Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 14, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Direetorse Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Stan Green, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna, B. J. Dow, Frank Farrish, Butch Robertson and Paul Skwiot MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Planning Consultant Larry Wood, John McLarty, Gary Ryel,PhillipMoon, Warren Cotner, Bud Tomlinson, George and Margaret Ann Cole, Edward & Carol Daggett, Edward Hetjmanek, Bob Crafton, Dan Brown, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the March 24, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. Chairman Jacks noted there had been a request to consider Item #11 on the agenda first as Mr. Deryl Burch, Public Works Department Head, was present for possible discussion regarding the proposed routes from Highway 265 to the downtown area. Hanna asked if the information will be the same as that discussed at the Public Hearing of April 7th and Jacks said he thought it would be a presentation of the engineers report. Hanna said he would prefer to leave it at the end of the agenda unless the information was new and other than what was turned down. Madison said she preferred to hear the information as there were comments made at the Public Hearing which cause her great concern. MOTION Farrish moved to leave Item 1111 as originally published on the agenda. Seconded by Nash, the motion passed 9-0-0. Carlisle noted that Burch was on a limited time schedule; Commissioners agreed unanimously to leave Item #11 as proposed. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 2 REZONING PETITION R86-4 ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH - TOWNSHIP AT 265 The second item on the agenda was a request for rezoning submitted by St. John's Lutheran Church for 11 acres located at 2730 E. Township. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural; requested is P-1, Institutional. Jacks noted a Conditional Use was recently granted to this church with a recommendation that a rezoning be processed. Consultant Wood recommended a change to P-1 because P-1 is the District established in the ordinance for churches, schools and other institutional uses and, also, the property is located at the intersection of an arterial and a colleotor and should not be a problem at said location. Jacks opened the Public Hearing and church representatives reiterated they were following up on the suggestion made by the Commission. There being no one present to speak in opposition to chis petition, Jacks closed the Public Hearing and returned discussion to the Commission. NOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as presented. Seconded by Hanna, the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0. REZONING PETITION 86-5 RANDY B. ADAIR 2300 SOUTH SCHOOL The third item on the agenda C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, Property is located at 2300 Low Density Residential. was a request to rezone 2. submitted by Randy B. and S. School and is currently 05 acres to L.J Adair. zoned R-1, Consultant Wood recommended a change to C-2 noting the request is consistent with the General Plan, the property is located on a principal arterial and there are other commercial uses existing in this area. Jacks opened the Publics Hearing and requested those in favor of the petition to speak. There being no one to speak either for or against this petition, Jacks closed the Public Hearing and returned discussion to the Commission. MOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of the request as per Wood's comments. Nash seconded and the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 3 REZONING PETITION 86-6 - JOHN MCLARTY SYCAMORE WEST OF CHESTNUT AVENUE The fourth item on the agenda was a request to rezone 1.57 acres located on the north side of Sycamore just west of Chestnut Avenue from I-1, Light Industrial to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Petition is submitted by John C. and Lynn M. MnLarty. Consultant Wood recommended not rezoning to C-2 because he said: 1. The area should be retained for light industrial and service related development; and 2. Introducing commercial activities at this location is contrary to the commercial location policies and standards in the General Plan. Wood explained that, in 1972, under rezoning application R72-40 a recommendation was made to the Planning Commission that consid- eration be given to establishing a light industrial area from North St. to Township between the railroad tracks and Skull Creek. The idea was accepted by the Planning Commission and the City Board. The intent was to provide a centralized location for smaller light industrial firms and related services which do not necessarily want to locate in the Industrial areas in the southern part of Fayetteville. It was not the intent of the recommendation to open the area up to commercial activity. In 1983, rezoning applieation (R83-24) requesting C-2 District was denied for the reasons cited above. Jacks said it seems that the area is developing more like commercial than I-1. Wood said I-1 includes uses which are commercial and he added there are no light industrial activities on Sycamore. He said approval would place commercial zoning in the middle of the block on a collector street and others could use this as a precedent. Madison clarified that the request is to rezone to C-1 and Wood explained the C-2 printed on the agenda is in error. In answer to Jacks" question, Wood replied that, if he were to create a new plan, he would still recommend light industrial for this area, stripping' out the commercial activities. He added it was kind of "tongue in cheek" because there are already commercial uses in this area that would be allowed in C-1 District including the laundrymat, The Board Room (restaurant) and the ice cream parlor. The petitioner, MaLarty, said when this was rezoned from R-3 to I-1 in 1985, the objective was to build a restaurant and golf course. He noted that, at the time, Commissioners seemed to think a commercial zoning was appropriate. He cited portions of minutes supporting this comment. MeLarty said the property was not in his ownership at the time and he did not push for a commercial zoning. He said this area was planned as I-1 before the construction of the numerous apartments in the area and that he felt Use Unit 15, neighborhood shopping, was more suited to the area at this time. He advised that I-1 excludes Use Unit 15, although it includes more intense uses. McLarty explained • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 4 that, in terms of neighborhoods, this is one of the most densely populated areas in Fayetteville. He also pointed out that many of the I-1 parcels along Sycamore are empty and not being used as they were designed. McLarty advised that the party who develops the piece of property between that under petition and Chestnut Street, will have to pay for constructing Chestnut and the zoning will have to be economically feasible. Madison asked if McLarty would contribute to Chestnut Street improvements and he replied that he would if he took the option of purchasing that property abutting Chestnut. Madison asked if there were any other C-1 property in the area and Wood replied C-1 exists at Poplar/Leverett intersection and in the area of North Street just east of Leverett. He agreed there were no C-1 properties in the Sycamore/Leverett area. Nash asked the difference between Use Units 15 and 17 and Carlisle explained that 15 serves light, neighborhood needs while 17 tended to be more intense uses that are of a more industrial nature. There being no others present to speak either for or against this petition, Chairman Jacks closed the Public Hearing for discussion among Commissioners. Hanna said he when uses such are allowed on to make sense added he would gravel. felt the I-1 has worked out behind Sycamore but said as the laundrymat, ice cream parlor and two restaurants the same street within half a block, it didn't seem to turn down a small retail center as proposed. He like to see Chestnut opened, even if it is temporarily Madison said it is clear the plan has gone awry but expressed some concern regarding "spot" zoning. Green asked about commercial districts being located at intersections and Wood said a C-1 could be at a collector and an arterial. Green said he felt the area of Sycamore and Leverett was a major intersection which was basically developed on all four corners. He said he would prefer to see a C-1 use, as requested, than something industrial such as a petroleum wholesale concern right next to the area apartments. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of the petition. Green seconded and added that, in his mind, this does not set a precedent. In answer to Dow's concerns, Jacks noted that a special study of this area could be requested of Consultant Wood. Upon roll Ball, the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0. Madison said she would like to see the people in this neighborhood form a street improvement district for the purpose of constructing Chestnut Street. �6 • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 5 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GERALD BOWMAN - WYMAN RD EAST OF HWY. 265 The fifth item on the agenda was a request submitted by Gerald Bowman for a waiver of Subdivision Regulations (lot split) for property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, Ionated on Wyman Road one mile east of Highway 265. The request is for 1st, 2nd and 3rd splits with a request for recommendation of a 4th split to the Board of Directors. The petitioner was not present. Carlisle explained that minimum required sizes of lots being split are 3 anres, 5 acres and 5 acres and that this request represents a waiver of the minimum size. Jacks said it appears to almost petitioner intended to sell four a road through to an additional submit a subdivision plat. MOTION be a subdivision. Carlisle said the lots fronting on Wyman Road leaving 60 acres for which he proposes to Skwiot moved to deny the request on the basis of no apparent hardship and the appearance of an attempt to subdivide property without a plat. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Skwiot requested that more information be provided in his packet regarding lot splits. At Green's request, Carlisle cited code explaining the Commission's authority to waive the minimum size of lots being split. She then explained the resulting sizes of the lots requested in this petition. MOTION Green and Hanna said they had some questions of the petitioner and Green moved to table the request. Madison objected, noting she saw no hardship by Fayetteville standards. Upon roll nail, the motion to table passed 5-4-0, Madison, Jenks, Skwiot and Dow voting "nay". APPROVAL OF LSD AND WAIVER OF SCREENING REQUIREMENT SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY - 1001 SHIN STREET The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of the large scale development plan for Southwestern Energy Company. Also requested is a waiver of the screening requirement between this commercial and neighboring residential uses. The development is located at 1001 Sain Street, consists of 5.5 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Light Industrial. Jacks advised this development was addressed at the Subdivision Committee meeting of April 10th at which time a recommendation was made to waive the screening required between the parking on the south side and the • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 6 adjacent residential property. He said he felt the cul-de-sac question should be addressed (at the end of Sain Street). Carlisle, after researching street requirements, reported a cul -de -sae is required at the termination of a dead-end street. Gary Ryel, representing SWE, presented proof of notification of adjoining property owners. He also advised that the property owners of the adjacent residential parcels would prefer the screening requirement be waived as they would like to retain the present view. He said he preferred the cul-de-sac be considered as a separate issue as the owners of property east of that point have plans for future development that has not, as yet, taken form. Ryel said they will extend Sain Street at a future date. Green noted SWE did not request a waiver of the eul-de-sae as it believes none is necessary in view of the City Board ordinance addressing same. Jacks inquired if SWE would accept a waiver if the Commission wished to grant one and Green indicated that SWE had no objection. Madison questioned whether the screening requirement could be waived and Ryel said plantings will be provided on that side because it is a hillside necessitating stabilizing the ground. He added he preferred the requirement be waived entirely as the access to maintain landscaping will be difficult. Madison said she felt a minimum of 10% landscaping was in order. Green said several owners of the residential property in question have expressed written support of a waiver of screening requirement. MOTION Madison moved to grant a waiver from building the required cul-de-sac at this time Skwiot seconded and upon roll Ball, the motion passed 8-0-1, Green abstaining. MOTION Madison made a motion to deny a waiver of the screening requirement and allow 10% landscaping in lieu of screening. Skwiot seconded and upon roll Ball, the motion failed to pass 4-4-1, Madison, Nash, Skwiot and Dow voting in favor of and Hanna, Jacks, Robertson and Farrish voting "nay". MOTION Farrish moved and upon roll Robertson and against. the screening requirement be waived. call, the motion failed to pass 4-4-1 Farrish in favor of and Madison, Nash, Hanna seconded , Hanna, Inks, Skwiot and Dow • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 7 MOTION Nash moved to present this issue to the Board of Directors' for their immediate action. Madison seconded followed by discussion. Green said compliance with the required screening ordinance would not make the three adjoining property owners very happy. He asked if the Board has the authority to waive the screening and Jacks said they did. Green asked if an opinion could be requested from City Attorney as to whether the requirement applies in this case as the parking is so far from the property line. Carlisle reported that McCord offered no formal opinion but advised that the Commission should decide whether or not to waive the requirement. Upon roll call, the motion to present the request for waiver of screening to the City Board passed 8-0-1, Green abstaining. Green said SWE may elect to proceed with installation of the required screening rather than investing any more time and money on this problem. LSD - WARREN COTNER WINERY HIGHWAY 112 NORTH OF THE BY-PASS The seventh item on the agenda was a request for approval of the large scale development plan for a winery, retail shop and restaurant submitted by Warren Cotner for 1.5 acres of C-2 zoned property located on Highway 112 north of the by-pass. Jacks noted the Subdivision Committee addressed this item at their meeting of April 10. He advised the property is an island within A-1 property and there was a question whether a sidewalk should be required along 112. He also questioned whether the road to the parking area is required to be paved. Carlisle said it may be annotated on the final plat that the road is private and will be maintained by the owner and not the City. She said this brings up the question of the lot not having frontage on a public street. Philip Moon, attorney for the petitioner, reported that McCord had advised him that there was no ordinance stating the road must be paved. MOTION Madison asked if the adjoining property owner has been notified and Carlisle said he had. Madison moved, as part of the approval of this large scale development, that the requested off-site parking be granted. Robertson seconded and upon roll Ball, the motion passed 9-0-0. Moon said he thought there were two easements that had been a problem at the Subdivision meeting. He presented a right-of-way grant from Al Graves, former owner of the property, conveying the property to Cotner. He also presented an easement from the gas company. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 8 Carlisle said she was not in possession of any easements for gas, water & sewer, telephone or r/w dedication for Highway 112. She said Cotner has submitted an easement from Ozark Manufacturing (Ozark Windows) where Cotner has connected to the sewer and extended into his property. Moon said an easement was executed by Cotner and should be on record in the County Court House. Cotner stated that all easemgnts have been granted on the property and that all services are in working order and could not be there without easements. Jacks said they are private lines. Moon said a lot split was granted during the time Bobbie Jones served as Planning Administrator and right-of-way was dedicated at that time. Jacks said he felt the only issue was the easement requested by the gas company and asked if that has been resolved. Cotner said no. Carlisle explained the locations of the easement requested by the gas company and the street dedication requested by Clayton Powell. Jacks said he felt the easements have not been resolved as requested and Moon said he would cheek into it. Madison asked if this LSD could be approved contingent upon the easement details being worked out and Jacks replied it could. Jacks asked about the sidewalk requirement and Carlisle reported she did not have an opinion from McCord. Moon said the project is a long way from Highway 112 and in answer to Madison's question, Carlisle advised sidewalk is shown on both sides of 112 on the Master Sidewalk Plan. NOTION Nash moved to return this project to the Subdivision Committee to resolve unsettled issues. Dow seconded followed by discussion. Moon requested the plan be approved subjeet to all issues being resolved. Upon roll sall, the motion to return the development to the Subdivision Committee passed 9-0-0. Committee members agreed to a special Subdivision meeting on Thursday, April 17th at 4 P.M. VALLEY ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT BUD TOMLINSON - OLD WIRE RD The eighth item on the agenda was Addition preliminary plat submitted located on Old Wire Road, is zoned consists of 8.75 acres. a request for approval of Valley by Bud Tomlinson. The property, R-1, Low Density Residential, and Jacks advised this plat was recommended for approval at the Subdivision meeting of April 10th subject to a determination by the Commission as to whether the cul-de-sac should be extended to the east boundary. cog • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 9 Tomlinson said he wanted the cul-de-sao because he envisioned young families living in this addition and young families like to live on auls-de-sac. He said he wants to develop what is needed and not a weed patch. Tomlinson said he can't abut the cul to the property because of the lay of the land. He said he didn't think a subdivider could put a road through there in 100 years because there is a 12" sewer line on the southeast corner of the property which lies on top of the ground and would prevent anyone building on it. Tomlinson asked why through traffic was desired which would impact Haekberry and then Winwood to the east of this project. Carlisle reported that City Engineer, Don Bunn, has advised that a street mould be built over the sewer. Madison stated she had opposed this plat at the Subdivision Committee meeting because of the drives exiting onto Old Wire Rd. and the lack of extending the cul-de-sac and added she would like an exact explanation of the drainage situation. Madison said, upon referring to the TIP schedule, she found that Old Wire was due to be 4-laned in 1986 and has been delayed until 1987. She said area residents have assured her that it is far from easy to get onto Old Wire Road. Tomlinson said there are 63 driveways on Old Wire between Mission and Old Missouri and the City has obviously not planned on making this a controlled access until he began planning his subdivision. Madison pointed out that both Perry Franklin, Traffic Supervisor, and Clayton Powell, Public Contract Administrator, have agreed that it would not be good procedure to propose this development because of traffic safety problems Tomlinson said there is 800' tangent at this property providing good site distance. Skwiot said 63 mistakes on the road does not create an obligation to perpetuate more He said he was inclined to send this proposal back to committee. Tomlinson said he has examined seven different layouts and this appears to .be the best plan. He said there is no problem with the drainage as the pipe that carries the water would handle a 50 -year flood. He added he has incorporated everything requested by Clayton Powell. Green said, as far as he was concerned, the only issue to address at this time was whether or not a eul-de-sac should be installed at the property line. Tomlinson questioned the engineer's statement that a street could be built over the sewer line and Carlisle replied he had also advised he saw no problem with developing the area in question. Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 10 Jacks said he thought a cul-de-sac would provide a good safety valve regarding through traffic in the future. Green said he had not seen a need for the cul-de-sac to extend while addressing this at Subdivision Committee. He said after considering further, he wasn't sure that extending the cul would solve the problem because the traffic from this proposed development would flow into Winwood. He said some traffic would be cut off from Winwood but some additional traffic would be added to it. Madison said this subdivision has enough area to support a maximum of 48 families. She said she would like the Board to be aware of all the nuls-de-sac+ that go nowhere. MOTION Hanna moved to approve the plat as is. Green seconded, noting people prefer to live on euls-de-sac. Further discussion followed and Hanna pointed out there are additional lots for sale on Old Wire within two blocks of this proposal that may be built on. George Cole, 2121 Old Wire Road, stated he lives directly across the road from this proposal and that, although he has no objection to the development of the subdivision, he was told many years ago upon trying to sell some acreage in this location, that no additional drives would be allowed to open onto Old Wire Road. He cited Old Wire as being a high-speed road with a hill going down to a bridge. He said it will be even higher speed if it is four lanes. Cole said he thought it was a poor plan to allow an additional 23 homes exiting onto Old Wire. He said he would like to see it go back to see how to best utilize the area and to not develop the adjoining property. In answer to Farrish's inquiry, Cole explained that at one time, the owners of property on Juneway Terrace (to the west of Cole's property) had asked him for a drive paralleling his own drive and exiting onto Old Wire. Mrs. Margaret Cole, 2121 has advised her that he been told in 1981 that the private lane on its here as well as her own Old Wire, said a neighbor to the south, Mr. Haines also objects to this project and that he had a subdivision at this location would exit onto north boundary. She said a child was killed big dog. Skwiot asked what the differences were between this plat and the concept plat presented by Tomlinson at a recent meeting. Tomlinson explained there had been a stub -out dedication shown at the east property line as well as the cul-de-sac. Skwiot said he would vote against the motion because of the drives onto Old Wire. He said he felt it could be done right. Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 11 Madison said if be certain that and advised that this subdivision is approved at this time, she would the City Board was made aware of the circumstances the Board has the ability to disapprove of the plat. Upon roll wall, the motion to approve the plat "as is" failed to pass by a vote of 2-7-0, with Hanna and Green voting in favor of. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - PLANT NURSERY EDWARD & CAROL DAGGETT - 2365 OLD WIRE RD. The ninth item on the agenda was a nursery in a Low Density Residential by Edward and Carol Daggett for 3.1 conditional use request for a plant (R-1) District. Petition submitted acres located at 2365 Old Wire. Jacks asked if this business would involve a lot of loading and unloadin of equipment and/or plant material. g Daggett explained that he intends to operate his contracting and land- scaping business here and will not be retailing any plants for the location. He advised this location had been used as a contractors' business at one time. Daggett noted he plans to add a greenhouse and retail plants through the farmer's market and his landscape contacts. Jacks expressed concern regarding the noise, confusion and dust of loading and unloading. Daggett replied there is not much noise and added he loads up around 8:30 1n the morning and returns around 5 in the afternoon during the busiest hours of the day. He also said he plans on screening and landscaping the property for the benefit of both the neighbors and himself. Jacks asked if there will be large motorized equipment being picked up and into trucks and Daggett replied it was not a large operation consisting of one tractor and several trucks, one economy size and one one -ton. He said he does not have a dump truck. Dow questioned Daggett's intentions regarding retailing plants and he reiterated he would never sell from this location, unless the entire area were re -zoned commercially, as this is his home. Jacks asked for speakers either for or against this petition and hearing none, he returned discussion to Commissioners. NOTION Nash moved to grant the conditional use, stating she has knowledge of the Daggett's operation and she felt this was an appropriate location for same Dow seconded, followed by discussion. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 12 AMENDMENT Madison asked if the neighbors of this property were notified and was assured that they were. She said she could only support approval of this petition if there were a contract to restrict retail sales. Nash and Dow accepted this amendment, followed by further discussion. Farrish stated he was opposed to any changes in residential neighborhoods and felt that approving a conditional use here was setting precedent for more of the same up and down the street. Madison said she agreed except for the fact that Township Road is due to be extended through this intersection and it will never be the same. Farrish replied that the widening of streets doesn't justify changing the residential use. He said he would be opposed to granting a conditional use along Highway 265 in a residential zone as well. Green agreed with Farrish but noted he was also in sympathy with the petitioner's desire to operate their business out of their home. He expressed concern regarding the commotion and disruption that might occur. He also said he had a problem with tractors and trucks sitting around for neighbors to look at. Daggett said he often leaves his equipment on one job until taken to the next and reiterated his plans to screen and landscape because it will enhance the property. He added the house has sat empty for some time and that he would like to accomodate the neighbors as much as possible. Carol Daggett said they will be using only about one-third of the property and the equipment does not take up much room. Jacks suggested a drawing showing the proposed screening might satisfy Commissioners' concerns. Daggett advised he has been operating this business from a typical size residential lot for some time and does not need more room than he has been using. It was determined that the trucks being used for the business have been allowed to be parked at their present location. Skwiot requested a more in depth examination of this area in order to assist in making a decision. MOTION Green moved to table this request until the petitioner submits a plan showing the proposed screening. Robertson seconded and upon roll Ball, the motion passed 9-0-0. co • • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 13 REQUEST FOR DRIVEWAY VARIANCE EDWARD 6 ANITA HETJMANEK - 1622 MARKHAM The tenth item on the agenda was a request to vary the requited length of a driveway from 25' to 20' into the property. The request is submitted by Edward and Anita Hetjmanek for R-1 property located at 1622 Markham. Mr. Hetjmanek explained that the building permit states a driveway must extend a minimum of 25' into the property towards the house and that he would like to install a circular drive which would extend only 20' before turning. MOTION Madison moved to grant the variance as requested. Hanna seconded and upon roll will, the motion passed 9-0-0. DISCUSSION OF A ROUTE FROM HIGHWAY 265 TO DOWNTOWN The eleventh item on the agenda was a discussion of a route extending from Highway 265 to the downtown area. This discussion had been requested at a Public Hearing on routes over Mt. Sequoyah on April 7, 1986. Jacks noted there has also been a request to include a report from the engineering firm that conducted the study, Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe of Rogers, Arkansas. Farrish noted the three east/west routes proposed by the engineers had been rejected by the Commission at the public hearing and asked why the study was being presented. Carlisle advised there may be additional routes which were studied but not presented as feasible for one reason or another. MOTION Farrish made a motion to not hear the report from the engineers. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion. Skwiot expressed disappointment with the public hearing saying he didn't think they did matters justice. Green agreed noting that, although the proposed routes were rejected, he wished to examine other possible routes. He said he would like to hear the report. Nash expressed interest in hearing the geological study. Robertson asked why the report was not heard at the public Hearing and Green replied it was not requested at that time. Madison said she had requested maps as well as the engineers' presence and didn't get them. • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 14 Jacks said if the meeting seemed unorganized, it was his responsibility and that it had not oneurred to him to request the engineers to speak at that time or to ask for opinion from City representatives. Green said he would like to have heard from the City Street representative whom he thought would have had an opinion. Farrish asked if traffic counts will be heard from when Sixth Street is widened and Highway 16 is extended and Crossover is built. He said if judgement is going to be made on east/west routes, all of the above suggested information is necessary. The question was nailed, and upon roll tall, the motion failed to tarry on a tie vote, Hanna, Robertson, Nash and Farrish voting in favor of and Madison, Skwiot, Dow and Green voting against; Jasks abstained. MOTION Robertson made a motion to hear any routes other than those previously proposed by Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe. Farrish seconded and upon roll tall, the motion passed 6-2-1, Skwiot and Dow voting "nay" and Jet abstaining. • Jacks introduced Bob Crafton of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe and advised him of the Commission's decision. • Crafton said all of the routes studied involve either Rockwood Trail or Lafayette Street. He said his firm was requested to conduct this study by the Fayetteville Board of Directors. He said the report was submitted on January 15th but the soil information was not submitted until February 13th. A meeting was held with the Street Committee regarding the study on February 26th. Crafton said representatives from his firm were present at the public hearing and prepared to make a statement. He said he was present at this time at the request of the City and that he would like to defend the integrity of the report. Crafton said the study was made without any particular property owners in mind. He introduced Dan Brown, a civil engineer with CTS&Y. Using visual aids, Brown pointed out the locations of route A, E, F and G and noted route A was eliminated because the grade was over 15% for more than one-half mile. He said, in addition, there were problems with ice and snow, and no connection with any traffic generator on the east end. Brown said three areas were identified along the west end that appeared to be relatively good; those being Lafayette, Rockwood Trail and Rogers, the latter being rejected because of its location within a quarter mile of Highway 16. He said, along the -east end they sought traffic generators between Highways 16 and 45 primarily near the Hyland Park area. CF� • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 15 Brown explained the reasons for eliminating routes E, F and G which were basically for steepness of grade and/or poor connection points or traffic generators. Farrish asked what criteria was used in considering the routes and whether or not impact to existing neighborhoods was taken into account. Brown replied that impact was considered and for that reason, a four -lane was not recommended in the Rockwood Trail proposal. Farrish asked why the existing highways to the north and south of this area are not being examined as possibilities to relieving the traffic problems Brown said his firm has made their recommendation and any decision will be up to the City. In answer to Jacks' question, Brown said the company was requested to address the area between Highways 16 and 45 and not those highways in particular. In answer to inquiry from Commissioner Green, Crafton explained that his contract called for the study as noted by Brown. He added there is no place to come through further north without disrupting many homes and to the south, near the water towers, is Highway 16, sometimes within a quarter of mile away. He said he didn't think it was the City's intention to build another collector street that close to the existing one. Nash asked if it would change anything if a four -lane had not been desired. Crafton replied it would not. Nash asked if addressing a two-lane would have opened other possibilities and Brown replied it would not as routes are limited by the grades. Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, advised that Rock Street had at one time been on the Master Street Plan as a collector until several years ago. He said, after a study by the Street Superintendent, it was determined that there was no way through because of the ravine from the water tower on south. Farrish asked if there were any more possibilities between Highways 16 and 45. Crafton replied that, in CTS&Y's opinion, there were not. Madison inquired about a route shown on the MSP at one time which would have been opposite Lover's Lane. Brown replied, in his opinion, that connection would have been away from the traffic generator. He added that he felt there are only two good access points on the west end while there are several possibilities along Highway 265. Madison asked about the soil type on Mt. Sequoyah, noting that two geologists have said it is unacceptable to support a road according to a County Soil Survey. Brown replied that those soils (and similar soils) are predominate throughout Fayetteville and, although roads can be built on these types, the cut slopes and fill slopes would need to be laid GP • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 16 back flatter than usual. He referred to a 13 page soil report submitted in February from eight soil borings. Madison said a resident reported a bore hole left open and asked if this is normal policy. Brown said he felt the bore was on City property and that the work had been sub -contracted and the problem was taken mare of as soon as he became aware of it. Madison said she heard many people at the recent public hearing say that they did not want the east side of Mt. Sequoyah developed. She said if it is to remain an unspoiled wilderness, a plan needs to made. She said she had assumed it would be developed and she would not like to see hap -hazard streets develop, but safe streets to serve all residents of Fayetteville. Jacks said he has also heard many speak in favor of developing that area and knew of several people in particular that will develop. Madison suggested buying those properties if it were the wish of everyone to retain the mountain. Skwiot agreed that the property may have to be purchased and that those who already have land and wish to keep it should take the opportunity to make provisions to do so. He said he didn't think there was a need for a road across the mountain at this time, but that he would rather see Highways 45 and 16 improved. MOTION Skwiot moved to table this issue for three months to allow for further citizen input. Madison seconded, followed by discussion. Green said if Fayetteville's population did not grow at all, a road over Mt. Sequoyah would not be necessary but he suggested comparing an aerial photo of the City from ten years ago with the present, it is apparent how many subdivisions have been filled in. He said if the remaining property between Highways 16 and 45 were developed, a potential of 14,000 cars per day could be added to the roads. He said he thought the streets as they are today would not be able to handle the load and if even 1,000 of those wind up on Lafayette, it would equal another car per minute in addition to what currently exists. Green said although it seemed that everyone was opposed to the proposed routes, he felt the residents of Mt. Sequoyah and those of Lafayette Street had different goals and objectives. He said if the problem is not addressed before further development takes place, it would be a great disservice to the residents along Lafayette. Jacks asked Green if he had any idea when a new plan would be prepared that would include a new Master Street Plan. Green said he thought the committee was about half way through what the scope of work should be and that it is at least several months away. 4- • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1986 Page 17 Skwiot said there is an overabundance of market data available in other communities to show that, if the area were to be preserved, the real estate values in close proximity would sky rocket making it in residents' pecuniary best interest to see it preserved. Jacks called the question and, upon roll eall, the motion passed 9-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Madison made a motion to recommend that Highway 45 designation of "State Highway" be removed west of Highway 265 and that the traffic be rerouted with technical assistance. Nash seconded followed by discussion. Jacks said the highway designation can be moved but the people will continue to use Lafayette. Green said he would rather see the whole traffic concern be addressed at one time. Jacks agreed. Nona Debenport, 408 E. Lafayette, addressed the motion by noting that the highway designation could be addressed separately, if only to get the trucks off of it. The question was called and, upon roll Ball, the motion passed 6-3-0, Robertson, Jaets and Green voting "nay". MOTION Madison made a motion that the City, within a year, condemn, if a portion of Highway 16 between Wood and Blair and construct Skwiot seconded, followed by discussion. Madison said that street is on the Master Street Plan and she would like to see it built. Green said he didn't want to see any street built until hearing from the City's Public Works Department. The question was called and upon roll Ball, the motion failed to pass 3-6-0, Madison, Dow and Skwiot voting in favor of and Hanna, Robertson, Nash, Jacks, Farrish and Green voting against. Mr. Bill Willmore, 2540 Manor Drive, expressed his support of the motion. necessary, a street. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.