Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-11-07 MinutesApproved: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 1969 The Planning Commission met at 8:00 A.M. on Friday, November 7, 1969, in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building, • Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Ernest Jacks, Allan Gilbert, Roy Clinton, Dr. James Mashburn, Byron Boyd, Morton Gitelman, Dr. Walter Brown, Clark McClinton. Members Absent: Wade Fincher, Others Present: Jim Vizzier, Wesley Howe. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Clark McClinton. The primary purpose of this meeting was to consider the Proposed Subdivision Regulations and Proposed Zoning Regulations. Mr. Vizzier introduced the following suggestions for major change in the Subdivision Regulations: Under DEFINITIONS insert phrase defining informal plat as '..:page 9. On Page 6 PLANNING COM14ISSION ACTION, clarify Planning Commission action; make subdivider responsible for distributing copies of preliminary plats instead of Planning Administrator. • On Page 8, paragraph beginning "When plat has been approved by the City Council. . .," insert phrase requiring subdivider to furnish Planning Administrator a reproducible copy of the final plat and clarify who would file final plat with County Recorder. The subdivider will be able to submit plats drawn to a scale of 1" = 2001 instead of 111 = 1001 if they have a large plat. Under PLAT REQUIREMENTS add a section taking care of lots that have neither public water nor public sewer. Require a larger lot for houses on well and private sewer, up to 20,000 square feet for both. Make it possible for County Sanitarian to review those plats where they have a private septic system or well. At this point, Morton Gitelman stated that one policy issue requiring dedication of open space is too vague. The Ordinance states that the subdivider can either give public agency a year to pick up an option or the City can require him to donate the land or give money (so much per lot). According to State Law it is questionable whether you can require subdivider to donate land or money; you can require him to hold it for a year. In conjunction with this discussion a letter was read from the Parks and Playground Board recommending that the Planning Commission designate certain areas for public • recreation from time to time. It was agreed to change the wording in the Subdivision Regulations to "Planning Commission may request. oil (Third paragraph under Conformity, Page 17) 11-7-69 .2. The question was •, asked, "Under Planned Development section we require people to bring in a development plat on a shopping center. In the past we haven't allowed private streets; we have always required public streets. Should this be changed (for example, in mobile home parks)? Do we require them to dedicate drives?" Discussion brought out that the City needs a section on private drives in their resolution on street requirements. There have been some problems on this line in the past. Mr. Jacks raised a question regarding computation of street frontage on lots which have cul-de-sacs in them. It was felt that this should be changed to read 80% at the right-of-way line or 100% at the building line. Roy Clinton asked if perhaps in the future it wasn't possible to have a mobile home subdivision; in other words, private ownership of both lots and mobile homes. Is there adequate provision for this? Mr. Vizzier stated that it would have to meet the regular subdivision requirements; have to be on a dedicated street, must have permanent foundation and permanent sewer and water connections. The lot would have to be the same size as any single-family residence in that zone. The major problems will be in meeting the building code. Mr. Howe asked about plats that come in that dont meet all the requirements, yet we have a time table to keep in processing. Mr. N Vizzier said that this is taken care of by putting acceptance in • instead of receipt of plats. Mr. Howe also asked about Page 7 "After a Preliminary Plat is approved . . ," does it mean the way it could be read? Mr. Vizzier stated that the City Engineer should approve plans, the design engineer checks to see that they are done as planned, then certifies that they have been done. It would be possible to insert step between Preliminary Plat and Final Plat insisting the planned improvements be installed before Final Plat approval. Final Plat could be approved only after installations are in or guaranteed by contract to be installed. Insert a step for clarity and get Harold Lieberenz's opinion on it. Regarding drainage problems and changes in the natural terrain specifically as to how it would affect adjoining property, information'on any drainage changes must meet approval of City Engineer. Ernest Jacks asked if there was a conflict between the new amend- ment on curb -cuts approved at the previous meeting and the Subdivision Regulations. He was assured that in subdivisions the highest requirements would be met. He stated that he preferred the requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. The Commission decided to hold the amendment before recommending to the Board of Directors in order to co-ordinate the two. On Page 21 under Preliminary Submission and Page 23 under Final • Submission, change the word "should" to the more mandantory word of "shall." 11-7-69 -3- • Mr. Vizzier was asked if regarding Non -Residential and Large Scale Developments there was provision for screening when the Planning Commission or Board of Directors considered it necessary or desirable. He stated that this was covered elsewhere. There was a discussion concerning subdivisions some distance from the City Limits, yet still inside the five -mile planning area authorized by State Law. In the past these have been dealt with in terms of the nature of streets, size of lots, and utilities. Perhaps one paragraph could say the Planning Commission may waive any of these requirements due to distance from City Limits. The planning area could also be cut down, if advisable. One of the principal problems in enforcing these statutes is the width of most County roads which serve as streets.or access streets in these subdivisions. In most instances the County roads are too narrow; however, enforcement could serve to make the County Judge more aware of the situation. Mr. McClinton said that the County Judge is currently trying to bring his roads up to the standards for Federal Aid to Counties. This completed the discussion and major revisions for Subdivision Regulations. .Mr. Vizzier was authorized to prepare them in final form and mimeograph copies for each Planning Commission member, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Lieberenz. • Mr. Vizzier presented an overlay for the Proposed Zoning Map illustrating the annexations and rezonings approved during the past year. , At this point the Commission began discussion and revision of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Vizzier said there would be one change in name of zoning districts; change R -P, to R-0, Residential -Office Zone. Other suggestions for major revisions introduced by Mr. Vizzier were: Article 2, Section 8, change the "special exceptions" to "variance." Article 4, Mr. Lieberenz has submitted a question on non- conforming uses, questioning whether we are creating too many non -conforming uses which could be put in proper zones now. Mr. Lieberenz has also questioned the one-year retroactive sign regulations. In some areas they do serve as traffic hazards. Article 4, Section 6, Mr. Lieberenz thought there was a conflict in the second and third paragraphs dealing with repairs and maintenance of non -conforming uses. Delete the third paragraph. • Under Zoning District Requirements: R-1 changed, describes or proposes to include a density of 4 families per acre or 11-7-69 -4- • less. R-2, 4 to 24 families per acre. R-3, high density, 16 to 40 families per acre. Include single family residences in R-3; also, make mobile home parks conditional uses in R-3 and show bulk and area requirements. C-4, change to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. Flood Zone: Mr. Vizzier did not set up a separate district. There would have been no permitted uses in such a district. There are, however, regulations for location of floatable materials and to prevent building of habitations within flood level. These really do not do anything until we create a Flood Zone, F-1. There followed a lengthy discussion as to areas that are subject to flood: Skull Creek, West Fork River, and Town Branch primarily. Dir. McClinton told of high level floods in these areas in the past. It was also noted that any time one piece of property is graded or filled to decrease its flood level, an adjacent section of property will receive additional run-off from it, thereby possibly creating a flood area where one did not previously exist.Any change in elevation or drainage will have an effect on general topography. In some areas the Building Inspector could require pads to elevate a proposed building. The City Engineer has topographic maps and should use them to establish areas where building cannot be done. Dir. Vizzier told the Commission that the Corps of Engineers has started a survey to pinpoint flood areas of Fayetteville. This • report should be ready in about 18 months. Mr. Vizzier said a limited provisional use unit would be a use of right in R-0 and a conditional use in R-2 and R-3. Conditional use would be if the building is compatible, also pertain to size of area and types of sign. It was asked what happens when they come before the Planning Commission with application showing conditional uses and they don't meet conditions, what recourse does the Commission have? Mr. Vizzier stated that if they don't meet conditions they are in violation of the Ordinance. Regarding Large Scale Development, anything of one acre or more should come in with a development plan. This could be enforced by having.it tied to the Building Permit application. Byron Boyd noted that on the Building Permit for the Malco Theatres now under construction the City Engineer required drainage maps. Put something on drainage in last section, Supplementary District Regulations, Article 8. Also discussed were the following policy questions: (1) Under proposed ordinance the definition of a family provides for one or more persons related by blood or marriage and • not more than five persons not related by blood or marriage. After discussion it was decided to decrease this to "not more than three persons not related by blood or marriage." The F�IL 0 11-7-69 -5- only feasible way to enforce this provision would be after a complaint of a neighbor. (2) On single-family dwellings require two off-street parking spaces for each house. Enforce on all new building. (3) Omit section that prohibits parking, storage, or use of recreational equipment in yards and outside enclosed buildings. (4) Abandoned cars in all residential areas. Allan Gilbert asked about the possibility of recommending it as a separate ordinance or amendment so that it can receive considerable public notice and everyone be aware of it. Byron Boyd made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that an ordinance be passed making it unlawful to store, keep, or display outdoors any unlicensed cars, secondhand furniture, used clothing, or such items. Allan Gilbert seconded the motion and approval was unanimous. (5) Several members of the Committee thought the Board of Adjustment members should bemade up of members of the Planning Commission, so that they could be cognizant of activities and interests of the Planning Commission, Mr. Jacks reported. Some members voiced the opinion that it was difficult for anyone to attend all the meetings of the Planning Commission alone. Also, an outside viewpoint is needed. Board of Directors and the City Manager should be aware of problem so that the Board of Adjustment knows what the Planning Commission is doing. The old ordinance put a lot of administrative decisions on the Board of Adjust- ment that the new ordinance will put back on the Planning Commission. There was general agreement that a Staff Report should be prepared on these variance cases the same as on a rezoning petition. This matter will be left to the Mayor regarding the final decision. There was some discussion regarding the apartment complex for senior citizens designed by Mr. Jacks and already approved by the Board of Adjustment under the current ordinance. The only zoning district requirements it could meet under the new ordinance would be C-3. The Planning Commission will meet again Friday morning, November 14, 1969, at 8:00 A.M. to discuss the Capital Improvements Program. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 A.M.