Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held March 12, 1974 at 4 P.M. in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, Ernest Lancaster, Rita McRee, Al Hughes, Ernest Jacks, John Power, John Maguire. MEMBERS ABSENT: Helen Edmiston, Donald Nickell. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, David McWethy, Larry Wood, Mayor Russell Purdy, Jack Wallace, Dayton Stratton, Marion Orton, Mr. Gordon Houston, Hank Gintonio, R.F. Kilgore (Mr. & Mrs.), F.H. Martin, Gene Larr, Mary Blanton, Archie L. Blanton, Elmer Burkett, Doris McConnell, Mr. McWilliams, Bill Lester, Mr. Walter"Grimes, Harold Johnson, Bobby Odom, Larry Wood, Iris Dees, Arlie Silvis, Paul Mattke. Donna Bair, and Mrs. Ben Porter. Chairman Gitelman called the meeting to order. The first item was the approval of the minutes of February 26, 1974. MINUTES Ernest Jacks requested that the minutes reflect his discussion with the City Sanitation Department in more detail in_paragraph five, page two, concerning screening. He requested an amendment of the minutes to read that, "the Commission was willing to forego screening on one side if Mr. Brt would require screening on three sides". The amended minutes were approved as mailed. The next item for discussion was the public hearing on a proposed ordinance ORDINANCE 1747 to amend Ordinance 1747, Appendix A- Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Fayetteville Appendix A Arkansas, to reduce all lot requirements in R-1, Low Density Reduce Lot Requirements Residential District and in R-2, Medium Density Residential District. (Tabled from January 8, January 22, February 12, and February 26, 1974.) John Maguire moved to take this item off table. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Larry Wood gave a report to show the results of what would happen if this were done as proposed. He did not have a firm recommendation because he thought this should be a community decision. With the maximum building area of 40% on a minimum lot size under the present ordinance, the building area is 3200 sq. feet for a single family house. Mr. Wood showed examples of various lot frontages and depths that would still maintain the 3200 sq. feet of building area after setbacks. These did not maintain a 40% building area. On duplexes his examples were aimed at maintaining 4800 sq. feet of building area, the equivalent of 40% of the present 12,000 sq. feet minimum•_lot area. Larry Wood also gave a report on nonconforming lots of record and discussed it briefly. Chairman Gitelman then opened this for audience and Commission discussion. Chairman Gitelman reminded the Commission members that prior to 1970 Fayetteville had a R -1A zone with minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. feet and a R -1B zone with minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. feet. When the present ordinance was adopted in 1970, these were combined with a minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. feet. He said we came to the figure as a compromise. Al Hughes said he didn't think it would lower the cost of housing as much as it would lower the cost of the lot. He added that he thought he had suggested that a 60 foot lot was more appropriate than the 50 or the 70,.at a previous_meeting. Ernest Lancaster said they were talking about planning new subdivisions; but we are talking about the whole City. John Maguire said he thought this could be drafted so that it would apply to all subdivisio after a certain date. He said he thought it should exclude any existing subdivisions. • Planning Commission March 12, 1974 Page Two Al Hughes moved that the proposed ordinance be amended to reduce the lot width for a single family house from 70 feet to 60 feet, to reduce the minimum lot area to 7200 sq. feet; to reduce the lot width for a duplex (2 -family) residence from 80 feet to 70 feet, to reduce lot area for duplex from 12,000 to 9,500 sq. feet, to reduce lot area per dwelling unit for a duplex to 4,750 sq. feet -- in the R-1 zone and to recommend — the proposed amendments for the R-1 zone be approved by the Board of Directors. John Maguire seconded the motion. Marion Orton said she would like to hear Paul Mattke's suggestion taken up. Al Hughes said he is trying to get a lot in a reasonable price range. Chairman Gitelman agreed there should be some solution but he was opposed to reducing the minimum lot requirements and he would be reluctant to approve rezoning requests. Ernest Jacks said the Zoning Ordinance passed in 1970 showed vast areas of R-1 on the comprehensive plan and they did anticipate that some of this would be rezoned to R-2 because undeveloped land with future residential development potential was simply planned for general residential use without specific designation as to density in order to permit the type of residential development most needed and appropriate in the future. Ernest Lancaster expressed concern over the impact lowering the minimum lot requirements would have in an area that is already developed in large lots if someone divides one of those large lots into two or three smaller ones. Chairman Gitelman said Mr. Maguire can't do what he wants to do by changing the subdivision ordinance because the subdivision ordinance requires the lots meet the minimum zoning requirements. The vote was taken with Hughes voting "aye" and Gitelman, McRee, Power, Lancaster, and Jacks voting "nay". John Maguire abstained. The motion failed to pass. No further motion was made on the proposed ordinance to reduce lot requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on rezoning Petition R74-4, GORDON HOUSTON Gordon Houston, to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Petition R74-4 Porter Road and Drake Street from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Houston was present to represent this. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report and did not recommend a change in the zoning pattern until a sewage system is available. Mr. Houston said the proposed sewer is coming down Porter Road and he has been working with Paul Mattke to give an easement for sewer. He offered to give a deed of restriction providing no building permit can be issued until sewer is available. Chairman Gitelman said he was presented with a petition from property owners in this area and invited comments from those present at this time. Mrs. Ben Porter said she owns three acres across the road. She felt it would lower property prices and opposed medium density. Donna Bair said it is an open area out there and she would prefer single family residences. Chairman Gitelman said the maximum number of units he could build with R-2 zoning would be somewhere near sixty. Mr. Houston said he had just completed a real nice home and is planning on staying there and living in it. He said he would not put something there that he didn't want to live next to. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Gitelman moved to deny the petition R74-4 of Gordon Houston and Rita McRee seconded the motion. Gitelman, Maguire, Power, Jacks, McRee and Lancaster voted "aye". Al Hughes voted "nay". The motion to deny the petition was approved. The next item for discussion was the proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance ORDINANCE 1747 1747, Appendix A- zoning, Code of Ordinances, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Tandem Lots to allow for development of tandem lots. This had been referred back to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation by the Board of Directors on February 5, 1974. (Tabled by the Commission February 12, & February 26, 1974.) Ernest Jacks moved that the ordinance as submitted by the City Attorney be approved with the following amendments to it: Section 21, paragraph B be changed to delete.the second sentence of that section". Ernest Lancaster seconded the motion. Mayor Purdy questioned what a tandem lot was and wanted to make sure that -,this would not permit someone to build more than one house on those tandem lots. Chairman Gitelman explained this is written into the proposed ordinance. The vote was taken with A r • Planning Commission March 12, 1974 Page Three Gitelman, Jacks, McRee, Lancaster, Maguire voting "aye" and John Power and Al Hughes voting "nay". The motion passed. Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on the proposed ordinance ORDINANCE 1661 to amend Ordinance 1661 (Section 18-13, Chapter 18, Code of Ordinances, Amendment Fayetteville, Arkansas) to provide that the Planning Commission may approve a required service road that does not lie parallel to and immediately adjacent to a controlled access highway. Attorney F.H. Martin said in talking with City Attorney, Jim McCord it was his opinion that this would permit the City to require that service roads be dedicated. Chairman Gitelman said he did not think that would be a material change because Ordinance 1661 requires that now. The proposed ordinance deals with the location of the service road. Ernest Jacks moved it be approved as written. John Maguire seconded the motion.which carried unanimously. The next item for discussion was the large scale development plan HANGAR MAINTENANCE to erect a maintenance hangar on City owned property at DRAKE FIELD Drake Field to be used by Skyways. LSD Dayton Stratton, contractor, was present to represent thds. Ernest Jacks said the Subdivision Committee would like to point out that at the Plat Review Committee meeting it was brought out that the City is continuing to violate setbacks of the airport zoning ordinance. He asked City Engineer, Paul Mattke, to comment on this. Mr. Mattke explained the various zones set out by the airport zoning. He said the only violation would be a setback from the center of the runway. Other buildings are already closer than the proposed one. FAA must approve it. The City must abide by what FAA approves. An application has already been submitted to FAA. Ernest Jacks moved it be approved contingent upon getting FAA clearance on setbacks. Ernest Lancaster seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The next item for discussion was the conditional use request submitted by Gintonio Construction Company to build a contract construction service in the C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, 2241 South School Avenue. Mr. Gintonio was present. Ernest Jacks moved to grant the conditional use. Rita McRee seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. GINTONIO CONSTRUCTION 2241 S. School Ave. Conditional Use Request The next item for discussion was the waiver of subdivision R.F. KILGORE requirements submitted by R.F. Kilgore for Lots 3,4,5, Block 3, Parksdale Addition. These three lots with continuous frontage were under single ownership on the date of the zoning ordinance. Lots 4 & 5 are 50 ft. lots. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Kilgore has a nonconforming structure that has a non- conforming use and is on a nonconforming lot. She said.he has given a lot to one son and another one to another son. Mr. Kilgore said they wanted to make it less non- conforming and they wanted to move it back to make it look better and that they were trying to make it into a residence. It has been used for a store in past years. Chairman Gitelman said the Commission must approve or disapprove the problem of a nonconforming lot. John Maguire moved to approve the request to allow the division of the three non= conforming lots. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on the proposed CONTROLLED ACCESS HWY. ordinance designating that section of U.S. Hwy. 62 West Highway 62 West from the intersection of U.S. Highway 71 bypass & U.S. Highway 62, running west to the west City limits of Fayetteville, Arkansas a controlled access highway. F.H. Martin and Bobby Odom, attorneys, were present to represent property owners on Highway 62 West. Subdivision Waiver Planning Commission March 12, 1974 Page Four Mr. Martin said the residents on Highway 62 are concerned and have formed an organization. • He said their greatest fear is that in the future if this is made a controlled access highway and if there is development the City can require a dedication of easements of streets and the building of the streets. Some of these folks that might want to build' would have their lots cut back too shallow to build on from the service road and setbacks. He felt this would decrease the value of the property. He said some of the people want to continue keeping their homes there. Dayton Stratton said he lived on the north side of Highway 62 West and opposed the proposal and said he thought it would be detrimental to all the property owners along the highway;if they put a sewer easement behind him and this in front of him, it would cut his property considerably. Dayton Stratton said he would have to go all the way to Farmington to turn around to get across to the other side of the highway. Chairman Gitelman said the City has the same requirement on Highway 71 North of the bypass. This is to keep from encouraging driveways from pouring into the street. Chairman Gitelman said controlled access wouldn't affect anyone until:_ he wants to develop his property. Someday in the future Highway 62 West will be improved by the Highway Department. Ernest Jacks said he saw this as possibly slowing the development. John Maguire said he agreed -with the opponents and said he has generally been against trying -to control people's property. He said people might have to drive by commercial development but he said that doesn't bother him. He said he thought what this proposal would do and he thought it was the planning intent to do is to hold up development in that area until economic units can be put together by fairly large -developers who will come in with a planned development. He added that he thought if Highway 62 is designated controlled access, the people's property will sit high and dry.for a period of years until that capability comes to pass. Mr. Gene Iarr said he lived on the north side of Highway 62 West and opposed the proposed ordinance. He said that on the bypass you will not find the bussiness establishments that are on Highway 62 West. He said the City wants to put sewer through his property and wants to rechannel the creek through his house. He said the property owner is going to have to pay for it. He said he did not think a man working at a regular job could pay for -it in 100 years. He said his real estate agent said the property value would be reduced 80% if this was. designated a controlled access highway. Mary Blanton opposed the proposal saying, "apparently this is a marvelous scheme that after we pay for it and it could be developed the City gets it for nothing!. Will Osburn asked if he would not have to worry about the access road until time of development. Chairman Gitelman explained that once the access road is finished, then direct access to the highway is closed off. Chairman Gitelman said if the City had the money they could buy the access road Mr. Osburn objected saying if a chain link fence is put there he will have to go west to get access on to the highway to go east. Archie Blanton of TRICO, Highway 62 West, said that the minute that road becomes closed access he has trucks so large that he can't get in and out of there and he will be forced to have to sell. He said he was in favor of having it like Highway 71, with two east bound and two west bound lanes and a fifth lane down the center for left turns, but not to the point of controlled access. This road is too narrow. He said their homes will become worthless if it goes through. Elmer R. Burkett said it would reduce his lot size and decrease the value of his property. Doris McConnell said her mother and father live on Highway 62 West. She said they are retired, they almost have their home paid for and they have no desire to develop. She asked if the City builds a controlled access highway and it is developed around them, are they going to have to take all their savings to build an access road to get out to this other road? Chairman Gitelman said the City could not require them to build a road then. David McWethy asked what would happen if it is sold as a residential home? Chairman Gitelman said it is not until it is developed or that they change the use of the property. F.H. Martin said the ordinance defines development as: (1) application for a building permit, (2) subdivision of land, (3) extension of utilities, (4) dedication of easements, streets or rights-of-way. Ernest Jacks said service roads do impede development but pointed out that there have been numerous wrecks along the highway. He saw it as a matter of development versus safety. Planning Commission March 12, 1974 Page Five Chairman Gitelman said if the State had more money the City would not have to do this. • Mary Blanton said she was all for safety but just because there are mistakes on Highway 71, why should they take it out on the people on Highway 62 West. Chairman Gitelman said he was sure they wouldn't be happy with no commercial at all. The whole problem started because of commercial things out there. If we prohibit any commercial it will hurt those people out there. Archie Blanton said he thought they were going to have to have certain types of small business. Everything on Highway 62 West is actually commercial property. Gene Larr said where he lives is agricultural and he didn't think his neighbors wanted an access road. Director Marion Orton said it seems as though these people are thinking they are going to be forced to build this road. The big developer will be forced to build this unless they are going to develop their land themselves. The idea of this was to make this safer and the plan for this area is that it stay residential. Some of these roads are already existing. The location of the service road is an imaginary line right now. F.H. Martin said he thought there was no question that it would decrease the value of the property and eventually eat up the land. Mr. McWilliams asked if they would have to go to Farmington to get on the highway? Chairman Gitelman said the access road will not affect you if you have already developed, we have different kinds of property access. Bill Lester from Farmington said there is not that much foot frontage on the highway. Chairman Gitelman said a conveniedtaccess is a mile to 1i miles to all =property. Mr. Lester also stated he preferred a 5 -lane highway such as College Avenue north of North Street. Mr. Walter V. Grimes with Western Hills Mobile Home Park said he is located on the highway. He said they didn't have any wrecks with 600 to 800 cars a day going to and from the park. • He said the Highway Dept. wanted to put in an island and he made them open it up. Bobby Odom asked why they are putting the burden on these people and not on the State or City. Chairman Gitelman told him the City can't control what the State Highway Dept. is doing. Harold Johnson said he felt like the City of Fayetteville is discriminating against these people. He said the City had illusions of grandeur and had no right to kick the little man in the mouth. Bobby Odom requested the Commission table this matter and coordinate between the City and State. John Maguire said he was not opposed to strip zoning Highway 62 West. Mr. Larr said he objected because only three home owners were notified by mail. Mr. Blanton complained that the public hearing notices in the paper are too small to read. Arlie Silvis said he lived on the north side of Highway 62 West and bought property to get out of the City limits and then without asking him, he was put in the City limits and he was not in favor of an access road. Dayton Stratton asked about putting it to a refernedumvote. Chairman' Gitelman said it still has to go through this Committee and Board of Directors before it can be put on a referendum vote. John Maguire left at 6:54 P.M. The public hearing was concluded. John Power suggested the organization opposing that Highway 62 West be made a controlled access highway consider what was done out on North College. He said businessmen out there formed an organization and took steps to insure the best thing out there. He said they made a real strong effort out on North College. Larry Wood explained that the reason this came up is that the City Board was advised that the plan that indicates access roads cannot actually come about unless it is designated as a, controlled access highway. • Chairman Gitelman stated he had mixed feelings about it. Ernest Lancaster proposed to table this matter for 60 or 90 days to consult with the Arkansas Highway Department and check into a 5 -lane road. Al Hughes moved to table this matter until the second Tuesday in Ptey. Ernest Lancaster seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Chairman Gitelman instructed the Planning Administrator to send Mr. Blanton, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Odom notice by mail when this is before the Commission again. Planning Commission March 12, 1974 Page Six The next item for discussion was the large scale development plan D.D. BAILEY submitted by D.D. Bailey to construct a barn on property located Bailey Drive on the south side of Bailey Drive. LSD Ernest Jacks-. said the Subdivision Committee requests 5 feet of right- of-way along the south side of Bailey Drive. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Bailey has advised her that they object to giving right-of-way at this time. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the large scale development with a request for 5 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Bailey Drive. Al Hughes seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item for discussion was the large scale development plan DR. NETTLESHIP and conditional use request submitted by Dr. Anderson & Mae Johnson Road Nettleship for a plant nursery to be located on the east side of LSD Johnson Road north of Township Road. Ernest Jacks reported for the Subdivision Committee and said they moved the building without a moving permit; obtained no sign permit for the sign, and this property is in an area where a collector street is proposed. Mr. F.H. Martin, attorney, was present to represent Dr. Nettleship and suggested the Commission or Mr. Lieberenz take the failure to obtain.a moving permit up with the seller of the building. Ernest Jacks also said additional right-of-way is requested on Johnson Road and they really have Inot submitted a plan. Chairman Gitelman read the ordinance on large scale developments. Ernest Lancaster asked if this was a place.ofbusiness. Ernest Jacks stated the Commission needs to have some idea of what is going on and they should see a large scale development plan and the developer should go through the same process as everyone else Ernest Jacks moved that the plant nursery be approved as a conditional use in A-1. Chairman Gitelman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ernest Jacks moved that the Commission table the large scale development and take it up when they have the large scale development plan. Al Hughes seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M. • • RESOLUTION PC 12-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 12, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Mr. Gordon Houston for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILIE, ARKANSAS. Section 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property, described as follows, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPPION: Lots 7 and 8 of Replat of Lots 11 through 16 of University Acres Subdivision. Section 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 1974. MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 13-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 12, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1747, Appendix A -Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Fayetteville, Arkansas, to allow for development of tandem lots; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SECTION 1. That the a part hereof, be adopted of tandem lots. RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJJF, ARKANSAS. proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made to amend Ordinance 1747 to alto*"for development PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day of March , 1974. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman • • • (J RESOLUTION PC 14-74 WHEREAS, a public hearing washheld by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 12, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1661 (Section 18-13, Chapter 18, Code of Ordinances, Fayetteville, Arkansas) to provide that the Planning Commission may approve a required service road that does not lie parallel to and immedi- ately adjacent to a controlled access highway. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1661 to provide thatrthe_Planning Comm ssion,mayyapprove a required service•road that does not lie parallel to and immediately adjacent to a controlled access highway. PAS" & i: thtE v cf PASSED AND APPROVED this '"12th- day of —March - __ s 1974. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman