Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-04-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING /q C� 7p The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 3:45 P.M., Tuesday, April 14, 1970, in the Directors Room, of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Allan Gilbert, Al Donaubauer, Clark McClinton, Dr. Walter Brown, Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, Dr. James Mashburn, Roy Clinton. Members Absent: Byron Boyd. Others Present: Harold Lieberenz, James Vizzier, Wesley Howe. Chairman Clark McClinton called the meeting to order, , Chairman McClinton said that in his opinion the Commission has not dealt fairly with Tommy Haseloff regarding the proposed zoning of H. T. HASELOFF his property lying East of Highway 71 North and North of Clear Ordinance 1586 Creek. Mr. Haseloff has agreed to build a service road on this property when he develops it. Allan Gilbert moved that the Planning Commission restore the Haseloff property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, zoning on the proposed map. Al Donaubauer seconded. After the motion and second were made the matter was discussed at great length. Dr. Brown stated he thought the Planning Commission had made a serious mistake when the property was zoned C-2. Dr. James Mashburn arrived at 4:05 P.M. The discussion centered around the proposed regulations controlling large-scale developments and how effectively they could be enforced. Also discussed was the ordinance regulating controlled access highways. It was noted that the proposed ordinance is designed to prevent the development of commercial and residential properties containing large tracts a piece at the time. The current ordinance is only enforced on residential properties. The Chairman called for the vote on Mr. Gilbert's foregoing motion. Gilbert, Donaubauer, McClinton, Jacks, and Mashburn voted "Aye." Dr. Brown and Gitelman voted "Nay." The motion carried and the Haseloff property is to be reflected C-2 on the proposed map. Morton Gitelman had some suggested changes in the proposed ordinance on Page 68 under Large -Scale Development. He suggested striking the word special in the first sentence and also changing the sentence to read as follows: "A development plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission for any developments ON PARCELS OF LAND larger than one acre . . ." leaving the remainder of the sentence intact. On Page 69 Mr. Gitelman recommended changing the last paragraph under Large -Scale Development as follows: Change the words Planned development to "Large-scale developments"; delete the second sentence completely; and add the following sentences. 4-14-70 .2. "Approval of the plan by the Planning Commission is required before a building permit may be issued. Any substantial deviation from the i development plan must be approved by the Planning Commission after re -submission. Substantial deviation from the development plan shall be grounds for denial of a building permit under the provisions of Article 9 of this ordinance." All the corrections made to the section on Large -Scale Development in the proposed zoning ordinance are also to be made in the Subdivision Regulations, Pages 20 and 21, Large - Scale Development, Chairman McClinton reminded the Commission that the League of Women Voters has asked that commercial developers be required to submit a performance bond to insure all plans will be followed as submitted including the landscaping plans. Dr. Mashburn asked Mr. Lieberenz what his department did if a builder did not follow the building plans submitted. Mr. Lieberenz said the only recourse he has is not to issue a Certificate of Occupancy, without which the building cannot be legally occupied. There was a discussion on whether a performance bond or a contract would be the best way to guarantee following development plans. It was decided to wait and see how the regulations as proposed work before making any more restrictions. There was a discussion on open space and its maintenance ----what constitutes open space to one person might differ from another • person's opinion. Mr. Gitelman recommended that on Page 22 of the proposed zoning ordinance, Unit 13 (Eating Places) be listed as a use permissible on appeal to the Planning Commission rather than a use permitted by right in the R-0, Residential -Office District. This was agreed upon. The Commission referred to Mr. Lieberenz's March 11 Comments on the Proposed Zoning Regulations and asked Mr. Vizzier to better define the home occupation requirements (Comment No. 11). Dr. Broom asked how you would differentiate between a hobby and a home occupation. Mr. Lieberenz stated that in the past we have gone by whether or not there was any advertising associated with it. If not, it is considered a hobby. Mr. Vizzier stated he was more in favor of setting up performance standards to determine if the home occupation would be legal than to list certain home occupations. Mr. Howe said he thought 10 (e) under Home Occupations, Page 55 should be striken, and that something should be added about no external evidence of commercial activity, also something about increased parking requirements and traffic. A hobby could be identified by having no advertising and no other external evidence of commercial activity. Comment No. 14 on Mr. Lieberenz's list deals with a conflict between Article 7, 1 (c), Page 50 and Article 8, 3, Page 63. Mr. Vizzier will reword Rage 50 to conform. 0 4-14-70 Article 8, 1, Page 63 was discussed 50 feet to 25 feet. -3- This will be retained, but change Article 8, 4, was discussed and also Mr. Lieberenz's suggestion that it be amended by adding as (b) "Lot is one acre or more in size and the project is approved by the Planning Commission under large-scale and planned developments." It was noted that the proposed ordinance has no other allowance for a group housing variance as permitted under the current ordinance. Air. Lieberenz and Mr. Vizzier are to study the remainder of the comments between themselves and report to the Commission at the next meeting. Chairman Clark McClinton asked Morton Gitelman to consult with Larry Wood on the Harold Johnson access problem. They are to discuss the possibility of letting a street within a residential development serve as the required service road. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M.