Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-04 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Thursday December 4, 1986 at 3:30 P.H. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, B.J. Dow and Frank Farrish MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE REPLAT OF FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT - A.W. REALTY, BLOCKS 1 & 2 A. W. REALTY - EAST SIDE OF FRONT ST., SOUTH OF SAIN ST. The first item of Plat submitted by Tull, Span & Yoe of Sain Street. and I-1, Light acres. consideration was the replat of a final Subdivision A.W. Realty and represented by Bob Crafton of Crafton, for property located east of Front Street and south The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Industrial and Heavy Commercial and contains 16.29 Carlisle advised a bill of assurance for sidewalks and street lights was executed at the time of the construction for the first building for Arkansas Western Gas. In answer to a question from Jacks, Mr.Crafton said there was no required drainage that would require drainage easements on the property. Jacks asked if proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office and Mr. Crafton said he hoped they would have proof of notification by Monday December 8, 1986. MOTION Dow moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission contingent upon proof of notification, seconded by Farrish. The motion passed 3-0-1 with Green abstaining. PHIL FREDRICKS - LANDSCAPING COMPANY - LSD EAST OF HWY 71 BYPASS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD. • The second item of consideration was the Large Scale Development Plan for a Landscaping Company submitted by Mr. Phil Fredricks and represented by Steve Denoon of Lindsey Construction Company. Property located east of Hwy 71 bypass on the south side of Cato Springs Road and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial. zs • • • Subdivision Committee December 4, 1986 Page 2 In answer to a question from Jacks, Mr. Denoon said the plat showed an 80' ROW for Hwy 265 but he had not verified that with the Arkansas State Highway Department. Jacks asked if proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office and Mr. Denoon replied he had not submitted proof as yet. In answer to a question from Dow, Carlisle suggested at Plat Review that the parking lot be paved. She said Mr. Denoon had said there would be no retail at the site so she had decided to leave the decision with the Planning Commission. Mr. Denoon said there was a note on the plat that part of the site would be retail but he talked with Mr. Fredricks and he said there would be a small shop and office and "no retail". Jacks suggested that the retail note be taken off of the drawing. Dow asked if parking would be required if there was no retail. Carlisle said the parking would be based on the sq. ft. of the building but she was also going by the retail aspect as shown on the plat. Carlisle said since there was only going to be 3 employees she would require 12-1/2' in on Cato Springs be chip and seal. Carlisle said the ordinance required 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. of floor area. Green said then they would only be required to have 2 spaces. Carlisle then said 6 spaces or more must be durable and dust free. Jacks advised the minutes to reflect that this LSD will not be retail because decisions had been based on the non -retail aspect. MOTION Dow moved to approve subject to: 1) proof of adequate ROW from the Arkansas State Highway Department; 2) proof of notification from adjoining property owners; 3) bill of assurance for the sidwalk along Cato Springs; 4) paving of chip & seal 12-1/2' into the property and; 5) the recommen- dations listed were based on "no retail", seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed unanimously. SPOT NOT CAR -WASH - LSD SOUTH OF HWY 45 ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 265 - GMW PARTNERSHIP The third item of consideration was the Large Scale Development Plan for the Spot Not Car -Wash submitted by GMW Partnership and representedby Northwest Engineers. Property located south of Hwy 45 on the west side of Hwy 265 and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The representative had not arrived for this meeting as yet. 2�b • • • Subdivision Committee December 4, 1986 Page 3 Jacks advised the Plat Review comments indicated proof of notification, 1 parking space per 1000 sq.ft. and a bill of assurance for a sidewalk on the east side of the property. Carlisle advised she had proof of notification and the parking was adequate. She said the bill. of assurance would be in the Planning Office on Monday December 8, 1986. Dow said the traffic from the car -wash would exit out onto Highway 265 which is a heavily travel road and asked if it was mandatory that they have 2 points of ingress/egress. She asked could they have a enter and exit on those 2 drives. Carlisle stated the plat shows 2 -way traffic on both drives. Dow said the 2 points of access bothered her and Jacks agreed and felt they did not need 2 points of access. Farrish said he felt the 2 drives would not create any more or less traffic at that location. Farrish asked if the sidewalk should extend to the property line. Jacks advised let the bill of assurance reflect the sidewalk should extend to the property line. Carlisle said she had not recieved proof of the curb cut permits from the State Highway Department. Dow said she felt better if the 2 drives were an entrance and exit. Farrish said he would be opposed to just one entrance but if they wanted to make the 2 drives and entrance and exit they would be preferable. Ervan Wimberly arrived at this point to represent the Spot Not Car -Wash. Jacks asked Mr.Wimberly why the sidewalk was shown to one property line and not the other. Mr. Wimberly said there was a big ditch on the east side of the property. Jacks said a question came up about the 2 drives versus 1. Mr. Wimberly said the State Highway had no problem with the 2 drives. He said the permits were on the way. Wimberly said it had always worked out better to have 2 drives for the traffic flow and that most of the car -washes have 2 points of access. Dow asked what they would think about 1 entrance and 1 exit. Wimberly • • • Subdivision Committee December 4, 1986 Page 4 replied he would rather keep the 2 -drives with both directions. MOTION Farrish moved to approve this LSD contingent upon a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk along the east side and proof of the State Highway permit, seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed 3-1-0, with Dow voting "nay". aa3