Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETFEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, September 26, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow, J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Klingaman OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Larry Wood, Ery Wimberly, Harry Gray, David Powers, Dave Jorgensen, Larry Baggett, Arthur & Madelyn Skelton, David Ferguson, Jim Hatfield, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS JOHN C BURCKART - S OF APPLEBY, N OF DRAKE STREET The first item of consideration on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan for the Village Apartments submitted John C. Burckart and represented by Ery Wimberly of Northwest Engineers. The property is located south of Appleby Road 'and north of Drake Street containing 9.75 acres with 160 units proposed and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Dow stated that this was tabled earlier so that some additional information could be obtained from the staff. Chairman Jacks stated that they have a letter from Perry Franklin talking about traffic. He stated that Mr. Franklin has pointed out the traffic problems that exist there now and obviously will be impacted by this project,as well as the proposed medical center out this way. Chairman Jacks advised that this has gone before the Subdivision Committee and then the Planning Commission tabled it asking for more additional traffic information which they have now. John Ragland of 1651 Devonshire Place stated that he is a former resident of Regency North Subdivision (3160 Melinda Drive) and he lived there for 3 years. He stated that he is in the process of acquiring some more property in Regency North. He noted that the property just to the north side of this proposed complex is zoned R-0, Residential -Office and owned by Wade Bishop. The rear ea • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 2 2,000 square feet of this is used for a warehouse and the entrance side of Wayne Drive is blocked by a semi -tractor trailer rig when they are unloading. Consequently, the traffic into the Regency North has to enter the exit side (the west side) of Wayne Drive. He stated that Mr. Bishop has informed him that he plans to build approximately 200 apartments units on his remaining land there that is zoned R-2 when the City paves the west side of Appleby Road. He stated that since drainage is an issue, he wanted to point out that Mr. Bishop had to construct a drainage ditch when he developed his land and it appears to have adequate drainage. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Ragland if he was strictly a disinterested party here and if he had any connection with the Bishops. Mr. Ragland stated that Wade Bishop was his step -father. Commissioner Allred advised that this is not a rezoning request but a Large Scale Development. Chairman Jacks asked for a show of hands in the audience of people who are here to speak in opposition of this. He advised that there were quite a few. Connie Freeman of 315 Village stated that she had made up a newsletter and put it out to the neighborhood on her own, she explained that she is not in connection with Mr. Bishop. She stated that she was concerned about whether any traffic studies have been made. Chairman Jacks stated that they do have a traffic report from Perry Franklin (See Attached at the end of the Minutes). She noted that she had talked to the Police Dept. and they had told her they would send someone out to patrol their neighborhood to see the traffic problem and they came out at 10:30 a.m. when there was no traffic. She stated approved and Commissioner Franklin. that they feel that the property value will go down if this is there is the public safety factor involved with the extra traffic. Robertson gave Mrs. Freeman his copy of the traffic report by Perry Chairman Jacks stated that no matter what happens the streets are going to changed and upgraded in this area. He asked John Merrell when the work on Appleby was scheduled. Mr. Merrell stated that he understands that the engineering work has been completed and construction should start early next year. Mrs. Freeman stated that since the current zoning of R-2 in this area is outdated because it was zoned around 1970. They should try to keep it as nice as possible in keeping with what is already there ($60 to $70 thousand homes). Leroy Fink of Peg Lane, which is west of this development, stated that he understands that there are no cross streets planned between Drake & Appleby and the traffic is bad on Peg Lane which is a cross street. He is concerned that if a cross street is not put in here, there will be more traffic problems on Peg Lane. • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 3 Chuck West of 300 Village Drive stated that he is concerned about the traffic problem and he asked the Planning Commission to use restraint when considering Large Scale Developments in a town like Fayetteville where the east/west flow of traffic is so poor and be very careful in approving these developments before the streets are there to carry the traffic. Karen Bonner of 320 Village Drive stated that there have been several occasions where accidents involving her children had almost taken place because of the traffic there. Jerri Colely of 364 Margaret Place stated that there are a lot of speeders that travel through her neighborhood and don't obey the stop signs and she is concerned for the safety of the children. Wade Bishop stated that he doesn't have plans to build a 200 unit apartment house out there. He noted that he wants to address what Jim McCord, the City Attorney, had told him was the basis for the Planning Commission's ability to deny this if they so choose. He advised that the Planning Commission could deny this on the basis that it creates a hazardous traffic condition. He commented that the traffic from the Medical Park to be built out farther on Appleby Road would saturate Appleby Road completely. He stated that there is a dangerous traffic condition there and suggested that they consider postponing this project until Drake Street to the South is 4 -lanes. Commissioner Nash asked Mr. Bishop if she understood correctly that he does not plan to build on any of his land in that area until the roads are improved. Mr. Bishop answered, yes. He stated that he would like to address the drainage problem that they have out there. He noted that 3 to 5 times a year, this site where they propose to put this project floods over Appleby Road. Dixie Easterling, who lives on Appleby Road right in front of where these apartments would go in, stated that it does flood real bad and the traffic is bad there. John Freeman of 315 Village stated that he wanted to point out that the only thing they have to stand on here is the hazardous traffic conditions and he requested that the Planning Commission take a close look at this before they approve this. He noted that he doesn't agree with the understanding that as development comes, the traffic problems and other problems will be improved. Connie Freeman asked the Planning Commission to wait and see what the Planning Consultant comes up with for Fayetteville before they approve this project. Chairman Jacks advised that the land is already zoned properly for this kind of a development, so the question is whether it is proper for him to do it in the matter that his layout shows. He noted that it is very difficult to go back and retroactively change the zoning when someone has acquired the land for a certain purpose. • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 4 Ery Wimberly explained that Mr. Burckhart plans 160 units on the 10 acres and it is not for a college student apartment complex. It would be for working adults and one of the prime reasons this site is a good site for apartments is the proximity of shopping center. It has been pointed out that they work on a reactive basis which means that new streets aren't developed until there is a demand for it. He noted that it has always been the policy in the City of Fayetteville that the developers pay their proportional share in improving the streets just as Mr. Burckhart will do here. It was a requirement of the Subdivision Committee that Mr. Burckhart curb, gutter and widen Appleby Road across his frontage and they asked him to give a Bill of Assurance that he would do it across the remaining frontage that he will be purchasing. Mr. Wimberly stated that he would like to reassure the neighbors about their concerns about the traffic. That intersection on Appleby at Jason will be realigned to discourage traffic from going through Regency North. It will be paved the whole way. He asked John Merrell if Perry Franklin had brought up how many cars a day that a 24' wide street would handle. Mr. Merrell stated that he had no information on that from Mr. Franklin. Mr. Wimberly noted that Highway 265 is 24' wide and a recent count by the Highway Department shows that 10,000 vehicles per day travel on Highway 265 at the Joyce Street intersection. He reminded them that this project does have frontage also on Drake Street which is a "major collector" and the portion of it that is constructed is 4 -lanes. Regency North is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and R-0, Residential - Office, and there are 5 vacant R-0 lots & 14 vacant R-2 lots out there on Appleby right now which gives a potential for 220 multi -family units. He advised that if the Planning Commission does not approve this, then they are effectively rezoning this without a proper hearing which would be putting a moratorium on apartment complexes. Commissioner Hanna asked if they had considered not having an exit onto Appleby Road and having two exits on to Drake Street with this project. Mr. Wimberly stated that this had been discussed, but they would prefer not to do that because of the attraction of the vicinity of this to the shopping center. Commissioner Hanna advised that apartments are a conditional use in the R-0, Residential - Office, so if apartments were developed in the R-0 along Appleby Road they would need a Conditional Use. He stated that he doesn't propose a moratorium on apartments, but he can see the traffic problems out there. Commissioner Jacks stated that the question before the Planning Commission is not whether this can be developed as multi -family units, but how they plan to do it. Commissioner Allred asked if the opening of the ingress/egress on Appleby Road until Appleby is totally completed and redone or some portion of it is done. Maybe not doing anything with that ingress/egress until the traffic signal gets put in. Mr. Wimberly stated that they would have a problem with waiting until the portion of Appleby Road that the City has received bids on (the western portion) was finished, but waiting until the traffic light is put in could be 2 or 3 years and a big imposition on the residents of the apartment complex. • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 5 Mr. Burckhart stated that he wouldn't be opposed to delaying the opening of the ingress/egress to Appleby Road until a reasonable time, maybe next spring or summer but not necessarily until the light gets put in. Commissioner Allred asked when Drake Street is scheduled to go on through. Mr. Merrell answered that there is no definite schedule for it to go on through. He added that Mr. Franklin is recommended that a traffic signal be included in the City's 5 -year capital improvement plan and it will go to the Board of Directors for approval in the very near future. Once it is in the plan, there is no guarantee when it will be done , at some point during that 5 years the Board has to option of doing it in the first year or the fifth year. Ery Wimberly stated that the Highway Department will not put up a traffic light until they decide that there is enough traffic there. For instance, when Fiesta Square was developed, the Highway Department would not put up the traffic light until they saw the traffic so it was not put up until the shopping center was well under way. Commissioner Dow stated that they are all going under the assumption that if the light is there, everything will be o.k. and she is not certain that was exactly what Perry Franklin was saying. She stated that she thought he was saying that it would alleviate some of the problem John Merrell stated that he perceives that Perry Franklin has the impression that would help but not be the only solution for all problems. Bonnie Williams of 308 Village Drive stated that she has concerns about whether they will still continue to have adequate sewer, adequate water pressure, and the noise that will come from an apartment complex. She noted that when they do get a light at College, they that live in Regency North will have trouble getting onto Appleby Road. Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee voted 2-0-0 to approve this, but that was prior to some of the information they have received. She noted that there was no opposition at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Commissioner Springborn stated that one of the primary responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to see to the safety, and welfare of the general public in this community. He noted that Mr. Franklin's letter does not satisfy the problem that has been posed by the general residents in the area. Therefore, the very least they need is more information from Perry Franklin. He proposed that this be tabled until they can get more information from Mr. Franklin. What is the maximum time that it can be tabled? Chairman Jacks stated that he didn't think there was a limit on the length of time that a Large Scale development can be tabled. John Merrell stated that he doesn't recall there being a maximum length of time that they can table a Large Scale Development. MOTION • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 6 Commissioner Robertson moved to remove it from the table of last meeting, seconded by Hanna. The motion to remove it from the table passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Seiff stated that whether of not this project is built is not going to change the existing traffic situation on Appleby Road. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to deny this Large Scale Development, seconded by Springborn and followed by a question from Commissioner Dow. Commissioner Dow asked if the Planning Commission does deny this, would they like to make some kind of recommendation about alternatives that are acceptable or should they just vote on it. Commissioner Seiff stated that he is willing to discuss it. Commissioner Springborn stated that they don't have a complete picture of the traffic analysis. Chairman Jacks stated that they do have a traffic situation that this project could very easily compound, but on the other hand, he doesn't think they want an apartment project of this size with only one exit or an exit in only one direction. The motion to deny failed 4-4-0. Commissioner Nash stated that one of the things that has been going on in Fayetteville is that they accept Bills of Assurance from developers in lieu of off-site improvements the idea being that when the City comes up with the money for the other side of the road, the developers will pitch in and do theirs. In a lot of cases, what happens is that nothing ever happens. The developers have fulfilled the ordinance requirements by offering the Bill of Assurance, but the off-site improvements aren't ever accomplished. She advised that she would like Mr. Franklin or whoever is in charge of this, to search through the files on all this land and see exactly what is in the till and what can be done right now. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this until they could hear from Perry Franklin as an expert on this matter, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that when they come back, he would vote in favor of this project if they did not open the entrance to Appleby Road until Appleby Road is paved, completed and until they have the traffic study and some kind of an idea of when Drake Street is going to go through. And the entrance not be opened until they permission from the Planning Commission to open it. Commissioner Dow added that in the information they get from Mr. Franklin, if they could have possible alternatives of alleviating this problem. • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 7 The motion to table passed 7-1-0 with Seiff voting "no". APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF GRAUE ADDITION BILL GRADE - W OF OLD WIRE ROAD & E OF HILLDALE DRIVE The second item of consideration on the agenda was approval of a Final Plat of Graue Addition submitted by Bill Graue and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers. Property located west of Old Wire Road and east of Hilldale drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, with 2.29 acres and 7 proposed lots. Commissioner Dow stated that on February 8th the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of the Graue Addition and there was a restriction placed on it that only two exits could be onto Old Wire Road. On September 7th when the Subdivision Committee looked at this final plat, there were three exits proposed. Therefore, they tabled it until they could correct this. The Subdivision reviewed it again on the 21st of September and the plat had only two exits as had been originally intended. Therefore, the Subdivision Committee approved it subject to Plat Review comments and to obtaining a variance that is needed on the lot frontage. She asked the Elaine Cattaneo, the Planning Secretary, if she had determined what board or committee would have to grant such a variance. Mrs. Cattaneo stated that she had talked to Jim McCord and he had stated that the Board of Adjustment have to grant a variance to the frontage requirement. Commissioner Dow advised that the tandem lot had been approved some time ago. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve this final plat subject to Plat Review comments and providing that the variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment, seconded by Robertson. Commissioner Hanna stated that they couldn't do anything with Lot 5 because it isn't big enough. Harry Gray stated that it would either be included with Lot 4 or deeded to the church on the north side. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this subdivision. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEWIS BROTHERS LEASING - W OF N COLLEGE ALONG THE N SIDE OF LONGVIEW The third item of consideration on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale development Plan Lewis Chrysler Dealership submitted by Lewis Brothers Leasing and represented by David Powers. Property located west of North College along 83 • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 8 the north side of Longview and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee approved this Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review comments and they added that they would recommend that a Bill of Assurance be accepted for the widening of the street past the entrance and exit on Longview. She stated that they will widen, it up to that point and there will be a Bill of Assurance for widening past that. She noted that they needed to bring their proof of notification. David Powers gave the notification to the Planning Secretary. He noted that they had indicated that the portion of the street that would be widened down to the point on past actually where it is presently widened across the street at Color Tile. Therefore, it is going on beyond to the second drive or entrance onto the property. He advised that there was some concern about the trees at the rezoning hearing and several of the trees have been retained. Also, the high pressure gas line was another concern and that has been worked out with Arkansas Western Gas to relocate it on the west side of the property in a utility easement. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this proposal. Albert Erbach of 767 Longview stated that the street widening on that only goes about half the distance of the lot that has been rezoned. He asked why it isn't going all the way. Chairman Jacks stated that only a portion of the property is being developed and it has been their custom to get off-site improvements along with development. Mr. Erbach stated that the R-0 lot is going to be used as a parking lot, so it is being developed along with this building so why isn't the street being widened. Commissioner Dow stated that they had felt that the traffic would be coming in the front entrance/exit and they had accepted a Bill of Assurance so that if the City calls for that to be widened or if there is a point in time that it was felt that it should be widened, they would widen it. Mr. Erbach stated that when the rezoning took place ,they had been assured at the Board meeting that there would be some sort of screening put up and he doesn't see anything on this plan that addresses that situation. Commissioner Dow stated that there is a nice hedge on the west side of the property that they have agreed to leave. Mr. Erbach stated that he is across the street so that hedge doesn't do anything for him. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission had denied the rezoning and the Board had approved it. He asked what the Board had said about the screening. Mr. Powers answered as he understands it, Mr. Erbach's property is somewhat diagonally located not directly across from this. Tom Lewis stated that they had said that they would make every effort that they could to leave as much green landscaping and some type of a landscape screen. He noted that they have made an effort to leave two different groups of trees and they will leave that 4' hedge. • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 9 Commissioner Seiff stated that the trees Mr. Lewis spoke about are back behind a fence so Mr. Erbach will see the fence. He asked if there is anything that can be done in their jurisdiction to require that fence to be screened. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't think that screening ordinance requires screening in this situation. Commissioner Dow stated that she agrees that she doesn't think it addressed this but if there was any specifics made at the Board meeting they minutes need to be researched. MOTION Commissioner Dow moved to approve this subject to Plat Review comments, the City Board minutes be researched and if there were any requirements for screening put on that they be done in that manner, and a Bill of Assurance for widening the street past the entrance, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Nash & Seiff voting "no". Chairman Jacks asked if there would be any objection to moving the fifth item up and review it at this time before they look at item 4. •PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING R88-16 BILL LAZENBY - SW CORNER OF OLD WIRE RD & TOWNSHIP The fifth item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning request IIR88-16 submitted by Bill Lazenby and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property is located at the southwest corner of Old Wire Road and Township Road including 1.1 acres. The request is to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell stated that the Planning staff has prepared a report to the City Planning Commission in which they have tried to look at some of the background on this rezoning request and point out some of the facts that seem to be common among newly constructed convenience stores. Generally, a new convenience store is constructed at a minimum of about 1,600 square feet. Often times they have self-service gas pumps and sometimes they have some sort of food service. He noted that this area is just about exclusively single-family residential and is zoned R-1. There are convenience stores located on North College and one on Mission Boulevard and there is no commercial development within about a mile and a half radius of this site. He stated that they do recommend that the Planning Commission deny the rezoning. Commissioner Nash stated that it hasn't been too long ago since they denied a conditional use at this property brought by Daggett Landscaping because they didn't want the extra 2 or 3 pickup trucks added at this point. Therefore, in all consistency they need to remember that they did turn that down. • Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates stated that the reason for this meeting is to attempt to get the property at this particular location rezoned. He stated ail • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 10 that he would be the first to admit that he agreeing with the fact that it may ought to understand the concern of the neighbors and would like to point out that his business is not exactly real comfortable in go commercial. He stated that he can other people in the audience, but he is engineering and surveying and they assist in rezoning requests. He noted that they are doing their very best to not offend anybody and look for a solution to what the owner of the property feels is a little bit of a problem. The problem being that it is a very busy intersection and the intersection is going to be improved and a light put in. From their standpoint, they are looking at having to sell a piece of property right here to someone who isn't exactly going to like a flashing light in their front yard. He stated that they are requesting Neighborhood Commercial with the point being is it residential any longer. Vernon Tarver stated that the a convenience store had never been mentioned so he didn't know how that got in to it. He noted that the City has taken 6,000 feet that they have taken from that lot for the right turn signal and a traffic light is certainly needed there. He stated that this corner is not suitable for single family. Commissioner Springborn stated that when this area was subdivided, he noted that there was a house on the lot in question. He' asked if the house is still there. Mr. Tarver answered, yes. Commissioner Springborn advised that he had asked at that time if the lot division was designed to accommodate that house. Mr. Tarver stated that the first plan was to have that divided into 7 lots but because of the land taken for the right turn at that intersection so it has reverted back to 3 lots now. Chairman Jacks asked if there was any one person who was speaking for the large number of audience members who were opposed to this. Donald Market of 1315 Cardinal Drive stated that it seems that there should be a very compelling reason to rezone a lot of 1.1 acres from it traditional use that is in the City Master Plan to some other kind of use in this case C-1. He stated that they had thought in terms of this being a convenience and they understand now that it may not be so that makes it even more compelling to turn this down because they don't know what it is going to do. He stated that there is a traffic problem there and there is a safety factor here. He noted that this is a stable residential area and it is growing. The existence of the high traffic in this area is not a compelling reason to change the zoning and they recommend that the commission turn down the request. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to deny the rezoning, seconded by Seiff. The motion to deny passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WILSON INN • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 11 E MMONS WILSON COMPANIES - ALONG THE W SIDE OF SHILOH, N OF HWY 16 W The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan for Wilson Inn submitted by Kemmons Wilson Companies and represented by Ery Wimberly of Northwest Engineers. Property located along the west side of Shiloh Drive north of Highway 16 West (Wedington) and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with 3.2 acres. Commissioner Dow stated that the Subdivision Committee approved it as submitted subject to Plat Review minutes with no recommendation on what to do about the widening of Shiloh because it was unclear as to whether it was a City or a State street which was to be researched. Chairman Jacks stated then if it is a City street they could require off-site improvements. John Merrell advised that it is a State road and state maintained. Charlotte Smith of 104 Dorothy Jeane asked if there would be another exit out of this area because it is hard to get out on Wedington Drive and this will just complicate matters. She also asked if there will be a buffer between Dorothy Jeane and this hotel. Ery Wimberly stated that there is a buffer which is 500' of R-2 land between this and Dorothy Jeane. As far as another access out, the original owner of this property, Mr. Bowen, bought additional property to the west before the bypass was widened to have more access to Highway 16. Then the state made the Bypass a 4 - lane and bought additional right-of-way so he has no more frontage on Highway 16. Prior to that he had 150' of frontage on Highway 16. Therefore, at this point in time there is no provision for any other access. As development occurs this will be extending on to the north and tying into to West Point Subdivision. Mrs. Smith stated that the people in the neighborhood had understood when this was rezoned to Thoroughfare Commercial that was one stipulation that it have another access. Commissioner Dow asked when this was rezoned. Mr. Wimberly stated that they actually tried to dig out the exact ordinance and had no luck. At this point they have no way of providing another access. Mrs. Smith stated that where Dorothy Jeane turns into Florene, there is a road right-of-way or street that has been set aside and it could go west over to that new addition. Mr. Wimberly stated that she is talking about Walnut Grove and there is a quarter of mile of land in between with a street right-of-way stuck out of Walnut Grove. Mrs. Smith stated that it is really difficult to get out onto Wedington Drive there because you have traffic coming from several different directions. Commissioner Nash stated that when this was rezoned if there was a Bill of Assurance dictating egress/ingress it would go with the land. She noted that this needs to be researched to find out if there was something like this. Mr. Wimberly stated that when the Highway Department redid the entrance to Giles • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 12 Road (Shiloh Drive) which was rebuilt twice, they bought additional right-of-way and moved the intersection to the West. Originally, the intersection was farther East, so Mr. Bowen bought 150' of additional property so he would have frontage for another access. After the rezoning, is when the State came back and bought more right-of-way and moved the frontage road farther west. Chairman Jacks stated that originally they were guaranteeing another access into Highway 16, but in the meantime, the Highway Department has taken the land. Commissioner Nash stated that if the land has a Bill of Assurance on it, they need to know that before they make a decision. Mr. Wimberly suggested that they approve this subject to any Bill of Assurance that might have been signed on that time. Commissioner Hanna stated that there is a intersection. He stated that this hotel worst. bad traffic could cause He noted that he was surprised that the Traffic the meeting to look at this. He advised that there is a the West of this that if it were developed with it there coming out down there to give them a second exit on Highway 16 West. problem there at that the traffic to be a lot Superintendent wasn't at piece of C-2 property to could be another street Commissioner Dow stated that he was concerned about the traffic, but at the Subdivision Committee she was thinking about the Master Plan where is it recommended that these major type of developments be put at the major nodes such as this intersection. Her concern was that if they couldn't put it there, where could they put it. Mr. Wimberly stated that he didn't think it was fair to deny the use of this property until the Highway Department comes in there and make improvements and puts a traffic light at that intersection. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review comments, with a very strong recommendation that the Traffic Superintendent Review the congestion problem out there and that this be researched to see if there are any Bills of Assurance attached to this land, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Hanna voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-15 OTTO & ANNA WOLF - N OF W OLD FARMINGTON RD The sixth item of consideration on the agenda was a rezoning petition R88-15 submitted by Otto and Anna Wolf and represented by Larry Baggett for 3.29 acres located along the north side of West Old Farmington Road, east of the One Mile Road intersection. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low eco • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 13 Density Residential. Chairman Jacks advised that a lot split had been approved for this property at the last meeting. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that this property had been split in half with a single family house to be built on each lot. He stated that the staff recommends approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-1. Larry Baggett stated that the agenda has 1.65 acres but the total 3.29 acres is being rezoned. Chairman Jacks if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this proposal. The public hearing was closed MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-1 as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion to recommend approval passed 8-0-0. • PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING R88-17 MADELYN SKELTON - 729 WEST 6TH STREET The seventh item of consideration on the agenda was a rezoning petition R88-17 submitted by Madelyn Skelton for property located at 729 West 6th Street containing approximately 9,150 square feet. Request was for a rezoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell stated that they pointed out in the report is that this is somewhat in transition. There is quite a mix of existing land uses there including single-family houses, two family units, mobile homes, some multi -family and several businesses. As a matter of fact ,several of those businesses have failed in that area. He noted that they are concerned on this rezoning because it is a lot which is about 61.5' wide. There is a house on the lot now, the proposed use of the property would be to operate some sort of Flea Market with possibly the sell of antiques. There concern is along the lines of traffic, they envision a situation where if the business were reasonably successful there is not really enough room to provide any sort of off-street parking. There is a dirt driveway that enters the property now which might cause a situation where people are backing out into the street there. He noted, however, that they do feel that there is some case for possibly looking at this strip along West 6th Street in terms of the general plan and the new zoning ordinance in the future early next year. In terms of looking at this whole area and possibly doing a transition of the zoning over to commercial of some sort. He stated that C-1 might fit the area a little better. Another problem is that the zoning ordinance does not specifically address a flea market 87 • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 14 type operation. He noted that they felt that C-2 fit the Flea Market best. Chairman Jacks stated that they can anticipate the widening and upgrading of 6th Street because it is on the list, but is it logically to assume that most of the property might be acquired by the Highway Department in that process. Mr. Merrell stated that it is logical to assume that some of the property will be acquired. Chairman Jacks noted that it would be more valuable in that case as C- 2 than R-2 which raises the question as to whether a part of the rezoning request having to do with the relative value of the property. Arthur Skelton of 832 Stone Street stated that he had talked to all the neighbors around this and none of them objected to this at all in fact at least four of them thought this was already commercial property. He noted that he had talked to Larry Wood about this and he said that he personally didn't have any objection to going down to the railroad tracks with commercial zoning, but he didn't want to change it any farther than that. He advised that they don't have any intention of running a full-blown Flea Market there, they only want to operate about 2 days a week. Commissioner Hanna asked if the house was occupied now. Mr. Skelton answered, no, they had been selling stuff from there for about 3 months until they were told they could not do that there. Therefore, they wanted to get it rezoned so they could sell from there to supplement their income. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against this. John Merrell stated that he would like to clarify one thing on Larry Wood. He noted that he did discuss this with Mr. Wood and he doesn't think it is fair to say that Larry Wood is in favor of this rezoning. They had talked about the possibility that maybe in the new Plan and the Zoning Ordinances, this area as a whole could comprehensively be rezoned. Commissioner Seiff asked when the General Plan would be in effect. Mr. Merrell stated that they have a deadline of December 1st to have the first draft of that to them. Then there will be a review and an adoption process of a couple of months at least. Right now they are looking at a draft contract that was submitted to them to prepare the new zoning ordinance and several other ordinances such as the landscaping ordinance and those would be initiated in the late winter to early spring and be completed sometime next year. Commissioner Seiff noted that it would probably take at least a year before this area would fit into the new zoning plan. Commissioner Hanna asked if there was no way to let them have a conditional use to do this on that piece of property without having to rezone it to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Merrell answered, no, not in the R-2 zoning. Commissioner Hanna stated that it looks like the fact that the City came by and told them that they could not have a yard sale has created a hardship which forces the Planning Commission to be looking at a rezoning for a piece of • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 15 property they would prefer not to be voting on. Commissioner Seiff stated that he feels that piece of property will be recommended for commercial zoning in the new General Plan. MOTION Setff moved to grant the rezoning, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion. Commissioner Dow asked if someone in Fayetteville wants to have a yard sale don't they have to call the City and follow certain procedures. Chairman Jacks stated that he wouldn't try to answer for the City, but he has the feeling that this is gotten to be the situation where they are maybe identifying someone who does this time after time. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thought it would be appropriate for whoever told them to cease with their yard sales to tell the Planning Commission so they would have some idea of what was going on. Commissioner Allred stated that an Antique Shop is permissible in an R-2 zoning by Conditional Use. He asked if this would not fit in that category. If so they could grant a Conditional Use and not rezone it. Mrs. Skelton stated that they would not be selling antiques. Commissioner Robertson noted that since there is not a provision for a Flea Market listed in the zoning ordinance according to Mr. Merrell, could they not Just grant a Conditional Use for a Flea Market. Commissioner Seiff retracted his motion and Commissioner Nash retracted her seconded. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant a Conditional Use for a Antique Shop, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING R88-18 DAVID FERGUSON- NE CORNER OF STONE BRIDGE RD & HWY 16 E The eighth item of consideration on the agenda was a rezoning request R88-18 for David Ferguson. Property located at the northeast corner of Stone Bridge Road and Highway 16 East and including approximately 3 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, the Planning Director, stated that the Fergusons want to have this rezoned in order to build an office building and an accessory warehouse on the site. He noted that Highway 16 East has not been a very good example of planning and development as is pointed out in the staff report. There are a lot of examples of small rezonings that have been done in that corridor. They don't ea • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 16 think it is serious enough to go ahead and recommend strip commercial zoning all the way out to Lake Sequoyah, but they do think that some restraint should be used in granting rezonings. He advised that they are recommending that this rezoning be approved for essentially about half of the property which would be about the first 300' of frontage east of Stone Bridge with a 200' depth. Mr. Merrell stated that according to the sketch plan that the Fergusons have submitted, they don't appear to have any immediate plans to use that eastern 300'. It would be the staff's preference that should the day come that they owuld like to use that 300' that they approach the City and have it rezoned. In that way, the City will know what is proposed for the property at that time. Chairman Jacks clarified that he is recommended the west 300'. David Ferguson of 528 Stone Bridge Road stated that the reason for wanting to rezone the whole property to have a little flexibility in sitting his building on the property He advised that there is a ravine right close to Stone Bridge Road that the storm water from Stone Bridge runs down through. Therefore, there may not be quite enough room for the building between that drainage and Stone Bridge Road. Chairman Jacks asked if they had any idea how many feet (a dimension) they might like to rezone if the Planning Commission doesn't want to rezone the whole thing. Mr. Ferguson stated that 300' is plenty but the first 300' may not be the amount that he needs because of the drainage. He noted that he would settle for 300' along there somewhere. Commissioner Dow asked if he would object to tabling this and giving him an answer next week. Mr. Ferguson answered that he would like to get started on this as soon as possible. Chairman Jacks if anyone wanted to speak to this proposal. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning for the 3 acres as requested, seconded by Nash Commissioner Dow noted that she is in favor of rezoning it, but she would like to go with staff recommendation so she would vote against it for that reason. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Ferguson if he had any intentions of subdividing that lot. Mr. Ferguson answered, no. Commissioner Hanna noted that they are going to use it all for themselves and since there isn't a plat for them to look at showing a particular piece to be rezoned, he doesn't see any reason to not rezone the whole piece. Commissioner Nash advised that it is real hard for her to come to terms with a rezoning having merit but only a portion of it be granted. She noted that she • • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 17 feels that if it does have merit, they should go with it. The motion to recommend the rezoning for the 3 acres passed 7-1-0 with Dow voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING R88-19 JIM HATFffi.D-W OF LRE AVE & E OF N COLLEGE The ninth item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning R88- 19 submitted by Jim Hatfield for a portion of Lot 1,Lots 2 & 3 of Maple Crest Addition along the west side of Lee Avenue containing approximately .81 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, the Planning Director, stated that although these lots front on Lee Avenue they back up to some of the commercial businesses there on North College which is one reason they feel that in all likelihood that the lots would never be developed as single-family even though they were originally part of a single- family subdivision. He added that they do understand that there are some restrictive covenants on those lots, however, traditionally cities have not been in a position of enforcing a restrictive covenant. He noted that a lot across the street from this was rezoned to R-0, Residential -Office, not long ago for a Child Care business. He advised that he as the Planning Director is a little bit reluctant to recommend a rezoning when they really don'tknow what they are going to end up with. Therefore, he took a conservative approach on this. He noted that in the City where he came to Fayetteville from he was accustomed to requiring a site plan or a sketch plan of some sort to be included with the rezoning application. This property is obviously in close proximity to houses in the Maple Crest Subdivision. Chairman Jacks stated that they have understood that it is illegal in the State of Arkansas to require a sketch of the proposed use of the land when considering a rezoning. That would be contract zoning. He advised that their duty here is to decide if the property is suitable for C-2 or R-1. Mr. Merrell stated that he was not aware that it was illegal. He noted that the rezoning that was just considered had included a very rough sketch plan submitted by the applicant as part of that proposal. He stated that he is saying that when an applicant comes to the City and applies for a rezoning, no matter how well intended he may be, to a certain extent he is challenging the validity of the zoning ordinance for that particular piece of property. Most professional planners like to see whether the applicant can show that his proposal will work under the various zoning regulations for that particular zone. He noted that they certainly wouldn't require architectural drawings, drainage plans and that type of thing, but a sketch plan showing the boundaries of the lot, where the building is going to be located, ingress/egress and off-street parking. Chairman Jacks stated that he feels Mr. Merrell should talk to Jim McCord, the City Attorney, about this. He noted that he would be glad to talk to Mr. McCord about it, but he wanted to clarify that he is not saying that the rezoning be conditioned upon the details of that plan which would be contract zoning. • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 18 Larry Wood stated that he didn't think Mr. McCord would necessarily object to a sketch plan as a part of the application, but he felt he would object to it being conditional upon this. He advised that the only problem he has is that the applicant is not obligated to tell you under rezoning petition what the use is to be. Chairman Jacks stated that perhaps they could discuss this later with Mr. McCord because he would like to know more. Mr. Merrell stated that he would like to know more also such as how does contract zoning differs from a Bill of Assurance. Jim Hatfield of 2790 Golden Eagle Drive stated that they are discussing a portion of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 in Maple Crest Subdivision. He noted that they presently own the Fire Stone Building which fronts on North College Avenue and backs up almost to this property and they are negotiating on some other property that joins this. Their intention is if they build something on this to face it toward the parking lot of the shopping center in exchange for straightening up the street and making it curved into the front of what used to be Wyatt's Cafeteria. Unless the property is rezoned, he has not leverage to go to the owners of the shopping center and make an exchange for access and regress to face something to the North. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood if there wasn't something when the shopping center was built that the City would not permit this street to be opened for fear of encroaching on this residential neighborhood with commercial. Somewhere in the process that stretch was graveled. However, the City has always refused to really acknowledge it is there. At this time, Mr. Hatfield is proposing that it become a bonafide street. Commissioner Hanna stated that one of the neighbors brought him a copy of the protective covenants for that subdivision dated December 1st, 1957 which says "for a period of 25 years from the date hereof at which time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless by vote of the majority of the owners of the lots, it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part". Therefore, if he doesn't have permission of the majority of the owners of the lots in that subdivision, he is breaking the covenants which are saying that before any of these lots can be used for anything other than residential he has to have that permission. According to the covenants, they have a right to prosecute. Mr. Hatfield stated that the people in that neighborhood, almost without exception, use that street and the only way they can justify upgrading it from a gravel street to a safer paved street is to be able to have the property where they can get some return on investment out of it. He noted that the Day Care Center to the east of this is zoned R-0, Residential -Office, and it is a natural buffer between the residential area and this property. Commissioner Seiff stated that they should find out if the street exists legally or not before they vote on this. Mr. Hatfield stated that the original plat shows the street existing. • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 19 Commissioner Hanna stated that when the protective covenants are presented to the Planning Commission (even though the City in not in the business of enforcing them) prohibiting certain activities which be changed by rezoning it, does that make them liable. Mr. Merrell stated that he doesn't see how it possibly could because those covenants are agreements between two parties. Commissioner Hanna stated that when they are presented with the covenants have they not become a third party. Commissioner Allred stated that this area appears to be in a transition and anything that is done on it would be an improvement. He stated that he wouldn't be opposed to R-0, Residential -Office, there to buffer, but he doesn't know about C-2. He suggested that maybe they should table this and look at that street there because the whole side of Lee Avenue needs to be straightened up. Mr. Hatfield stated that Lot 5 is already being used as commercial and Lots 6 & 7 has a Fire Station on it. Commissioner Springborn stated that suppose the City looked at this street and said they don't recognize that it goes past Bertha Street, would that change Mr. Hatfield's plans. Mr. Hatfield stated that the people use that now, it is already a street. Part of their intention is to improve that street because it is a hazard right now with the gravel and being used as a race track for kids coming down it. Chairman Jacks stated that he would like to see the City's position on the street and whether it exists at all and if it doesn't or does what do they think should happen. Commissioner Dow stated that she is concerned about Lot 4, their is a residence there. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this. Janet Ricker of 3255 Lee Avenue (Lot 4 and the north 5'of Lot 5) stated that she has called the Police routinely about speeders racing up and down that street. Mr. Hatfield is proposing improving the road there which would alleviate the dust problem. The City for the past 8 years has graded, maintained, leveled, and brush -hogged that piece of property. If they don't legally own it, they own it by estoppel. She stated that she realizes that the highest and best use of that property at this point in time is commercial although she doesn't particularly want to live in a commercial area. At least Mr. Hatfield would clean up the area, get rid of the dust problem and the aggravation of the speeding traffic there. She stated that there is going to have to be a stop to this and if what he is proposing to do is at least to upgrade the area, then maybe it is not in the worst interest of that area. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Ricker if she owned that Lot 4. Ms. Ricker stated that she does not own it legally, but she has lived, paid the insurance & taxes, and maintained it for the last 8 years and hasn't heard from the owner during that time. Commissioner Seiff asked if Mr. Hatfield builds a building facing • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 20 North then the back of the building is going to face her house, how does she feel about that. She answered that there is a possibility of a privacy fence there. Commissioner Seiff stated that since Ms. Ricker is not the legal owner, should she have received the adjoining property notification instead of it going to the legal owner. Ms. Ricker stated that she is the legal agent for the owner. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Hatfield if he was offering to pave the unpaved portion of Lee Avenue if this is rezoned to C-2. Mr. Hatfield stated that he believed that is the responsibility of the people who have property that fronts on the street. Wasn't there a Bill of Assurance when the Day Care Center was rezoned to improve there portion of it. Mr. Hatfield stated that he would say that before a building permit was enacted on the property, that the street would be curbed, guttered and paved. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to table this for 2 weeks until 1) Mr. McCord can give them a written opinion on the legal existence of the street, 2) if in fact the protective covenants are binding on the Planning Commission and 3)if the Planning Commission and staff may require a site plan in consideration of a rezoning, seconded by Dow and followed by discussion. Commissioner Hanna stated that he would like to have an answer from Mr. McCord as to whether they should change a zoning that violates a protective covenant when the covenant has been presented to the Planning Commission by a resident. Commissioner Allred stated that when the rezoning across the street took place in April of this year, she had requested C-1 and they granted R-0 and there was no mention of any off-site improvements or Bill of Assurances. Chairman Jacks stated that the original action took place many years ago when the house was built there. He stated that he is relunctant to get into commercial zoning up and down Lee Street because of the residents around there. A buffer zone such as R-0 might be more appropriate. The motion to table this passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Item 81 Chairman Jacks stated that because they received the agenda so late this time, he has asked Elaine and Becky in the Planning Office to take whatever steps that are needed to alleviate the problem of not having the Planning Commission agenda ready for them on Wednesday evening or by Thursday morning. Item 82 Chairman Jacks stated that he had received a letter from a Mrs. Martin who is • • • Planning Commission September 26, 1988 Page 21 commenting on an application for a Conditional Use permit by John W. King. This will be on the agenda next time. Item #3 Chairman Jacks advised that he also has letter that he received from Mr. Brandon but he hasn't had a chance to read yet. He advised that Mr. Brandon had been before the Planning Commission concerning what the light at the intersection of Drake Street and North Street would do. Item #4 Chairman Jacks stated that he would like to ask Commissioner Seiff to join the Subdivision Committee which has Commissioner Dow, Nash and Robertson as the current members. He noted that Commissioner Seiff has agreed to join up for the rest of they year at least to give them an additional member to vote on subdivisions and large scale developments. MINUTES The minutes of the September 12, 1988, were approved as mailed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE • TO: John Merrill, Planning Management Administrator FROM: Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintende THRU: Mike Beaty, Public Works Director DATE: September 26, 1988 RE: Appleby Road Traffic Volumes We received shipment of two accumulating traffic counters, Friday, September 23, 1988. In order to give you some kind of an idea what kind of traffic volume now exist on Appleby Road, we placed these counters there this morning at 8:30 am By 4:00 pm this afternoon we had counted a total of 1137 vehicles going both directions at the counter location just west of the Hwy 71B and Appleby Road intersection. I realize this count is only an approximation of existing traffic volumes. I will get you an average 24- hour count on Appleby Road this week. As you know, a couple of developments have come through the Plat review committee recently. Both of these developments will generate traffic onto Appleby Road. However, both developments (Village Inn Apartments & North Hills Medical Park) will have other means of ingress & egress. Village Inn Apartments will have access to Hwy 71B on Drake Street and will also have access west to Gregg Avenue when Drake Street is extended. North Hills Medical Park will have direct access to the Bypass and another access to Hwy 71B when Milsap Road is extended. I spent some time last week observing traffic flow at Appleby Road & Hwy 71B. Because Appleby Road connects Hwy 71B & Gregg Street, the existing residential development must use Appleby Road as an outlet. I observed Northbound cars turning North across the Wal-Mart parking lot to get to the existing traffic signal and Southbound cars jumping the curb on Appleby Road to go South on Hwy 71B (this has happened so often, there is actually a visible road). John, I feel that we have a traffic problem on Appleby Road at its intersection with Hwy 71B whether there is future development or not. I am so sure that we will need some type of traffic control at this intersection coordinated with the Rolling Hills Drive traffic signal, I have included a signal for this intersection in my 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. We must make plans now to handle future traffic volume increases that will most certainly occur on Appleby Road. I hope this information will be helpful to the Planning Commission when they make their decisions which will effect Fayetteville's future. If I can help you in any other way please don't hesitate to call.