Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-12-06 MinutesI • MINUTES OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 2:00 p.m. in the Court Room on December 6, 1960, Planning Commission members present: Mr. Caudle, Mr. Gose, Mr. Stubblefield, Mr. Yoe and Mrs. Siegel. Others present at the meeting: Mr. Raymond Nelson and Mr. Harold Lieberenz. Upon the request of the City Building Inspector, nine items from the new Zoning Ordinance were discussed. The attached sheet prepared by the City Building Inspector lists these items and the comments of the Planning Commission with the exception of those comments given below. Re. Item 6: Warren Segraves appeared with plans for a new Methodist Student Center on West Maple. The Methodists own 21,000 square feet of land instead of the acre required under the new zoning ordinance. The dimensions are 112 feet by 190 feet. The proposed building would be 7,500 by 8,000 square feet and have a chapel with 125 seats. The present building is 3,400 square feet approximately and serves 30 to 40 people. There is adequate parking for the staff of 4 to 5 people. Removal of the small apartment on the lot would add only 30 x 190 feet in addition or room for 10 to 15 more seats. Episcopalian Rev. Small anticipates 50 people at the most. He comes before the Board of Adjustment on December 9. They have not bought yet but are planning to buy 14,000 • square feet (90 x 200 feet) on Maple. Rev. Small seems to believe their building would be in use when parking would not be a problem - weekday 6:30 to 7:30 Wednesday communion; Sunday night; weekday drop-in counciling. Presbyterian—same situation as Methodists. Location: Storer and Maple. All three felt the need to be close to the campus. This was a preliminary meeting and Mr. Lieberenz and Mr. Nelson are to study the situation. Re. Item 9: After discussion the members decided any subdivision already platted and recorded should not be bound by the new sudivision regulations. Mr. Gose made a motion, seconded by Mr. Stubblefield to amend the ordinance requiring the side yard setback from roof overhang lot line may be as narrow as 5 feet on all plats within the city lim�Cst recorded prior to the passage of Ordinance 1239, June 30, 1960. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion concerning the Lewis East Mountain Addition replat. It was signed September 30, 1960, but was returned by the Council since they did not under- stand why the curb and gutter had not been met. It was decided that a brief history of the plat since the time it was returned to the engineer by the Planning Commission for working in the title, dates and reason for having it returned to the City Engineer. It is all right under the present ordinance except for the paper, but it was approved before the subdivision regulations were passed by the Council. The subdivision regulations apply to new subdivisions and this is a replat. Ed McClelland, Chairman, Ellis Burgin, Bryan Walker were asked to serve as a committee • to work with the Planning Commission to solve communications difficulties. 7 Minutes of December 6, 1960 • There were people present concerning rezoning of the Curry Grocery Store area. Discussions were heard pro and con a second time. Clay Yoe made the motion that the Planning Commission decline to recommend a change in zoning for the Curry Grocery Area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gose and passed unanimously. The members of the Commission felt that granting of this request would constitute spot zoning and that there was inadequate justification for providing a neighbor- hood shopping area at that location. While the property owners of the neighbor- hood do not object to the store continuing as a non -conforming use, there was objection to the proposed expansion of the commercial district. There was a motion to accept the procedures for Subdividers presented by Mr. R. Nelson (see copy attached). After discussion the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Austin Parish was present and requested a public hearing on the rezoning of the Garland Street shopping area (proposed). His plan includes the opening of North Street to connect with Highway 16 West. He will dedicate 10 feet to widen North Street to the required 60 feet. He also plans to relocate Mt. Comfort Road to intersect with Garland Avenue. His shopping area provides off street parking with spaces of 18 x 10 feet per car. The hearing was set for 4:00 p.m. on December 27, 1960. There will be notice placed in the paper by December 12. Mr. Caudle asked that the Planning Commission meet at 3:00 p.m. on December 27 in order to elect officers. • The meeting was adjourned. n U Article VI. Exceptions and Modifications Section 1. Lot of Record Prior to Adoption of Ordinance 'Second paragraph Any lot which is located in a residential district (zone) within the city and was platted and recorded prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which does not have sufficient land to conform to the yard width requirements of this may • be used as a building site for a single family structure, provided that the side yard setback from the roof overhang is no less than five (5) feet and that the lot area and other requirements of the district are met. r I* /Y C� 9 TO: City Planning Commission Fayetteville, Arkansas FROM: City Building Inspector SUBJECT: In enforcing City Zoning Ordinance No. 1239 for a period of five months, I find some problems which I feel, as City Building Inspector, deserve some study as to possible amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance, DATE: December 3, 1960 ITEM 1. Section 8, Part 1 "a" of Article V does not carry over the "uses" allowed along College Avenue (C-2 Thoroughfare District) to the downtown and Dickson areas (C-3 Central Commercial District.) L( Prob em This conation does not permit enlarging, constructing or remodeling a build- ing in the downtown and Dickson areas to use as mortuaries, doctors, or dental Gl�clinics, and drive-in eating and drinking establishments. There are a number l of these existing in C-3 Central Commercial District at the present time and they could not be enlarged or remodeled. Solution 1. Amend Section 8, Part 1 "a" to include uses in C-2 Thoroughfare District. or 2. Amend Section 8, Part 1 "b" to include the uses mentioned above. ITEM 2. Section 3, Part 1 "c", of Article V entitled HOME OCCUPATIONS limits the size of signs advertising occupations to 12 inches x 12 inches or one square foot. OA-� Problem I have had some complaints from a real estate broker or two that the Fayette- �; (0P) ville Real Estate Association requires certain information to be on their • (%��,dl office signs. It is impossible to get the required information on a sign of 5 tr this size with lettering large enough to read. LIP Solution 1. Allow a larger sign for hom occupations. or 2. Permit larger signs for these uses if approved by the Board of Adjustment. ITEM 3 The Zoning Ordinance defines a "BOARD HOUSE", but the use is not permitted in any zoning district. 09� Problem This type of use is desirable around the University of Arkansas (R-4 Multi- $17- ulti-,(Z 34q, family Residential and Dormitory District), and I have had a few persons ask / laa me where they could have such a "use". Solution Section 5, Part 1 "b" of Article V should be amended to permit this use in the ti R-4 District. r� R 3 ITEM L Section 7, Part 4 "b" of Article V does not require a side setback for a build- ing erected on corner lots along College Avenue in the C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial Districts when no parking is on the intersecting street. Problem The Zoning Ordinance permits the buildings to be built right on the property line of the intersecting street if that side is not to be used for "off -the - street" parking. I am not sure if this was an oversight in writing the Zoning Ordinance or if it were intended as such. Solution If this was an oversight, Section 7, Part 4 "b" of Article V could be amended by adding the words "OR if the side yard is on an intersecting street" after the wording "contiguous to a residential district." This would require a min- imum ten (10) foot setback on a side street if no parking and forty (40) foot setback with parking along College Avenue. [1 ITEM 5 Signs. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new signs erected in the C-2 n^ Thoroughfare Commercial Zone be setback ten (10) feet from the front property line. We have had three or four businesses who wish to erect a sign out at the property line even with existing signs. They complain that this does not give �7 �O� Iri 10 them an equal right. Two business men on College Avenue have appealed to the Board of Adjustment and have been turned down. This problem should be given further study to see if some relief can be given. ITEM 6. Student centers close to the University. Three or more different church groups) have appealed to me for some relief with their problem. JCA �� ��� ITEM 7. 400 V • Problem �v- U The Zoning Ordinance under the definition of public assembly states that if an "association" of this type has a meeting place for fifty or more people. Any building erected in the R-4 District must have one acre lots, 35 foot front setback along with a side and rear setback of fifty feet. However, if a student center has a meeting place for only 40 to 45 people, they can build under the residential regulations of 25 foot front setback, 20 foot rear setback and 5 foot side setbacks. They feel that their proposed student centers should not have to comply with the regulations of larger church or assembly groups. Section 7, Part 1 "g" of Article IV states that in the C-3 Commercial District each business must have one off -the -street parking space for each three hund- red (300) square feet of floor space. Section 7, Part 3 of Article IV states that the Board of Adjustment can permit such space to be provided on other off -the -street property under certain con- ditions. The old Zoning Ordinance did not require }toff-the-streetll parking for business- es located from College Avenue to Church Avenue and from Rock Street to Spring Street, Fulbright Investment Company appealed to the Board of Adjustment for relief from this requirement for the new Woolworth Building on Mountain and Block Avenue. The Board approved their using the City -owned parking lots on Mountain and Block to satisfy this off-street parking requirements. The Board of Adjustment and some business men at their meeting expressed con- cern with this requirement. Should one of the business buildings around the square be destroyed by fire, they would be unable to comply with these regul- ations to rebuild the buildings. I believe the Planning Commission should study this problem. ITEM 8. Remodeling Residences in Commercial and Industrial Districts. � .AA The existing ordinance does not allow a property owner to make any additions d.Le. to his residence if the property is located in these districts without the x ythM� approval of the Board of Adjustment. �� p{ Problem It is felt b many persons that the zoning should allow property owners inthese .. districts to enlarge their existing residences provided they have enough yard space without going before the Board of Adjustment. • Solution Should the Planning Commission feel that this could be changed, then it would be necessary to amend certain sections by setting up minimum building lot requirements, such as setback, etc., for residential buildings in commercial and industrial districts. U ITEM 9. Side yard setbacks in existing subdivisions. A number of building contractors) • and property owners of existing subdivisions in the City are complaining about the side setback requirements for residences. • E This is also causing some trouble where the property owner wishes to build additions such as rooms and carport on existing residential buildings. Problem There are a number of lots in subdivisions that were designed and platted to comply with the old zoning ordinance regulations of 5 foot side yard setbacks measured from building foundations. In some districts this side setback has been increased to ten (10) feet from roof overhangs. A residential building located on a 70 foot lot could have been 60 feet long under the old zoning regulations. The new regulations would limit the length of a residence placed on such a lot to only 46 feet. The contractors say that this is causing a degrading of their existing sub- divisions. Solution I would strongly recommend that the Zoning Ordinance be amended. This could be done by adding a section to the ordinance stating that for all lots in residential zones under the new ordinance, which were platted and recorded inside the city prior to June 30, 1960, would only be required to have the 5 foot side yard setbacks from roof overhangs. This would take care of existing small lots that are already recorded, but new subdivisions would have to comply with the new zoning ordinance. MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 2:00 p m. in the Court Room on December 6, 1960. • Members Present: George Caudle, Hugh Stubblefield, Emory Gose, Betty Siegel, Clay Yoe, Harold Lieberenz, Raymond Nelson. Upon the request of the City Building Inspector, nine items from the new Zoning Ordinance were discussed. The attached sheet prepared by the City Building Inspector lists these items and the comments of the Planning Commission with the exception of those comments given below. Re: Item 6 Warren Seagraves appeared with plans for a new Methodist Student Center on West Maple. The Methodists own 21,000 sq. ft. of land instead of the acre required under the new zoning ordinance. The dimensions are 112 ft. by 190 ft. The proposed building would be 7,500 - 8,000 sq. ft. and have a chapel with 125 seats. The present building is 3,400 sqv ft, approx. and serves 30 - 40 people. There is adequate parking for the staff of 4 - 5 people. Removal of the small apartment on the lot would add only 39 % 190 fte in addition or room for 10-15 more cars. Episcopalian Rev. Small anticipates 50 people at the most. He comes before the Board of Adjustment on Dec. 9. They have no bought yet but are planning to buy 14,000 sq. ft. (90 % 200 ft.) on Maple. Rev. Small seems to believe their building would be in use when parking would not be a problem -- weekday 6:30 - 7:30, Wed. communion; Sunday night; weekday dropin counciling. Presbyterian same situation as Methodists. Location: Storer • and Maple. All three felt the need to be close to the campus. This was a preliminary meeting and Mr. Lieberenz and Mr. Nelson are to study the situation. Re: Item 9 After discussion the members decided any subdivision already platted and recorded should not be bound by the new subdivision regulations. Mr. Gose made a motion, seconded by Mr. Stubblefield to amend the ordinance requiring the side yard set back from roof overhang to lot line may be as narrow as 5 ft. on all plats within the city limits recorded prior to the passage of o ordinance 1239 June 30, 1960. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion concerning the Lewis East Mt. addition replat. It was signed Sept. 30, 1960, but was returned by the Council since they did not understand why the curb and gutter had not been met. It was decided that a brief history of the plat since the time it was returned to the engineer by the Planning Commission for working in the title, dates and reason for having it returned to the City Engineer. It is all right under the present ordinance except for the paper, but it was approved before the subdivision regulations were passed by the Council. The Subdivision Regulations apply to new sub-- divisions ub=divisions and this is a replat. Ed McClellan, Chairman, Ellis Burgin, Bryan Walker were asked to serve as a committee to work with the Planning Commission to solve communications difficulties. - 2 - There were people present concerning rezoning of the Curry Grocery store area. Discussions were heard pro and con a second time. Clay Yoe made the • motion that the Planning Commission decline to recommend a change in zoning for the Curry Grocery area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gose and passed unanimously. The members of the commission felt that granting of this request would constitute spot zoning and that there was inadequate justification for providing a neighborhood shopping area at that location. While the property owners of the neighborhood do not object to the store continuing as a non- conforming use, there was objection to the proposed expansion of the commercial district. There was a motion to accept the procedures for Subdividers presented by Mr. Nelson (see copy attached). After discussion the motion was approved un- animously. Mr. Austin Parish was present and requested a public hearing on the rezoning of the Garland Street shopping area Oproposed). His plan includes the opening of North Street to connect with Highway 16 West. He will dedicate 10 ft. to widen North to the required 60 ft. He also plans to relocate Mt. Comfort Road to intersect with Garland Avenue at a right angle. His shopping area provides off street parking with spaces of 18 x 10 ft. per car. The hearing was set for 4:00 p.m. on Dec. 27, 1960. There will be notice placed in the paper by Dec. 12, Mr. Caudle asked that the Planning Commission meet at 3:00 p.m. on Dec. 27 in order to elect officers. • The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Betty Siegel, Substitute Secretary