Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday May 12, 1980 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Keith Newhouse, Beth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt and Larry Wood. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, W. D. May, Brian Disney, Emil Utecht, Ron Rone, Jim McCord, Neal Albright, Helen Edmiston, members of the press and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Newhouse called the meeting to order. The minutes of the April 14, 1980 meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES The first item of discussion was the approval of ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT the Large Scale Development plan for Arkansas Best LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT Freight System, Inc. to be located on the West side of HWY 112 $ TRUCKERS LANE Hwy. 112 between Truckers Lane and the City Limits; ABC-Treadco, Inc., Owner $ Developer. Zoned I-1 Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. W. D. May was present to represent. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr May if the adjoining property owner to the West had been notified of the proposed Large Scale Development. Mr. May replied that he had brought proof with him that the adjoining property owner had been notified. Bobbie Jones confirmed this fact. Mr. Newhouse told Mr. May that there were two things that would be of concern to the Planning Commission. Mr. Newhouse said that one thing that the Committee was most concerned about was the improvement of Trucker's Lane, which runs along the South side of the property, and asked what Mr. May's thoughts were on this. Mr. May said that he thought they would have to do something with the road at least into their driveway. Mr. Newhouse stated that it appeared, from the plans, that the main entrance for the ABF Terminal would be from Trucker's Lane. Mr. May replied that he felt that an entrance at that point would be safer than an entrance on to Hwy. 112, and Mr. Newhouse agreed. Mr. Newhouse asked if the ABF property ended where the pavement terminated. Mr. May replied that the property did go beyond the end of the pavement and that there was a marker just past Campbell 66's driveway. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. May if he had any idea who owned the property on the South side across Trucker's Lane. Mr. May said that he did not know who owned that property. Mr. Newhouse said that the Committee would like to see the road improved properly, and asked Mr. May if it was likely that ABC-Treadco could go back to the end of their property and improve the road to bring it up to City standards. Mr. May replied that he didn't think it would do any good to improve only half of the street. Bobbie Jones asked if Mr. Newhouse meant for ABC-Treadco to install street base for the full depth of the property, and Mr. Newhouse said that he did. Mr. Newhouse asked what the possibility was of Mr. May doing this from 112 to his driveway. Mr. May asked Mr. Newhouse what type of improvements he was talking about. Mr. Newhouse said that that would have to be cleared with Clayton Powell, the City Street Superintendent. Mr. May said that he wanted to cooperate with the City and that he was perfectly willing to develop a good road to their fence, but that he did not like Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 2 the idea of making improvements for others using the road. Mr. May said that if others were benefitting equally from the improvements, then they should share the cost. At this time Mr. Newhouse read Clayton Powell's written comments to the Plat Review Committee meeting of May 1, 1980 at which the proposed Large Scale Development plan for ABF was discussed. Mr. Powell had strongly suggested that ABF be required to bring Trucker's Lane up to City standards where ABF's property abuts it. Mr. May asked if that meant that he would have to improve the entire street. Mr. Newhouse replied that it would be only up to the end of the property. Mr. May asked if he would be responsible for both sides of the street and Mr. Newhouse replied that he would. At this time Don Hunnicutt asked if Campbell 66 had put up bond money for improve- ment of Trucker's Lane and Mr. Newhouse replied that they had not. Mr. Hunnicutt thought that they should be responsible for half of it. Mr. Newhouse felt that that was only fair, because of the advantages they would receive if it were improved. Mr. Newhouse then suggested that Mr. May improve the road and that Campbell 66 would be responsible for whatever happens on the South end of the road. Mr. May asked what the City required. Mr. Newhouse replied "curb $ gutter". Mr. May said that there was no storm drainage out there and he was not sure that curb and gutter would work with no storm sewer system. Mr. Hunnicutt told Mr. May that he would have to see Clayton Powell about all the standards. Mr. May said that he would get with Mr. Powell. Mr. Newhouse asked if the provisions for the physically handicapped was state or federal law. Bobbie Jones said that it had been written into the Zoning Ordinance to require it where required by the Building Code. Mr. Newhouse asked Mrs. Jones if the provisions were something that could be waived. Bobbie Jones said that she was not sure; she would have to check the Building Code to find out. Mr. May said that there would be an existing ramp going up to the building, and he thought that it could be used in the event of a handicapped person needing to get into the building, but that it was at a steeper incline than that required for normal access by handicapped persons. Mr. May said that a ramp 86 ft. long would be required to meet the grade requirement. Mr. Newhouse said that if it was in the Committee's authority to do so, he would waive the requirements. Bobbie Jones'thought on this matter was to recommend to the decision making body that these provisions be waived. The next matter in relation to the ABF Terminal proposal was the construction of, or posting of a cash bond for the construction of, sidewalks. Mr. Newhouse said that he thought it would be best to require a cash bond. Mr. May said that if a cash bond were required, he would rather build the sidewalk himself because of the cost of money. At this time Don Hunnicutt asked if the utility easements, along with the 40 ft. right-of-way from the centerline of Highway 112 had been dedicated. Mr. May said that a Mr. Don Kemp would deliver to Mrs. Bobbie Jones, a new survey which would show a dedication of the 40 ft. right-of-way from the centerline of Hwy. 112, and, also, the 25 ft. easement inside of that for the utility easement. Bobbie Jones asked if she would receive legal descriptions of these. Mr. May replied that she would. Mr. May said that the 20 ft. easement requested along the south side of the property would also be included. Mr. Newhouse asked if that should be included in the motion and Bobbie Jones said that it should. Bobbie Jones said that Ozarks Electric had an existing utility easement across the front of the lot that was not shown on the first drawing. Mr. May said there was a utility line along the south property line and he presumed that there was an easement there, but that he did not know the size of the easement; that it was not shown on his present survey. Bobbie Jones said that the utility companies were asking for a 20 ft. utility easement along the south line and that the line would probably be included in that. Mr. May said that the line did run right along the fence on the south property line. Mr. Newhouse said that he saw five recommendations from the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Hunnicutt made the motion that the ABF Truck Terminal be approved with the following recommendations: Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 3 1. Improve Trucker's Lane along the South side from Hwy 112 approximately 470 ft., plus or minus, to the boundary of the development planned. This portion of street will meet City standards according to the City Street Superintendent. 2. The Committee recommends waiver of the ramp for the physically handicapped, but not the number or size of parking spaces. 3. Install concrete sidewalk along east boundary (along Hwy. 112). 4. Dedicate a 25 ft. utility easement outside the 40 ft. right-of-way from centerline along Hwy. 112. 5. Dedicate 20 ft. easement along the North side of Trucker's Lane. Mr. Newhouse seconded the motion by Mr. Hunnicutt and the proposal was passed on to the Planning Commission (2-0). Mrs. Crocker was not present when the vote was taken. The next item for discussion was the approval of the proposed Large Scale Development plan for the Mission Boulevard Baptist Church to be located North of Hwy. 45 East and East of Lisa Lane. Mission Boulevard Baptist Church, Owner $ Developer. Brian Disney was there to represent. A Conditional Use is also being requested for approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Newhouse asked if all the adjoining property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones said there had been an advertisement put in the paper; and the Planning Office had also mailed them copies of the agenda. Bobbie Jones said that she had received a call from a Mr. Utecht who was not in favor of the proposed Large Scale Development. Mr. Newhouse asked Mrs. Jones if she had received any other calls against this proposal; Mrs. Jones replied that she had not. At this time Mr. Newhouse recognized Mr. Disney and asked if anybody in the audience was present in regard to this particular proposal, it appeared that everyone present was there in regard to the Mission Boulevard Baptist Church. Mr. Newhouse said that he would like to get the feeling of the people in the audience first as the Church was not automatically permitted on this property. Mr. Disney asked if it was accurate to state that the Church was not permitted on this property since there was no specific zone where a Church was allowed. Mr. Newhouse said he did not mean any offense, but that it was up to the residents of this area, and the adjoining property owners to state their cases. Mr. Newhouse asked the audience how many were in favor of the Church's proposition, there were four in favor that were adjoining property owners, and there were six speaking in favor of the Church that were members of the Church. At this time, Mr. Newhouse recognized Mr. Utecht, who was against the Church's proposal. Mr. Utecht stated that he represented four adjoining property owners, including himself, who were against the proposed Church. Mr. Utecht said that according to the drawings, his back yard would be right against the proposed parking lot. He also stated that he represented three other people. Mr. Newhouse asked how many homes actually adjoined the property that the Church proposed to build on. Bobbie Jones stated that there were 13 lots but that she thought that one home was on two lots. Mr. Utecht stated that many of the houses were owned by realtors and rented out. MISSION BOULEVARD BAPTIST CHURCH LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE 2006 MISSION BOULEVARD Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 4 Mr. Hunnicutt asked how many of the people present were actually home owners. Of the persons present, all owned their homes. Bobbie Jones said that the Church's proposed site was not wide enough to develop with a road down the center with lots on either side. At this time Floyd Pothast stated that he was the Realtor and that he had had this property listed for one and one-half years. He also stated that it was not feasible to put a street down the center of the lot and do any developing of this property. Mr. Pothast said that he felt a Church would be the best use for the property. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Disney if the proposed driveway would come off Hwy. 45 and, if so, would it be part of the existing service station. Mr. Disney replied that the driveway would come off of Hwy. 45, but that it was adjacent to the service station and on the proposed Church's property. Don Hunnicutt asked where the Hwy. right-of-way easement was located. Mr. Disney showed the Committee where the right-of-way was located and that 25 ft. of additional right-of-way would be dedicated. Don Hunnicutt asked Mr. Disney what the distance was from the Church's driveway to the adjoining property. Mrs. Bobbie Jones stated that the entrance driveway to a non-residential use should be 20 ft. from the residential use; but that the Planning Commission could waive that and require twelve and one-half feet from the adjoining residential use provided that the adjoining driveway be twelve and one-half feet from the property line for a total of twenty-five feet between driveways. Bobbie Jones said that, according to Clayton Powell's comments, the right-of-way along Hwy. 45 East would require an additional 10 ft. Mr. Disney said that he had shown that on his drawing. Mrs. Jones informed him that he would have to make the dedication by an instrument that could be recorded in the Court House Mr. Newhouse asked about the Hwy. 45 entrance; he wondered if there were any regulations regarding width of driveways. Bobbie Jones said that there was no minimum width requirement; there is a maximum width of 40 ft. for commercial driveways. Mrs. Jones suggested that the proposed driveway be wide enough to accomodate both ingoing and outgoing traffic at the same time. Don Hunnicutt expressed some distress over the informality of the drawings. He asked about what appeared to be a North entrance. Bobbie Jones stated that that road dead-ended.at Dr. Albright's property. Mr. Hunnicutt asked about other streets in the area Mr. Newhouse said that they all ended in cul-de-sacs. Mr. Newhouse said he felt uncomfortable about waiving the screening, because he understood that some neighbors were not pleased with the Church moving into their neighborhood, and he was sure that they would want some screening. At this time Mr. Utecht interjected that he felt there would be a substantial heat factor coming from the asphalt of the parking lot. Mr. Disney pointed out that he was not requesting a variance from the screening requirements around buildings and parking lots. Mr. Disney said that he planned to keep the rear portion of the property in as natural a state as possible. He said that he did not want to go to the expense of screening around a basically open yard area. Mr. Newhouse said that he could see how adjoining property owners who had no interest in the Church would want screening. Don Hunnicutt said that he was in favor of Mr. Disney incorporating his many different plans into one plan that he would feel comfortable passing on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hunnicutt said that he would like to have the recommendations and comments made so far concerning the proposed Church itemized, and would like the property owners involved to have sufficient time to study the recommendations and comments made so far. Mr. Utecht stated that he felt that he had not had enough time to consider the agenda.mailed and that his neighbors had not had sufficient time to give notice so that they could come to the meeting tonight. Mr. Ron Rone from the audience stated that he had gotten his notice in the mail Tuesday or Wednesday, that he works, and that he took the time off from work to come to this meeting. Mr. Rone stated that, as the proposed property existed now, it • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 5 was unkempt, and that snakes, ticks and chiggers were plentiful. Mr. Newhouse said that Mr. Rone knew how this property was before he bought his present house. Mr. Rone agreed he did. Mr. Newhouse asked how far into the lot Mr. Disney planned to build. Mr. Newhouse said that on the drawing it appeared to be 300 ft. and he wondered if all of that was going to be asphalt and parking area Mr. Disney said it would not be. At this time, Mr. Disney said that going back to Mr. Hunnicutt's request that all of Mr. Disney's drawings be incorporated into one plan, he said that he had made so many drawings in order to simplify his plans. He stated that if the Subdivision Committee needed a larger drawing, that he would have one made. Mr. Newhouse asked if the proposed Church would be used primarily on Sunday's and Wednesday's. Mr. Disney stated that he hoped the Church would be used daily. Mr. Disney said that he would not be interested in a site where his Church would be restricted to certain times and days for use. He also stated that there was no zone for Churches and he felt that he would probably be restricted wherever he decided to build the Church. Mr. Hunnicutt said that the restrictions were not necessarily against the Church, but that in this particular case the Church was asking for so many variances from the Code. Elizabeth Crocker arrived at 4:05 P.M. Mr. Disney stated that the reason he had asked that the screening requirement be waived was that the Church did not want screening right up against Hwy. 45. If screening were brought up to the road, vision would be obstructed both by oncoming traffic, and by traffic pulling out of the Church's driveway. Mr. Disney said that he had stepped off twenty-five feet and felt that would be a sufficient setback for the screening. Bobbie Jones said that a setback of 25 ft. from the Hwy., for the screening, would be required by her office for visual safety. Mr. Disney said that he was asking that screening be waived around the open yard area, but not around buildings and parking areas, and that fence -type screening be waived altogether. Bobbie Jones said that if the fence -type screening were waived, the vegetation screening would have to be view -obscuring within two years. Mr. Newhouse asked about the height of the screening. Bobbie Jones said it should be within five to eight feet. Mr. Utecht complained that if the Church removes all the existing vegetation, and is not required to put any screening within twenty-five feet of the Hwy., lights from the traffic would be a problem shining into his home. Mr. Utecht felt that some type of screening should be put in right up to the road. Mr. Newhouse replied that that was impossible because it would interfere with traffic flow, but that he understood Mr. Utecht's viewpoint. Mr. Hunnicutt said that he would like to make the recommendations on the drives and screening etc. and pass the comments on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Hunnicutt if he wanted to make a recommendation for or against the proposal. Bobbie Jones said that they could make a recommendation on the Large Scale Development plan and the waivers only, and that the Conditional Use would have to be considered by the Planning Commission. At this time Mr. Utecht voiced his problem with the noise factor of traffic if the existing vegetation were removed and the Church's parking area put in. He also said that he did not like the idea of looking out his window and seeing a parking lot. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Utecht what lot he was on. Mr. Utecht replied that his lot was number 23 (the second lot off Hwy. 45). Mr. Disney asked if the City required fence screening. Bobbie Jones stated that the City requires a "view obscuring fence, vegetation, or combination of the two". Mr. Disney said that if the Committee felt that the visual obscurance needed A Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 6 to be all around the lot that he would not be opposed to putting it in. Mr. Disney also stated that he was in sympathy with Mr. Utecht's concerns and that he wanted to cooperate with him if at all possible. Mr. Disney stated that he would leave as much vegetation as he possibly could. Mr. Newhouse said that it appeared from Mr. Disney's drawings that the Church and its out buildings would extend 480 ft. into the property. Mr. Disney said that the project would extend a total of 375 ft. including the parking lots. Mr. Newhouse said that the first three houses took up approximately 300 ft. on that same line. and that he felt that those property owners would be perfectly justified in wanting a view -obscuring fence between their property and the Church's. Mr. Utecht interjected that he had found out that he could expect a lower property value on his house. Mr. Hunnicutt recommended that the Large Scale Development and Conditional Use be passed on to the Planning Commission with the following comments: 1. A view -obscuring fence be constructed between asphalt parking areas, driveways, and building areas and adjoining property owners; and either a fence or vegetation along the park and open areas. 2. The entrance drive shall be twelve and one-half feet from the property line with a twenty-five foot driveway entrance. • Mr. Newhouse seconded. The motion was passed (2-0-1) with Mrs. Crocker abstaining because she had not been present for all of the discussion. • The next item for. discussion was the approval BUTTERFIELD PLAZA OFFICE PUD of the final plat of Butterfield Plaza located at the CORNER OF OAK CLIFF ST. $ corner of Oak Cliff Street and Old Missouri Road. Neal OLD MISSOURI ROAD B. Albright, Owner $ Developer. Property is zoned R-0, Residential Office District. This is proposed as an "Office PUD". Bobbie Jones had asked Jim McCord, the City Attorney, to be present and he started the discussion. Mr. McCord said that as a matter of law he could not see, in the ordinance, where a Commercial PUD was prohibited. He said that as the ordinance reads now, a PUD is not restricted to residential use. Mr. McCord suggested that if the Board intended PUD's to be strictly residential, that the ordinance should be amended to state that specifically. Mr. Newhouse said that originally the ordinance was meant for strictly residential development. Mr. McCord said that the ordinance needed to be clarified. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Albright why he wanted to develop his offices as a Commercial PUD. Mr. Albright stated that the purpose of the Commercial PUD was financing. He said he had built Phase I of the Large Scale Development plan; and that when he applied for financing on Phase II the lending institutions wanted to refinance Phase I at the present, higher rate of interest. He said the PUD would also enable him to sell and give clear title to a portion of the development. Mr. Albright said that he felt that he was going along with the nature of the PUD in that the parking and driveways would be common property. He realized that he would have to be awarded some variances. He said that there were conditional uses all around him except on two sides, and that he would like the setback from R-1 to be reduced from 150 ft. to 50 ft. He stated that the approved Large Scale Development plan had shown the setbacks requested in this proposal. Mr. Albright said that he would need variances in such • cases as play area, swimming pool and tennis courts etc., that are needed in a strictly residential development. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Albright about his feeling on the sidewalk proposed. Mr. Albright replied that when he developed this parcel he participated a substan- tial amount of money in the building of the street, and that at that time the sidewalk was ommitted. He said that he did not object to a sidewalk being placed there, but that he did not feel that he should bear all the cost of placing one there. Mrs. Crocker stated that she was not willing to hear this proposal as a PUD because she felt that it violated the spirit of the PUD Ordinance, which was residential with very limited commercial. At this time Beth Crocker made the motion that the consideration of this proposal as a PUD be denied. Don Hunnicutt said that he was not totally convinced. He said that this parcel of land was zoned R-0 and he did not see what else could be put there. Crocker's motion died for lack of a second. Newhouse stated that this proposal would be passed on to the Planning Commission without recommendation. Mr. McCord suggested that Mr. Newhouse advise the Planning Commission of what Mr. McCord had advised the Subdivision Committee; that the present PUD Ordinance should be clarified. The next item for discussion was the approval of THE L.B.E. CONCEPT PLAT a concept plat of the L.B.E. located South of Sycamore SYCAMORE STREET & ST. LOUIS $ Street and West of St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad; SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD L.B.E., Inc., Owner $ Developer. Property zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Helen Edmiston was present to represent. Mr. Newhouse stated that he had looked at the proposed site and had noticed that it was presently wet, even though there had been little rain recently. Mr. Newhouse asked if the Developer planned to build the land up. Mrs. Edmiston stated that she was not planning to build on the land and that she was selling the land to someone who also did not plan to build on it. Crocker asked what L.B.E. meant. Mrs. Edmiston replied that it was Lawrence - Block -Edmiston; it consisted of all the property in a line from Poplar Street back to Carl Tune's, between the railroad tracks along Gregg Street and the houses that face Leverett. Bobbie Jones asked if the Murl Steed property had always cut into this property as shown. Helen Edmiston said yes. Mrs. Edmiston said that the person who was interested in buying part of the property was an apartment developer who was aware that part of the land lay in the flood plain. She stated that he planned to put play areas or something like that in the wet area and not build on it. Mr. Newhouse asked about the school site. He said that he thought that there would be an awful lot of traffic. Mrs. Edmiston stated that Harry Vandergriff thought the location was ideal as the Commercial Zone could act as a buffer between the school and Sycamore Street. Mr. Hunnicutt asked if the proposed street had been planned differently previously. Mrs. Edmiston replied that it had never been planned before. Mr. Newhouse asked if the proposed street would come off of an existing street. Mrs. Edmiston said yes it would come off of Sycamore. Bobbie Jones asked if the street would intersect with Chestnut. Mrs. Edmiston stated that it would jog. Hunnicutt asked if Chestnut was the street that was presently barricaded off and Mrs. Edmiston replied that it was. Larry Wood stated that he did not like the way this area was developing. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Wood if he had discussed his feelings with Mr. Vandergriff and A Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 12, 1980 Page 7 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 12, 1980 Page 8 Mr. Wood said that he had not. Mr. Newhouse asked Mr. Wood's recommendation on the school being built there. Larry Wood said that he would write a negative recommendation on rezoning. He said that if the zoning went through, and was approved by the Planning Commission, that he would recommend that the school have frontage at least on Sycamore and preferably on Leverett.too. Helen Edmiston asked what Mr. Wood would recommend on the rest of the frontage. Larry Wood replied that he still believes that that area should be zoned industrial. Mr. Wood said that he did not feel that there should be residential pockets in between industrial uses. At this time Mr. Newhouse suggested tabling the L.B.E. Concept Plat until the Committee had gotten some additional information from Mr. Vandergriff as to why he wants that school site and what areas of the community it would serve. Mrs. Edmiston agreed to tabling the Plat until May 27, 1980. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. -14 1br