Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-11-21 MinutesApproved: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 1969 The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 8:00 A.M., Friday, • November 21, 1969, in the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Morton Gitelman, Roy Clinton, Clark McClinton, Dr. Walter Brown, Ernest Jacks, Dr. James Mashburn, Members Absent: Wade Fincher, Byron Boyd, Allan Gilbert. Others Present: Harold Lieberenz, Wesley Howe, James Vizzier. Chairman Clark McClinton called the meeting to order. The discussion was turned over to Morton Gitelman for his comments on the latest draft of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. He raised the following questions as possible oversights: (1) Use Unit 25 was created for professional offices, however, it is not allowed in C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, although Use Unit 12 for offices is included. Use Unit 25 is more specific than Use Unit 12. It was decided to include Use Unit 25 under C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. (2) In C-3, Central Business District, Use Units 9 and 10, medium and high density residences respectively, are allowed. In_ R-0, Residential and Professional Office • District, only Use Unit 10, High Density Residences, are allowed. Add Use Unit 9. (3) Professional Photographers Studios are still listed in the Heavy Industrial District. This was a mistake; delete. (4) Under Powers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment the wording ". . in granting any variance the Board of Adjustment shall prescribe approximate conditions ." Change the word approximate to appropriate. (5) Under Non -Conforming Uses of Land or Land bfith Minor Structures Only: There is no change in this but found the wording confusing. What is the intent here? Mr. Vizzier will look at this and see if it needs rewording. Ernest Jacks asked for clarification on the following points: (1) Each new residence requires two off-street parking spaces for a single family. The parking can be in front of the house provided the parking area is paved (dust free), but must be back within the setback lines. (2) The visibility factor (fences, trees, shrubs, etc.) applies only to residential districts. This must be controlled in commercial areas through other ordinances (traffic, etc.) • 11-21-69 .2. Why only a 2J foot high front and side fence? This applies to within 25 feet of the street. It was decided to restrict • this to corner lots only. Dr. Mashburn asked that this apply to retaining walls, also. (3) Section prohibiting more than one principal structure on a lot:' Would this preclude such a development as several different wings connected by open but covered walk -ways? The determining factor would be whether the requirements for open space,,,area and bulk were met as specified in the ordinance. No change indicated here. (4) Article 8, Section 7: Boats and recreational equipment were deleted from this, but it still prohibits parking of unlicensed automobiles except in an enclosed building. Change to permit parking inside carport. (5) How is "stockade type fence" to be defined? (Article 8, Section 10,b(2)) Eliminate words "stockade type fence." (6) Light commercial permitted in R-3, High Density Residential District: Provision for accessory commercial uses in planned unit development, Article 7, Section 2. Accessory commercial uses can occur in apartment building so long as they are contained within the building and have only a lobby entrance. (7) No residential uses are allowed in C-1, Neighborhood Commercial • District, except pre-existing, non -conforming ones. It was noted that the public hearing on this new ordinance would have to be held by the Planning Coamiission, not the Board of Directors. At this time, Harold Lieberenz listed the questions raised by him during his study of the text. (1) Apparent conflict between Article 7, Section l,d and Article 8, Section 3. The former states, "Accessory building shall not cover more than 35 percent of the area of the required rear yard." The latter states, "No accessory building shall be erected in any required yard, and no separate accessory building shall be erected within five feet of any other building. (2) Article 5 under C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, gasoline service stations are required to be set back 50 feet from the right- of-way line; Article 7, states 40 feet from right-of-way line. Mr. Vizzier said one is a general provision and one is specific. (3) The Board of Adjustment feels the 2 acre requirement for building in an A-1, Annexed Territory District, at present is too restrictive. Mr. Vizzier said he didn�t expect much more trouble along these lines. If they have a large amount • of land to develop, then they should subdivide. 11-21-69 -3- (4) Why does the Proposed Ordinance restrict projection type, signs? (Article 7, Section 16) Mr. Vizzier stated he felt • if signs were cleaned up, the general appearance would be more attractive. This is not retroactive, and a variance may be applied for in future. (5) Is it necessary for the Planning Commission to advertise or publish notices for conditional uses? No. (6) Article 13: Provisions of Ordinance Declared to be Minimum Requirements: Does this make the City responsible for enforcing such things as deed restrictions? Change wording of last sentence to '. the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standards shallrp evail.11 It is not the duty of the City to enforce deed restrictions. (7) Article 17: Under the definition of variances, in the lower third of the paragraph, change '. of size of yards. ." to '. . or size of yards . ." (8) Article 9, Section 3, Paragraph 3: Requires copies of plans submitted with Building Permit Application to be kept by Planning Administrator --change to Building Inspector. At this time, Morton Gitelman made a motion to authorize James Vizzier to print up this final copy as Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations subject to corrections indicated and filling in blanks. • Dr. Walter Brown and Roy Clinton seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. The Commission reviewed the November 17, 1969 memo from Wesley Horse regarding Capital Improvement Program. They voiced their approval of the contents of this memo. Mr. Howe presented an outline for Capital Improvement Program on Streets and Thoroughfares and Parks and Recreation. This included a list of objectives and schedule of costs for the next five years. He stated that these do not include any State responsibilities, only the City's. This does not conflict in any way with the program being prepared by James Vizzier. The Board of Directors is currently presenting this to the public in a series of hearings. Chairman McClinton read a letter from Hugh Kincaid, Attorney, stating that his clients, Gerald B. and Anne W. Jones, would be agreeable to following the standards and requirements contained in the Proposed Ordinance for R-2, Medium Density Residential District, if the Planning Commission would approve their petition for an R-3 zoning at the present time. It was suggested that due to the size of their property, they be asked to file a development plan. The matter was not resolved at this meeting. A meeting was set for Tuesday, November 25, 1969, at 4:00 P.M. 0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 A.M.