Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-25 - Agendas - Final• • • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS AGENDA !OR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 25, 1989 at 5:0O p.m., in the City Administration Building, Directors Room second floor, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. BUSINESS: 1. Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1989. 2. REZONING R89-23: Submitted by Don Ward. Property located at 2015 Huntsville Rd and containing 1 acre. Request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential - Office. 3. CONDITIONAL USE: Mini - Storage. Submitted by Lawrence Starr for property located North of Township & East of College Ave. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 5 acres. 4. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT: MINI - STORAGE. Submitted by Lawrence Starr for property located North of Township & East of College Ave. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 5 acres. 5. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT: CHRISTIAN LIFE CATHEDRAL. Submitted by Red Dixon and represented by Dave Jorgensen for property located at 1285 Millsap Rd. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. 6. LOT SPLITS 1 & 2: Submitted by Charles Dunaway on behalf of Johnny Dockery for property located on Dockery Lane, north of Huntsville Rd & east of Ray Ave. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. 7. LOT SPLIT 1: Submitted by Gary Renager & James Tinnin for property located at 1831 Green Acres Rd. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 8. Fayetteville - Farmington Growth Area Boundary. 9. OTHER BUSINESS. 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 521-7700 FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE • • To: Planning Commission From: City Engineer Date: September 19, 1989 Subject: Fayetteville -Farmington Growth Area/City Limit Boundary Proposed Changes Several months ago the City of Farmington was annex large area located north and west of it's Limits. That precipitated some discussion between Farmington as to the location of the Fayetteville's Farmington's Growth Area and the relationship of annexation to those lines. proposing to present City the City and Growth Area, the proposed In the Staff's research of the City's Growth Area it was found that the Growth Area was established prior to 1970 and was revised somewhat in 1974 when it was decided to extend water into the growth area. It has been amended by the City Board from time to time since then mainly in response to requests for water service. As far as I have been able to find, there was no agreement between Fayetteville and Farmington at the time which established the Growth Area Boundary. Apparently the Growth Area for Fayetteville was established unilaterally. Around 1980 the City of Farmington had a Growth Area drawn up and it was submitted to the Fayetteville Planning Commission. There were several meetings on the subject with final approval delayed until Farmington could establish ordinances and regulations which would adequately control growth and development within their proposed Growth Area. It was noted that when that was done, Fayetteville would have to modify their Growth Area to accommodate Farmington. I have included minutes of those meetings for your review. The matter has not been brought to the Planning Commission since then, nor has it been to the City Board of Directors. • • • • I have attached a Plat which shows the Fayetteville/Farmington area and the lines that have been tentatively agreed upon between the two Cities. As can be seen on the Plat, the existing Growth Area Boundary (the Fayetteville version) pretty much lines up with the Farmington City Limits on their north and east sides. The compromise line divides the area lying north of Highway 62 West and south of Highway 16 West between the two Cities. On the southeast side of Farmington the City of Fayettville is giving up some additional area to Farmington. It is the recommendation of the Staff that the Planning Commission approve and pass on to the Board of Director the division of Growth Areas as presented. NITE ROCK 7 { ZcPo.9EG_rARM1 Ti14_ —Cote PoSArE-LI.M_I.TS El* w r • •• FARMINGTON P. l2U • '0S' Sii r c Pn9Eb PAW 1 NCS ohl LIMIt _ i 19 Fi?M/A/GTa U - FAYE17FV/GGr Geon diet gouvvhriey • Planning Commission April 14, 1980 - Page 4 eg Anderson seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following vo recorded: .'Ayes" Hunnicutt, Crocker, Newhouse, Jacks, Anderson Redfern; "Nays" Cullers. (6-1-0) Mr. Cullers stated that he was opposed to taking any action at this time because he thought the Commission should wait until Mr. Mitchell has more exact plan\ what he plans to do. Martin Redfern and Windell Cullers reported that they DRIVEWAY STANDARDS had studied the driveway standards and had consulted Committee Report with Claud Prewitt. Mr. Redfern said that Mr. Prewitt was not in total agreement with the Commm t`ee's recommendation, but had said he "could live with it." The recommendation was that all single family residences be required to have driveways constructed of a "durable and dustless" material, but to allow a builder or owner to petition for a variance under unusual circumstances such as an extraordinarily large lot. Following a discuss44 period, Don Hunnicutt moved that nomchanges be made in the present ord fiances on driveways. Peg Anderson secondedihe,potion. Elizabeth Crocker stated that she feels the present ordinances do need to be clarified< They�dte was taken and the motion was approved 5-1-1 with Hunnicutt, Newhouse, Jefks, Anderson, Cullers voting "Aye"; Crocker voting "Nay"; and Redfern abstaining. Chairman Jacks reported that he had met with the FARMINGTON PLANNING AREA Chairman of the Planning Commission of Farmington. He said they were proposing to adopt a Planning Area Boundary for Farmington which would overlap Fayetteville's. If they do, Fayetteville must consider vacating part of their Planning Area. Mr. Jacks reported that Farmington is supposed to submit some material and a map O to Fayetteville for consideration. Cha•€rman Jacks reported that he, Martin Redfern and Keit�DOWNTOWN FAYETTEVILLE NewhousdWad-attended a meeting on Downtown Fayetteville UNLIMITED Unlimited. He said the -Commission will be..gett ni g a proposal from DFU to consider broadening it`s-Cental Business District and to open up the zoning -of -the Central Business.District areas. T1421.9ng no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35-"PnM._ • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 9 the Church was not in session. Mr. Howell stated that the CCeenter_would-gear"its activitic around those of the Church so that no conflict would=occur. Windell Cullers moved that theof-f-'site parking proposal be approved and Don Hunnicutt seconded,it=was—unanimous The next item of business was the proposed CITY OF FARMINGTON PLANNING AREA amendment to the Planning Area for the City of Farmington. The two "additions" shown on the drawing are presently in the designated Planning Area for the City of Fayetteville; and, if approved, Fayetteville must decide whether to hold a public hearing amending its Planning Area. Chairman Jacks said that he had met with Mr. Burkett, Chairman of the Farmington Planning Commission. Mr. Jacks said that he understood that the State Law provides for each City to exercise its extra territorial jurisdiction to an equidistant point, between cities, which Fayetteville was:;beyond. Farmington now wanted to claim some of that property, but would remain at least equidistant. Mr. Jacks said that Farmington wanted to give Fayetteville back some of the land to the North of Hwy. 16 West where Wedington Woods is. Bobbie Jones said that at this time that land around Wedington Woods was not in Fayetteville's Planning Area. Mr. Jacks said that Farmington was planning on omitting it from their Planning Area. Bobbie Jones asked if this land, which Farmington wants to take out of Fayetteville's Planning Area is in the Fayetteville Water Service Area. Mr. Jacks replied that it was. Mort Gitelman asked if the projected growth area was designed to coincide with the Water Service Area. Bobbie Jones stated she understood it was. At this time Frank Blew arrived. Mort Gitelman said that if this does not effect Fayetteville's Water Service Plan that he did not find anything wrong with giving the land back to Farmington. Mr. Gitelman said that when Fayetteville retreated from the five mile Planning Area Russ Purdy had equated the Planning Growth Area with Fayetteville's projected Water Service Area. He wondered what Fayetteville's Water Service Area is in regard to going West. Frank Blew said that presently Fayetteville's Water System goes along the West side of Double Springs Road and that it stops there about one and one-half miles South of Hwy. 16 West. Fayetteville's growth area is about 520 ft. West of the centerline of Double Springs Road. Ernest Jacks asked Frank Blew if Fayetteville's Water District was in the area that Farmington wanted back and Frank Blew replied that it was Frank Blew said that his office had been asked to assist the Farmington Planning Commission in preparing Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations. He said the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission was assisting greatly in these regards Morton Gitelman said that he would like to get a recommendation from the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Gitelman said that he would not like to see Fayetteville relinquish their jurisdiction until Farmington is about to adopt a regulation so that it would not go unregulated for a period of time. Frank Blew said that Farmington's regulations were already in existence, and that they were the Washington County Planning Commission Regulations. Larry Wood interjected at this point that he was not convinced about the Farmington Regulations, he felt that there were some problems with those regulations in terms of the law. Frank Blew agreed. Larry Wood stated that the existing Farmington Planning Area Boundary that is filed was prepared without a Planning Commission. He stated that Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1980 Aill Page 10 • the Subdivision Regulations that were on file in Farmington were prepared without a Master Street Plan. Larry Wood said that he thought that there were some basic procedural questions that could be very easily challenged. Frank Blew said that the reason for bringing this proposal in front of the Fayetteville Planning Commission at this time was so that they could consider it. After the Planning Commission had considered it they would proceed. Mr. Blew stated that there would be a Public Hearing by the City Council of Farmington May 12, 1980, at which time the County Master Road Plan would be presented. Morton Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission of Fayetteville schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the City Board and to have at the Public Hearing a recommendation from NWARPC as to the merits of the transfer of Planning Area jurisdiction and the timing. Windell Cullers seconded. It was passed unanimously The next item of business was the request HUNTINGDON SUBDIVISION to change the location of a portion of sidewalk in RELOCATION OF SIDEWALK Huntingdon Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development, OAK BAILEY ROAD on Citek., Bailey Road between Warwick $ Katherine Streets from the West side of the right-of-way to the East side, submitte'dN!:Iy Milby Pickell, Northwood Corporation. Keith Newhouse said that Helen Edmiston had discussed this matter with him before she left the Subdivision Committee meeting. What was proposed was to swap an area of sidewalk from one side of the street to the other because of problems with terrain. There was no one present to oppose the request. Keith Newhouse made a motion to approve the request, Don Hunnicutt seconded, it was unanimous. The next item of business was a request for information concerning an\existing tower and radio antennas located on property at 608 S. Crest Di Ernest Jacks said that he had a report from Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, to Bobbie Jones. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Benton, the gentlemen requesting information, if he had a copy offthe report. From the Report Mr. Jacks gathered that there had never been a permit issued for the tower on Crest Drive. Mr. Jacks asked how the Commission could find\out if the Tower was commercial or not. At this time Mr. Ish Benton addaessed'Fthe Commission. Mr. Benton read Mr. Lieberenz's report. Mr. Benton said that hekkhad a few comments to add to the information contained in Mr. Lieberenz's deport. He saidthat there was a building located at the bottom of this particular antenna somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 ft. square on a concrete base/ Mr. Benton said that one of the antennas was an 8 bay antenna which is not ordinarily used for non-commercial activities. Mr. Benton said he would estimatf the output of this antenna to be in the range of 1000 to 5000 watts. Mr. Benton/said that there were also two heavy duty telephone cables going into the building. Mr. Benton said that there was a 2202V91t power line going into the building,/and, also, a telephone line. Mr. Benton saidthat he did not perceive this to b non-commercial activity. Mr. Benton stated tha\there was another antenna on another corner of the lot. - Je'w. Eoff, the property owner, now addressed the Commissigqn. Mr. Eoff that he bought this property about 17 years ago, that it wa\a 200 x 300 ft. t. Mr. Eoff stated that there was an existing antenna on the lot at the time he purchased the property and he wanted the antenna off of the property. Mr. Lieberenz ANTENNAS 6 TOWER 608 S. CREST