Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-03-31 Minutes0 9 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CI / '� 7 o The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 31, 1970, in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Roy Clinton, Clark McClinton, Byron Boyd, Dr. Walter Brown, Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, Allan Gilbert, Dr. James Mashburn, E. H. "A1" Donaubauer. Members Absent: None, Others Present: Wesley Howe, James Vizzier, Harold Lieberenz, Harold Johnson, J. E. McClelland, Bill Conrad, Bass Trumbo. Chairman Clark McClinton called the meeting to order. This meeting was originally scheduled for March 17, but had to be postponed due to the weather. The first item on the agenda was a highway access problem regarding Harold Johnson's property lying to the West of the Highway 71 By-pass. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that he plans some low rent housing on a portion of his property. However, he does not propose to develop immediately a 310 foot wide strip bordering the By-pass. He does not feel he should be required to install the service road as specified in Ordinances No. 1661 and 1662 until he is ready to develop this particular tract. The matter was discussed at considerable length. Mr. Gitelman voiced the opinion that if the parcel is in single ownership, development of any part of the parcel would bring it under the ordinance. Mr. McClinton asked Mr. Johnson if he was aware that he could build the service'roid on the highway right-of-way probably at less cost and still retain his property in its entirety. The developer would still have to pay the cost of construction. It was noted that the property in question has 800 to 900 feet of frontage on the By-pass. The ordinance would permit a contract or performance bond to be made to cover the cost of construction of the street at a later date. Allan Gilbert suggested the overall development plan be altered to provide access by way of the service road. It will be necessary for the area to be served by a paved road in order to obtain approval of the FHA. Mr. Johnson had planned to pave an existing roadbed along the South side of the property. The matter was deferred until the next meeting to enable the Planning Staff Consultant, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Gitelman further time to study all aspects. Mr. Lieberenz was asked to meet with Larry Wood, Planning Staff Consultant, and present the problem to him. Dir. Donaubauer arrived at 4:45 P.M. J. E. McClelland spoke to the Commission on three matters: HAROLD JOHNSON HIGIVAY ACCESS 1. Mr. McClelland presented a subdivision plat of the Fayetteville Industrial Park. The Commission discussed various aspects of it. 3-31-70 -2- Not all of the property in the Industrial Park lies within the City Limits; it is, however, in the Fayetteville School District. 2. Mr. McClelland requested zoning consideration for a parcel of property East of Fayetteville on Highway 16 near Baldwin. The property is proposed as A-1; Mr. McClelland requests C-1. There is 827 feet of frontage on the North side of the highway with the depth extending outside the City limits. Mr. McClelland stated they were willing to dedicate a right- of-way to permit extension of the Ed Edwards Road northward toward the existing Harvey Owl Road. He was reminded that to develop plots larger than one acre a development plan will have to be approved by the Planning Commission, 3. McClelland Engineers own some property on Highway 71 North. The proposed map shows part of the land which has a warehouse on it as R-1. Mr. McClelland requested that the C-2 zoning be shown as extending back to within 150 feet of the center- line of Walnut Street. R-1 will be satisfactory for the remainder as duplexes are proposed to be permitted in the R-1 under specified conditions. Jim Vizzier left the meeting at 5:10 P.M. Before leaving Mr. Vizzier asked the Commission to approve a letter stating the Planning Commission had reviewed his report on the Comprehensive Plan and approved the report. Morton Gitelman moved the letter be approved; Al Donaubauer seconded. It was approved unanimously. Bass Trumbo asked that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to Jerry Sweetser's request for zoning with maximum density on his property at North and Gregg. Mr. McClinton told Mr. Trumbo the Commission is aware of Mr. Sweetser's problem as well as others in the same category. The Commission has not decided fully whether the problem is one of zoning or indicates a change needed in the proposed ordinance. Chairman McClinton asked for the thinking of the members of the Commission on this. He stated that Oakland and Leverett Avenues each have many single family dwellings on them. However, between the two streets is considerable open space. Roy Clinton suggested the possibility of allowing 24 units per acre in the proposed R-2 for the first acre in a development with 30 units for each succeeding acre. There was a discussion on the number of units that should be permitted in the various residential zones. Dr. Mashburn moved that with regard to the remaining ordinances that have not been acted upon in the list of 1968-69 rezonings that a blanket policy be adopted allowing at least the equivalent zoning except in those cases where it has�beeh changed by agreement with the property owners. The motion was seconded by Al Donaubauer. 3-31-70 -3- Mr. Howe suggested that prior to voting on this motion the staff bring before the Commission an up to date list depicting those pieces of property on which no final action has been taken. He asked that the list be ready for the next meeting. Dr. Brown made a motion to table Dr. Mashburn's foregoing motion until the next meeting. Roy Clinton seconded. Dr. Brown's motion was approved unanimously. At 7:00 P.M. the meeting recessed for 40 minutes to allow everyone to go to dinner. Morton Gitelman did not return. The meeting resumed with a discussion as to where heavier density might develop in the eastern section of the City in the future. It is not indicated on the land use map, as it will depend on utility and street developments. Mr. Donaubauer stressed that this could also be controlled by where schools will be in the area. The Commission took up Harold Lieberenz's "Comments on the Proposed Zoning Regulations, dated March 11, 1970." 1. Article 3 "Application of District Regulations" (Page 3) amend first paragraph by adding, "EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE VARIANCES ARE PERMITTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT." Allan Gilbert moved the addition be made; Dr. Mashburn seconded the motion. The vote was seven "Ayes" to approve the motion. Dr. Brown voted "Nay." 2. Paragraph 4 under Article 3 (Page 4) add the following wording: "This section shall not apply when a portion of a lot is acquired for public purposes,". Roy Clinton moved the wording be inserted; Allan Gilbert seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Correct misprint listing single family dwellings under R-2 on Page 13 as Unit 2 ----should be Unit 8. Mr. Howe asked to comment on the wording under Article 3,2,a) which states simply that no building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered "to exceed the height or bulk;" ----of what? It was agreed that appropriate wording should be inserted such as "requirements of the particular zoning district in which it is located." Mr. Howe also asked if the Commission and Mr. Lieberenz understood what was meant on Page 5, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, "Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership." Mr. Lieberenz explained how and to what this would apply. Mr. Howe raised the question of whether the 10% of replacement cost allowable in repairs on non -conforming structures might be too low. • There was a lengthy discussion regarding this and also Article 4, Paragraph 4,b) which states that any non -conforming structure destroyed 3-31-70 -4- to more than 50% of its replacement cost may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The 10% restriction is contained in Article 4, Paragraph 6, on Page 9. Both these restrictions are more restrictive than the current ordinance. Mr. Clinton noted that regarding residential uses which are non- conforming this could work a hardship as insurance claims will not pay in cash, but for replacement costs only. Therefore, if someone were unable to rebuild in the same location, it would be particularly difficult for them. Mr. Lieberenz noted that under the existing ordinance a non -conforming structure may be enlarged or altered with the written consent of the owners of at least 75% of the street frontage within 300 feet of the property on which the non -conforming structure is located, provided certain other requirements are met. There is no such provision in the proposed ordinance. Roy Clinton moved that the percentage be changed to 25% on remodeling and repairs and 75% on catastrophic damages. Al Donaubauer seconded. It was approved unanimously. Item 4 on Mr. Lieberenz's list: 4. On Page 15, the proposed R-3 has 6,500 square feet minimum lot area for a single family residence; R-2 has only 6,000. Is there a reason why more area should be required in the R-3? The Commission also discussed the wording which specifies that R-2 permits 4 to 24 units per acre and that R-3 permits 16 to 40 units per acre. Does this intend to make it com- pulsory to have at least 16 units per acre in R-3? Roy Clinton moved that the word 16 be striken from the proposed ordinance. No action was taken on the motion. Mr. Howe asked that Jim Vizzier be contacted for clarification of question 4 and that the question of minimum units per acre be raised with Mr. Gitelman and Mr. Vizzier. 5. Uses permitted under District I-2, Page 21 ---correct typo- graphical error by changing "Unit 19" to"Unit 20." 6, Mr. Lieberenz questioned whether Salvation Army should be listed under personal service in Use Unit 16 (Shopping Goods (Page 40). There was some discussion as to the exact classification of the Salvation Army, it was considered to be a social welfare agency. The Commission decided to refer the matter to Mr. Vizzier. 7. The Commission had no objection to listing "Auto Body Shop'' under Use Unit 17, Trades and Services, Page 42. 8. Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesale (Page 45): Roy Clinton moved that dwelling for watchman or caretaker (on premises) be added to this use unit. Allen Gilbert seconded; it was approved unanimously. 3-31-70 -5- 9. Use Unit 22, Manufacturing (Page 46) ---add dwelling for watch- man or caretaker to this use unit also. 10. Add Auto Body Shop under Use Unit 23, Heavy Industrial (Page 46). Also, add dwelling for watchman or caretaker to this use unit. 11. Mr. Lieberenz feels the term "Home Occupation" is not adequately defined anywhere in the proposed ordinance. The Commission desires that Mr. Vizzier clarify the term. Mr. Howe had a question reggrding Use Condition 9,c), Page 54. It states,"Any permitted sign shall be stationary and shall conform in all respects to the applicable regulations pertaining to signs." Does this prohibit the stand-up signs advertising trading stamps, motor oils, etc.? It was agreed it does. Mr. Howe had some comments on Use Condition 16, Page 60. He felt zoning was not the proper place to control (a) placement of signs on public or private property, trees, rocks, and utility poles. It is otherwise covered in existing ordinances. He recommended striking; there was -no objection to his recommendation. Mr. Howe considered (b) dealing with signs that create traffic hazards due to location, type, color, or wording to be a good idea, but t-rasn't sure it was practical to have it under zoning since it deals with traffic safety. Mr. Howe does consider (c) under Use Condition 16 pertinent. He asked that Mr. Vizzier give his reasoning on Use Condition 16 as a whole. 12. Also refers to Use Condition 16 as pertaining to projecting signs or roof signs. Mr. Vizzier is to explain hie -reasoning on this also. 13. Mr. Lieberenz suggested adding a Use Condition 19 for temporary banners. Mr. Howe said in his opinion this should be left out of the zoning ordinance; but suggested this might be referred to the Appearance Committee, 14. Mr. Lieberenz had recommended rewording Article 8, Section 3, Accessory Buildings (Page 63) as follows: "No accessory building shall be erected in any required FRONT yard, and no separate accessory building TO A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE shall be erected within five feet of any other building. This was discussed and Mr. Lieberenz asked for additional time to study his recommendation further. Mr. Howe said that since Article 8, Number 1, Visibility at Intersections in Residential Districts just refers to residential districts, it should be omitted as it is covered elsewhere by existing ordinances. 3-31-70 .6. Regarding Number 2, Article 8, Fences, Walls and Hedges, Mr. Howe said he considered this meddling. Byron Boyd moved that this be striken, and further stated that it was the understanding of the Commission that this had been deleted from the ordinance in earlier review. The Commission voted to delete this by acclamation and asked to have Mr. Vizzier explain why it was not deleted earlier. 15• Mr. Lieberenz recommended rewording Article 8, Section 4, Erection of More Than One Principal Structure on a Lot to the following by adding (b): "In any district, more than one structure housing a permitted principal use may be erected on a single lot, provided that: (a) The yard and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot, or (b) Lot is one acre or more in size and the project is approved by the Planning Commission under large- scale and planned developments. The Commission asked to have Mr. Vizzier look at the wording on Article 8, Section 4, 16. On Page 66 correct typographical error under Location and Purpose of Parking Lot, right hand column heading should 40 read: Parking Lot Containing SIX OR MORE Spaces. 17. Under Article 8, Number 11, Large -Scale Development, Page 69, add the following: Two acre tracts for one dwelling in the A-1, Agricultural District, shall not be construed as a large-scale development and the provisions of this section shall not apply. Roy Clinton moved that Article 8 be amended as recommended; Allan Gilbert seconded; and approval was unanimous. 18. Article 9, Section 3, Application for Building Permit (Rage 76). Mr. Lieberenz recommended that the last sentence in the last paragraph be reworded as follows: The original of the plans, similarly marked, shall be DELIVERED TO AND retained by the BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE. Mr. Lieberenz said he thought it would be better to require the Building Inspector to retain the plans rather than the Planning Administrator for several reasons. The Commission had no objection to the proposed change and recommended that the proposed ordinance be so changed. 3-31-70 -7- Mr. Howe stated that he thought it would be better not to state who shall prepare the plans submitted to the Planning Commission on Planned Developments (Page 74), under Procedure. Roy Clinton moved that the words, "prepared by a recognized land planner or a registered architect" be deleted. Mr. Howe further noted that Article 9, Section 1, (Page 75) states that the Planning Administrator is designated by the City Board of Directors. Since the Board of Directors does not designate the Planning Administrator, the wording be changed to say, "The Planning Administrator shall administer and enforce this ordinance." Strike out Section 2 of Article 9 completely. Mr. Howe questioned whether we want to require Certificates of Zoning Compliance as specified in Article 9., Section 4, Page 76. He considered the Planning Administrator keeping a record of zoning compliance to be ambiguous and suggested the Planning Office and Building Inspector's Office work the matter out between the two offices. If the present procedure is satisfactory, why change it? 19. Air. Lieberenz suggested adding a paragraph as follows under Article 10, Section 4, Powers and Duties (Page 80) under part "a": The Board of Adjustment shall review and make decisions in: (a) Determining the location of zoning district boundaries in certain circumstances as set out in Section 7, of Article 2. (b) Permitting the extension of zoning district boundaries as set out in Section 8 of Article 2. The Commission agreed to this correction. 20. The Chairman of the Board of Adjustment has suggested that Article 10, Section 4, Powers and Duties (Page 80) be amended in the first paragraph as follows: "To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the HULK, AREA, HEIGHT, SIZE OF STRUCTURE, SETBACKS, SIZE OF YARDS, OPEN SPACES, AND PARKING SPACE regulations. ." There was no objection to this correction. 21. The Chairman of the Board of Adjustment has also suggested that Article 10, Section 4, Powers and Duties (Page 80) be amended in paragraph l by deleting the wording, "is the MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT. ." The Commission had no objection to striking the above wording. 22. The Chairman of the Board of Adjustment feels the Board should not be required to determine what would be injurious to the neighborhood (Page 81). Dr. Brown objected to 3-31-70 any change in this particular wording. There followed a discussion on the matter, after which the Commission decided to leave it as it is. 23. This dealt with salvage yards and junk yards as compared with storage of disabled vehicles in used car lots, garages, auto shops, and at service stations. Mr. Lieberenz asked that the terms salvage yards and junk yards be more adequately defined in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Donaubauer moved that there be something written with more teeth in it regarding this point. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. 0