOTION Jacks made a motion to adopt the proposed plan with the exception of the strip marked as office on the east side of the C-2 development on the southeast corner. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Mrs. Lucian Phillips stated that she owns property on the northeast corner at the location that is proposed for change from office to multifamily. Stockdell said that the committee had felt that office use was better than commercial at that location because of the school that is being planned just east of it. Phillips pointed out that the other three corners of this intersection have been reflected as commercial and she inquired if she would be able to have offices on her piece. Madison advised that R-2 district makes provision for small offices and noted that the committee was trying to protect the school and park area from large office complexes. Phillips said she felt her parcel was not nearly as close to the school as that land currently zoned commercial directly across the street.. Phillips added that she didn't see how the area can develop without a sewer system, as is this neighborhood. Madison said the Commission would remain open to futher suggestions. Wimberly said he felt Phillips' property was well isolated from the school by the creek that runs along her east border. Martin said another area property owner had requested to have the plan left as is. Madison advised that when Cearly's plan comes through as a large scale development she would view it with an open mind and was not attached to any particular or proposed plan for land use. Green inquired which areas are being proposed that will be different than the current zoning and Wood replied that there are some proposed changes in the southwest quadrant, the northwest quadrant is basically the same, the northeast quadrant reflects more commercial, office and multi -family and the southeast reflects multi -family on the far eastern edge which does not currently exist.. /of • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 15 Green inquired if the northeast corner could be modeled after the northwest corner as far as the commercial and office which could be limited by the position of the creek. Wood said he has not previously encouraged commercial on the east side of 265 because of the narrow depth. He said he thought it might attract individual commercial concerns rather than a group. Green said he lives in the 265 area and based on conversation with other residents, he didn't think that that corner would develop as multi -family because of the noise. Hanna agreed, noting that the narrowness of the strip would not be- condusive to apartments although he said he could see someone wanting a business on that strip. Phillips said she would appreciate commercial zoning on that corner of the intersection, which includes her land. Madison advised that 265 is due to be four-laned which will make the strip in question even narrower. Wood advised that r/w has been dedicated. MOTION AMENDMENT Green suggested amending the motion to include commercial district on the northeast corner extending as far north as that commercial on the west side of 265 with the creek as the east boundary line and office on the east side matching the office on the west side with the creek serving as east border. Madison and Hanna accepted the amendment. MOTION Madison moved to table this discussion and send it back to committe for further study. The motion died for lack of a second. The original question was called and the motion to adopt this proposal with the exceptions as noted failed to pass 4-1-0 with Madison voting "nay" WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND LOT SPLIT COLLIS GEREN -ass PEEL STREET/NORTHRIDGE SUB The twelth item on the -agenda, a request for waiver of minimum lot size and lot split at 955 Peel, was considered next. Stockdell advised that, because this would be the fourth split, the Commission could only approve the waiver of lot size and pass the split on to the Board. MOTION • Jacks moved approval, seconded by Hanna, the motion to approve the waiver of minimum lot size requirement passed 5-0-0. loq • • • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 16 REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING RATIO OF PARKING TO SQ. FOOTAGE IN FURNITURE STORES The tenth item on the agenda was a request for a discussion regarding the ratio of parking spaces to the square footage in furniture stores; submitted by Kenneth Dennis of Dennis Home Furnishings. Stockdell advised that the current requirement for furniture stores is one parking space per 200 sq.ft. of floor area. She explained that off-site parking for an antique/furniture stores is one per 300 sq.ft. She said that store owners concern is that much of furniture store floor space is used for storage although parking is based on the total square footage. Parking requirements in other towns were mentioned as being more liberal than Fayetteville's. MOTION Jacks said he would like to address this issue on a broader basis as he did not see furniture stores as being unique in this need. He cited the cost of examining these issues bit by bit and suggested a review of all parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. He moved to hold a public hearing to discuss possible amendment of parking requirements. Seconded by Madison, followed by discussion. Stockdell explained that a definite proposal was necessary in order to hold a public hearing. Jacks changed his motion; he requested that that Consultant Wood by authorized to study the number of parking spaces related to use and report back to the Commission. Seconded by Madison, the motion passed 5-0-0. REQUEST FOR REQUIREMENT CHANGE FROM PERFORMANCE BOND TO BILL OF ASSURANCE The eleventh item on the agenda was a request from Howard Scott to substitute the requirement fora performance bond with a Bill of Assurance for a large scale development located on 996 S. Beechwood. Madison noted that she had requested a performance bond to insure that the improvements would take place. Jones advised that, after speaking with an insurance agent, she had been informed that unless a developer has a long-time good reputation, it is extremely difficult to obtain a performance bond. il0 • Planning Commission April 8, 1985 Page 17 MOTION Green moved acceptance of a Bill of Assurance :Ln place of the previously requested performance bond. Seconded by Jacks, the motion to accept passed 4-1-0, Stockdell voting "nay" OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Stockdell directed Commissioners' attention to an informational packet regarding rational nexus submitted by City Attorney, McCord. 2. A request to waive the requirement of 40 ft. between driveway and intersection by Wade Bishop was approved unanimously upon a motion by Jacks and a second by Hanna. 3. Stockdell next addressed a letter from Mary Bassett requesting that the Commission examine the previously approved route for the extention of Township Road: Jacks said that when the Master Street Plan came into existence in 1973, it included the Township extention as a collector street. He said he thought the street was planned before the developments came through. Jacks said the information was available regarding the rights- of-way being taken in this area long ago. Jacks noted that the street plan shows Township_ as a collector and not a primary arterial which is what the TAC has indicated. He advised that this Commission had requested the Board look into this discrepancy. Green said that the proposal seems to present the extension as four -lane and that some residents of the area are afraid of that taking place. Madison said that people have contacted her requesting to know which streets will intersect with the extention. Jones advised that the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect which streets will or will not intersect which was the result of an appeal to take Township extention off the Master Street Plan while the TAC presented a recommendation that it stay on and consideration be given to not intersect with Yorkwood or Winwood and that sidewalk be built on both sides at the same time as the road. Jones said that City Manager Grimes has requested that the Planning Commission examine the engineering drawings when they are completed. MOTION Jacks moved to send a resolution to the Board requesting to know what happened to a previous resolution which requested them to look into the discrepancy between the Master Street Plan and the TAC report regarding the status of Township Road extention. Green seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 111