Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on November 23, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CU98-24: Conditional Use (Welsh, pp 293) RZ98-20: Rezoning (Sturchio/King, pp 366) Master Street Plan MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Robert Reynolds Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Janet Johns Alett Little Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick APPROVAL OF MINUTES Denied Denied None MEMBERS ABSENT Phyllis Hall Johnson Hoffman left at 6:25 STAFF ABSENT Jim Beavers The minutes from the regular meeting of November 9, 1998 were approved as submitted. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 2 CU98-24: CONDITIONAL USE WELSH, PP 293 This conditional use was submitted by Jerri Welsh for property located at 2746 Colette Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.39 acres The request is for a home occupation day care center to be allowed in an R-1 zone. Jerri Welsh was present on behalf of this request. Conditions of Approval 1. The child care facility will be limited to five children at one time. 1. (Amended by motion.) That the child care facility will be limited to five children at one time not including the two children residing in the home. 2. A buffer strip will be required as stated in §I66.10. The strip will be 12 feet wide and • will be planted along the entire existing fence with shrubs at a minimum heights of 1 foot to 6 inches at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting to prevent the view of the premises from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets and yards. A 6 feet wooden fence may be used instead of vegetation. • 3. The existing gravel drive will be paved and a turnaround area provided so that vehicles are not required to back out of the driveway. Applicant Presentation Odom: Staff do you have any further information? Vinson: I have passed out two letters which I received today from two anonymous persons opposed to allowing the conditional use. (Letters on file in Planning Office.) Odom: Has the applicant seen these? Vinson: No, sir. Odom: Would the applicant please come forward? Would you make your presentation and review these documents when I open the floor to public discussion? Welsh: My name is Jerri Welsh. I live at 2746 Called Ave I am trying to open a day Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 3 care in my home. Public Comments No one was present to speak to the commission regarding this conditional use request. Commission Discussion Hoffman: I'm noting that there is a great deal of concern about the width of the roadway. Could you tell me what the width is? Can two cars pass on the road in front of this house? Vinson: I cannot tell you the exact width but two cars can pass. Hoffman: Is there a steep grade? Vinson: It is fairly steep. Forney: One thing that I note about this that there is no site plan of the proposed tumaround? Vinson: No, sir. Forney: It seems that we've seen a number of conditional uses that have required additional parking or driveway arrangements and in every case we have been concerned about the affect it has on neighborhood character. I'm wondering that just as a general policy and the Commission might agree that we need to see site plans. It's premature for us to consider these when we don't really have a design in front of us to look at the potential affects that these are going to have in residential situations. Vinson: My intentions were just a simple "T" turnaround. I will try and provide site plans in the future. Forney. Just as a for instance, how many parking spaces are we asking for? Vinson: She is not required to have any additional parking. She's going to run this business with no employees. The only concern is the safety of the drivers dropping off and picking up their children. Forney: Staff may not think that site plans are necessary but I'm always a bit confused about what we are granting. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 4 Little: The requirement for a turnaround is made primarily for traffic safety purposes. The applicant would rather not provide the turnaround but we do believe it is important for people to be able to exit in a forward motion particularly those people carrying children who might be talking to their parents or distracting them. On this particular case, the turnaround should be able to be accommodated to the east of the structure which would also be in the rear of the structure. However, we do like to have some flexibility in working with the applicant if there happens to be a tree or whatever. In this case, I believe this is part of a fenced yard. Vinson: That is correct. Little: So we might need to put it back to the west but that would be shielded by the house somewhat. The reason there is no site plan is because the applicant hasn't had the opportunity to provide any site plan. Estes: Ms. Welsh, do enter and exit your driveway off of Colette. Is that correct? Welsh: Yes, sir. Estes: You clients would be coming in off of Colette. Is that correct? Welsh: Off of Old Wire onto Colette Street. Estes: Then off Colette onto your driveway to the front of your home? Welsh: I'm located on a hill. My house is two story. The top part is my liveable space, the downstairs is where the drive comes through a fenced yard area with an open 8 feet gate where you can pull through. During operation hours of the day care, I will have the gate shut in the morning and in the evening the gate will be open so the parents can drive directly to the bottom downstairs door to drop off their children where there is a full facility ready and waiting for children to be cared for. Estes: As children are delivered in the morning hours and in the evening hours and one or more cars are backed up in your driveway, how will people exit onto Colette? Will they back out on to Colette? Welsh: There is a necessity for a "T" back out in my drive. I do not believe that a full paved driveway would be in a great interest for the children's safety because as I've said, the drive does pull through the play area. I have a very large back yard. It is all fenced off. If you pave that off, I believe that would be a safety standard violation for the children who might fall onto the surfaced area. Right now, it is gravel and I can see where a "T" would help for the parents to turnaround. But, I have no problem right now getting out. I have two children, a four • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 5 year old and a two year old, and I've lived there for three and a half years and people come and go all the time. Estes: My concern is not people getting in, it's people getting out. Do you back out of that driveway onto Colette? Welsh: No. Actually, what I do is back into an area of my yard and then pull out in a forward manner. There are no "U" turns or go around any large equipment or trees. There is a fairly large turnaround area Hoover: On page 1.9, it shows the driveway outside the darker property line. Why does it show the driveway outside the property line? Little: That is where the drive exists according to the City records. The dark line is the property line. Apparently, the drive is outside the property. It happens. Hoffman: On your floor plan, are you just showing the downstairs portion? Welsh: That is just the downstairs area. That is where I plan on keeping the children. The upstairs area has my full living area. Hoffman: And the kitchen area is upstairs? There is no kitchen facility indicated on this plan. Welsh: What I have is an open closet area there where I have a compact refrigerator and a microwave. I have a full service bathroom for washing hands. Hoffman: Have you had a day care inspection from the Department of Human Services? Welsh: Yes. In fact, I have been approved by DHS and received my state license today. Hoffman: Thank you. Forney: I understand you have a couple of your own children. At some points we will have as many as seven children in the structure or would you include your children as part of the allowable five. Welsh: I prefer infants. With my two children, DHS will only allow three infants. My license provides that I can care for up to nine children but that would means I could only have one infant and the other eight above 24 months of age and older to be allowed the nine. For the five, I could have three infants and my two children. I have copies of exactly how many children you can have and what ages. My daughter is four and she will be starting school full time next • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 6 year so that leaves one open space. My son will be three and starting school in a couple of years. When your children go to school full time they are no longer counted as part of your day care Forney: You'll have a total of five children on premises. Welsh: If I only have infants. I am qualified to provide care for children 24 months and over. Forney: The condition of approval says five children. And I want to know if you interpret that to mean five total Welsh: When I first filled out my city application, I was not aware of all the options I was allowed to have as a licensed provider. Five was the max that I was aware of at the time I filed my application without state licensing. I now have my state license and therefore, I am qualified to have up to nine children. I believe nine is more than I would consider caring for but maybe two or three years down the road, I might consider that option. Forney: I suspect that any motion made tonight would include a maximum of five children on the premises. If the state licensing process is such that if you children are full time in school even though they might come home and overlap with your day care facility it would bother me that you would get up to seven children for a few hours a day. Vinson: In an R-1 zone, you are only permitted six children for a home occupation. Little: I believe that is a gray area. I believe that it is a limit of six other than the children in the home because that is what is permitted under the home occupation. The children that are of the home are not a matter of the conditional use under our authority. So, what our regulation says is if you are going to have a conditional use in an R-1 zone, you are not permitted to care for more than six children. In her case, it would be six outside children and two of her own children. Reynolds: Who is going to police this? Little: It is up to us It's mainly the neighbors that let us know if there is a situation going on that we are not aware of. Reynolds. Who supersedes who when it comes to City Ordinance and State Laws? DHS allows her to have nine and our ordinance says six. • Little: The City would have the right to limit. Under zoning you have the authority to limit how many she canhave. • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 7 Reynolds: That neighborhood is R-1, Low Density Residential. It's been there for awhile and I'm not in favor or putting a business in the middle of this neighborhood. That's how I stand. Forney: Commissioner Hoover has found in the regulations under 163.19 - Home Occupations from the Unified Development Ordinances limits on square footage allowable in an R-1 zone for home occupations. "...30% of the gross floor area of one floor of said dwelling unit, nor more than 300 square feet of the gross floor area, whichever is greater." Little: That does appear to be a conflict because under the Home Occupation Permit for day care, they are required to have 200 square feet per child Does the 1,196 square feet include the office, the TV room, the storage area, and the bathroom or is it just the open area? Welsh: That is just the open area. DHS came out and measured today and she said I was well above and qualified for nine children if that's what I wanted. Little: I don't see a problem with six children but the request as submitted is for five children which would require 1,000 square feet. Estes: While Ms. Little is reviewing the regulations, this is a request for a conditional use for R-1 property. It is located at the intersection of Old Wire and Called with a steep slope on Called. One of the finding that we must make to grant this conditional use is that the ingress and egress to the property provides for vehicular and pedestrian safety. I am concerned about this issue. Two or more cars at the same time is going to create a problem and it's for that reason that I'm inclined not to support this request. Welsh: I have a parent/child handbook that I am putting together that will be handed out to every parent. One of the stipulations is that I shall open and close at my discretion depending on the weather. I have lived on this hill for four and a half years and I know when you can come and go on this hill and it will be included in my handbook. Estes: I think that is very well thought out proposal. Pragmatically, you are going to have clients that will leave their children and then go to work and they won't always be able to come when you want them to come. I am concerned about people pulling in and backing out onto Called and I have heard no explanation as to how you propose to handle traffic of two or more cars Welsh: The drive that I have in my yard is a very long drive and in the mornings and evenings the gate will be open and as far as the traffic coming in and where I'm located with the drive that I have, you can have up to eight cars from my back door to the street. Not all of them will be able to leave at the same time. There is additional area near my front porch that you • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 8 could park four additional cars and back out directly onto Collete if you needed to. There is plenty of room. I am located on a dead end street. It has very low traffic. I am not making any structural changes to my home. I have babysat for friends that have two and three children so I've had six and seven children in my yard as it is. I have swings and slides and sand boxes. I don't see where my business being on this street can be any type of eye sore. Odom: Staff, are you ready to address the square footage per child issues? Little: Yes. In the Code of Ordinances (not UDO) § 160.085 Home occupations "...These limitations do not apply to foster family care, or the providing of room or board as an accessory use only." That is not directly on point. To go back to child care § 160.082 Child care; nursery school, it says in (A), "...Contain a minimum area of 250 square feet per child." I said 200 square feet earlier so it's 250 square feet per child. It also says in (C), "In an R-1 zone, a child care facility may be approved as a conditional use for no more than ten children..." This also limits Ms. Welsh to the total of five that she requested. Forney. As I understand it, our regulations would allow us to consider this if we read them exactly. Little: Yes. We have never restricted those people asking for child care to the 300 square feet. If we did, we would be granting conditional uses for only one child. Forney: In spirit, I do not object to this application. I appreciate the concerns that the staff and other members of the Commission have expressed about safety. I think we have to think about that broadly. One of the advantages that I see in having day care center dispersed through out the City is that child spend less time in cars going from place to place. I hope that any residential street would be safe enough for child to be in cars. I find the ingress and egress hard to judge without a site plan. I really think these issues need to be accompanied by a site plan in the future. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve conditional use 98-24 subject to staff comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: I would add that the applicant may not know and those that objected to the conditional use should know that conditional uses give us a wide range of flexibility and we can review those any time for any problems. s • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 9 Tucker: The motion would then accommodate up to five paid customers and then the children residing at the premises. Odom: Yes. Hoffman: I am definitely in favor or day cares in general principal, however, I have to keep in mind the general welfare of the neighborhood and the City and I feel like the existing grade problem and traffic on that street gives me enough cause to say that perhaps it would be better to locate it in a safer less steep and less narrow location. Reluctantly, I'll vote against this. Roll Call Upon roll call the conditional use request was denied by a vote of 2-6-0. Commissioners Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, Odom, Reynolds, and Tucker voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 10 RZ98-20: REZONING STURCHIO/KING, PP 366 This rezoning request was submitted by Sharman Sturchio and Rich King for property located at 716 West Sycamore Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial, and contains approximately 6.36 acres. The request is to change the zoning to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Sharman Sturchio and Rich King were present on behalf of this request. Conditions of Approval None. Staff recommended approval of the request. Applicant Presentation • King: We have requested C-2 because we have a signed lease for a pub at this location and we will back at the next meeting for conditional use approval • Public Comment Patty Unseld who is employed by LaFamilia Restaurant which is located at 716 W. Sycamore spoke in opposition on the proposed use which might be allowed subsequent to the rezoning. Odom: Tonight we are only considering the rezoning request. We will not be considering the use of the building. Jay Scurlock who is the manager of the Law Quad apartments spoke in opposition on the proposed rezoning on the grounds of traffic, parking, and noise. Committee Discussion King: With the zoning that we have at this time, a tavern can go in there which may be what is going to happen due to the fact that we are not collecting on the rented space. The only thing that the rezoning would allow would be dancing within a tavem as a conditional use. Tucker: If we are asked to change the zoning does that imply per staff recommendation that we have enough land zoned I-1 and the need for more C-2? • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 11 Little: No. That is not what our recommendation implies. Our recommendation follows the uses that are already in place on that site. We were requested by the applicant to consider the change from I-1 to C-2. In looking at the types of uses that are there like the hair salon and the restaurant, both of those are actually more appropriate for a C-2 than they are for I-1. I-1 carries with it the potential for other kinds of uses that would be less compatible with the neighborhood so we felt like it was a rezoning and more reflective of what the uses are there. Odom: Is this consistent with the General Land Use Plan? Little: The General Land Use Plan calls for this to be a mixed use area. We recognize that it is an area of transition. Looking at the maps in your packet, there is R-2 to the west, and I- 1 right against R-2. Given a perfect world, your staff would not recommend I-1 next to R-2. I think mixed use probably is the correct designation. Tucker: Do we have enough I-1 in the City? Little: category. We have enough land zoned in every category. We have vacant land in every Reynolds: This is going to cause a chain reaction on that street. The neighbors to the east will come in next for C-2. Little: The neighbors to the east are the Soap and Suds. I-1 is heavy commercial and light industrial. C-2 is Thoroughfare Commercial If the neighbors to the east ask for C-2, I would be inclined to recommend that. The Soap and Suds is not a bar but it is a laundry mat that serves beer and that's not an appropriate I-1 use. It lust happened to develop that way. This is one of those areas that isn't quite right. I would have to say C-2 would be the more appropriate zoning classification. Hoover: Did you consider C-1? Or do you have a reason why you don't think it should be C-1? Little: We did consider C-1. The uses that are there now would fit. That was not the request of the applicant. Hoover: You responded to his request. Little: We basically responded to their request. Their initial request was for the rezoning and for a conditional use for a dance hall. A C-1 would not accommodate that and it does sound that they are rethinking the conditional use for the dance hall. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 12 Tucker. Would you care to comment on whether you feel it is more appropriate for this area to be C-1 versus C-2? Little: C-1 is Neighborhood Commercial and by that it is meant to serve the residents surrounding it. And since this is primarily a residential neighborhood to the west, C-1 in that area would not be inappropriate. Both a restaurant and a hair salon are permitted in C-1 and I believe that a laundry is too. Tucker: What I am most sensitive to rather than what the applicant has requested is the appropriateness of the zoning and the affect on the surrounding neighbors and the City. Hoffman: Does the laundry need C-2 to sell liquor? Little: I believe that is correct. Hoffman: So the laundry anyway would need a C-2 zoning. I want to say that I find the mixed use refreshing and I think it's a good idea. • MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the rezoning. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: I've been sitting here trying to compare the use units allowed in each of those two different uses. If we allow C-2, we would provide for hotel, motel, and amusement facilities which is Unit 14, neighborhood shopping which is Unit 15, shopping goods which is Unit 16, commercial recreation large which is Units 19 and 20, and outdoor advertising which is Unit 24, and adult live club or bar which is Unit 33. This would fall under eating places. Is that correct? Little: No. It does not fall under eating places. Forney: The statement was that this would be allowed in any case in this existing I-1 zone. Odom. Does it have any adult entertainment or bars in I-1 currently? Little: Bars fall under Use Unit 14. Actually, it is classified as a nightclub or tavern. • Forney: Use Unit 14 is not allowed in I-1. A pub or tavern would not be allowed in I-1. • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 13 The statement was made earlier that it would be allowed in any case. Reynolds: The zoning right now does not allow for a bar. Little: That is right. The applicant has visited several times with Brent and Tim and various scenarios were discussed. They may have been advised that but I am not finding that in the code. Forney: They can't have a pub in I-1. There is not any C-2 in this neighborhood and if we establish C-2 in this neighborhood, I think we'll see a number of applicants requesting rezoning. I think it is an interesting questions as to whether that would be an improvement or a problem. I wonder about the introduction of outdoor advertising, adult live entertainment clubs or bars, etc. into the neighborhood. I think I will probably vote against this. Reynolds: I would like to know from the applicant where you got your information that you could have a bar in I-1. Did it come from somebody on the planning staff or have you read the regulations? Sturchio: I visited with the planning staff. It was verbal and it was my understanding that we could by right have a neighborhood tavern exist in I-1. King: There are quite a few empty warehouses on that street. 716 Sycamore will probably file bankruptcy and be another empty building. We haven't had many people coming through wanting to rent this place. Reynolds: You have a restaurant in there now. Why would it be empty? King: They are very delinquent on rent. Estes: The discussion of permitted uses under the I-1 zoning, I had not considered. Is a bar or pub permitted in I-1? Vinson: No, sir. Estes: So if we grant this rezoning request to C-2 and I think it's reasonable that we can anticipate that property owners to the east will follow. Then we are truly changing the character of the Sycamore Street neighborhood. Odom: Estes: No. There is already a bar there. Well, how did that bar get there? That's what I'm having trouble with. I have not • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 14 patronized that business so I don't know what's there. Is it bar? Is it a tap room? Do they serve mixed drinks? Little: The name of the establishment is Soap and Suds. It is a laundry. They serve beer. I don't know when they were approved. Reynolds: They have been there for 25 years. Estes: I don't think Sycamore Street has been cut through there for 25 years. Reynolds: Len has been in that business for that long anyway. Little: We can research that for you if you like. King: There are also two other bars directly behind our property. There's Ron's Club and Bottoms Up. They're within walking distance. Estes: That's on Poplar, is it not. King: Right. Which is directly the street behind us. Reynolds: Are they zoned I-1, too? Little: Bottoms Up is I-1. I know that they do not have a liquor license. Hoffman: I'm in support of the rezoning because I don't think the building is big enough to support a big problematic River City type dance halls should that eventually be the outcome. I am aware that C-2 allows various use units within that zoning and I would not be opposed to rezoning the adjoining property should that come forward to us with the proper application and information because I think we do need to breath some life into that street. Ward: If these properties are all zoned C-1 and they are going to put a pub in there, would they have to come back and get a variance? Little: If they are zoned C-1 and they are a restaurant, they can have a liquor license. They could not have a tavern in C-1. They could have a tavern in C-2. Use Unit 14 is the night club and tavern use unit. Zone I -I and C-1 do not allow Use Unit 14. Zone C-2 does allow Use Unit 14. Hoover: But, if you're a restaurant you can serve alcohol. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 15 Ward: With the residential structures and offices in the area, it just looks more like C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Hoover: C-2 is defined as primarily uses for highway travelers and this is definitely Neighborhood Commercial and that is C-1. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Estes, Forney, Hoover, Tucker, and Ward voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 16 AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN Odom. Staff has a presentation about the proposed changes and their locations and a little bit of discussion and public comment but we will not take any action tonight. Little: Thank you. We did bring several changes to the Master Street Plan to the Planning Commission and they are enumerated in your packet. There are a total of 16 changes. Nine of those changes were a result of action taken by the Street Committee and were initiated by Kit Williams who is the chair of the Street Committee. Those nine changes were as follows: 1. Gregg Street, south of North Street, should be changed from Arterial to Collector. 2. School Street, from Archibald Yell to Dickson, should be changed from Arterial to Collector. 3. Prospect, from Gregg Street to College should be changed to local street. 4. Sterns Street should be changed to local street and without connection between from Old Missouri to College Avenue. 5. Research and Technology Park Boulevard and connection to Deane Solomon Road should be added as a collector. 6. Steele Boulevard, from Joyce Boulevard to Van Asche, should be designated as Principal Arterial and a Minor Arterial south of Van Asche to Fulbright Expressway where entrance onto expressway toward west only should be shown. 7. Remainder of the proposed streets in Steele Subdivision should be shown as now planned, all as Collector. 8. Development north of Mt. Comfort in Ruple Road and Salem Road should be revised as now approved by Planning Commission. 9. All new development and planned development which has been approved should be shown (Township west of 265, Barrington Park, Highway 16 east and west developments.) I did intervene at the Street Committee meeting and said that I felt like these actions should come to Planning Commission. I asked for that because the state law is very clear that Planning Commission plans and adopts the Master Street Plan. It is 100 percent silent on whether the Council has a role in that or not. As Planning Director, I would never recommend that the • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 17 Council not have a role in that because it is a much more official document once it is amended or brought through the Council. In reaction to the changes that the Street Committee did proposed, I can tell you that the changes to Gregg Street and Prospect Street came about through discussion in connection with the Capital Improvement Program, a planned street to connect Cleveland. Once the neighbors of Wilson Park became aware of that they expressed concern regarding two of the streets shown on the Master Street Plan. Primarily, they were concerned that Prospect was shown as a Collector Street. The Street Committee reacted to that and advised us to change that to a Local Street. So, after consideration since Prospect is the north boundary of Wilson Park, it does intersect with College Avenue at a very steep slope and there are retaining walls on both sides and it presently does not connect but it may connect in the future to Cleveland Street but in reality knowing the homes in that area, the ability as a City to ever gain the right of way to make that into a Collector is probably not in place. So, the staff does not object to that change. The other one that goes along with that is Gregg Street to be changed from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. I'm less clear on the reasons for this but in changing Gregg Street to a Collector will be difficult. That will still be a two lane street but it will be wider. In reality, it would be more reasonable to expect it to be a Collector. That caused us to make changes on West Street as well. West Street is a part of the Gregg Street south connection. Staff recommendations are as follows: 1. Gregg Street, south of North Street to Lafayette Street, change from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. 2. West Street, south of Lafayette Street to Dickson Street, change from a minor Arterial to a Collector. 3. Dickson Street, east of West Street to School Street, change from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. 4. School Street, south of Dickson Street to Archibald Yell, change from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. Prospect Street, east of Gregg Street to Mission Boulevard, remove from the Master Street Plan and show as a local street. 6. Stearns Street, west of Old Missouri to where it currently dead ends, remove from the Master Street Plan and show as a local street. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 18 7. Frazier Terrace, west of Old Missouri Road to planned intersection with Vantage, remove from the Master Street Plan and show as a local street. 8. Vantage, south of Zion Road to the point where it connects with Millsap should be realigned to the west to reflect the extension of Vantage that was built as a part of Zion Valley PUD. 9. Shepherd Lane, east of College Avenue to Frontage Road, should be removed from the Master Street Plan. 10. Realign the streets shown on the Master Street Plan to reflect the proposed streets in CMN Phase II and Mall Lane. 11. Designate Steele Boulevard as a Minor Arterial south of Van Ashe to Shiloh Drive. 12. Shiloh Drive east of Gregg Street to Steele Boulevard should be changed from a Collector to a Minor Arterial. 13. Old Missouri Road at the intersection of Zion Road and realign with Old Missouri Road to reflect the current City project to change the intersection to a "T" intersection with Zion Road and leave it as a Collector. 14. Deerpath Drive east of Crossover Road should be removed from the Master Street Plan and it should become a local street and relocate the Minor Arterial to the north to line up with Cliffs Boulevard. 15. Happy Hollow, north of Armstrong Road to Happy Hollow should be removed from the Master Street Plan and it should become a local street and change Armstrong south of 15th Street to a Minor Arterial to replace the Happy Hollow connection. 16. Designate the proposed streets in the Research and Technology Park as Collectors. Items 1-5 are primarily in response to concerns from residents in the Wilson Park Area. On Stearns Street, we did deviate from what the Street Committee had recommended mainly because of the Zion Valley PUD which had been already approved. In comparison, the Street Committee requested that Sterns should be a local and to not provide for a connection between Old Missouri to College Avenue. Staff proposes that Sterns Street be removed west of Old Missouri Road and east of Vantage from the Master Street Plan. It would not be a Collector. It will become a local street. That would leave then as your Master Street Plan currently reflects, Sterns Street to the west to be a Collector and part of it is already built that is in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 19 neighborhood of the McIlroy Branch Bank and that would intersect with Vantage. Frazier Terrace just north of Sterns Street. It is shown on the Master Street Plan to be a collector. There are already apartments built that would have interfered with that connection but with the approval of Zion Valley PUD, the decision was both a Planning Commission and City Council that Frazier Terrace would not be extended. It is not physically possible with the things that are already built for Frazier Terrace to continue to Vantage. Vantage is a north -south street that intersects with Zion Road. It crosses Joyce Street and connects to Millsap. Vantage south of Zion Road to the point where it connects with Millsap has been moved over. It has been realigned to reflect the street which has already been constructed which reflects reality as well. There was a portion of Shepherd Lane east of College Avenue which would have connected the east -west between Vantage and College which the construction of Northwest Village. That was interrupted so we recommend that be deleted from the Master Street Plan. Realigning the streets in the Master Street Plan to reflect the CMN Phase II and Mall Lane is a technical change because we are making differences to the map as to where these streets are. It is within the spirit of the Master Street Plan because these streets do fulfill the requirements that the Master Street Plan had set out and these are planned in response to the Master Street Plan. This is to reflect the approval of CMN Phase I which is the development of the first 170 acres of the 320 acres north of the Bypass. Designating Steele Boulevard to reflect a three lane width so this is more than a Collector and we felt it would be best to make that connect along Shiloh Drive and that is a minor deviation from the Master Street Plan adopted in 1995. Shiloh Drive goes along with Steele Boulevard designation change. On the previous Master Street Plan, we indicated that the Old Missouri Road would be straightened and the "Y" intersection would be taken out and we had also left the Old Missouri Road on there with both of them as Collector. One was dotted and the other extended east. We have the plans for that. We have acquired the right of way for that. We are able to accomplice that and keep it on the same alignment that was there. That project is also underway. Odom: That's going to be a "Y" intersection? Little: No. It will be a "T" but at this scale it doesn't show up. The right of way has been acquired and the project has been designed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 20 Deerpath Drive which is an entrance to a subdivision is to be removed. The part that was designated at the Minor Arterial has been moved to line up with Cliffs Boulevard. Happy Hollow is to be removed from the Master Street Plan. We have constructed our solid waste transfer facility in that location so that connection is going to have to stay on Armstrong Road and intersect with 15th Street. This is also to reflect construction that has taken place. The Research and Technology Park has not been constructed but this reflects plans that are in the works. Those can be placed on the Master Street Plan as Collectors or local streets. We have been asked to classify those as Collectors by Mr. Venable. They will very likely be large streets in order to serve that industrial area. That is my summary of the changes as recommended. Nine of them came from the Street Committee and staff looked at the plan and we realized there were some inaccuracies caused by development which was approved and we felt that since we would be making amendments, we would be remiss in not taking care of those decisions that had already been made. Odom: What about Rolling Hills Drive? It comes out and goes into Fiesta Square and • that is showing as Collector. Can that be done now? That development is in there. • Little: That is still possible to achieve based on the amount of extra parking that is there. What is less likely to be achieved is that connection to the north of Plainview because of the expansion of the Cinema and also extremely steep grade. Reynolds. Between Wilson Hollow Road and City Lake Road, what is the chance of getting from there over to Armstrong carrying the traffic out to the light All the trucks have to turn at 15th Street and it is ajob. Little: The light has improved the situation. The chances of getting the connection maybe not to the Bypass standard but the road takes a rather arched turn to the east the reason being we are going around the based of a hill/mountain and it is probably the only reasonable place for a street. Usually for building of connection street or those service kinds of drives, we depend upon the developer or the owner of the property to bring the property to us and then at that time, the Planning Commission consults the Master Street Plan and a take a look at it In reality, that particular location because of the grade, we are not likely to see a developer bring us that particular piece of the property. That may be a City project and it would have to be City initiated. This is not currently on the Capital Improvement Plan. It is not likely to be on your Capital Improvement Plan unless there is action by the citizens or Council to place it there. One of the things the Planning Commission could do if they feel like that is of great import is to pass a resolution supporting the City looking into the need for that connection and placing it into the Capital Improvements Plan to get it built. • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 21 Reynolds: Well, once the Water and Sewer takes there property and develops they will be right next to that facility. Little: Everything to the north is likely to develop and everything to the south is likely to lag behind. Reynolds: I would like to see that connection to help traffic in south Fayetteville. Ward: important? On the first 4, we have downgraded from Minor Arterial to Collector. Why is that Little: A Minor Arterial indicates a four lane street. A Collector indicates a two lane street. A Collector has half the capacity of a Minor Arterial for moving traffic. For Prospect Street, it is in response to the amount of right of way that is available and the likelihood of being able to acquire the right of way for a four lane. For Gregg Street, l am less clear for the reasoning. When you do change Gregg as suggested by the Street Committee to a Collector is has a domino affect with both West Street and School Street which causes them also to be downgraded to Collector or two lane status. It represents the only two ways that you have to north and south in the south portion of town are College Avenue with Archibald Yell and Razorback Road. Everything else will be two lane. Estes: With reference to the south of Millsap bordered by College Avenue on the east, that area needs some attention. The Washington Regional Long Term Care facility is going to be developed on top of that hill. I don't know what will happen to Plainview or Longview. Little: Plainview is under construction It is already connected to Longview and that project should be complete within a month. Estes: We need to change that. Little: We will be glad to do that.. Estes: How is it proposed to come into the Long Term Care facility? Will that be off of Plainview or out of the Medical Park? Little: I wish I could tell you that would be off of Longview. I will have to tell you that the Planning Commission did require Washington Regional to pay for one half of the extension of the street over to the present Longview. Washington Regional appealed that to the Council and the Council said that they did not have to pay for that. So, until there is additional development, there will not be a connection from Longview to Washington Regional. Even with the construction of our City Fire Station on Plainview which is also about to get underway the • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 22 only way for the fire truck to get over there will be to go north to Millsap and down Wimberly Drive and go south to Longview. Odom: It sounds to me like we need to make a resolution for something after further discussion to put that on the Capital Improvements Project. That sounds like it should be a high priority if we have a fire station going in that can only dispatch from one direction. Little: That is not new information. We had that information at the time the Council made that decision. If you would like to make that resolution, I will be glad to take that forward for you. Odom: We originally wanted the developer to put it in. Little: Planning Commission recommended the developer pay for half of it. Odom. Is that project on the Capital Improvement Project now? Little: No, sir. • Hoover: Are these just revisions and then the Master Street Plan will be updated in 1999? • Little: Yes. We update this every five years. Although we realized there were some areas that had been precluded by development, we wouldn't have brought forth amendments until the five year time frame. Since the Street Committee had gone over it and made very specific changes we felt it would be wrong to allow those changes and not take care of the other loose ends. Puttlic omment Clyde Goodmanhouse who resides on the corner of Prospect and Gregg spoke in support of the proposed changes and thanked the Street Committee and Commission for bringing the revisions forward. Ann Young residing at Adams and Gregg spoke in support of the proposed changes but suggested an alternative of making one way streets in the area. Commission Discussion Tucker: Wilson Park is a very attractive area of the City. Does the proposed extension of Gregg would it rely on Wilson Avenue? • • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 23 Little: No. It will be west of there. Odom: I think the problem is balancing the needs of the neighborhood versus the needs of the entire City. Tucker. At North and Gregg there is a new development that came through. There was an issued regarding Gregg at that point. Little: There were two issues. One was the dedication of right of way and the other was the building of the sidewalk. He did eventually build the sidewalk. We did not receive all of the right of way that we needed to receive in order to make it a Minor Arterial. Tucker: Do we still anticipate even if we go from Minor Arterial to Collector in Gregg's extension that we would still be seeking to find a route to Archibald Yell? Little: It is suppose to go down to West 6th Street. (Referring to the map at 1, 2, 3, and 4), the portion that's dotted is the only portion that is not constructed. The location on the map locates an approximate location of that connection. It hasn't been surveyed. It hasn't been designed. It doesn't represent any kind of exact location but it does show you and any developer that there is a need for a connection there. Tucker: None of the proposal on the table tonight would eliminate that dashed line 1. Little: The affect of the change is to change it from a Minor Arterial to a Collector or right of way requirement from 4 lane requirements to 2 lane requirements. The members of the Street Committee were particularly anxious to have decisions on this year. I support the Planning Commission's request to have another two weeks to vote on it. Odom. What do we have on traffic counts to substantiate the recommendations for the Wilson Park are. Little: We have two sets of traffic counts. We know we need to move traffic off Wilson Street and the extension of Gregg would very much help. Those neighbors have problems with the amount of traffic and speeding Odom: What is the status of the Gregg Street extension on the Capital Improvement Program? Little: If it is on there, it is probably in the fourth or fifth year out. It is not under design. It takes $100,000 to design a street. • • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 24 Hoover: Do you want us to look at the sixteen items? Little: I would prefer that we limit it to that. I would also prefer that you make a decision on each one of those. Forney: Is it correct that there items on the Street Committee's punch list that you made amendment to? Little: Refer to page 3.3. We concurred on the Gregg Street being changed to Arterial to Collector. We concurred on School Street being changed from Arterial to Collector. We added West Street because it goes along in that same plan. We concurred on Prospect from Gregg to College being changed to local. We do not recommend the Sterns Street change because it's not clear what they were asking for. Stems Street should be changed to a local street and without connection from Old Missouri to College. Refer to the Master Street Plan and you'll see that Stems is already in place at the intersection of Joyce and it serves a commercial area. What we proposed was that the Collector standard be maintained only to that part of the street called Vantage. We discussed putting Vantage on the map but apparently that did not occur in the drafting stage but it is the extension of Millsap to the north intersecting with Zion. Number 8 will change. From that point on, we have right of way and we recommend that it be constructed as a local street. That is one deviation. They asked for Research and Technology Park to be added Collectors and we concurred They asked for Steele Boulevard and the streets in the CMN area to be changed to what was approved by the CMN plat and we concurred. They asked for development north of Mt. Comfort Road and the Rupple and Salem Road area to be revised. Those are local streets. Those do not go on the Master Street Plan. They will go on a street plan as soon as they are built. We neither concurred nor disagree on that. They asked for all new development and planned development which has been approved from Township west of 265, Barrington Park at Highway 16 and other westem developments to be shown. Those are not built yet. As soon as they are, they will be added on local streets under our normal process. I explained that at the Street Committee meeting and they understand. Then we added clean up items to reflect where we know the streets are not going. Forney: There was only one deviation from the Street Committee's proposal and that was Stems Streets. Little: Yes. Reynolds: If we don't agree with one or two or all of the sixteen points, then where are we at with the traffic study. • Little: That's why we brought it to you in this form so you could make a decision on each issue. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 25 NEW BUSINESS Reynolds: What do we have lined up regarding the sewer? Little: Commissioner Odom had called me and asked me to have a briefing for Planning Commission on the Sewage Treatment Plan and exactly where the City was. Mr. Conklin talked to Mr. Venable as well as Don Bunn. Mr. Venable is having a meeting with the consultant on Friday, December 4. After that meeting, we will be in a better position and know more about our capacity and how much more capacity has in terms of dwelling units. Once they have developed that information they are willing to have a session. Tucker. We would also like to know the time of the meeting and if we would be allowed to attend. Little: I will convey your request. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. • STAFF Item #1 Cu48-z4 WELS+-1 ABSENT Item #2 tZ98 o Item #3 MOTION Feet421 HOFF1114W T. Conklin J. Johns SECOND lnJpIZp A. Little `/ ODGM B. Vinson ✓/ D. Warrick ✓ B. Estes N N J. Forney 7 N L. Hoffman- uzerG (:Z5 N Pg. y S. Hoover N \101 P. Johnson - petsiarr C. Odom 11 7 R. Reynolds Ni G. Tucker 1\1 N L. Ward y ACTION NW vii lilts VOTE z-4-0&-g_e 3-5-0 STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers ✓ T. Conklin J. Johns ✓ A. Little `/ B. Vinson ✓/ D. Warrick ✓