Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday November 10, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, Sue Madison, Gerald Seiff, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash none Carolyn Schisler, Bob Fairchild, Tom Lewis, Thelma Fuller, Orland Maxfield, Steve Austin, Gary Carnahan, J.B. Hays, Dave Jorgensen, Sylvia Swartz, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-17 CAROLYN SCHISLER - 2601 W. OLD FARMINGTON RD. The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-17 submitted by Carolyn Schisler, representing Henry Hickman, for 1.96 acres located at 2601 W. Old Farmington Rd. Request is to rezone from R-0, Residential Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood was not present but his recommendation was; This same property was under application (R85-29) for C-2 District in 1985 and was rezoned to R-0 District. The same reasons that were given for the denial of the C-2 District and the approval of the R-0 Distict are still valid. 1. The introduction of C-2 District at this location would open up the west side of U.S. Hwy 71 along the service road and Old Farmington Rd. to commercial development; 2. Commercial development at the location requested is not consistent with the General Plan recommendations and; 3. The R-0 District was approved to establish a buffer and transition from the commercial development to the south and to discourage the expansion of commercial development along the service rd. In answer to a question from Jacks, Carlisle said the one year waiting period had expired for the rezoning petition. Jacks opened the public hearing to those who would like to speak in favor of the petition. Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 2 Carolyn Schisler felt there had been a change or two since last year. She said a brand new motel had been built across the road from the property in question and at this time last year she did not actually have a buyer. She does have a buyer at this time for a motel at that location. She said there was, a motel on each corner and it seemed to her the Planning Commission was discriminating against that corner on the Hwy 62 & 71 by-pass as every other corner was going in commercially. In answer to a question from Madison, Schisler said the property was not actually on the corner but was behind Westgate Shopping Center. Schisler also said the Park Inn Motel was not on the corner either. It has the same relative location on the other side of the Highway as the property in question. Bob Fairchild pointed out in his approach to this particular piece of property a year ago, it was a speculative approach, speculative because they had been approached by several different buyers that were interested in that piece of land in conjunction with other pieces located behind the IGA store on 62 west. Fairchild said at this time they do have a signed offer and acceptance for the property in question. He said it was safe to assume that the situation in general had changed since a year ago because there is now a north/south interstate Highway that he knows for a fact would come in south of this location. He said construction had already begun on the interstate with the ground -breaking held in Alma. He said 62 and the By-pass was going to be a major intersection in Northwest Arkansas. Mr. Fairchild said the traffic count from a year ago was; from the west 10,000 vehicles per day, from the north 13,000 vehicles per day, from the south 8,000 vehicles per day Based on the Highway Department's projections in the next 5-10 years those figures could double on the north/south figures and could be half again as much on the east/west figures. Mr. Fairchild said that corner was one of the highest traffic count corners in Northwest Arkansas. He said the General Plan was referred to as recommending something other than C-2 and he did not disagree with that but what he would take a difference with on the General Plan was it recommended R-2, Medium Density Residential. If there was someone who wanted to live in Medium Density property he seriously doubted if they would locate within 50 yards of the major north/south interstate connector. Fairchild said in essence what is there is a divided highway running north/south and a 5 -lane highway running east/west with a combined total traffic count (within 50-100 yards of that location where they want Medium Density Residential) of 40,000 vehicles within a 5 year period of time. Based on those reasons Fairchild said now was the time to look at changing the General Plan. He said there had been some attempts out in that direction to make it an attractive and competive intersection in North- west Arkansas. Fairchild said the intersection would be of the major interest • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 3 to the University campus and to Fayetteville. Madison said reference had been made to some other lots behind IGA and asked what connection would those lots have with the property in question. Fairchild stated in this particular petition, "none". At one time he had a client that was interested in buying all of the property behind the IGA store and putting in a major restaurant/hotel complex completely surrounding the IGA in the back. In answer to another question from Madison, Fairchild said he was asking to rezone only the 1.96 acres on Shiloh which was the one the client made the offer on for the motel. In answer to a question from Nash, Fairchild said the buyer was a franchise operator for a chain and they would be able to put 60 units on the 1.96 acres and meet all the zoning requirements with some open space and a buffer zone between the hotel and the IGA store. Seiff said there was an open field to the west and then a single family residence. Seiff said that property was about 300' to the west and asked if that lot belonged to them or was it a neighbor's. Fairchild said it belonged to a neighbor. Seiff then said there was approximately 300' of buffer between their property and the next house to the west. Fairchild said he had contacted that individual and he had no objection to the rezoning. In answer to a question from Dow, Fairchild said he grew up within a mile of the property in question. He said most of the housing on Old Farmington Rd and that end of town either had been in the family for years or has been turned into rental property even though it's defined as single family residence. He said most of the owners in that area, including the one on the north side of Old Farmington Rd., felt the value of their property would be increased if the corner in question was developed into something substantial. Seiff asked what the zoning was for the property across the street and Carlisle replied A-1, Agricultural. Hanna agreed with Mr. Fairchild on the use of the property on that corner. He said he had been concerned about the property for at least 10 years. Hanna said he felt like the City had neglected Highway 62 by not 4-laning it all the way from the business 71 to the by-pass. Hanna said it was the major east/west lane going through Fayetteville and would like to urge Mr. Fairchild to help the Commission in getting 4 -lanes from the High School on the east to the Business on 71. Hanna felt the whole area would grow if the highway was 4-laned. �3b • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Grimes said the continuation of that project was scheduled for 1987. It is phased into two years. He said the reason why the City backed off was they were using a source of federal funds that were jerked out from under them but it was back on track. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-0 to C-2, seconded by Nash and followed by further discussion. Nash said she thought the General Plan was a little old fashioned and the City knows it needs to be updated in some spots. She expects many motels going up in that district and would rather see them around the freeway than any other place. Seiff agreed with Nash saying the Park Inn was approximately the same distance north as this property was to the south. He said he would like to know what the future use recommendation the General Plan had for the property that the Park Inn was on. Seiff said he had no problem with granting this request. Jacks said there was some explanation as to a way of limiting the spread of less commercial development along the by-pass or along Shiloh. He said to the south where the Park Inn was the property was limited because of the topography. He said there was a concern to the north that the shopping center should have been the limit of the commercial zone. However the road was there, which he supposed would be a natural buffer. Dow stated a year ago her major concern was with the residences but if they are not concerned then she would not have a problem. Madison stated she felt the situation had not changed dramatically since a year ago and did not see any surrounding property had changed in zoning or use since that time. She said, as Mr. Fairchild reminded them, it was a major important entrance to the City and the Planning Consultant Larry Wood felt this might tend to commit the area along highway 71 to more intense or strip commercial development. Her main objection to the rezoning was that simply because the man across the street did not object does not hold a lot of water with her because that man may think he'll also be able to rezone. She said since it was a major entrance into the town and University she thought they should proceed with a little bit of caution, especially in view with the fact there was not a tree ordinance or other kind of ordinance to protect the natural vegetation that exists along the by-pass. She would hate to see the by-pass from the beginning of Fayetteville to the end of Fayetteville lined up with gas stations, motels and convenience stores. Madison said she could see some argument in what • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 5 was said because of the other motel to the south but that corner was not nearly as commercial as the corner on the north. Farrish said A-1 zoning was not the proper use for any of that property and felt it needed to be rezoned. He said if they looked at the other corners on the east side of the by-pass there was a relatively large section of C-2. Farrish said the way the property was developing it would be more suitable to C-2. Hanna said he would like to point out they rezoned the property where the Park Inn was and thought it was an attractive addition to Fayette- ville but the access to the Park Inn was much difficult and dangerous than the access to the proposed piece of property that was to be used for a motel. The question was called and the motion to recommend the rezoning from R-0 to C-2 passed 9-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE 3120 N. COLLEGE - JOHN LEWIS The second item on the agenda was a request for approval of the proposed Bank of Fayetteville (branch bank), submitted by John Lewis for property located at 3120 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.02 acres. Jacks advised the LSD was heard by the Subdivision Committee that afternoon and was approved as submitted. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FAYETTEVILLE BIBLE CHURCH 2783 W. MOUNT COMFORT - RICHARD POLLOCK The third item on the agenda was a request for approval of the proposed Fayetteville Bible Church, submitted by Richard Pollock, for property located at 2783 W. Mount Comfort. The property is zoned P-1, Insti- tutional and contains 4.669 acres. Jacks stated a letter had been received from the Fayetteville Bible Church asking for a waiver of the screening ordinance. The LSD was approved by the Subdivision Committee contingent upon proof of notifi- cation, Plat Review Comments and that the off-site requirements were maximum to be imposed. Jacks said the waiver of the screening requirement would be granted from the Planning Commission. Jacks said the recommendation for the screening requirement on the east, south and west side be accepted as is without further requirements and that a waiver be granted in lieu of 10% landscaping between the Church and Mt. Comfort Rd Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 6 MOTION Farrish moved to grant the waiver as approved by the Subdivision Com- mittee, seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANTIQUE SHOP THOMAS H. LEWIS 534 N. WILLOW The fourth item on the agenda was a request for an antique shop located at 534 N. Willow, submitted by Thomas H. Lewis. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The item was tabled at the September 22, 1986 meeting for further consideration by the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis stated he had worked out a compromise with the neighborhood and hoped it would be favorable to the Commission. He said he had met with the neighbors and members of the Historic Commission and they agreed to support the request for a variance for an antique store for a period of 6 months if in return he would help the Historic Commission to secure an ordinance that would be a protective ordinance for the Historical District. Mr. Lewis said he had asked Sandra Carlisle to write to several Cities who have similar ordinances so they could start to work towards the ordinance for the Historical District. Jacks stated the Planning Commission had had an ordinance for the Historical District on their list for some time now and the Update Committee was supposed to have gotten something started some years ago. He said the Planning Commission was very much in favor of that type of an ordinance. Jacks stated he had received a phone call from Betty Lighton and that the conditional use was to be only for the Lewises. In answer to a question from Farrish, Mr. Lewis said the structure was a duplex and one side was presently rented and at the end of six months they would rent the other side of the duplex as well. Farrish asked if they would come back and ask for an extension and Mr. Lewis replied they would not ask for an extension. Seiff asked when the 6 months would expire and Jacks said it would be 6 months from the time the Conditional Use was granted. Seiff said the reason he was asking was that they were in operation now. Mr. Lewis said they had had an open house and the Commissioners may be critical of an open house but had they called it a garage sale or a porch sale no one would have said anything and he thought there was not a clearly defined rule of what the difference might be. • In answer to a question from Madison, Mr. Lewis said there was a tenant on the other side of the duplex and they do not have a formal lease. • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 7 Madison asked if they had a retail sales permit Mr. Lewis stated they have had a retail sales permit for a long time. He said they had sold antiques for 25 years. The point Madison was trying to make was that people who have garage sales do not have a retail sales permit. In answer to a question from Dow, Mr. Lewis said they would be open 1 day a week for 6 months. Orland Maxfield, 533 N. Willow, stated he lives directly across from the property in question. He said the circumstances and feelings of the affected parties in this issue of a request for variance for an antique shop at 534 N. Willow Ave. have changed as Mr. Lewis had said. Mr. Maxfield said it was a tribute in its own small way to democratic process in having an opportunity to express one's views and to discuss differences in outlook. He said the Lewises have been most kind in their own decision to move their shop to another location, one that would not be as convenient for them but one that would be more suitable for their business in the long run. Maxfield said they had agreed to a Saturday operation of a shop until it could be relocated, a period not to exceed 6 months as the Lewises had said. Mr. Maxfield said one of the more important outcomes of the issue was the agreement among the affected parties. He said last Saturday he attended a profes- sional meeting in St. Louis which was a field trip led by a community planner for St. Louis He said he almost forgotten in between infrequent field excursions of that nature what had been done and what could be done elsewhere to preserve a neighborhoods integrity, to renew its livability. He was reminded of what they can and should do, not only in the historic district, but throughout Fayetteville to assure an environment for a quality of life they would enjoy. Dr. Hays stated he had no objection to the petition but as he drove through the area he saw a shop that was in operation all of the time. He thought it needed to be controlled because it was a cluttered mess. He said the Planning Commission should use their abilities to control that other area. Thelma Fuller, President of the Historic District Commission said that the Commission supports the Lewises request for the Conditional Use with the understanding that the request was for 6 months only and that the Conditional Use would apply to this request only. Ms. Fuller said an informal agreement had been reached between the Lewis' and representatives from the Historic District Commission and residents of the Washington -Willow Historic District to proceed with plans for an ordinance that would protect the District from commercial encroachment. • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 8 MOTION Nash moved to grant the conditional use for a period of 6 months with an expiration date of May 30, 1987 for a Saturday operation only, seconded by Hanna. The motion to grant the Conditional use for 6 months passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR CATERING SERVICE STEVE AUSTIN - 1614 HUNTSVILLE RD The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a mobile catering service located at 1614 Huntsville Rd., submitted by Steve Austin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Sandra Carlisle stated Mr. Austin had gotten a building permit to enclose a porch and on a Home Occupation no eriargement or alterations are permitted. Steve Austin stated they cater to special events and to certain areas around town. He said his was not a large operation and it would not hinder traffic. Jacks asked if they were preparing food at the location in question. Mr. Austin said they prepared sandwiches at the location in question and everthing else was pre-packaged. Dow asked if the only traffic involved would be their truck and no customers and Austin replied they have a catering truck that would be parked at their residence and there would be no customers. In answer to a question from Jacks, Austin replied the only employees would be his wife and himself. Hanna asked what type of truck was used and Austin replied a 22' GMC step van. James Lacy, 1321 Huntsville Rd. stated his main objection to the catering service was the neighborhood had spent over one year trying to get a bill of assurance executed for the property in question. He said if someone else wanted to rezone their property to commercial then they would have R-1 district right next to commercial. Hanna asked how long Mr. Austin had been operating at that location and Mr. Austin replied since August of 1986. • Hanna asked Mr. Lacy if he had any objection as to what Mr. Austin was doing there and if it bothered him. Mr. Lacy said his only objection Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 9 was if it was zoned commercial and someone else went in there it would be difficult to get them out. Hanna said this was a request for a conditional use and it could be granted where it would only apply to this particular individual for that particular use. If Mr. Austin should move, the conditional use would not run with the property. Hanna said if trucks ran all hours of the night and caused reason for complaint, the Planning Office could revoke the Conditional Use at the end of 1 year. Carlisle stated that the Conditional Use would run with the property if someone else wanted to move in and continue the same use but if it were discontinued for 6 months then it would be null and void. Seiff asked Mr. Austin if he felt one truck would be sufficient to run his business. Mr. Austin said one truck would be all he could handle as an individual. Seif then said if this was granted he would like to add a stipulation for one truck only. A citizen from the audience said they had an awful problem with the garage that was there and it took them a year to get it out of there. He said that was a single family home and wanted to know how many people were living there. Mr. Austin said one family lived at the location in question. Madison felt that the Commission appreciates the tenacity with which the neighbors had fought with commercial encroachment in that neighbor- hood and admired their efforts and supported those efforts. She said any single family residence in this town could come in with similar requests as Mr. Austin has. Madison said she felt the Austins did not even need to ask for this request because it was a very mild use of the property. A citizen said the restaurant supply that went in was supposed to keep that place real clean. He said anyone could go by there anytime and find boxes piled up. Madison said if they were in violation of some ordinance with their boxes then that was one matter but they could not force people to be tidy. Green said the whole thing was controversial and the Commission had put some revisions in the approval of the conditional use for the restaurant supply. As he remembered it, basically no outside storage or certain other activities could not take place outside. He said if those things are taking place then their recourse would be to call the Planning Office and make a complaint. Green said on the other hand if they put appropriate restrictions on Mr. Austin's request Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 10 for the use of the house he really did not think there would be a problem. Green said he was very sympathetic of what the neighbors were trying to do and felt they had done a lot of good in their neighbor- hood and made it a better place to live. Green said too they were right it should not be commercialized because it was a .residential area but also thought with the appropriate restrictions, such as only the one truck, no sign advertising the business and no customers coming in from outside, it would not infringe on the neighborhood. MOTION Madison moved to grant the conditional use for a mobile catering home occupation with the strict understanding that there would be one truck, no sign, no customers to the premises and the Conditional Use only for this property owner, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR MULTI -FAMILY IN R-0 DISTRICT JIM LINDSEY - EAST OAKS APTS. PHASE II The sixth item on the agenda was a requested submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Gary Carnahan for multi -family apartments in a R-0 District. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office. Gary Carnahan said the property was located in R-0 zoning and that zoning permits multi -family residential use on approval by the Planning Commission. Carnahan said there was a strip of R-0 all the way around inside of East Oaks and Kantz and in the past they had built apartments in that circle and this was the fifth time. MOTION Green moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR J.B. HAYS PARK PLACE PHASE IV The seventh item on the agenda was a request for a recommendation to the Board of Directors for modification of a contract for Park Place Phase IV, submitted by J.B. Hays and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Dave Jorgensen said at the last meeting he had requested a change in a concept plat in that Dr. Hays was trying to tie in the Park Place Subdivision so that he would minimize through traffic from Highway 265 into the Subdivision. Subsequently to that meeting they had dis- covered there was a contract with the City. He said the request was to change the terms of the contract in item number 6. Item 6 said developers further agree that no lots would be sold in Phase IV nor Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 11 would any building permits be issued for lots in Phase IV until a street was constructed connecting Phase IV with Crossover Road (Highway 265). Jorgensen said what he would like to do was modify the contract to read (item 6); no lots would be sold in Phase 8 nor would any permits be issued for lots in Phase 8 until a street was constructed connecting Phase 8 to Crossover Road (Highway 265). Jorgensen said the main reason for this was it would be a tremendous expense to extend to road from Phase 4 or 5 over to Highway 265 without being able to realize the benefits. He said it was not that Dr. Hays was trying to get out of it. In fact, he felt like they were improving the situation by making the road into the Subdivision so that it would not be so easy for people to cut through the Subdivision going from Highway 265 to avoid the Highway 45 intersection. Jorgensen said the contract without the modification would make the project unaffordable if they had to extend the road from Phase 4 or 5 to Highway 265 at this time. Jacks stated the Planning Commission agreed with their concept plan to keep through traffic out of the Subdivision. Jacks said they had brought up another question though. He said this would create a 2500' cul-de-sac. Jacks said the stipulation in the contract was put in there by the Planning Commission last time because they were concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac off of Highway 45. Madison stated the original agreement was reached at preliminary and and final plat and they had City staff members that felt like there needed to be additional points of ingress/egress before additional lots would be built and now they proposed to virtually double the number of lots without another point of ingress/egress. She understood the better design of their additional access to minimize further traffic and thought it was commendable. She said that did not have any bearing on the excuse of it as far as they were concerned. The reason why she wants that road built is to give additional access to the Subdivision. Jorgensen said no doubt it would improve the situation to tie in Park Place to Highway 265 at this time but the cost of that without being able to sell lots would be tremendous. He said it would make the project unaffordable. Madison asked if they would substitute another point of ingress/egress or when they started Phase 7 would they be willing to substitute putting that into Highway 45. Farrish said at the last Planning Commission meeting they encouraged Mr. Jorgensen not to do Phase 7 to Highway 45 and they encouraged him to change their access point to the cul-de-sac. Farrish said this had already been acted on at the last Planning Commission meeting and what Mr. Jorgensen was here for was to have the contract modified. • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 12 Madison said concept plat approval was not binding. Dow said the way she understood at the last meeting was that the road would go through when Phase 4, 5 and 5a did and that was why she agreed to it. She said she totally misunderstood. Green said he specifically asked the question at the last meeting as to were they voting to not have them build the road at this time and Farrish answered yes. Green said he had gone through the minutes for the approval of Phases 3 and 4, that maybe he was missing something but he did not see where a City representative said they felt like that second point of access was necessary. Green said he felt like the issue had not been debated and settled a year or year and half ago. Green said he did not see much of a risk in not having a second point of access at this time and did not think this was really a safety question. He said it would be a lot more convenient for those people to have a shot to Highway 265 and they don't seem to mind that they don't have one now. Green said he did not have a problem with the concept and it was not an unreasonable request and did not see any safety hazard of any significant degree. He said if a gasoline tanker turned over and caught on fire right square in the middle of that intersection and a house catches on fire in the Subdivision and then someone had a heart attack and needed an ambulance there would be a little bit of a problem but he really did not see that as being much of a risk that all of those catastrophic events would occur at the same time. Madison said as she understood it the approval of a concept plat was that it was a very informal process and it gave the developer some loose idea of where they might go with a piece of property. It was not the same as having a preliminary plat approved or a final plat approved and by virtue of having looked at concept plats she felt those people were now circumventing their Subdivision process. She said they were insisting that something that was voted upon was now binding upon a preliminary plat and a final plat agreement that they had a contract on. She said if this was going to be changed that radically then it needed to go back to plat review so City professionals could look at it. She said she did speak with City professionals about the ingress/ egress on that subdivision and one of the points (whether there were any minutes or not) was the safety concern for that many people on those lots to have one-way in and one-wayout. She said the last time they had a concept plat on this Phase 8, it was a PUD and was multi -family. She said it was not indicated this time what the plan was. She said simply by voting on the concept plat last time did not approve varying the length of the cul-de-sac. • Farrish said there in fact was more than one point of ingress/egress. He said there was a divided street into Park Place and in the case • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 13 of safety he did not think anyone would get a ticket for using the other side of the street. He said it was not like it had one 35' street coming into the subdivision and there was going to be a wreck there. He said a car would have to jump the median and tie up both sides before the safety factor would need to come into play. Farrish said if the safety factor was the only thing that was objectionable, then in his view there was no objection because it was not a safety hazard. In answer to a question from Madison, Carlisle said they were being asked to recommend to the Board of Directors a modification of Dr. Hays contract for Park Place. Carlisle said the concept plat had been looked at, that was past, and the only question before them was would they recommend or not recommend to the Board of Directors a modification to the contract. Dr. Hays said they had unanimous approval of what he asked for at the last Planning Commission meeting. He said he has a 4 -lane road for multiple phases as they go back before it extends into normal sized streets. He said he discussed the short-cut possibilities with several of the Park Place residents and they would like a route so people would not cut through as they do on Winwood and some other subdivisions. Hays said they plan to have some higher density on the east side of the lake. He said they had tried to make the most appealing and desirable subdivision in the area and transplanted numerous Maple trees in the front, landscaping and a 4 acre lake. Hays said he tried to do something that would be complimentary to the Fayetteville and Norhtwest Arkansas area. Dr. Hays said he did not realize exactly what they were doing or what his representative had done at the last preliminary plat review. He said what they plan to do was Phase 4 for sure which would be 18 lots, probably Phase 5 within 6 or 8 months and possibly a small Phase 7 in the posterior part of the 8 acres where he resides. Green said it seemed to him there were a series of trade-offs here and had not heard them say they were not ever going to build the road to Highway 265. Green said that was a big Subdivision for Fayetteville, Arkansas. Fayetteville was not like Dallas Texas and it does not absorb Subdivisions very quickly because it takes a lot for it to get built up. He said that Subdivision was started 6 or 7 years ago and they were probably just now reaching a 50% occupancy point. Green said they can't have good Subdivisions for people to live on if they make it economically impossible for developers to do nice Subdivisions. MOTION • Green moved to recommend to the City Board that the contract be changed as requested, seconded by Hanna and followed by further discussion. • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 14 Jacks said the concept was an overall consideration and the Commission looked at it favorably last time. He said the matter of the cul-de-sac does become a consideration of this particular issue. Jorgensen said they had built their way into the middle of the Subdivision and to satisfy the cul-de-sac problem it would cost approximately 150,000 to 250,000 thousand dollars. Hanna said he really did not consider the road a cul-de-sac but considered it temporarily a cul-de-sac. He said the road would go through to Highway 265 and he would prefer them to proceed at that pace and do it right rather than have them to stop at Phase 4 and two other developers come off of Highway 265 and make little developments not part of Park Place. Jacks said if the modification was approved, don't be surprised if there was some static from the Board of Directors concerning the cul-de- sac. Green said Jack's point was essentially it's a cul-de-sac because it ends and does not go anywhere. Green said his answer to that would be right now it was a deadend street but it would not be forever. Green said he would like to think they could help them get the connection built rather than hinder them. Madison said she had sympathy for anyone who had to be governed by their economics because she certainly had to However a mere year ago it was no problem and she could not possibly sit there and weigh the pros and cons of the economics of that development giving many different options for them to pursue. She said they chose that parti- cular option for their plan and now they want to renege on the contract and she felt that was not the way the City did business. Farrish said this was a different plan from a year ago. Madison said they never said exactly where that road would come out. She said it was a better plan than the previous concept plat that everyone rejected. Dow said she would feel better voting on it if there were some stipulation that when such and such was started then they would extend the road all the way through. Green said they were substituting Phase 8 for Phase 4. Jacks no lots would be sold in Phase 8 nor any building permits issued until the construction of a connecting road. • The question was called and the motion to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the contract be changed as requested passed 8-1-0, • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 15 Madison voting nnayn. REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION TO A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD PUT IT INTO NON-CONFORMANCE - SANG SENIOR CENTER 818 NORTH SANG The eighth item on the agenda was a request for an addition to the Sang Senior Center that would put the building into non-conformance. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Sylvia Swartz, representing the Sang Senior Center, said Sang Street was purchased with Community Development funds in 1981. Since that time the program had been very successful. She said they serve approx- imately 30-40 elderly people per day. Ms. Swartz said the meals were prepared at Sang Street and were delivered to about 90 local people everyday. She said what had happened was they had outgrown some of their needs and perhaps the most serious problem was they have one small room which they call the smoking room and this room also has a kiln for the ceramic materials. She said if people get ill and have to lie down they have to go to the smoking room and felt that it was a serious problem for sick people to lie down in a smoking room. She said they have a solution to add a relatively small addition, approximately 18', to the west side of the building along the north/south area. She said they had received a variance from the setback requirements from the Board of Adjustment contingent upon the Planning Commission's approval to add to a structure that would throw it into non-conformance. Seiff said he noticed if they added the addition to the west they would not lose any of their parking spaces. He also noticed further down the street and across the street there were some other residences that extended about the same distance to the street. Seiff said he had gone there for a breakfast and saw so many happy faces he would not want to do anything to upset that. Dow added there would not be any exits on the west side with the exception of the fire exit so there would not be a lot of traffic on the west side. Green said this had come up before with other people wanting to add to a non -conforming structure and he was under the impression there would be no way they could expand a non -conforming use. Green said he was not opposed to the concept he just wanted to be educated because this had come up before and they had never done anything like this. Ms. Swartz said the building was a Church before it became the Senior Center and as she remembered the Church was there long before the ordinance. Carlisle stated the Sang Senior Center has a Conditional Use in an • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 16 R-1 zone for this property which was granfathered in as is. The clerk entered into record that the structure was conforming but once they add the addition and go into the setback (which they have a variance from the Board of Adjustment for) it would become a non- conforming structure. Carlisle stated the Planning Commission must address the zoning question which was what the non-conformance comes under and the Board of Adjstment could only act on varying the setback. MOTION Hanna moved to grant the right to build an addition onto the existing structure, seconded by Seiff and followed by further discussion. In answer to a question from Green, Carlisle said there was an appeal procedure in the back of the Code Book. Madison said she did not want the Commission to do something just because it sounded good if they were not empowered to do it. Jacks asked Carlisle if they would be in conformance with the ordinance if they grant this and Carlisle replied "yes", that was her interpretation of the ordinance. Farrish said basically all they were doing was granting the Senior Center a building permit which they realized would put the property and not the use into non-conformance. Dow said if they wanted to come back and add to the addition that made it non -conforming then Commissioner Green would be right. Green said Carlisle was telling him that they could give them permission to become non -conforming but if they come back 6 months from now and want to add another 1000' sq. ft. they cannot do that. The question was called and the motion to grant the Senior Center the right to build an addition onto the existing structure passed 9-0-0. DISCUSSION OF SCOPE OF WORK FOR GENERAL LAND USE PLAN The ninth item on the agenda was a discussion of Scope of Work for the General Plan. Green said the committee basically used as a starting point the Scope of Work from the last plan as a guideline. Green said the things they left out were required by regulations governing the source of • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 17 funding that they were going to use for the plan the last time and generally the committee felt like a lot of those things did not need to be done again. He thought it would be fair to say that Larry Wood agreed a lot of those things did not need to be done. Green said the only discussion they had heard from Planning Commission meetings that they may not be in step with was the mapping. He said they had a meeting with Deryl Burch to talk about his mapping plans and while they felt like that was not very extensive mapping they felt like Mr. Burch had a plan of attack to get mapping in place. It may be a while but he felt like if they hired a consultant now to come in and do mapping it would basically be wasted effort over the long run in view of what Mr. Burch was trying to do. Green said Sandra Carlisle had told them about some problems she had in her department with the maps they had to work with. Green said they sort of assumed that to an extent Carlisle could work that out with in their department with Deryl Burch. Carlisle said the 1987 because it was said she had asked prices would not be budget was $50,000 obvious this would for an additional in effect. .00. It was rolled over into not be done in 1986. Carlisle $10,000.00 in case last year's Jacks asked if this would work for that kind of money and Green replied Larry Wood felt they did not have enough money to do it all. Green said, as he remembered when the Board said to do a plan, they had put $50,000.00 on it and said to send out RFP's and see what it would be. Green said they kind of ignored the question whether they could do all this for $50,000.00. Jacks said the proposal would go out to Planners who were basically interested. He asked if Northwest Regional was one of the possible bidders on this. Mr. Grimes stated they did not plan to submit a bid. Jacks said he was disappointed in that because Larry Wood had worked closely with the City over the years and it seemed he would be in the position to do the best job possible. In answer to a question from Jacks, Green said he thought there was an existing land use plan 20 years ago when the last plan was done but it had not been updated since then. Green said he asked the question as to why did they need an existing land use plan when there was a zoning map and he said the answer was for non -conforming uses etc. and not all property uses in accordance with the zone. Jacks asked why the Master Street Plan was not on the list. Green said they had discussed that and concluded that the City already had a policy in place dealing with street planning. He said there was at least 1 or 2 committees that looked at street planning and made • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 18 decisions. Green said they felt like the biggest need they had was to spend consultant dollars on a street plan in the growth area because there had been situations come up where they have had to address planning for streets out in the growth area. In answer to a question from Jacks, Mr. Grimes said the Board was anxious for the Planning Commission to look at some extensions of streets in the Growth area. Mr. Grimes said that had been expressed by the Board on several different occasions to get the projections on the Master Street Plan beyond what there was right now. He said that whole area was starting to urbanize and they need to start looking into the Growth Area. Green said what their plan basically said was that the consultant would start at the City Limits and look out into the growth area and assume that what was in the City Limits was adequate. Mr. Grimes said the Board was anxious to help the Planning Commission get on with the update on the Master Plan and they realized there were not sufficient funds right now but if they got it rolling he would find a way to get the Board staff to help. In answer to a question from Jacks, Carlisle said once they have reviewed the plan and made changes or additions, then it would be submitted to the Board of Directors for their review, at which time the RFP's would be sent out. Jacks said in connection with streets they should be shown as they actually exist. He said the suggestion came from the State as to if it was used as an arterial then show it as an arterial. Jacks asked a question about subdivision regulations. He said after the Board had approved the revisions then who would put that into some kind of state to where it could be passed and published. Green said they did not talk about that and the only thing they had for subdivision regulations was to review and evaluate the procedure pertaining to the administration. Mr. Grimes said one possibility would be that Regional Planning would not be involved to a great extent in the Master Street Plan update. He said hand it to them and tell them the City would pay the printing cost if they would organize the subdivision regulations. Green said his preference would be to tell Sandra Carlisle or Don Grimes what needed to be done and let them figure out how to put it together. Farrish said when they started this everything tied back to mapping • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 19 in some way or another. Dow asked if Mr. Burch had a projection of when he thought the computer- ized mapping would be in affect. Carlisle replied it had not even been requested to her knowledge. Green said someone said at their last meeting that Birch had budgeted to spend some money on computerized mapping in 1987. Green said their feeling was they could probably spend $50,000.00 just in maps and nothing else. Robertson said the whole reason for simplifying the scope of work was to do as much as they could with the least amount of money to get something that was workable. Carlisle said the mapping would have nothing to do with the land use and population forecast. Farrish said it would all start from the base map and then you take all the information and put it on a map. Carlisle asked how many years would that take to put into a computer once the computer was on line. Mr. Grimes replied it could be done in 2 years and once again the volume would be such that it there would never be a place to turn loose of it. Farrish said the Chamber of Commerce would like to see the computerized mapping happen. He said they may contribute some funding to it from some of the members of the Chamber. Jacks said item number 2 under mapping stood a chance of becoming obsolete. Farrish said that was almost true except a number of the things they were going to do would be placed on the map so in order to have the maps for future use they would have to come back in and duplicate that effort again. Green said Sandra Carlisle showed them how the Planning Office had to come up with what they use and he said the Planning department made their own maps from the Water and Sewer departments maps. He said they concluded there was not a centralized mapping function any- where in the City. He said what the Planning Department had to go through to make their maps was a terribly inefficient way to operate and they could probably spend their full time keeping their maps up to date. Green said it seemed to them that Deryl Burch was on the right track in getting everyone's needs met but it was going to take 9-4 • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 20 some money. MOTION Green moved to submit the Scope of Work to the Board of Directors for their review and would like to add to it the review of the Master Street Plan and reclassification of street review that Mr. Grimes mentioned in the City Limits as well as the Growth Area and under "General" change that date from 2005 to 2006 so it would be a 20 year plan. Also for Sandra Carlisle to write a memo to the Board and tell them of the discussion and concern about mapping and that they were relying on the proposal that Mr. Birch was coming up with and that it should take high priority on the City agenda, seconded by Dow. The motion to recommend passed 9-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS The tenth item on the agenda was on the proposed Tree Ordinance. Nash said she would like to see the matter of the proposed tree ordinance referred back to the Committee for review and to take into consideration the comments that were made at the Public hearing. MOTION Nash moved to refer the matter of the tree ordinance back to the landscape committee for review, seconded by Dow and followed by further discussion. Dow said the reason for her second was that a lot of people showed up at the public hearing and they were very courteous, both pros and cons to each other and to the Commission. She said they have been waiting for sometime for some kind of response and out of courtesy the Commission should make some kind of formal response to them. Green said it had been 2 months since the public hearing and he did not understand why it had come up. He assumed it was a dead issue all along and his feeling was it indeed was a dead issue and that it had been acted on. Green said he felt they had done everything that needed to be done and he had not had a single person say to him "I sure wish you all would hurry up and do something on the tree ordin- ance". Seiff said on the contrary, he had lots of people ask what was going on with the tree ordinance. His view was that he would like to see something happen with it. Seiff said he was at the hearing as a citizen and would like to see the tree ordinance voted on one way or the other. Farrish said they had already voted to have no further discussion of that particular tree ordinance and felt now it would go back through a different process. • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 21 Jacks said he assumed that was what the motion indicated, to send it back to committee. Green asked if they were bound by Roberts Rule of Order. Jacks replied no and that he had a talk with the City attorney and they have nothing in their By-laws about Roberts Rule of Order, therefore they were open to any motion. Robertson said it appeared to him that they were not the appropriate body to address the tree ordinance. He said the City Board was told at their retreat that they were the ones who should consider the tree ordinance. He said they were the politicians and he felt the City Board should be the ones to address a tree ordinance if indeed it's addressed. AMENDMENT Nash said she would be willing to amend her motion to say that the committee forward their report to the City Board, seconded by Dow and followed by further discussion. Green said it seemed to him if they called this a committee of the Planning Commission that it would not be appropriate for a committee of the Planning Commission to report directly to the Board of Directors. He said if they wanted to organized a group of citizens and go directly to the City Board then that would be their right and privilege. He said a sub -committee and a committee of the Planning Commission should not go right to the City Board. Madison asked be their duty Jacks replied of issue. if that committee generated the ordinance would it not to hold a public hearing again. the City Board could do what they want to on that sort Farrish said the Planning Commission was beginning to return to some sence of normalcy and thought if this was brought up again it would continue to divide the Planning Commission on it. The City Board in their instructions to the Planning Commission asked the Commission to hold a public meeting on the tree ordinance to satisfy those citizens who had felt like they had not has an opportunity to speak on it. Farrish said they held the public meeting and satisfied all those requirements and to bring it back up again at no direction from the City Board was only asking for trouble. Farrish felt it was not the thing to do and would vote against it. Hanna felt after sitting on the tree ordinance committee that if the City Board was interested in pursuing it then they should direct the • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 22 City Attorney, with the help of the City staff, to prepare an ordinance and let them do it the way they want to and vote on it. He felt the Planning Commission should not duplicate the efforts that they had already done and be subjected to the same problems they had before. He felt they had done everything they could do as a Planning Commission. Nash said the only reason she would like to see it go back to committee one more time was because they did have a public hearing and felt like those people who came deserved a final report. Farrish said they did that basically at the direction of the City Board. Green said a point had been made about the ordinance being the City Board's job. That was an excellent point and that would control the way he voted. He said if the City Board wanted an ordinance of that nature they had the power to do it. He felt like the Board handed them back a hot potato and did not think that was a particularly productive thing to do to the Planning Commission. Personally he would be surprised if the City Board would want to anything with it right now since there were 2 new members coming on January 1, 1987. Green said they had already set a dangerous precedent because they were re -hashing old business, something that died 2 months ago. If they were going to re -hash old business then it was possible that every issue that came in here could never be resolved and he did not think that was right. It was voted on and it was resolved and everything that was done was proper and the Commission's responsibility as far as he was concerned was gone Mr. Grimes said he was not taking sides on the ordinance but when the Planning Commission held the public hearing there were some directors coming up at election time and they realized the ordinance was a hot potato and not the kind of thing they wanted have in a Board meeting prior to an election. Now the Board has a couple of new members coming on the Board and he personaly thought this would come up in within a reasonable time (at the beginning of the year) but could not guarantee that but he thought it would. Grimes said when the Board asked the Planning Commission to hold the hearing it was their intent that they then would bring it up at some point in time. Nash felt the Board would never really take it over until the Planning Commission gave it to them. It would be a matter of courtesy to say "here, it's yours" and she felt the Board was waiting to hear from the Planning Commission. Green said if the Board was waiting on the Commission to do something he thought the Board would have told them they were waiting for a response. He said he had not heard a word from the City Board since the public hearing was held. Green said the tree ordinance had been • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 23 strictly a Planning Commission pushed project from the beginning and if the City Board wanted to do it that was there perogative but he felt they were not waiting on anything from this Commission and thought the Board did not ask the Commission to do this to begin with. Madison said many people came to the public meeting and the Commission was instructed to sit silently and not ask questions or interject opinions etc. She said it was as if those people were talking to a wall and as if the Commission paid no attention to them whatsoever if they don't make a response She said it did take sometime to generate the minutes from that meeting and that may be one reason why some think it died. She said there was a core committee that worked on this for a long time that probably knows as much about Fayetteville ordinances as could be found in Fayetteville. She said they are a core of educated people and as long as those people were willing to work on the landscape ordinance she did not see any harm in letting them. She said the City Board had no background in the matter or expertise in the matter and they had not done any research in the matter to handle that kind of ordinance. Farrish said he thought it was ridiculous that it was brought up again. He said they were setting a precedent here and the next thing would be to build a road across Mt. Sequoyah. He said that was a controversial issue and why not bring that back up again and talk about it again. Green said that core group of educated people that worked on the landscape ordinance and knows all about it can go to the City Board and do anything they want to do, that was their right and privilege. Nash said the reason for bringing up the tree ordinance tonight was not to re -hash old business. It was to form some kind of resolution and the best resolution she could see was to return it to committee and then forward it to the Board. She did not believe the tree ordinance was a dead issue and she understood some of them felt it was. She felt it was up to the Board to appeal it and hold a public hearing. The question was called for the motion to recommend the tree ordinance back to committee for review and then to forward to the City Board. Failed to pass 4-4-1, Robertson, Farrish, Green and Hanna voting "nay" and Dow, Madison, Nash and Seiff voting "yes" and Jacks abstaining. Farrish stated at the last Scope of work Committee they thought it would be a good idea to have some sort of regulation to require soil testing in residential neighborhoods. Green said the soil survey was a good point and they left it in there as a general indicator. He said the discussion they had was, if someone was going to build on a lot in Fayetteville, probably a very good thing to do would be to get a soil sample done. He said someone suggested 90' • • • Planning Commission November 10, 1986 Page 24 that it if that MINUTES would cost approximately $100.00. and he had no way of knowing was high, low or indifferent. The minutes of the October 13, 1986 and October 27, 1986 meetings were approved with the following corrections. OCTOBER 13, 1986 The minutes reflected Sue Madison as being absent was corrected to her being present at that meeting. Page 12, paragraph 2; changed "inspection" to "section" OCTOBER 27, 1986 In error Gary Carnahan was listed in Others Present and was corrected as not being at that meeting. Dow said at the last meeting a letter was received from Louise Rozier in regard to the property on West South. She said they were concerned there may be some transactions going on there and would appreciate a clear statement from the Planning Office defining uses permitted under warehousing and offices opposed to warehouse and retail. Jacks stated that had been taken care of by the Planning Office at the last meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.