Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 27, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Nash OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, members of the press and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 1989 were approved as distributed. Chairman Jacks advised that they have had a request to reverse items two and three. He asked if anyone in the audience had an objection to that. There being no response, Chairman Jacks announced that they would hear item three before item two. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR STUDIO ONE APARTMENTS STEVE CUMMINGS & JOE FRED STARR - W OF N. GREGG AVE, ACROSS FROM LAWSON The third item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Studio One Apartments submitted by Don Dees on behalf of Steve Cummings & Joe Fred Starr for property located on the west side of North Gregg Avenue across from Lawson Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the Plat Review had no real problems with serving this property. Utilities are available as well as water and sewer. He advised that the only concern they have about that particular site would be the subsurface conditions there due to a lot of fill in that area. He added that it is his understanding that the developers are getting soil borings and testing done on the fill to make sure that the foundations are suitable. If the soil is o.k., the city has no objections in that regard. Another concern was that the building size did not coincide with the square footage of the apartments that they had listed on the plat. The revised plat shows a larger building with 44 units of 192 square feet of air conditioned area per apartment. That meets the 150 square foot minimum that is required. These are efficiency apartments intended to house students. Given that correction on the plat and due to the • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 2 fact that it meets all other requirements for large scale development, the staff recommends approval subject to Plat Review comments, approval of the drainage on the lot and construction of a sidewalk along Gregg Street. Don Dees, representative, stated that he is representing Cecil & Lyndall Brown as the developers rather than Mr. Cummings and Mr. Starr. Cummings & Starr are the current owners, but the Browns will exercise their option to purchase the property for this particular development contingent on the approval of the large scale development. Chairman Jacks noted that since the Browns are not yet the property owners, there will have to be a stipulation that Mr. Cummings & Mr. Starr sign off on this. Mr. Dees noted that they did make some corrections on the plat because, originally, the square footage shown did not match the building size. The units will be 192 square feet each. He stated that he would like to respond to the comment made by Mr. Bunn in his staff report that perhaps this development would be more of a hotel or dormitory like in nature. Granted they are similar, but the rental of these units are being set up on a 6 -month lease or per semester to accommodate the student. He noted that he has provided each of the Planning Commissioners with a basic floor plan of the apartments. The developers have been talking to numerous architects concerning getting the engineers out there to look and see what kind of foundation they will need, how far they need to sink piers, etc. He advised that they are definitely intending to building 44units with only 42 as rentals because there will be one for a manager's apartment and one for a laundry. Chairman Jacks stated that the housing code also has requirements as far as ventilation, window area, etc. Mr. Bunn advised that those concerns will be answered at the time that detailed plans are submitted to the Inspection Department for approval and conformity with building codes. Mr. Dees commented that these apartments will be fully carpeted, air conditioned, energy efficient and fully furnished with a fold -out bed. They will meet the criteria as far as smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, will be totally electric and will be equipped with ceiling fans. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the stipulations are about the number of people that can occupy these apartments. Mr. Dees stated that the lease will have a stipulation that there will only be one individual per unit. If the lessee should allow another individual to move in with them, it will be a violation of the lease and they will be evicted. Mr. Bunn advised that the square footage would not allow more than one person. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this. There being no response, discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Klingaman stated that they show in excess of 70 parking spaces there • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 3 which looks like too many in relation to the size of the building. He added that he would like to see some green space added up closer to Gregg. Mr. Bunn advised that each parking space should be 9' x 19' with the handicapped spaces being a bit wider. Mr. Dees noted that the City requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Klingaman noted that there are 70 spaces so they do have about the right number of spaces. However, with such tiny units, you would question how many spaces will be occupied. Mr. Dees stated that the only reason they show 70 spaces is that is what the City requires. Commissioner Springborn asked as far as the single -occupancy design, have the developers looked at the possibility of making these units slightly larger to provide room for two people. Even if the rent was doubled, the rent per student would still be same. Mr. Dees noted that he manages 28 apartments and six houses here in Fayetteville and he has three others that are his own. He added that several of his tenants have expressed the problem with having a room -mate because of students dropping out or moving out during a semester. Dormitories do not offer the privacy that this development offers. With this development, they are trying to get away from the "room -mate" cliche and allow each individual his/her privacy to study not relying on anyone else other than themselves and their own financial welfare. There are students who do not wantto take the chance of relying on another individual to pay half the rent and utilities. Commissioner Seiff asked how many apartments had they decided on. Mr. Dees stated that it is set up as 44 units with one unit for an on -property manager's apartment and one space used for a laundry. Commissioner Ozment asked what time frame they are looking at for construction. Mr. Dees stated that he is looking at seeing this available by next summer. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or in opposition of this request. Dr. Anthony De Palma who has property close to this development stated that he just heard about this development today. He asked how many acres would these 42 units plus the common area be on. Mr. Dees stated that their legal shows 2.05 acres, but the City staff is showing that there actual development is on 1.8 acres because of the widening of the street. Dr. De Palma asked if the density of 42 units on 1.8 acres is acceptable in the R-2 zone. Mr. Bunn answered, yes. Dr. De Palma stated that this whole area was originally R-1 and this development would disrupt the nature of that whole area If the design of the apartments is as shown in the layout with a door and one window both on the same wall with the bathroom on the other side of the room with no windows, it looks hazardous from a fire safety point of view. He doesn't see how it could be acceptable. Commissioner Seiff asked if this layout is a fire hazard. Chairman Jacks advised that the ordinances call for it to meet the housing code which requires a minimum • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 4 number of square feet of window, door and ventilation area, etc. Commissioner Seiff asked if it specifies how many walls have to be windowed. Mr. Bunn noted that he isn't that familiar with the codes, but the building plans will be reviewed by the Inspection Superintendent and all applicable building codes will be met. Chairman Jacks noted that the building codes will allow a ventilation fan in the bathroom rather than a window. Mr. Bunn noted that there have been apartments of this size or smaller developed in Fayetteville in the past but they were developed on property which was smaller than an acre so they didn't have to go through the large scale development process. These size apartments are not that unusual. Dr. De Palma stated that the National Fire Prevention Association recommends that there be two egresses in a room and this diagram shows a door and a window right next to each other. It provides two egresses, but fires could occur in other parts of the room or in the closet. He commented that if this design is allowed in this community, it is unconscionable and he would have a tough time explaining this to others. Chairman Jacks reiterated that this plan will be reviewed according to the Fayetteville Housing Code which really is a section of the Standard Building Codes. Dr. De Palma stated that since he brought this to the Planning Commission's attention, he thinks further discussion should be ensued or if this is acceptable, something should be done about the code. Commissioner Seiff commented that as far as the safety of the apartment buildings, he doesn't believe this concern is up to the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks advised that at this point as he understands it, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a large scale development plan with this sort of ingress and egress, parking and the fact that there are 44 units. The internal arrangement of the apartments isn't involved in this approval. When they submit detailed plans for a building permit, this will be reviewed. NOTION Seiff moved to approve this subject to Plat Review comments and the staff's recommendation, seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he isn't clear where that entrance is going to be in relation to the crest of the hill. Mr. Dees stated that going northbound when you come up over the hill, there is an entrance into the church and approximately 300' farther north will be the entrance. The same entrance where they brought the fill in. He noted that it doesn't allow enough view of oncoming traffic from both directions to allow ingress/egress with reasonable safety. The motion passed 8-0-0 with Nash being absent. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-31 STEVE CUMMINGS - 209 CROSSOVER ROAD • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 5 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition number R89-31 submitted by Steve Cummings for property located on the west side of Crossover Road at 209 Crossover Road containing 45.3 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Chairman Jacks advised that this request was before them a couple of weeks ago and was tabled at that point. Larry Wood of NW Arkansas Regional Planning stated in his report presented at the last meeting he had recommended that this property not be rezoned from R-1 to R-2 for the following reasons: 1. The R-2 request does not agree with the current adopted General Plan or with the General Plan that is being prepared as an update to it; 2. The existing development surrounding this site is basically single-family with the exception of the church just to the South of this; and 3. R-2 District at the location requested would tend to commit a much larger area to multi -family development. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Wood if by the update of the General Plan, was he referring to the 2010 Plan for 1990. Mr. Wood answered, yes, the one that is currently being developed. Steve Cummings stated that he hoped the Planning Commissioners feel alright today, hope they are happy and he hopes a lot of things hadn't happened to them very bad because they are getting into something that is very serious. He noted that he was here two or three weeks ago with this request to rezone 45 acres of land on Crossover Road which he has owned personally in excess of 20 years. It as to his astonishment that the man just heard (Larry Wood) was chosen to represent the City of Fayetteville. A man who lives in Springdale and has been hired by the City Planner to give a 10 to 15 minute presentation on why this land should not be zoned R-2. He was also astonished because there was only one opposition to the zoning change from a man who owns 200 adjacent feet to this 45 acre plot. He stated that there have been problems with the sewer on this 45 acres. A church was recently built and they were told by the City Planning Commissioner.or his administrator that they had a building permit and an easement for the sewer which was 10" in width. They came to him and he told them that they had been told the wrong thing from the City. They came back to him and said they didn't have an easement and they didn't think they could put in a septic tank. He told them that there is a Catholic Church that he enjoys in the Dominican Republic and if they would send those people $3,000 they will be very thankful because they are very poor people and have been through some very difficult times in the last year. He noted that he gave them an easement to the sewer. He added that some eight years ago, a man build a small house right on the road and he found that he didn't have an easement to the sewer and he finally gave them an easement to the sewer line. There is a particular sewer line that runs across this 45 acres that was built and paid for by him and there is no legal language giving anyone the right to that sewer without his right also. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Cummings stated that last time, there was a letter from the church that was finished some months ago and which he gave an easement to sewer to which stated that they were in total favor of this land being rezoned from R-1 to R-2. He asked if the Commissioners had a copy of the letter from the church. Chairman Jacks stated that they don't have one in this agenda. Mr. Cummings asked the Planning Secretary if they present letters of persons approving or opposing a rezoning to the Planning Commissioners. The Planning Secretary stated that there isn't a letter in the file from the church. Mr. Cummings stated that this is very questionable. Mr. Cummings stated that Happy Hollow School adjoins his property and there is a lot of C-1 and R-2 zoning adjacent to his property. He added that there is no legitimate reason for the City to have taken the position they have taken. He noted that he wonders why this petition wasn't handled by the person who normally handles these things in the City and was given to someone in Springdale. He stated that he and John Merrell have had some personal problems which he will not discuss here but he will discuss in a Court of Law. He commented that it gets to the point that when you try to go up and see one of the gentlemen, first thing he does is walk out and call the Chief of Police, Richard Watson. He noted that just a week or two ago he called and asked for a meeting with the City Manager and was told that he would have to have authorization to have a meeting with him and that was the extent of the phone conversation. The next call came from the Chief of Police and the City Manager had called the -Chief of Police who called him and told him that he couldn't meet with the City Manager. He added that there are a lot of things that have happened to him up here which should not have happened. Mr. Cummings stated that it is immaterial to him how the Planning Commission votes on this issue, but he is glad it is America and he still has the opportunity to win or lose. Whether he wins or loses is insignificant but at least he has had the chance to come before the Planning Commission. He added that in his understanding the only difference between R-1 and R-2 is that R-2 allows apartments. He has owned this property since 1967 and he has no intention of subdividing it or building 200 apartments. He noted that he has a home and a horse farm there and it can not be sold until 21 years after his death. There have been hundreds of apartments build by Jim Lindsey and that is not his intention. FJe has lived here all of his life and he is tired of living in his big home and if this were rezoned to R-2, his only desire would be that at some time he might want to build 10 to 14 very nice apartments and he would live in one for the rest of his life. He stated that he would like to request the right to address the Planning Commission for a period of approximately 3 minutes after they vote. Commissioner Klingaman asked why he is requesting a rezoning of the entire property if his intention is only to build 10 or 12 apartments. Mr. Cummings noted that he doesn't have any idea where the apartments would be. Commissioner Hanna advised that he thinks Mr. Cummings should withdraw his request until he decides where he wants the apartments built and then ask to Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 7 rezone only the part where the apartments will be located since this property is bounded on all three sides by R-1 and this request would be committing 45 acres to R-2 which would give developers the idea that they can ask for big chunks of land to be rezoned R-2 and develop large numbers of apartments on Crossover further down. Commissioner Cleghorn asked Mr. Cummings as a resident of this area and knowing what the City is trying to accomplish as far as growth, how he feels about putting apartments out in that direction. Mr. Cummings stated that he knows the people who own the property around him such as Dr. De Palma and it is not his intention to build apartments or even to sell that land. Mr. Cummings noted that he would be against an apartment complex in that area if it were not specifically for the reasons he has stated. He has owned 45 acres for 20 years with a 4000 square foot house and a horse barn that he would like to lease. Then he would like to build 12 or 14 apartments and live there the rest of his life. Commissioner Cleghorn advised that it would probably sit a lot easier with every one on this Board if he came in with a petition to rezone maybe 5 acres of the land where he wanted to locate his apartments. If a rezoning was approved for forty-five acres of land and something happened to Mr. Cummings tomorrow, a lot of things could happen. Mr. Cummings commented that he hasn't decided where he.wants the apartments at this time. He noted that there is A-1, R-2 & R-1 zoning all around him. Commissioner Hanna advised that his property is surrounded by R-1 zoning. Chairman Jacks agreed that according to the zoning map, all the property adjacent to the subject property is zoned R-1. Some of the other zones that Mr. Cummings has mentioned are varying distances away from this property. Mr. Cummings stated that the school property joins his property and it is zoned P-1. Chairman Jacks noted that the church property is zoned R-1 and they have a conditional use and the map doesn't show the school property adjacent to his. Mr. Cummings stated that the :school property does adjoin his. Mr. Cummings reiterated that the only reason he is here is that he feels that he has the right to win or lose and that is very important to him. He stated that he will act the same either way they vote. He added that a lot of things have happened in Fayetteville in recent years in terms of large construction that have certainly violated the feelings of those people that where living close or adjacent to those properties. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this proposal. There being no response, he asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this. Rick Johnson of 25 South Crossover stated that his lot is just 100' by 200', but his small lot is just as important to him that Mr. Cummings' 45 acres is to him because it is his home. He submitted a petition with a list of some of the adjoining property owners signatures opposing this rezoning. He added that he has talked to Mr. Cummings and he feels that a person has a right to do as they please with their land, but he feels he has the right to be concerned about how • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 8 it will affect his house and the adjoining people. their opposition and it had nothing personally to do Chairman Jacks advised that for the record there petition and it states that by signing this petition to the proposed zoning change. He advised that this was with Mr. Cummings. are 10 signatures on the they are showing objection Commissioner Seiff asked for clarification of the staff report on the third reason for recommending denial of the rezoning. Larry Wood commented that he left out a word there and it should state "a much larger area". He added that in support of what Mr. Cummings stated earlier, there was a letter signed by the church supporting this rezoning in the material that was supplied to him. He stated that it is still at his office and he will bring it back. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Seiff stated that he didn't understand some of the things that Mr. Cummings said. He noted that he sees his position on this Planning Commission as one who tries to be completely unbiased in any way that he can and if he feels that he can't help but be biased, he would abstain and make no comment. However, in this case he feels that he can handle the situation without being biased. He added that he doesn't fully understand why Larry Wood of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning made the staff recommendation instead of John Merrell who normally would in this case. For whatever reason, he has no problem with the integrity of the staff not that Mr. Cummings was questioning the integrity of the staff. He commented that Mr. Cummings might want to explain further if he feels it might help the issue. Commissioner Seiff stated that he can't see any reason that they should infringe in that area to R-2 with his reasons being the same ones that were pointed out by Larry Wood in his recommendation. The future plan calls for this area to remain an R-1 area and it seems that if they allowed even a half of an acre to be R-2, they would be encroaching into that area. A stand has to be made and it is his position since he is on this commission to take that stand for now and the future. He reiterated that he sees no reason to change the situation or to find any disagreement with Larry Wood's recommendation. He wanted to go on record as stating that he will vote against it. Commissioner Ozment stated that he wished Mr. Cummings would come back with a proposal in hand for a smaller area, but he admitted that it is pretty cut and dried and he would probably have a hard time even supporting a smaller area rezoning. However, he would listen to an exact proposed plan for 10 or 12 units. MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved that this petition be denied, seconded by Springborn who stated that he feels that the request is premature. The motion passed 8-0- 0. Chairman Jacks advised that this decision can be appealed to the Board of • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 9 Directors and asked Mr. Cummings if he would like to speak again as requested. Mr. Cummings stated the matters that he needs to discuss are probably matters that should be somewhere other than this, in litigation. It certainly doesn't involve the Planning Commission. He added that he thinks there is a little problem with the sewer that they should try to get straightened out and he would be more than happy to work with the City to do that. He commented that it has been brought to his attention sufficient times and they need to have an understanding regarding the sewer line that runs across this property. He noted that he would ask that the committee would allow him or get authorization for him to visit with whomever they feel is the correct management person about that. Chairman Jacks advised that he should probably discuss this with the City Engineer who should be available at just about any time. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 11R89-32 BOB DAVIS - N OF HWY 16 W, E & W OF SALEM ROAD The fourth item on the agenda was a rezoning petition 1IR89-32 submitted by Bob Davis and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen Engineers for property located north of Highway 16 West on the east and west sides of Salem Road containing 16.84 acres more or less. Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that he doesn't have a lot to add to the written staff report that was furnished in the agenda packet. He advised that the staff has taken the position that they can not support the rezoning requested based on the surrounding land use and surrounding zoning and what they view as the growth trends in that area. He added that should it be the inclination of the Planning Commission to favor a rezoning in this area, the staff feels that the various alternatives of R-0, Residential -Office, might fit the best and might represent some form of a buffer zone. He commented that he has spoken to Bob Davis a couple of times about this petition and Mr. Davis has certain information that he would like to present to the Commission. Staff basically sees the issue here as where should the commercial development occur on Wedington Drive and where should they draw the line from residential to commercial. The point the staff is trying to imply is if this rezoning is granted to C-2, it might be pretty difficult to refuse to grant later rezonings to the west of this location. Although, the staff realizes that the petitioner would like to have more options available to him and C-2 certainly allows for more than R-0. Commissioner Hanna stated that when they had the workshop with Al Raby on the new General Plan, Mr. Raby proposed a mall in this area. He noted that Mr. Raby didn't pick the site out, but he assumes that Mr. Raby was considering the location to be across the street from this property and slightly to the West. Judging from what he has seen in other areas with a mall, he has a hard time envisioning how they could fail to have rezoning requests to commercial for a lot of property around the mall area. For example, there is a lot of commercial across the highway and to the south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He asked Mr. Merrell if he had taken this into consideration when he made this recommendation. Mr. Merrell stated that he remembers that at one of the • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 10 workshops with Mr. Raby, someone disagreed with the amount of proposed future commercial land use that was shown in this area and he feels the same way. He noted, however, that Mr. Hanna's point is well taken because if the final version does show that much commercial in the area then the whole stretch of Hwy 16 West between the Bypass and Rupple Road and maybe farther West would clearly be an emerging commercial area. It depends on what the City decides on as far as the Land Use Plan. He noted that he personally feels that Mr. Raby went a little overboard with commercial in that area. The public hearing was opened. Dave Jorgensen, representative, handed out to the Commissioners some color -coded zoning maps to show the surrounding zoning. He noted that he had submitted a letter of transmittal for this request that is attached to the agenda. It states that 1) the property has about 1,222 feet of length along Highway 16 and is about 600' deep with R-1 bordering on the west, R-2 on the east and R-0 & C-1 on the south. 2) Present Land Use: The existing property is vacant except for Salem Road which runs though the center of the property in a north -south direction. Salem Road was presumably intended to tie Highway 16 to Mount Comfort Road to the North. There are several businesses to the South and the property to the North (Walnut Grove Addition) has quite a bit of R-2 and R-1 property. 3) Water & sewer are in place on a portion of it and is readily available. 4) Fire Protection would be present with suitable fire hydrant installations. 5) Highway 16 is considered a principal arterial and Salem Road has a 60' right- of-way. The intention is to tie Highway 16 to Mt. Comfort Road to the North. He explained that in general, they believe there is a public need for additional commercial property in this area. There are presently 73 acres of single-family or multi -family housing to the North with another 34 acres to the South of R-2 property. There is only about 2 1/2 acres of land zoned C-2 that can be purchased west of the Bypass. He commented that he has been told that it is very wise to allocate commercial property on an arterial street for various reasons with a reasonable depth and width as opposed to striping with 100' to 200' strips of commercial from one year to the next. He noted that they feel that this development would enhance the surrounding property and with the high concentration of R-2 property, more commercial property is necessary in this area to provide service to the surrounding area Mr. Jorgensen stated that when Mr. Davis came in and talked with him about this particular rezoning request, he tried to keep an open mind about it. He commented that this really isn't a frivolous request. He noted that the 71 Bypass will be Interstate 171 one of these days and probably in the near future. Sooner or later, there will have to be something commercialized out there. Mr. Jorgensen read from the proposed General Plan 2010 that was put out by Al Raby's group which states that "primarily the western side of Fayetteville beyond the bypass remains undecided. With the opening of Interstate 171, the western area will be the primary target for new growth. Given the established land use plan and growing economic trends, there is likely to diversify that will include a demand for major new commercial areas, industry, middle income housing and transportation facilities." He advised that all of this does not apply totally, • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 11 completely because this is not the final version of the proposed plan. Mr. Jorgensen noted that concerning the mall mentioned by Mr. Hanna, this report states that "a secondary commercial mall of 100 thousand square feet is projected for the southwest quadrant of the interchange." Mr. Jorgensen stated that it might be hard to squeeze in a mall in the southwest quadrant. He advised that it would be impossible to put a mall in there without having some support commercialized area in the vicinity of the surrounding area. He read the following statement from the proposed General Plan: "The mall should be of mixed use character and is proposed as an alternative to the emerging strip commercial along Highway 16." Mr. Jorgensen noted that the staff's recommendation states that the Commission does have the option of recommending to the Board of Directors a more restrictive zoning such as R-3, R-0 or C-1. It states that none of these options are recommended by the staff in that they feel that the R-2 is a viable zoning designation for the property. He added that he finds this tremendously hard to believe. R-2 or R-3 is not the most desirable zoning for this location especially when you consider the fact that there is a tremendous amount of multi-family/single-family to the north and to the south. The Planning Commission will sooner or later have to make the decision as to where they want the commercialization in this area because it will eventually happen. He noted that the major intersection there has C-2 on the northwest and a little bit to the southwest and this particular property begins about 1100' from the ramp. He advised that after talking with the staff, etc., they have decided that it would be wiser to request a C-2 possibly..on the east side of Salem Road and very possibly a C-1 or C-1 & R-0 combination on the west side of Salem Road. In addition to that, they have R-2 just to the north of this and Mr. Davis has mentioned that he would like to possibly have a strip of property in between this commercialized property and the R-2 property for a greenspace (possibly 15' wide) as a barrier between the two. Mr. Jorgensen commented that as an engineer, he sees another reason for making this particular property commercial as opposed to the commercial to the north and to the south to keep the heavy traffic on the State Highway system as opposed to going through the residential property which is on a city street to hold down any heavy traffic on the main drag. The average daily traffic count is 5600 as of last year. Mr. Jorgensen advised that some of the possible uses that the owners have mentioned such as a financial institution or a Wendy's restaurant would fit into C-1 as well as C-2. Bob Davis stated that he is representing the Bryce Davis Estate and it has been mentioned in the newspaper articles in the past year that the city was going to move to the West so it is time for to plan in that direction. He noted that the Bryce Davis family has never built anything that the City could not be proud of. They feel that this property is a major portion of the intersection since their property is less than 2/l0ths of a mile from the highway. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this petition. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thinks it is just a matter of time before this area is developed in commercial. • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 12 MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman asked when Highway 16 is going to be made into a four - lane highway and has there been adequate right-of-way dedications so that it can be four-laned. He stated that he is concerned that the accesses to this should be controlled more than Highway 71 which has driveways about every 100'. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the access would be covered in a large scale development plan and as far as the right-of-way goes, he assumes that there has probably been adequate right-of-way purchased for future expansion. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this would be dealt with at the large scale development stage and he doesn't know when the highway would be widened. Jerry Allred commented that since growth is going to be in that direction, if they don't do some sort of alternative commercial zoning, there will be a bigger impact put on College Avenue. As that area grows and develops and the traffic increases, the residents would have to come to College Avenue in order to reach the support services. He noted that he is in favor of the rezoning petition due to future growth out in that direction. Chairman Jacks stated that what Mr. Allred is challenging here is the long standing principles which have guided the Planning Commission's judgments of these things to do with commercial nodes at one mile intervals in lieu of strip commercial property. He added that he sees this as challenging that principle and the most zoning change that he would vote for would be to change part of that property on the east side to R-0 and no zoning at all on the west piece. He added that he doesn't believe that they can break out of the pattern they have set there which has pretty well established the principle with C-1 properties to the west with appropriate intervals. He noted that Mr. Raby has pointed out to them that this area is a very important part coming into town and they will be beseeched with pressures for commercialization out this direction. Commissioner Hanna stated that he heard exactly the same comments and objections six or seven years to any rezonings on Highway 62(Sixth Street) between Razorback Road and the Bypass. Now it is developed with several fast food places and other businesses and it looks a lot better than it did seven years ago. He advised that he envisions the same thing for Highway 16 West so that people would not have to drive five miles to get to North College or 6th Street to a fast food restaurant. He added that as development comes out that way, these ideas will change and it will be rezoned for business sooner or later. This strip isn't that far from the intersection itself. Commissioner Springborn stated that with due regard to the good principles that should be governing the Planning Commission, he thinks that there would be little lost by a C-2 rezoning on the east half of it and leaving the west half for • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 13 further consideration at some future date. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned that if they grant a rezoning of this size, it will be sectioned off a portion at a time to whichever fast food restaurant wants a sliver for there particular establishment which would cause it to be all chopped up. He noted that he would like to see some planning done on the front end of trying to establish some small residential shopping areas with maybe one or two entrances rather than the maximum. As far as the concept of having C-2 there, he noted that it doesn't bother him because it is close enough to the interchange. Commissioner Ozment stated that he doesn't know how they would define or put into perspective the size of a "node". The node concept is o.k., but 1100' from the intersection is kind of short for a node. A natural shopping mall node could probably be three times that wide. He commented that it would be nice if they could plan a frontage road off the highway to control access up and down through the shopping districts and not interrupt the traffic along the main highway. He advised that he has no problems with this on a big scale, but he would like to see the development come in a large fashion too and not be chopped up into 100' businesses. Commissioner Hanna noted that they would have to come back before the Planning Commission for any lot splits and large scale developments. Commissioner Cleghorn noted that it seems to him that they are voting on something that shouldn't be voted on yet. Most everyone is in agreement that sooner or later there will be some kind of commercial out that way. All they are doing is predicting what the growth patterns will be. It has been established on paper but the people haven't established it. It is like they are voting too soon on something that might be too critical. Chairman Jacks noted that the only question before him as he sees it is the size of the node and they have a pretty big node going there now. Commissioner Springborn observed that they are placing an awful lot of weight on the new Land Use Plan and until it is adopted, they have to exercise the best judgment they can with respect to the present one. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning petition as requested tied 4- 4-0 with Ozment, Seiff, Hanna & Allred voting "yes" and Springborn, Jacks, Cleghorn & Klingaman voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that it does not pass because it takes five positive votes to approve a rezoning petition. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning of the eastern A • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 14 section of the property (to the east of the road dividing it) to C-2 and leave the western portion as it is presently zoned, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 5-3-0 with Ozment, Springborn, Seiff, Hanna & Allred voting "yes" and Elingaman, Jacks & Cleghorn voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION (REAL ESTATE OFFICE) IN AN R-1 ZONE DON WARD - 2015 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The fifth item was a conditional use for a home occupation (real estate office) in an R-1 zone submitted by Don Ward for property located at 2015 Huntsville Road. Chairman Jacks advised that they had a rezoning petition at this location previously which was denied. He asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this request. Mr. Ward was present, but had no comments. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the conditional use as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks apologizes to Mr. Merrell for not asking him for him report on this item. Mr. Merrell stated that he just had a brief report and he did recommend approval of this request. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES BOB BRACY - 1901 COMMERCE DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for an expansion to Superior Industries submitted by Albert Skiles, Architect, on behalf of Bob Bracy. Property is located at 1901 Commerce Drive and zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Don Bunn noted that this is for a 10,000 square foot addition to an existing industry in the industrial park. There weren't any problems with the utilities and the only questions that were raised at the Plat Review Committee meeting were concerning fire protection. He added that they do have sprinkler lines going into the building and there was some question about what sort of fire wall needed to be between this office space and the rest of the building and it was resolved. He stated that the staff recommends that the large scale development be approved. Commissioner Springborn advised that the Subdivision Committee did not meet this week so they have no report on it. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item. Cal Canfield who is in association with Albert Skiles representing Superior Industries stated that he is present to answer any questions. There being no • • • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 15 questions and no one else wanting to speak to this, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this large scale development subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 2 IAT SPLITS AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR 2 TANDEM LOTS - D.T. WILLIAMS - 1662 MISSION BOULEVARD The seventh and eighth items on the agenda were a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot splits 1 & 2 and a conditional use for two tandem lots submitted by D. T. Williams for property located at 1662 Mission Boulevard and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Jacks advised that there has been a request to table items seven and eight by the applicant until the next meeting, December 11th. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table items seven and eight until the next regularly scheduled meeting on December llth, seconded by Springborn.......The..motion.passed. 8-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT li 1 RON MCCRAW FOR MISSION BLVD BAPTIST CHURCH - 600 MISSION BLVD The ninth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split #1 submitted by Ron McCraw on behalf of Mission Boulevard Baptist Church for property located at 600 Mission Boulevard on the southeast corner of Assembly Drive and Mission and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn stated that the property contains about 9/loths of an acres with a church and a private residence on the property. The intend of the request is to split off the property that has the house on it. There will be about 1/4 of an acre remaining with the house. He added that the staff recommends approval of the split subject to a Bill of Assurance for the construction of a sidewalk along Mission, the dedication of additional right-of-way as required by the Master Street Plan and a survey of the split. Ron McCraw stated that he is a member of Mission Blvd Baptist Church. He stated that they are located on the east side of Mission and there is a sidewalk across the street that runs all the way to North Street and all of the properties on the east side of the street have no sidewalk at all and there is a ditch there next to the street. It would be a very difficult task to construct a sidewalk there and they will not be doing any new construction so he would like to request a waiver of that requirement. Chairman Jacks stated that the City has a Master Sidewalk Plan which is • Planning Commission November 27, 1989 Page 16 administered by the Board of Directors. Mr. Bunn noted that the Sidewalk Plan shows a sidewalk on both sides of Mission. Chairman Jacks advised that based on that, any kind of a waiver from that sidewalk plan would have to be done by the Board of Directors. Mr. Bunn noted that he thought that originally, but in looking at the ordinance it does say that the Planning Commission can waiver the sidewalk. He added that it is not really feasible to build a sidewalk in this location because of the ditch so a Bill of Assurance would be warranted in this case so that a sidewalk can be put in someday. Chairman Jacks explained that a Bill of Assurance is a guarantee from the owner that at the call of the City in the future, the owner would agree to then go ahead and do it. Mr. McCraw stated that he had no objection to signing a Bill of Assurance. He noted that he hadn't fully understand the second item to do with the dedication of right-of-way either. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to approve the lot split subject to a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk and the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 8-0-0. REPORT PROM PLANNING MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR ON ZONING MAP AND RELATED ASPECTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO AL BABY'S REPORT The tenth item on the agenda was a report from John Merrell on the zoning map and related aspects in relationship to Al Raby's Report. Chairman Jacks noted that Mr. Merrell had already left the meeting, but had commented to him earlier that he had a very brief report on some way of getting started on the zoning mapping. Chairman Jacks advised that the other item that is missing in trying to pull something together on this planning is the Master Street Plan. Mr. Wood stated that he had heard nothing more than what he had reported before that they were waiting on the Highway Department to get finished loading their computers. Chairman Jacks, in agreement with the Planning Commissioners, requested that Mr. Merrell's report be put on the agenda of the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.