Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-09-23 Minutes• • e: /s; /7/5 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4;10,P, M. Tuesday, September 23,.1975, in the, Board:of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Maguire, John Power, Ernest Jacks, Chairman Morton Gitelman, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray. MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Nickell. OTHERS PRESENT: Roy Clinton, Russell Purdy, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. The minutes of the September 9, 1975, Planning Commission meeting MINUTES were approved as distributed. The next item on the agenda was a request to change a non -conforming use at 1902 Zion Road from storage for American Heating 4 Air Con- Request for Change ditioning to an artist's studio and storage submitted by of Libby Simmons. Non -Conforming Use Chairman Gitelman said there was a letter in the agenda from Luther Flora, President of American Air Tech, Inc. stating that they have been using this property for storage of items that would not be needed at their new location until it was necessary to remove them for a new occupant and stating they would be happy to remove these items or sell them to the new occupant. Mrs. Simmons and her son were present to represent. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's question, Mrs. Simmons' son. said he would be putting in some plumbing, electricity and installing a heating system, but there would not be any external changes. Mrs. Simmons said if she were granted the change of non -conforming use she would be buying this property. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the change of non -conforming use as requested by Libby Simmons. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. John Power said he was having difficulty placing this on Zion Road and asked where the property was. Mrs. Simmons said it was not right on Zion Road but was the three acres behind the Bill Bolin property. She said from the Mall this was about g mile out where Zion Road made the jog. She told Mr. Jacks that the road on the West side of theproperty used for access had been an undisputed road used by the public for 35 years. Mrs. Simmons' son said there used to be a house even further back that the road went to; however, he stated there was hardly a trace of the house left now but that the electric lines went back to where it used to be. Mrs. Simmons told Mr. Jacks she did impasto painting. Mr. Jacks then commented that this sounded like a less intense use than the air-conditioning and this was what the Planning Commission was charged with. There was no further discussion. The motion that was on the floor was approved unanimously. Chairman Morton GitelmansaidDirector Morris Collier had called him suggesting that the Planning Commission table Items 3,4, and 5 on the agenda because some of the members of the City Board felt these items should be put off until after the task force that City Manager Don Grimes asked to be created to look into the problems of streamlining operations in the Planning Office, had submitted a report. • • • Planning Commission -2- September 23, 1475 In answer to Chairman Gitelmants question, Director. Russell Purdy said the Board of Directors had not taken a vote for the Planning Commission to table these items. Chairman Gitelman said he told Mr, Collier that he saw no connection between Items number 3 and 4 on this agenda and the streamlining of the building permit procedure, subdivision procedure, and the large scale development procedure, but that he would raise this request to the Planning Commission. Helen Edmiston and Ernest Jacks said they failed to see the relation between these items and the streamlining of these other procedures. Director Russell Purdy said he was in agreement with Morris Collier that a task force was needed but that he had not heard about this request until now. Chairman Gitelman felt the Planning Commission should go ahead with the public hearing concerning these items and then if the Board of Directors wished to postpone any action they could do so. Public Hearing on the Chairman Gitelman said the proposed amendment for C-4 PROPOSED C-4 ZONING DISTRICT regulations in the agenda was what the committee that met concerning this had come up with on how to deal with the problem in the Urban Renewal and downtown area dealing with the setbacks and the off-street parking problem. He said at a previous Planning Commission Meeting they voted to hold a public hearing on it with the understanding that they could talk about whether the details of this should be modified or amended before it was sent on to the Board of Directors, especially such things as under the off-street parking the cost per space in particular and the 1,000 feet distance. He said people had expressed the idea that this was going too far outside the downtown area in terms of providing alternate parking. Chairman Gitelman then opened the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to establish regulations for a new zoning district to be known as C-4, (Downtown) Zoning District, and for other purposes. Roy Clinton was' present on behalf of the Housing Authority of Fayetteville. He said the proposal looked fine except for two items. One is whether or not the off-street parking proposal would be acceptable, and the other is the street rights-of-way which seem to be a major problem with whatever is done because it will directly reflect on what these rights-of-way, bulk area, and setback regulations actually will mean. He said they (the setbacks) would be dependent on the determination of what the street rights-of-way are. On the dedication as a waivered parking space, they can either dedicate the equivalent in space or the 500 dollars per space. He said in these two cases he felt even more strongly now that this 500 dollar amount was legitimate and adequate, -but not too adequate a figure. He said an' escalator clause should be built into this. He said he felt there would probably be a formation of an improvement district for parking facilities over and above the 500 dollars. He said the 500 dollars would make the feasibility of the parking spaces bondable so that long term financing could be arranged. He pointed out that there were very few places where parking had ever been feasible on a paid basis as a revenue producing bond issue, and that without the initial front-end money, it is just not feasible. He added that he thought $1,000 was too much to ask for but that $500 was not too little to ask for. Chairman Gitelman said he felt the developer or purchaser of downtown property perhaps should not be required to foot the whole bill for something like that. He said he was concerned as to what would happen if they got a small fund for this parking and people started providing their own parking on-site. Mr. Clinton said it would be a gamble and that this was another reason for the 500 dollar amount. He said he knew this was a completely new approach and realized that(downtown) Fayetteville at the present time was not hurting for parking. He felt the 500 dollar amount was not too low considering the same person paying the 500 dollars would probably have to participate in an improvement district in order to get more for his 500 dollars. • • • Planning Commission -3- September 23, 1975 He said if this fee was kept in limbo "x" number of years it .inean .that they are not progressing and they dontt need it. However, the fee has been paid and it will be used some day some place in the Cityts.parking, He said there were no encumberances on this since it did not say where the parking would have to be, He said it could be used for a double deck parking facility or a parking lot. shoyhd read Chairman Gitelman said he felt the last line of #2 under E of the proposed ordinance/ to be limited for the purpose of•providing "or improving" off street parking in the C-4 District", so that it could be used to upgrade existing parking. He said he felt it was their duty to come up with something that would treat equitably the existing downtown property owners, those people who are potential buyers of the Urban Renewal land, and the City who would obviously be a part of this sometime in the future. Mr. Clinton felt this last line should be worded "to be limited for the purpose of providing or improving of additional off-street parking in the C-4 District." He said he felt if someone put money into what was going to be used for additional off-street parking, then it should be used for "additional" parking rather than to maintain what was existing. In reply to Chairman Gitelman's question, Mr. Clinton said there are those in the downtown area that had already provided some parking (for example Mcllroy Bank) and they wouldn't participate except on a reduced amount. In other words, this would be taken care of under the assessments which would be based on benefit derived. Chairman Gitelman commented that he wanted to make sure they were not putting the City in an impossible position. Mr. Clinton said the City would not build any parking lots. Pat Tobin asked about maintenance. Roy Clinton said under ari improvement district the City would sign the note but that they would also have the guarantees of all the people in the improvement district that they will make up the deficit in revenues collected and this would go as a lien against the property. He said as far as maintenance was concerned, it would be strictly up to the City to build in a maintenance factor and to figure how much it would take as a maintenance appreciation on the lots and take that out before the money is taken out to retire the revenue bonds. He said he would assume that this would be done anyway. He said if they were going to have good lots, they should be made where they could be maintained to keep them good. John Maguire said if he understood what Mr. Clinton was envisioning concerning this "slush fund" for parking, he did not see anything wrong with it. Ernest Jacks asked what "equivalent" meant. He said as he read this someone could buy an equivalent amount of property and deed the raw this was what was intended or if it was intended that own parking on the other property. John Maguire commented that he understood it to mean t build his own'parking lot on it. Chairman Gitelman said this should be clarified if they decided which this should be. Mr. Jacks then asked what the intention was when the committee met on this. Chairman Gitelman said when they first started discussing this they talked about the idea of someone buying a smaller lot (such as the OTASCO lot) that they might could buy two lots from the Housing Authority widely separated and use one of them for a parking lot. However, then they thought someone might decide to buy a lot three blocks away from the OTASCO lot (for example) and try to use this for customer parking and, of course, this would not work. John Maguire felt that Mr, Jacks had brought out a good point. He said the word "dedicate" could be implied to give it to the City and he did not feel that this was the intent of the committee that discussed it. He felt it was simply providing alternate parking spaces completed. • land to the City. He asked if the person(s) should improve his he person would buy the lot and A • • • Planning Commission -4- September 23, 1975 Mr. Clinton said it had been his intent .at.the meeting of the committee that the person would have to provide the spaces somewhere. else, Chariman Gitelman said another problem brought up was someone wanting to use property at the edge of the proposed C-4 District or across the street in the C-3 District to use for parking, and he said that perhaps they needed to change the language to clarify this. Roy Clinton pointed out that the key to all of this was that the Planning Commission still had the perogatiie to approve what seemed to be best. Chairman Gitelman said the language should be more specific. In answer to John Powerts question, Chairman Gitelman said they discussed possible boundaries of the C-4 District, but they had not been finalized. Mr. Power then asked if it was possible that the new group from Dickson Street would want to be included in .the C-4 District. Mr. Clinton said they had a•unique problem since there was still so much zoned residential there. However, he said there was not anything to keep them from petitioning C-4 and he told the Planning Commission he was sure they would have some petitions for additional C-4. Chairman Gitelman said he would regred seeing the central downtown district start spreading out since this would allow dense development with setbacks and party walls right up to the property lines. Roy Clinton said they would have someone in occasionally that would want to try to get the maximum use out of property that had been burned down. Chairman Gitelman said it was his idea to go as far as Spring Street only and to keep a fairly big gap between the downtown area and Dickson Street to avoid this very problem. Mr. Clinton said he would like to stay one block East of College Avenue because there was a highly intact area there at the present time that something would have to be done about sooner or later. John Power said if the merchants on Dickson Street were aware of the fact that work was being done on a C-4 Zoning District for the downtown area that they would be highly interested in where the boundary to the North would stop and he felt that the Planning Commission would be faced with some unique problems from another group as the downtown area has some unique problems. He said he felt they could possibly be setting some precedence at this meeting that may or may not be good. He said he was personally in favor of this' proposed C-4 Zoning District for the downtown. However, he felt the closer the North boundary could be kept to what they knew as downtown the better off they would be. Mr. Clinton said he was not worried so much about the C-4 Zoning boundary as much as he was the street rights-of-way. In answer to Bill Kisor's question, Roy Clinton stated he felt the money for the waived parking spaces should be "earmarked" under the care of the Parking Authority. A discussion was entered into on what would be a reasonable distance of the off-s'ite parking from the building itself. John Maguire said he felt they should also make it 1,000 feet in the C-3 District. Rita Davis said this had been brought up about a year ago. She also stated that she felt a 300 -feet limitation was ridiculous. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones asked if #2 under E meant the parking would be provided and maintained at the develpgr's expense and Chairman Gitelman answered that this was correct. Mrs. Jones then said she would like to have the wording clarified on #1 as to whether it required dedication of land or improvement or parking elsewhere and on #2 to read that the $500 would be "allowed against the cost of" or as Mr. Clinton suggested "applied toward providing". Mrs, Jones also said that people getting building permits should be made aware that there might still be an improvement district in the future. She asked what they had in mind on the front setbackas proposed. Chairman Gitelman expalined on the setback from street right-of-way that in the C-4 District they were allowing them to build up to the property line if a sidewalk • Planning Commission -5- September 23, 1975 exists or will be built but lust in case, they did want to put in a sidewalk it was worded to prevent them from placing the sidewalkright against the street itself. Mrs, Jones said most sidewalks were in the street right-of-way and said she was asking for clarification because she did not really understand why they had the 5 foot requirement with. no sidewalk and the 0 foot setback with a sidewalk.anyway. Chairman Gitelman said it was because the City might want to put in a sidewalk sometime if the ordinance did not require the builder to do it. Mrs. Jones then went on to say since it was the general rule that sidewalks were in the street right-of-way why not establish a right-of-way and establish a setback from that and the sidewalk be in the right-of-way. Chairman Gitelman said they had not established the rights-of-way. Roy Clinton said the square was set up for a no -light traffic movement and he felt this slower, no -light traffic movement would be the answer to the whole thing. Therefore, he said what he was asking was that they consider the present building lines valid and go out from that. Mr. Jacks said there would be places (for instance, at the edge of the C-4 District) where this would not work. In answer to Mr. Jacks' question, Mr. Clinton said he was trying to tie this to the Master Street Plan rather than the C-4 District. Chairman Gitelman asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if they went along with this plan whether or not they have to change the 5 foot front setback as set out in the C-4 District. Mrs. Jones said she could work with the 5 foot requirement the way it was written but that she would have a hard time explaining it. Mrs. Edmiston said she could not understand why there had to be a setback if the streets were not going to be widened. John Maguire asked Mrs. Edmiston where the people would walk if the building were right up against the right-of-way; Mrs. Edmiston replied they could walk on the sidewalk; she added that she felt they should have to build the sidewalk. Mr Maguire then pointed out some places where there was a sidewalk on one side of the street only. Mrs. Edmiston said when a building permit was issued on the side of the street where a sidewalk did not exist, they should either have to set back 5 feet or set back for a sidewalk. Mr. Jacks asked if all sidewalks were necessarily always within the street right-of-way. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there might be some instances where there would be wider sidewalks. She felt this was probably where the builder had built his sidewalk against the sidewalk provided the City. John Maguire moved to close the public hearing on Item #3. John Power seconded the motion. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said that where the last paragraph read "providing off-street parking in the C-4 District" the City could be boxing themselves in where they were allowing dedication of land within 1,000 feet which could be outside the C-4, in getting raw land which he said he presumed the 500 dollars could be used to improve that lot since it would be given for parking. He said the words "in the C-4 District" would be excluding the possbility of that. Chairman Gitelman agreed and proposed a change in the wording to say "providing off-street parkingto serve the C-4 District". He also said he added for the Planning Administrator's sake under Item 2, Part E. for the purpose of "assisting or" providing off-street parking . . . After further discussion John Maguire moved to approve Item 3 with the amendments made by Chairman Gitelman under Part E, Chairman Gitelman said he had a proposal he would like to send on to the Board of Directors with. the Planning Commission's approval, and that was to adopt this and send it to the Board with two items in brackets which he felt could be subject to change and someone could appear at the Board of Directorsmeeting to ocplai it. • Planning Commission -6- September 23, 1975 One, would be -to put the g feet setback from street right-of-way in brackets (Under Part D,) He said this: would allow them time to decidewhether or not this was necessary so if they decided they could take it out at the Board meeting and make it a 0' setback. And also put the provision under Part E in Brackets that states "such waiver.to be approved, rejected, or modified by the Board of Directors . John Power seconded the motion made by John Maguire and it was approved unanimously. Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing to consider -a PROPOSED AMENDMENT proposed amendment to Fayetteville 's Major Street Plan, Major Street Plan . .' including: A. Proposed amendments -withinthe center square Urban Renewal Area. John moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the streets as built in the proposed C-4 District limited by certain streets be limited to and not to excede the widths as presently built. To limit the widening of Block, East, Mountain, and Center from College Avenue to Church Street and from Meadow to Mountain Street. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Planning Consultant Larry Wood asked whether this would limit the widening of the street pavement or be accepting the right-of-way that exists. He said if there were more right-of-way to widen on, this would not allow it if they limited the widening. John Maguire said if there was right-of-way existing that could be widened on and the street needed to be widened, he was not against that He said he did not want to require anyone buying Urban Renewal property to dedicate additional right-of-way Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said they were actually wanting to use the existing rights-of-way as the Major Street Plan rights-of-way in this area. She then asked if it would not be simpler just to make a statement amending the Major Street Plan to say the existing rights-of-way for these streets would be considered to meet the Major Street Plan requirements or will be the rights-of-way required on the Major Street Plan requirement and then she could simply figure the setbacks from that point. Chairman Gitelman suggested the way to handle this was to do it in context saying the Major Street Plan requirement of these six blocks is to be established at the existing right-of-way. John Maguire agreed this was intended in his motion. The motion that was on the floor was approved unanimously. John Power then moved to table B, C. and D (other Proposed Major Street Plan Amendments) under #4 on the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 P. M. • • • RESOLUTION PC 49-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, September 23, 1975, 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 Ordinance, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas) to amend the ordinance to include C-4, Downtown District. NCW, 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 1747 to include the C-4, Downtown District. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • WHEREAS, Commission met WHEREAS, recommendation Street Plan; RESOLUTION PC 50-75 at its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 23, 1975, the Planning to discuss the proposed revisions to the Major Street Plan. after the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to make a to the Board of Directors on proposed revisions to the Major NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJ.T.F, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed revisions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend the Major Street Plan as follows: Block, East, Mountain, and Center from College Avenue to Church Street and from Meadow to Mountain Street; that the existing rights of way for these streets would be considered the Major Street Plan requirements. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman