HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-12 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday,
August 12, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room of the
City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey Jr., Melanie Stockdell,Ernie Jacks,
Fred Hanna, Sue Madison and Frank Burggraf
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joe Tarvin and Stan Green
Consultant Larry Wood, Jim Lindsey, Rick Faires,
Howell Trumbo, Bill Stiles, R. Lynn Waldren, Mistletoe
Express, James A. Pennington, Delvin Nation, Tony
DePalma, Charlie Berger, Al Harris, Sandra Carlisle,
Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press
and others
Chairman Hailey called the meeting to order and announced that the
meeting would adjourn at 8 p.m. with any items not covered to be addressed
at 5 p.m. on Monday, August 19th.
MINUTES
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the
meeting of July 22nd, 1985. Commissioner Stockdell entered the following
clarification: In her motion (on the last page) regarding the letter
of resignation from Commissioner Burggraf, she expressed her feeling
that his attending a licensing meeting in New York constituted a valid
excuse for missing a third consecutive Planning Commission meeting
as the out-of-state meeting pertained to Commission business.
CONDITIONAL USE - JOE FRED STARR
RADIO TOWER S STATION - FRONTAGE ROAD
The first consideration was that of a Conditional Use request submitted
by Joe Fred Starr for permission to install a radio tower and operate
a radio station on Frontage Road between Jim Ray Pontiac and Sigma
Properties (IBM). This item had been omitted from this evening's
agenda in error and was to have been considered first as it had been
tabled twice previously.
Jim Lindsey was present to speak for the petitioner. He stated that
this item had been tabled because of some concern expressed by IBM
that interference from radio waves would disturb their computer business.
He said that he has met the representative of IBM since that time
180
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 2
and a verbal approval for the proposed radio tower has been given.
Lindsey further stated that the petitioner has agreed to install some
landscaping along the boundary line between the two properties. He
explained that the property has gone through a bankruptcy procedure
resulting in a lot split that still needs to be processed through
the Planning Office. Lindsey said that he also has received the approval
of the remainder of the surrounding property owners of the radio tower
and will be presenting plans for a large scale development.
MOTION
Stockdell noted that she has not had any further word from the representa-
tive of IBM who had originally disapproved of this request. She moved
approval, seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 5-1-0.
R85-21 EARTHWORKS - 33.26 ACRES
NE CORNER OF HWY. 112 6 71 BYPASS
Returning to the order of the agenda, the next item of consideration
was Public Hearing, R85-21, a petition submitted by Rick Faires to
re -zone 33.26 located at the NE corner of the intersection of Arkansas
• State Highway 112 and U.S. Highway 71 Bypass (Fulbright Expressway).
The property is zoned A-1, requested is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
•
Consultant Wood recommended considering a change to C-2 for the following
reasons:
1. C-2 District is consistent with the General Plan;
2. C-2 District currently exists to the north, south and west of
this property;
3. The property is bounded on two sides by an expressway, an arterial
street on the third side and a drive-in theatre on the fourth
side; and
4. Water and sewer is available to serve the property.
Jacks clarified that the only access is from Highway 112 and Faires
advised that he plans to develop this area as a commercial subdivision
with an auto -truck stop on 6 acres and a motel on another three acres.
He said there are some preliminary plans in order that will be presented
at a Plat Review meeting sometime soon, but he noted that the re -zoning
is necessary before preceding with plans.
Jones advised that there is an error in the zoning map which was included
in Commissioners' packets and she explained that the property west
of Hwy. 112 and north of Gregg Street was shown as C-2 when the west
200 ft. of that property is actually still A-1. She said that part
of the area south of Gregg belongs to the University Farm and has
never been annexed into the City.
181
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 3
Hailey closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting and Commissioner
Burggraf read the following comments, which he said were particularly
pertinent to this application, but not exclusively so, into the minutes:
"In the short time I have been with the Commission, I have been astonished
at the number of zoning changes coming before us. I believe there
are a limited number of reasons for changing an established zoning
plan.
1. Inadequate provisions in the Master Plan or Zoning Map.
2. Development pressures not being met due to very rapid growth
and the concomitant unavailability of area for appropriate growth.
3. Significant changes in the character of the community requiring
different distributions of land use patterns.
4. Requirements generated by redevelopment or urban renewal.
Since I don't believe any of the foregoing are the case, I believe
we are seeing premature and unwarranted requests for changes.
It would seem to me, from the statistics of housing starts and talking
to realtors that there is a surplus of housing of all types available
or under construction. Certainly there is an adequate number of convenience
stores existing or underway.
The consequence of too much or premature zoning for apartments or
commercial enterprises would seem to fall upon the investors and is
not of consequence to the community. That is not so, for as a business
fails, it leaves vacant eyesores and a loss of tax ratables. More
significantly, when we are floating bonds Eor apartments we would
be foolish to allow over speculation in the market.
In examining a request for rezoning, I believe we should require evidence
that some market study has indicated support for the change. That
some planning has been undertaken to demonstrate how the tract under
consideration will be developed and on what time scale.
Above all, in a competitive market, only a quality plan should be
encouraged. Minimal investments proposed for prime locations should
be discouraged and the opportunity preserved for more worthwhile invest-
ments later, as growth and market improve.
The presence of nearby zones of like classification is a weak reason
for rezoning - particularly when those tracts are still vacant. Similarly
the availability of utilities is not compelling.
First and foremost we should examine each proposal in terms of what
it does to reinforce the comprehensive plan for the community. What
are the community benefits. Does the prospective increase in taxes
compensate for the increased costs of services the community must
provide? If not, what other compensations derive from the proposal?
189
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 4
The plans we review are always to the maximums the ordinance permits
There are no benefits to the community that are not established requir-
ements, no more park space than prescription calls for. Therefore,
we should be diligent in rejecting premature subdivision and rezonings
and approve those which demonstrate the greatest merit. As competitive
as the market is at present, we offer no incentives to better development
if we accept the least ambitious, lowest quality proposals, or accept
the first offer made."
Madison said that, on first consideration, she agreed with Burggraf's
points, especially in regard to "consequences to the community" which
has bothered her quite a lot. She advised that when a business fails,
it becomes not only the developer's loss but the community's as well.
She said she has not known what the alternatives are.
Hanna noted
the right of
and best use
mind
that Burggraf has neglected to mention anything about
the property owner to develop his land to its' highest
which is one of the planning considerations to keep in
Madison said that, in this case, it would make a great deal of difference
if Commissioners could see a market study showing the distance to
the nearest truck stop, whether or not the location is a major crossroad,
or the volume of trucks expected.
Faires said he would not have considered such a project if there had
not already been a study of the suggested type conducted. He added
that he was not aware that these were the sort of details the Planning
Commission needed to see to make a judgement on the property. Faires
said he has consulted with appropriate facilities for nine months
to determine the feasibility of this project at this location, which
he felt was the most prime piece available for it.
Burggraf agreed that this was a prime location which is why he is
expressing these concerns at this time and he added that whatever
is done here will have to be lived with for some time. He said he
preferred to reject the application until Faires makes a case as to
how he will treat it.
Faires asked if he could present an artists' sketch of the proposal
and Burggraf said he wanted more than that.
Madison noted that, although Faires may be well prepared, there have
been many developers who have not been and the Commission could not
make assumptions. She said she would like to see additional information
regarding this proposal. Faires inquired as to what type of information
Madison wished to see. He said he felt "commercial" was the prime
use of this property because of it's relation to the highway and the
bypass.
1-
)83
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 5
Burggraf noted that 33 acres has been included in this request for
rezoning while there are current plans for only a portion of that.
• Faires indicated that 14 acres have been spoken for.
NOTION
Burggraf moved to dismiss this application until such time as it is
known what is proposed. Motion died for lack of a second.
Faires presented an artists' sketch of what is proposed for the entire
33 acres but advised that he cannot obtain construction financing
or proceed with plans in any way until the zoning is in order. He
asked why Commissioners object to zoning this property commercial.
Faires said that stores, including grocery and other retail, are planned
for this project, although they cannot built at this time because
of the lack of need which he expects to exist two years from now.
Hanna advised that one purpose of the large scale development ordinance
is to allow for a developer's plans to be examined before the Planning
Commission and he noted that these plans should not have any affect
on any action to rezone.
Madison advised that the Planning Commission does not have total control
over what will be developed on a property and if six Pizza Huts were
planned, they may not necessarily be disapproved. She said a large
scale development plan only shows that a project is properly layed
out with several other considerations being met. Hanna said it is
not the Commission's place to determine what business will go where.
Hailey asked for further comment from Consultant Wood. Wood said
that Burggraf was opening a new bag, in terms of the Commission's
consideration in a zoning case. He said he did not necessarily disagree
with Burggraf, but he did think it was fairly sophisticated for a
community the size of Fayetteville in terms of dealing with this kind
of detailed examination of a site. Wood said that, in looking at
the property, he didn't think this Commission was at the point in
their ordinances that they could pick and choose the kinds of development
that they wish; the ordinances will not sustain that sort of action.
He added that it can be done, and has been done in other places.
Wood said that reasons for denying a petition must be within the context
of the ordinance which he did not see at this point. He also said
he felt that, in looking at this property, it was a logical commercial
piece, although he would not pick and choose what would go on there.
Wood said that, although Hwy. 112 is inadequate, it will be expanded
at some point. He said he doesn't have the expertise or time to get
into market analysis of property in terms �f whether the proposed
use is best suited for this property. He added that, the developer
is not required to disclose in his application what he proposes to
do on the property and that it would be difficult to do what Burggraf
has suggested at this point.
i8H
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 6
Madison clarified that, presently, the burden of proof in denying
lies with the Commission. Wood agreed that grounds for denial must
exist and the grounds must be based in the ordinance. He noted that
City Attorney, McCord, has continually advised that reasons for approval
or denial must be stated. Madison asked if there were any reason
why Fayetteville should not have the same level of sophistication
as other places. Wood replied that basically it was money. He said
the developer must put a great deal of money up front to protect themselves
and the Planning Staff is not adequate at this time to analyze as
suggested.
Burggraf agreed with Wood in that the ordinance is limiting, but he
said he wanted adequate information to be able to judge whether a
proposal is appropriate and in the community's interest. He said
the applicant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the extent
to which he has made these considerations and added that it was not
his intention to imply that a particular applicant was doing something
irresponsible. Wood replied that there is no obligation on the part
of the developer to tell the truth regarding his proposal.
Stockdell noted that the plan Faires has shown tonight is more than
most developers do. Faires added that the developer will address
internal roads as well as utilities, although it will be developed
one phase at a time.
Hailey advised that this property was annexed into the City as A-1,
Agricultural. Hanna said he considers that a property brought into
the City as A-1 as not having been zoned as anything.
MOTION
Stockdell said she felt there was an adequate provision in the Master
Plan in that zoning has not been addressed on this particular property
and she moved to approve the request to zone it C-2. Hanna seconded,
and upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval to the City Board
failed on a 3-3-0 vote, Jacks, Burggraf and Madison voting "nay".
Jones advised that Faires will need to request an appeal to the Board,
if so desired, by Wednesday, August 14 to be considered at their meeting
of August 20. She added that any appeal must be requested within
fifteen days from today's date. Jones noted that the request must
be in writing with a copy to the Planning Office.
PUBLIC HEARING R85-22 - 7.04 ACRES
L.P. & H.B. JOHNSON - S. OF 6TH ST. W. OF 71 BYPASS
The next item of consideration (113 on the agenda) was a Public Hearing
R85-22, to rezone 7.04 acres located west of U.S. Highway 71 and south
of W. 6th St. Property is owned by Lewis P. and Harold B. Johnson
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 7
and is currently zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential; requested
is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Wood recommended the requested C-2 for the following reasons:
1. The property is at the toe of the slope to Washington Mountain
with high site and noise exposure to U.S. Highway 71, making
it more desirable for commercial than residential development;
2. The property is adjacent to a signalized interchange with an
expressway and a principal arterial; and,
3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the
property.
Jacks asked if the only available access was from the service drive
of the expressway and it was determined that it was. He asked if
there were any plans for connecting the service drive to lead anywhere
and it was determined that there was not.
The petitioner's representative, Howell Trumbo, advised that there
are plans for a motel at this site.
Chairman Hailey closed the Public Hearing portion of the appeal and
returned discussion to Commissioners.
Stockdell advised that she was somewhat concerned that there is no
effort to buffer the adjoining residential property from the planned
commercial.
MOTION
Hanna said he felt subject property was a good location for a motel
and he moved approval of this request. Jacks seconded, followed by
discussion.
Stockdell asked Wood why he has not recommend a buffer in this case,
as he usually does in similar circumstances. Wood replied that he
assumed buffering will be secured from the mobile home park itself
as he felt there was a good possibility that that property will become
too expensive to operate in it's present location.
Stockdell inquired what action could keep the entire block from going
commercial and Wood replied that Commercial was possible because he
anticipates that Hwy. 62 West will develop more commercially than
it currently is.
Madison echoed Stockdell's concerns and added that, although a motel
may seem rather benign, it would bring lights and noise to the neighbor-
hood in the middle of the night.
186
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 8
Hanna said he felt that a motel would be a good use of the land here
and he thought that screening requirements would take care of the
glaring lights problem.
Upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval passed 5-1-0, Madison
voting ^nay".
PUBLIC HEARING R85-20 - .40 ACRES_
BILL STILES - 1934 E. HUNTSVILLE RD
The fourth item on the agenda was Public Hearing R85-20, submitted
by Bill Stiles to rezone .40 acres at 1934 E. Huntsville Rd. from
R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Wood recommended not re -zoning to C-2 but that re -zoning to R-0 would
be acceptable for the following reasons:
1. R-0 District is consistent with the recommendation of the General
Plan; and,
2. A rezoning to C-2 District would tend to commit the area from
Happy Hollow Road west to commercial and the Planning Commission
has tried to avoid strip commercial along Highway 16 East.
Hailey clarified that an antique store could not be placed in an R-0
District, thereby prohibiting the petitioner from adding on to his
present shop which is presently an approved Conditional Use in an
R-1 District. Hailey noted that there had been a petition, which
was denied, in 1980 to allow antique shops to the R-0 District.
Stiles said he didn't really want a C-2 zoning but noted that he wasn't
allowed to have an antique shop in R-0 as per Larry Wood. He pointed
out that an antique shop was quite different in use than most other
uses allowable at C-2. Stiles said his main concern is being allowed
to use his property.
There was no one present opposed to the re -zoning and Chairman Hailey
closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Hailey inquired whether or not Commissioners would like to pursue
this item along the lines of allowing antique shops in R-0 District
through a change in the ordinance.
Madison said she could support re -zoning this property to C-1 which
allows the use of "used furniture store" and noted that she did not
see the difference between a used furniture store and an antique shop
except for age.
Jones advised that when a use is listed in one use unit, it cannot
be cannot be interpreted to be in another use unit unless it specifically
187
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 9
is listed in that use unit. She added that Stiles is operating legally
within his approved Conditional Use but he cannot add on to the building.
MOTION
Burggraf made a motion to table this item until a Public Hearing can
be held to consider whether or not an antique shop will be allowed
in a use unit acceptable in an R-0 District, allowing the petitioner
to pursue the re -zoning. Stockdell seconded and the motion passed
6-0-0. Public Hearing to be held September 9, 1985.
REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT - R. LYNN WALDREN
3/4 MILE N. OF WEDINGPON DRIVE ON COUNTY RD. 882
The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision
Regulations (lot split) submitted by R. Lynn Waldren for property
located outside the City, but in the Planning Area approximately 3/4
mile north of Wedington Drive on County Rd. 882,.
Jones stated that her only concern was whether or not Waldren would
be able to obtain a septic tank permit.
Waldren said the land is old family property and added that his grand-
parents had lived there since 1970 with no septic tank problems.
MOTION
The motion to approve this lot split passed unanimously, upon a motion
from Stockdell and a second by Hanna.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE &
MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH - MISTLETOE EXPRESS 676 W. ASH
The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of both the
driveway safety zone and the maximum driveway width submitted by Mistletoe
Express for property located at 676 W. Ash. Minimum requirements
for driveway safety zone are 1. 25' between drives and 2. 12.5' from
the side property line. Maximum width for a commercial driveway: 40'.
This property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial.
A representative of Mistletoe Express explained that he can meet the
minimum side property line requirement but indicated that he has a
72' opening and a 31' opening.
Madison advised that she had talked to the business manager of this
concern who explained that this branch will be the main location for
this business with many semi trucks using the facilities. She expressed
her concern regarding the majority of the street frontage being concrete.
She said she was worried that, because of the quadrupling of business
1St
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 10
at this location, the amount of concrete would lead to a "free-for-all".
Madison added that she was very distressed that this business was
allowed to be built to the 72' width that it currently is.
MOTION
Stockdell advised that because this concern is in an Industrial District
which implies unique circumstances, she would move that this variance
be granted. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion.
Madison pointed out that this business is across the street from the
Skate Place which is frequented by many, many children.
It was determined that Mistletoe's hours would, for the most part,
not coincide with those of the Skate Place.
The question was called and the motion to approve passed 5-1-0 with
Madison voting "nay".
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JAMES A. PENNINGTON - 10 E. TOWNSHIP (.92 ACRES)
The seventh item on the agenda was a request for waiver of Subdivision
Regulations (lot split) submitted by James A. Pennington for .92 acres
located at 10 E. Township Rd. and zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and
Light Industrial. This request is for the third lot split.
Chairman Hailey indicated that the request is to waive the 5 acre
requirement and accept .92 acres.
Jones indicated that sewer is available to the north, water to the
south and that Township Road's curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement
is the responsibility of the State Highway Department.
MOTION
Jacks moved approval, seconded by Stockdell, the motion to approve
passed 6-0-0.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Delvin J. NATION - CROSSOVER RD. S. OF CITY FIRE STATION
The eighth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of Subdivision
Regulations submitted by Delvin J. Nation for 2.16 acres located on
Crossover Rd. immediately south of City Fire Station #5. This will
be the first split for this property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
189
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 11
Jones indicated that there were no problems associated with this request
and noted that the property owner adjacent on the west may at some
time be interested in securing the portion of land being split off.
She added that there appears to be enough land area in each parcel
to construct a dwelling and meet the setback requirements.
Tony DePalma, the adjoining property owner to the west, inquired if
anything were going to be done to Ridgely Drive which adjoins the
Nation property on the north side. It was determined that Ridgley
Drive does not abut the Nation parcel.
MOTION
Upon a motion from Stockdell and a second from Hanna, the request
for a lot split was approved unanimously.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SCREENING REQUIREMENT
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL OFFICE CONDOS - E. JOYCE ST.
The ninth item on the agenda was a request submitted by Butterfield
Trail Office Condos to waive the requirement for screening around
the entire perimeter of the project. Property is located on the north
side of E. Joyce Street and is zoned R-0. This request was discussed
as part of the Large Scale Development application but no action was
taken.
MOTION
Madison recalled discussing this application and moved to approve
the requested waiver with a minimum of 10% plants wherever screening
was required. Stockdell seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC NEARING - AMENDMENTS TO
ORDINANCES - APP.A, APP.C, & CHAP.18 SEC.18-28
The tenth item on the agenda was a
Appendix A, zoning; Appendix C,
18, Section 18-28.
MOTION
Public Hearing to amendment ordinances,
Subdivision Regulations; and, Chapter
Jacks clarified that backing four cars into the street would occur
only in the case of a tandem drive. Madison clarified that accessory
dwellings in Commercial 1 & 2 and Industrial 1 & 2 Districts addressed
both attached and detached dwelling quarters, detached by permission
only. Jacks moved that the entire packet of proposed ordinance amendments
by approved. Burggraf seconded, the motion passed unanimously.
/ 9a
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 12
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PIAN — ADDITION
HAPPY HOLUJW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — 300 S. RAY AVENUE
The eleventh item on the agenda was a request for approval of an addition
to the Happy Hollow Elementary School located at 300 S. Ray Avenue.
Chairman Hailey announced that he would abstain from voting on this
item as well as items 12 and 13. Stockdell chaired these items in
his place. She noted that, although this item and the two following
were heard by the Subdivision Committee on Thursday, August, 8th,
both persons who were present at that meeting were not present today.
Stockdell noted that, as per the Subdivision Committee's report, the
additions for Happy Hollow were approved unanimously with no requests
for waivers.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN — ADDITION
WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 426 N. HIGHLAND AVE.
As per the above information, Stockdell read a report from the Subdivision
Committee and moved approval of same regarding Washington Elementary
School, as follows:
Subject to 1. Plat Review comments with the exception of the r/w requested
on Maple and Highland; and 2. a recommendation that an additional
6' of r/w be dedicated on Maple in lieu of the required 10' (additional)
and that no additional r/w be dedicated on Highland in lieu of the
required 5' (additional) as the Committee felt that both of these
streets (Maple/collector and Highland/local) could be constructed
to City standards in the present sub -standard r/w if the City should
so desire. The reason for the Committee recommending these reductions
in r/w is that it would create a hardship for the school by placing
them in violation of the building setbacks.
Madison indicated that she was opposed to a reduction in the r/w noting
that, if there ever were streets that needed to be widened, one of
them would be Maple as it is a collector street and a main artery
leading to the University. She added that it seems all the more important
that the building setbacks be in accordance with City code because
of the young children involved in drop-offs and pick-ups.
Burggraf seconded the motion and echoed Madison's concerns. He said
it seems to make better sense to grant a variance in the setbacks
for the building than a reduction in r/w.
At Stockdell's request, Planning Director Sandra Carlisle reiterated
that the hardship which resulted in the recommendation for r/w reduction
is that it would put the r/w too close to the proposed building both
on Highland and Maple.
111
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 13
Madison asked if the size of the addition could be reduced and Berger,
representative of Hailey-Powers-Froning Architects advised that the
size of the addition, if reduced, would create a problem with the
State Board, as educational facilities must add on a particular amount
of space to meet their codes. He noted that a 90' turnaround has
been provided for buses and private vehicles to make drop-offs, thereby
replacing the previous drop-off locations on Highland and Maple.
Madison said she would be in favor of approving the LSD without the
reduction in r/w.
Berger noted that the existing building is already in violation because
of its heigth and added that there is scarcely any green space in
the front as it is right now.
Burggraf said he would prefer to violate the building setback regulations
than to reduce the r/w. He proposed a recommendation that the building
setback be reduced.
AMENDMENT
Stockdell accepted Burggraf's proposal as a friendly amendment. The
motion to approve this LSD subject to Plat Review comments passed
5-0-0, Chairman Hailey abstaining.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ADDITION
ASBELL - SANG N. OF LEWIS
The thirteenth item on the agenda was approval of the proposed additions
to Asbell Elementary School located at 1500 N. Sang north of Lewis.
MOTION
Stockdell moved approval of this LSD as per the Subdivision Committee's
report: Subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. a recommendation that
sidewalk be completed only at the northwest corner; 3. that the portion
of sidewalk adjacent to Sang r/w be delayed until the City improves
the street with the developer executing a Bill of Assurance stating
that he will participate in the street improvements from the centerline
of the street to the r/w at the time the City improves Sang (includes
the installation of sidewalk); 4. a recommendation that the sidewalk
responsibility along Lewis Avenue be waived for the School Board.
Jacks seconded the motion and Carlisle explained that the School Board
is agreeable to sharing equally with the City of Fayetteville in the
cost of installing a sidewalk along the west side of Lewis at the
call of the City as the adjacent park is used jointly as school property
and City park.
The question was called and the motion to approve passed unanimously.
19
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 14
Madison noted that the Fire Inspector expressed concerns regarding
the blocking of exit points during construction and Berger replied
that he would be in touch with Poage to take care of this problem.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Solution to drainage problem along State Highway 16 West at Rupple
Road and its relation to the proposed Speedi-Mart LSD submitted by
Hoyet Greenwood.
Chairman Hailey advised that the LSD had been approved subject to
Northwest Engineers and the City Board finding a solution to the above
mentioned drainage problem. He introduced a letter from City Manager,
Grimes, giving his approval to go ahead with the Speedi-Mart project.
John Eldridge, attorney representing several neighbors in subject
area, advised that his clients disagree with the interpretation of
the minutes. He said he thought that the question of whether or not
the solution to the drainage has been found will remain with this
Commission. Eldridge stated his objections to the proposed solution,
advising that it is not only temporary but will make the ultimate
resolution of the problem more costly later on. He said that, if
the proposed solution is found acceptable by the Commission, his clients
will take the issue to the City Board.
Eldridge said it has been has his position that when the drainage
study was made (all over town) it was implicit that there would not
be any development along Hwy. 16 West until the improvements were
made and now the developer wants to put the improvements in before
the drainage is solved. He asked the Commission if they felt the
condition they attached to the approval of Speedi-Mart has been met.
Hailey advised that, from his perspective, conditions imposed upon
the approval of subject have been handled. He added that it was not
his disposition to further address this issue tonight.
Jacks asked if the letter from Grimes indicated his approval or Board
approval. He noted that this issue of a solution to the drainage
problem was delegated to the Board of Directors..
Eldridge said that, if the Board has addressed this issue, it was
without his knowledge or input.
Madison read Board minutes indicating that the Board of Directors
referred the suggestion of the City Manager's solution of the drainage
problem to the Street Committee. She said she was not aware of any
action following the report which was made.
193
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 15
Eldridge said he did not believe that the proposed solution was a
good one. He said he did not think the authority to approve subject
large scale development was delegated by this Commission to anyone
else for approval, therefore, he felt this Commission should determine
whether the condition has been satisfied.
Stockdell said there had been no recommendation that the issue be
sent on to the Street Committee. Jones noted that this sort of problem
(anything to do with streets or drainage) usually was given to the
Street Committee to address.
There was discussion regarding the channels the original recommendation
has gone through and Jacks and Jones agreed that the only body to
approve expenditures for this project was the Board. There was confusion
expressed by Commissioners as to the meaning of Grime's letter as
well as the entire procedure that has been followed regarding a solution
as requested by this Commission.
Eldridge advised that it is the wish of the neighborhood which he
is representing, that the decision of whether or not the problem has
been solved, be made by the Planning Commission. He added that if
it goes before the Board, he would like an opportunity to speak to
them, and if it remains the Planning Commission's decision, he requested
the opportunity to address Commissioners. Eldridge added that, even
if it was determined that the solution was meaningful, the developer
should not be allowed to take out a permit the following day. He
said he felt this Commission should hold a Public Hearing to state
their position on the proposed solution.
Madison noted that Wimberly's letter states that an alternate solution
be used and she added that he had proposed numerous site -type stop gap
measures at the Subdivision Committee which were unacceptable.
Burggraf stated that, even if the proposed detention pond works, if
it were not designed properly, it would still present a problem.
He questioned whether Grime's stating ..I give you my permission
to proceed with the proposed project..." means to proceed with the
drainage solution or the project itself.
Eldridge advised that the solution proposal is for concrete drains
that turn the water back to the west where it is already compounded
against the natural flow of the water. He thought water would be
irreversibly directed which will later affect the final solution.
MOTION
Burggraf moved to pass a resolution calling attention of the concerns
expressed by this Commission to the Board of Directors noting that
the Commission does not feel the drainage issue has been satisfactorily
been resolved, and also suggest that some communication with the City
191
Planning Commission
August 12, 1985
Page 16
Engineer and the State Highway Department be initiated before a permit
is issued for Speeds -Mart. Madison seconded, followed by discussion.
Al Harris, Northwest Engineers, stated that the size of the pipe required
is controversial between the City and the State, as is the party to
bear the cost of installation. He said the City reportedly does not
have the funds to address this situation this year and that what Wimberly
is proposing is to direct the water to the southwest corner of the
large scale development so that when the drain pipes are eventually
installed, it can pick up the water from that location and take it
across the road.
Hailey stated that, if there were enough of a change in the plat which
was originally reviewed, it should be brought back to the Subdivision
Committee to address again.
Burggraf amended his motion and added that the plat for Speeds -Mart
be re -submitted by Northwest Engineers to be reviewed again. Madison
seconded and the motion as stated above and amended, passed unanimously.
Hailey requested that Eldridge be kept informed as to the progression
of this issue.
b. Informational: A letter from Ervan Wimberly, agent for Dr. J.B. Hays
agreeing to leave Rezoning Petition R85-18 on table until August 26
in hopes that the R-1.5 Zoning District will be adopted by that date.
This letter is necessary for the Commission to leave a rezoning petition
on table for more than 45 days.
c. Madison asked that a copy of Commissioner Burggraf's comments
on re -zoning be sent to Commissioners who are absent tonight with
the thought that sometime soon this Commission might consider this
level of sophistication.
d. Stockdell noted that she had been approached by someone inquiring
about the extension of Rockwood Trail. She asked that Lois Imhoff
of 1619 Clark be kept informed of any meetings regarding this issue.
Jones noted that this issue has been referred to the Street Committee
to address problems with grade.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
/9S