HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-08 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday,
July 8, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, Sue
Madison and Joe Tarvin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Newton Hailey Jr., Ernie Jacks, Frank Burggraf
and Trey Trumbo
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Terry Taylor,
Ervan Wimberly, Wilson Kimbrough, John Dockery,
Petty, Ralph Steinberg, Jim Lindsey, H.H. Hudgens,
J.W. Maddox, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members
of the press and others
The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Stockdell and the minutes
of the June 24th leeting were considered.
MINUTES
Commissioner Green made the following corrections: Page 4, in the
motion for approval of the LSD of Park Place Rec Area, the last sentence
should be incorporated into the motion, part 1. On Page 5, paragraph
4, should read "...Green said...in an R-1 District, but there must
be some way that it could be controlled well enough".
With corrections, the minutes stood approved as distributed.
REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE TO CONSIDER
AMENDING CODE TO INCLUDE VIDEO AND OTHER GAMES
The second item on the agenda was a request from the Planning Office
to consider an amendment to the Code of Ordinances to include video
games, foos ball, bumper pool and pinball machines.
In answer to the questions raised by Terry Taylor of the Planning
Office, Stockdell said she thought that Use Unit 9 was appropriate.
She said that an accessory use is considered as part of the primary
use so that in a C-1 District, an operation not of a C-1 nature would
not be allowed.
/58
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 2
Taylor explained that there is no provision in the code at this time
that enables her to support video games in places such as laundrymats
and convenience stores in C-1 District, while disallowing games such
as pool or foos ball.
Hanna brought up the question of how many pool tables constitute a
pool hall and noted that pool tables, both regulation and bumper,
should not be allowed in places that video games would be allowed.
Taylor advised that "Penny Arcade" is the closest description to the
games she is referring to and Stockdell said there is a difference
when the game is separated physically within the confines of the business
and the primary use for the business becomes a major consideration
in determining code violations. Taylor noted that games are often
set aside in convenience stores and requested a definition of "physically
set aside". Stockdell said physical separation meant structural.
Green advised that it becomes a judgement call as to where to draw
the line and felt that it needs to be quantified. He added that he
had a problem with setting up a use unit for videos.
Taylor explained that she has had complaints regarding a particular
convenience store housing a bumper pool table and several video and
pinball machines but noted that if she cited the owner with a violation
notice, that owner may request that every other convenience store
and other establishments that carry these games be closed.
Hanna requested a list a guidelines from the Planning Office to the
Commission for further consideration. Madison inquired as to the nature
of the complaints and Taylor replied that it is basically loitering.
Green said he would like to hear what City Attorney McCord had to
say about this issue. Opon acclamation, this item was tabled until
an opinion from McCord is rendered.
REZONING PETITION R85-18 - J. B. HAYS
7.52 ACRES S. OF MT. COMFORT RD AT SALEM RD.
The third item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition
R85-18 submitted by J.B. Hays for 7.52 acres located south of Mt. Comfort
Rd. along both sides of Salem Rd. Request is to rezone from R-1 to
R-2, medium density residential.
NOTE: Commissioners agreed to hear Item //9 of this agenda immediately
following Item #3 as they are related.
Consultant Wood gave the following report: He said he agreed with
the development concept of mixing single-family, duplex and multi -family
under a controlled design situation as a means for providing a wider
/54
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 3
variety of housing opportunities and price ranges. He said, in this
case, he was concerned about placing R-2 in what he considers a fairly
rural section of Fayetteville in that it may establish a precedent
for the Planning Commission to be approached on everything east towards
the by-pass. Wood noted that the R-2 has thus far been kept south
of Hamestring Creek. He concluded by suggesting that the Commission
consider accelerating the processing of the R-1.5 District and substitute
it for the R-2 District when R-1.5 is in place.
Wimberly, representing developer Hays, said they would like to mix
the housing here with the intent of providing affordable housing.
He said he would sign a Bill of Assurance limiting the R-2 District
to allow duplexes only and said he was agreeable to R-1.5.
Jones noted that the issue of amending the ordinance and creating,
a R-1.5 District would be heard at the first Commission meeting of
August and Wimberly expressed concern that permission to proceed would
be hindered.
Stockdell expressed doubt that a rezoning could be granted to a zone
that does not exist and Green suggested rezoning to R-2 with a Bill
of Assurance that, when R-1.5 is established, the Commission will
initiate another rezoning to that new zone. Madison expressed concern
that, at this point, it is unknown what R--1.5 District will be.
Ralph Steinburg, a neighbor of subject property, commented that a
property adjoining the one in question had been submitted for use
with a duplex and was turned down and he added that he thought the
survey of subject property is incorrect.
In answer to Green's question, Wood replied that he was concerned
that this property would show up on the map and restrictions cannot
be seen.
Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mt. Comfort Rd., stated that he lives within
900' of subject property and felt that he represented at least five
other property owners in the neighborhood. He said he did not wish
to speak in opposition but he is in favor of retaining R-1 zoning
in this area. Kimbrough said it was his experience that once a request
of this kind is granted, it snowballs and he added that he had no
understanding of what R-1.5 District is. He said he felt that R-2
over 7.2 acres would determine the area north of Hamestring Creek
and west of Raven. Kimbrough said he felt that problems such as traffic,
water and sewer would go with medium density residential areas and
noted that much traffic flows along Mt. Comfort from Tontitown as
well as numerous school buses which stop every two blocks during morning
rush hour. He advised that some, including a former professional
planner, have suggested Hamestring Creek area as a public park.
John Dockery, 3225 Mt. Comfort Rd., said that he lives on the property
adjacent to the east of the proposed development and noted that there
/60
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 4
is a road between the two for which the ownership is questionable.
He also questioned building on 70' wide lots as is proposed. Mr. Dockery
said he didn't think medium density lent any value to the existing
surrounding properties.
Jim Petty, representing his grandmother Dora Mae Collins who is an
adjoining property owner, said that he would like to see a survey
of the proposed development as Collins was told by the developer that
19' of her property belonged to him.
Wimberly advised that he would provide a copy of the survey that was
made, but he noted that a property dispute should not affect the rezoning.
Ralph Steinburg challenged the survey and Jones advised that a property
line dispute must be resolved between the parties involved and that
proper procedure is for the questioning party to secure a new survey
with resolution possibly in court if the two surveys do not agree.
Stockdell clarified that the Commission must go by the legal description
that has been submitted to the Planning Office.
Petty commented that he has seen property zoned as R-1.5 and wind
up as R-2 and that he has seen duplexes built on R-1 property.
Stockdell advised that an R-1.5 District does not exist at this time
and pointed out that permission to build a duplex in an R-1 zone is
sometimes granted by this Commission as a Conditional Use.
Wimberly noted that the overall density in the
will be less than the maximum allowed in an R-1
to Tarvin's question, Wimberly advised that
because in R-1 a larger lot would necessary for a
MOTION
proposed development
District. In answer
he is requesting R-2
duplex unit.
Green moved to recommend rezoning this property to R-2 with a Bill
of Assurance limiting the lots to duplexes and stating that the owner
will initiate a rezoning to R-1.5 if and when that classification
is approved. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion.
In answer to Steinburg's questions, Green repeated that the boundary
dispute will not affect the Commission's decision on rezoning or approval
of the plat for the proposed subdivision. He also advised that the
developers will be paying for the improvements within the addition
and noted that this developer has provided a proper buffer of single
family homes.
Hanna commented that if subdivisions are not allowed to be built in
this area, Salem Road will not be improved and he added that it would
probably be many years before the area is completely built up.
141
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 5
Green pointed out that it takes a majority vote of this Board to pass
a rezoning request and, as only five members were present at this
time, it would take a positive vote from each of those members.
Tarvin asked for a show of hands of those opposed to this rezoning.
Eight people responded and Tarvin said he felt strongly about rezonings
and would probably vote against this request because of the opposition.
Stockdell said she was planning on voting against on the merits of
a precedent being set and because of the fact that R-1.5 District
has not yet gone the Public Hearing process giving people the opportunity
to understand what it means. Stockdell said that if R-1.5 was not
approved, this rezoning would show up on the map as R-2 with restrictions
that no one could readily see. Green said prospective buyers should
check these conditions. Stockdell noted that special restrictions
are also difficult for the Planning Office to keep track of.
Hanna questioned whether the Commission could approve a block of 24
duplexes at once as Conditional Use and Jones replied that, although
she thought it was generally possible and a good idea, it was not
possible in this case because the lots do not conform to the proper
size for duplexes in R-1. Madison noted that Conditional Use requests
must be advertised and she added that she was opposed to the proposed
R-2 surrounded by R-1.
Stockdell gave the option of tabling this issue until more members
of the Commission are present and Wimberly said he had no objections.
MOTION
Tarvin moved to table this item, seconded by Green, the motion to/
table passed 4-1-0, Madison voting "nay".
MICHELLE ADDITION - J. B. HAYS
MT. COMFORT RD EAST & WEST OF SALEM RD.
The ninth item on the agenda was heard at this time as noted earlier
in these minutes. Property located on the south side of Mt. Comfort
Rd. along both sides of Salem Rd. Developer is J. B. Hays with Ervan
Wimberly representing. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
MOTION
Green, Vice -chair of the Subdivision Committee moved approval of the
preliminary plat of Michelle Addition as per the vote of that Committee
and subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. compliance with the Greenspace
Ordinance; 3. off-site improvements on Mt. Comfort Rd. being computed
on a rational nexus basis (this Committee considers the right-of-way
dedication necessary to bring the street up to City standards to be
162
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 6
this developers' share of the total cost); 4. the 16ft. drainage easement
at the southwest corner be labeled as such with the understanding
that this Committee expects the City to maintain it; 5.the developer
changing street names if the Police, ire or Water Departments have
a problem with them as they are now named; 6. sidewalks being installed
at the property line rather than at the curb; 7. this Committee does
not express an opinion on the proposed PUD area development at this
time; 8. driveways shall not front on Mt. Comfort Rd.; 9. this Committee's
recommendation that the southern row of lots be eliminated and the
streets be shifted northward to accomodate the new layout; and, 10.
this Committee recommends that Salem Rd. be retained as a two-lane
collector street. Hanna seconded this motion, followed by discussion.
Stockdell directed attention to a memo from Street Superintendent
Powell to City Manager Grimes supporting the four-laning of Salem
Rd. because of the rapid development in this area. (Letter attached
to minutes).
Tarvin said that one problem encountered is that a collector street,
such as Salem Rd., is not four -lane by City Ordinance.
Madison advised that the Committee considered whether four lanes were
warranted as far as traffic and cost and noted that it will not cross
Hamestring Creek. She suggested a grass median boulevard with one
lane either side.
Tarvin advised that, to change the status of a street, a Public Hearing
is necessary and added that the logical progress of Salem would be
an extension to the north.
Jones said that the standard set of widths for streets are minimum
and the Street Superintendent may interpret that a particular street
width be a little wider than that minimum. Tarvin interpreted this
as a method of getting around the rules.
Madison voiced her concern regarding the lack of east/west street
stub -outs in this proposal even though they had been recommended by
the Planning Administrator.
Stockdell asked if this was a standard requirement and Wimberly replied
that in R-1 they are not. He said the area in question has many nice
old trees along the east property line which this developer has made
special attempt to preserve by running overhead power lines. He also
advised that the question of four lanes on Salem was instigated by
the Street Superintendent and not the developers although they both
agree and have both given 60 ft. r/w for that purpose. He said the
developers will construct a 31 ft. street and if the City Board decides
they want it wider, they will have to provide the funds for same.
Green noted that it should be made clear that it is only a recommendation
163
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 7
that Salem be retained as two-lane and Tarvin added that it should
be made clear that a collector street be built to collector standards.
He said he is disturbed that this issue occurs over and over.
AMENDMENT
Madison offered an amendment to the affect that east/west street stub -outs
(Deborah Lyn or Tamara Starr) be provided for on this preliminary
plat. The amendment was not accepted as Green said he felt, after
discussing the matter with Wimberly, that they were not needed. The
question was called, the original motion to approve passed 5-0-0.
NOTE: Stockdell agreed to hear Item #7 at this time as the manager
of Sigma Properties in Fort Smith had contacted her indicating that
he was informed of this meeting on too short of notice to attend.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - RADIO TOWER
JOE FRED STARR - FRONTAGE RD
The fifth item of consideration was a Conditional Use request submitted
by Joe Fred Starr to build a 50" tower for a radio station on property
located on Frontage Road between Jim Ray Pontiac and Sigma Properties
(IBM). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Stockdell advised that the Sigma manager had commented that there
may be a conflict in the placing of the radio tower next to a computer
operation (IBM). She said he requested that this issue be tabled
for two weeks in order to gather additional information.
Jim Lindsey, representing the seller of the property in question,
gave his understanding of the property split that took place due to
a foreclosure.
Stockdell noted that, according to the Planning Office, information
is lacking concerning the splitting of thee property in question.
MOTION
Madison moved to table this issue. Seconded by Green, the motion
to table passed 5-0-0.
164
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 8
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - H.H. HUDGBNS
TANDEM LOT & LOT SPLIT - HOOTOWL LANE
The sixth item of consideration was Item #4 on the agenda; a Conditional
Use request submitted by H. H. Hudgens for a tandem lot and if approved,
a request for waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split). Property
is located on Hootowl Lane and is zoned R -i, Low Density Residential.
Madison asked the nature of the terrain at this location and Hudgens
advised that it is on the north face of Mt. Kessler behind the Smokehouse.
He said his acreage is not very rugged. Madison advised that tandem
lots are usually granted when the terrain dictates that nothing else
will work out. Jones read a portion of City code supporting Madison.
MOTION
Madison moved to deny this request as she felt strongly that frontage
on a public road was necessary. The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION
Tarvin, seconded by Hanna moved to approve the request for tandem
lot and the motion failed to carry on a vote of 3-2-0.
Hudgens said his lot has a 25' drive access but Jones advised that,
in order to meet City requirements, the lot must have 70' of width
and 80% of that must be at the street r/w (66').
Green said he was not opposed because, although it not without develop-
ment possibilities, it is on the side of a fairly steep hill making
it more difficult than a normal subdivision to develop. He said he
felt it met the requirements of the tandem lot specifications.
Stockdell advised Hudgens that his course of appeal was through court
action but Green suggested that a lot split alone may solve the problem.
Hudgens agreed to process a lot split request with 70 ft. road frontage.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - WOOD AVE. BAPTIST CHURCH
WEST SIDE OF CROSSOVER RD AT WYMAN ROAD
The seventh item of consideration was Item ll5 on the agenda, a Conditional
Use request for a church in an R-1 District. Property is located
on Crossover Road at the intersection of Wyman Road.
Stockdell asked the representative of the church for a definition
of "family life center" and he replied that it will be a gymnasium
and classroom. He told Stockdell that there were no plans for a school
other than normal church activities.
165
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 9
Madison expressed concern regarding the proximity to Wyman Road.
She said she felt it would be hazardous as Crossover is narrow at
this location, as is Wyman Road.
Jones commented that signals are due to be installed at the intersections
of Crossover at both Highways 16 and 45 although she was not certain
of the time frame.
Alton Pennington, 340 Crossover, commented about the hazardous traffic
and congestion in this area. He said there is a blind hill there
and there have been several wrecks at this location.
Hanna said he felt that a church with once or twice a week use would
not be as heavy as a development of single—family homes.
Stockdell advised the petitioner that the affirmative vote of all
five Commissioners present would be required to pass the request.
MOTION
With the approval of the petitioner, Green moved to table this item
until the next meeting. Hanna seconded and the motion to table passed
4-1-0, Stockdell voting "nay"
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE
TACO BELL - 1772 N. COLLEGE
The eigth item of consideration was Item 1/6 on the agenda; a request
for waiver of the driveway safety zone for Taco Bell located at 1772
N. College. Mike Powell representing.
Stockdell advised that the drawing included in Commissioners packets
indicates compliance with the driveway safety zone but, for safety
purposes, the petitioner is suggesting the dotted lines in the drawing
be used, calling for a waiver.
Powell stated that in order to keep the driveway 12.5' from the property
line, it needs to be cocked in the position indicated in the drawing.
He added that the closest driveway belongs to McClelland Engineering
firm which is 36' away. Powell said they will be improving the internal
circulation of traffic flow as well.
NOTION
Request was approved unanimously upon a motion by Hanna, second by
Green.
166
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 10
REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
ABUNDANT LIFE FELLOWSHIP - 1855 PORTER ROAD
The ninth item of consideration was Item #8 on the agenda; a request
submitted by Dr. J. W. Maddox of the Abundant Life Fellowship to recommend
to the Board of Directors that street improvements along Porter Road
be deferred through the execution of a Bill of Assurance at the call
of the City. Property is located at 1855 Porter Road.
Madison said it was her understanding that the church was in default
for the required off-site improvements and Jones replied that the
improvements were to have been completed at the time of occupancy.
Madison said she did not feel that the City should suffer the consequences
of this situation and that if a promise from a church is not to be
counted on, what could be.
Hanna said he did not have any problems with taking a Bill of Assurance
for call when the area develops. He said he didn't think the church
should be punished.
MOTION
Hanna, seconded by Green moved approval of recommending to the City
Board that a Bill of Assurance be accepted. The motion passed 4-1-0,
Madison voting "nay"
PARK PLACE PHASE III & IV FINAL PLAT
J. B. HAYS - HWY. 45 AT HWY. 265
The tenth item on the agenda was a
plat of Park Place Phases III & IV
and represented by Ervan Wimberly.
45 just west of Highway 265.
MOTION
request for approval of the final
submitted by developer J. B. Hays
Property is located at Highway
Green, Vice -chair of the Subdivision Committee moved approval of this
final plat as per the decision of that Committee earlier today and
subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. submittal of overall drainage
plans to the Street Superintendent; 3. compliance with the Greenspace
Ordinance; 4. no lots being sold in Phase IV until a street connection
is made to Highway 265; 5. a contract being executed for required
improvements which are not completed at this time. Madison seconded
followed by discussion.
Bill Letzkus, 1450 Canterbury, voiced his concern regarding traffic
safety in the area of the proposed connection of this development
at Highway 265 which will be opposite Lover's Lane.
167
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 8, 1985
Page 11
Jim Miller, Shadowridge, asked how close the subdivision will come
to Manor Drive and Wimberly explained the locations of the various
phases of the development.
The question was called and the motion to approve passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Stockdell announced that Commissioner Burggraf's office has been
in touch with the Planning Office advising that he is in New York
at a meeting that may be pertinent to this city. She advised that
he said he anticipates being at the next meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the number of meetings a Commissioner
may be absent before they are required to tender their resignation.
2. Stockdell requested permission to postpone the Public Hearing
regarding the findings of the Committee for the Aged because there
have not been any meetings of this committee and the Public Hearing
has not yet been advertised. Unanimous approval given.
3. Wimberly presented the question of how street stub -outs should
be treated. He noted that Street Superintendent has expressed that
he would like this issue clarified and he cited two options: 1. brought
up to standards at time of development; or, 2. clear and rough -grade
the street (with stakes) so that it is obviously a point of construction.
Wimberly said he prefers the latter.
Madison questioned who will pay for the stub -out improvement when
it is decided that the property to the east of Walnut Grove is to
be developed. Wimberly suggested that the developer to the east pay
for improvements as they will be benefitting by having had the right-of-way
dedicated. He said he would like to have a resolution that will apply
to this subdivision as well as general policy. Stockdell advised
that passing a resolution requires five votes and added that she
would vote against it at this time as she felt that more time was
needed for consideration particularly under something other than "Other
Business". She said she could agree with the policy for this addition
only and Madison agreed.
MOTION
Tarvin, seconded by Green moved to approve street stub -outs being
cleared, graded and staked in Walnut Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Stockdell announced that she received an APA letter noting a regional
conference in St. Louis in September for those interested.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
16�