Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, Novem- ber 13, 1978, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Peg Anderson, Newton Hailey, and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Kisor. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, David McWethy, Rick Briggs, Scott VanLaningham, Terry J. Repak, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Rokeby, John Lisle, Richard Osborne, Harlan Black, Doyle Leeton, Myrtle Williams, Donald Stanton, Ervan Wimberly, John McGee, Helen Adams, Clarence Oxford, Sandy Simmons, Charles Wolfe, Charles Medearis, Charlie Cozort, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order. The minutes of the meeting of October 30, MINUTES 1978, were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion was the WINAMAC STEEL PRODUCTS request for a waiver of maximum driveway width Large Scale Development submitted by Winamac Steel Products for prop- Industrial Park erty on part of Lot 10, Industrial Park, zoned I-2, General Industrial District. No one was present to represent. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had approved the overall development of this LSD but had not discussed the driveway width waiver request. Bobbie Jones stated that, according to the regulating ordinance, the maximum driveway width allowed is 40 feet. She stated further that Winamac is asking for 120 feet (including radii) for the reason that they do not wish to have trucks breaking the curb or crossing into the opposing lane of traf- fic when turning onto the public road Mrs. Jones also stated that Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, had not announced any objections to the wider driveway width. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request for a waiver of the maximum driveway width. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was a request for a waiver of maximum driveway width submitted by Warren Tool Corporation for prop- erty on Lot 8, Industrial Park, zoned I-2, WARREN TOOL CORPORATION Large Scale Development Industrial Park • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 General Industrial District. Terry J. Repak, Architectural Engineer for the project, was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated that Warren Tool is requesting the 105 -feet driveway widths from end of radius to end of radius for the same reason that Winamac had requested the waiver --to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Mr. Repak also stated that his only comment was that he felt the 105 - feet driveway widths necessary for the trucks. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request for a waiver of the maximum driveway width. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the request for a waiver of Subdivision Requirements submitted by Thomas R.C. and Helen Rokeby. This item was brought to the Commission for the reason that one of the newly created parcels of a lot split did not have frontage on a public road, but access was available by way of an existing lane. Mr. and Mrs. Rokeby and their attorney, John Lisle, were present to represent. Ernest Jacks commented that this request was being brought from the Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission without a recommendation for the reason that the Subdivision Committee felt they could not grant a waiver for the request unless the Planning Commission would revise the tandem lot ordinance to allow easements to suffice for fee simple ownership requirement of right-of-way access to tandem lots. Peg Anderson asked for a clarification between "owning" a right-of-way and "owning" an easement. John Lisle explained that a person can "own" an easement (own the right to have access over property he doesn't actually own) or can legally "own" the property. Mr. Lisle further commented that Mr. and Mrs. Rokeby simply wanted to provide an access into their property, while selling the land along which the easement would run to another party. The buyer would be able to maintain the property (mow the grass, etc.) right up to the existing lane. Bobbie Jones commented that this property lies outside the city limits and that is why the request was brought to the Planning Commission. She noted that the Board of Adjustment deals with this type of problem on property within the city limits. Ernest Jacks commented that the Board of Adjustment had recently turned down such requests since the governing ordinance clearly states that all tandem lots must HAVE frontage on a public road and does not allow for mere easements running TO a public road. Mr. Jacks stated that he felt a revision of the ordinance was necessary before any waivers of this type could be granted. Morton Gitelman stated that he could see both sides to the question of whether an easement or outright ownership should be required. In terms of access, Mr. Gitelman stated that he felt an easement was just as good as ownership. He stated that if the city would require ownership, then it would have to deal with two different property owners instead of just one if the roadway ever needed to be dedicated. MR. $ MRS. THOMAS ROKEBY Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements (Outside City) • • • L r Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 - 3 John Lisle commented that Mr. and Mrs. Rokeby were well aware of the fact that if they wanted to do any further development on their tandem lot property, that they would have to provide at least a 50' roadway easement. However, he stated, that his clients were well aware of this fact and had no intentions of ever developing any further, so the 50' easement requirement (instead of 25') wasn't a problem for them. He stated that he really didn't understand what the city hoped to gain by requiring "fee simple ownership" rather than just a roadway easement. Chairman Davis stated that this item was very closely related to Item #10 of this agenda (request by the Board of Adjustment that the Planning Commission review the zoning ordinance requirements pertaining to whether an unrestricted easement for access should be permitted in lieu of fee simple title to 25' frontage on a public road). She stated that she felt both items were being discussed at this time. Richard Osborne, present as a representative of the Board of Adjust- ment for Item #10, stated that the Board of Adjustment was simply asking for directions from either the Planning Commission or the Board of Directors as to whether they could allow unrestricted eaements in lieu of fee simple title in these types of waiver requests. He stated that it was the general feeling of the Board of Adjustment that they didn't see any difference in allowing unrestricted easements that run with the land than in requiring fee simple ownership. He stated that, in essence, either allowed access to the public street from tandem lots. Ernest Jacks stated that he felt the question was really of a legal nature, i.e., what are the ramifications of easements versus ownership. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the legal aspects of the prob- lem. Peg Anderson moved to not approve the request since the ordinance seemed to require them not to allow a waiver. Ernest Jacks seconded the mo- tion, but before a vote could be finalized, Mr. Gitelman commented that he felt this Commission lacked authority to even consider waiving the request and he felt they could not even act on the question. He stated that it was his feeling that the ordinance would have to be rewritten. Peg Anderson then withdrew her motion. Chairman Davis appointed a committee consisting of Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker and Newton Hailey to look into the possibility of rewriting the ordinance and to make a recommendation to the Commission concerning all aspects and ramifications of this problem. She stated that this committee would be acting also in conjunction with Item #10 of this agenda. Peg Anderson then moved that the Commission take no action on this request. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the Conditional Use Request submitted by Fayetteville Public Schools to revise the playground plan of Root School to include two tennis courts rather than basketball courts on the West end of Root School's FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Root School Playground Conditional Use Request • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 - 4 • • present playground at the Southeast corner of Mission and Eastwood Streets. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. No one was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated that she had received a couple of telephone calls concerning this request and that she had been told by a school offi- cial that this request was being submitted by the school for the Parks and Recreation Board. A member of the Parks and Recreation Board had told her that the Parks and Recreation Board was going to request that the School with- draw the request. However, Mrs. Jones stated that she presently had not received any definite directions from anyone to withdraw the request from the agenda. Harlan Black, present in opposition, stated that he recommended the Planning Commission not approve the request (or at least delay a decision) until someone could come up with a complete, finalized plan for development of this playground. He stated there were several different proposals being circulated and that at present he had not found anyone who knew exactly what was being built and when. He further stated that no one could tell him what type of fence (heighth, construction, location of gates, etc.) was planned for the playground, or even if the playground was to be completely paved. He also stated that he had seen several different layout drawings of the playground, none of which were the same Ernest Jacks moved that this request be tabled until someone with authority from the School or the Parks and Recreation Board could come to the Commission with complete plans to present. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was WILLIAM WEATHERFORD the Conditional Use Request submitted by Conditional Use Request William Weatherford to remodel an existing 1555 W. Deane St. structure and convert it into a duplex at 1555 W. Deane Street. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. No one was present to represent. Chairman Davis asked if anyone in the audience was present in oppo- sition. Mr. Doyle Leeton and Mrs. Myrtle Williams (neighboring property owners) stated that they were opposed to the request. They stated that they had the signature of another neighboring property owner who could not attend this meeting who was also opposed to the granting of the request. Bobbie Jones stated that she had never received return receipts showing that the adjoining property owners had been notified by certified mail, and Mr. Leeton and Mrs. Williams both stated that they had never re- ceived certified letters. Peg Anderson moved to deny the request for the reason that no proof was presented that adjoining property owners had been notified. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed 7-1, with Morton Gitelman casting the "Nay" vote. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 • The next item was the public hearing to be held on the Rezoning Petition (R78-27) of Dr. Donald Stanton to rezone property lo- cated at 903 W. North Street from R-3, High Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential- Office District, or C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Dr. Donald Stanton was preseht to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended R-0 for this area ly- ing west of Leverett and south of North Street. He expressed concern that should the building on this lot ever be destroyed, in order to rebuild on the lot, a building 16.5 feet wide and 62 feet wide would be the largest that could be built, allowing for setbacks. He suggested that more land be purchased adjacent thereto in order that any future reconstruction could be more feasible. He also stated that additional land would eliminate the need for the Board of Adjustment to waive setbacks should rebuilding become necessary. Dr. Stanton stated that he was aware of the problem with the size of the building which could be allowed if redevelopment ever became necessary. He said that he had talked with the owner of this lot (who is also owner of several adjacent lots thereto) and the owner had verbally agreed to sell Dr. Stanton as much of the adjacent land necessary for Dr. Stanton to meet any future setback requirements if redevelopment became necessary. However, Dr. Stanton stated, at this time he was simply asking for rezoning of this one particular lot. He said he would come back to the Plan- ning Commission for rezoning of any additional land he might find necessary to purchase. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the rezoning of this lot from R-3, High Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential -Office District. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed 7m1 with Newton Hailey casting the "Nay" vote. Newton Hailey stated that he was concerned that this area would be- come victim to "piece meal" rezoning. He said he felt Larry Wood should study the area and come back to the Commission with some kind of planning report. Peg Anderson moved to ask Larry Wood to submit a "land use plan" for this area which the Commission could use when recommending future re - zonings. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REZONING PETITION R78-27 Dr. Donald Stanton 903 W. North Street The next item was the public hearing to be held on the Rezoning Petition (R78-28) of Comley Finer Homes, Inc. to rezone property located South of Nightingale Circle, East of Johnson Road and West of Scull Creek from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly was present to represent. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that of this subdivision be rezoned from R-1 to R-2 to provide REZONING PETITION R78-28 Comley Finer Homes, Inc. South of Nightingale Circle B East of Johnson -Road lots 1 through 15 a buffer and trans- • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 - 6 - • • ition for the future highway improvements proposed for this portion of the by-pass. He stated that the highway department plans to build an off -ramp at this site and to do this they will need to acquire portions of the south sides of lots 1 through 5 and a portion of the west side of lot 1. He said that rezoning to R-2 would give the developer the flexibility to "go conven- tional" or PUD. He further stated that if the developer chose to use the PUD, then the actual multi -family type structures could only be built on lots 1 through 10 since there would have to be a 100 foot setback from the R-1 dis- trict to the north. If the developer chose to go conventional in R-2, then Mr. Wood stated, that multi -family structures could be built on lots 1-15, but not on 16 through 20 as they would be contained in R-1. Ervan Wimberly presented an overlay map he had prepared for the lots in question. He stated the total tract to be approximately 10.7 acres and that leaving the land as R-1, the developer could go PUD and put 7 units per acre, or a total of 70 units on the tract. However, he stated that this was not the developer's intention at all. He stated that the developer wanted to build town -house type units, each having its own driveway and yard, all through the lots, except the units along the north side would have to be 2 -unit structures instead of 4 -unit as the rest would be, in order to comply with the ordinance. He said that the flood plain area would remain as a buffer strip along the eastern boundary of the lots. Rollin Foster (residing on Nightingale Circle), present in opposition, stated that he was oposed to the development and proposed rezoning for the reason that there would be "a lot of University students and a lot of wild parties" in the area, and that when that happened, he would sell out. He stated that there was already a lack of adequate police patrol of the area and he didn't like the thought of more people (which made better odds for having trouble) without adequate police protection. John McGee (residing at 434 Wren Circle) stated that he was also opposed to the rezoning since it would allow apartment house -type structures to be built in the area, thereby increasing traffic. He said that six people had been killed in this area in the past 4 years because of the difficulty of getting on and off the by-pass. He stated that if you increased the traffic up to even 5 times the present, the intersection would be too conges- ted and even more unsafe Helen Adams, present in opposition, stated that the area proposed to be left as an "open space" was really just a swamp and she wanted to know how the developer proposed to maintain it. Ervan Wimberly responded that the area would be landscaped and used as a park. Mrs. Adams countered that you couldn't use a park that was under water most of the time. Clarence Oxford (residing at 335 Wren Circle) also was opposed to the rezoning for the reason that he had moved to this area to be close to the city, yet in a country setting. He stated that he did not want to see this area ending up as a city apartment complex. Sandy Simmons (residing at 3472 Northwood in the adjoining Centerbrook Addition) said he had moved there to get away from apartment type structures and that once the area was rezoned to R-2, there wouldn't be anything to force builders to stay with certain plans. He stated that the people on Nightingale street were particularly upset about the proposal to the point of being "mad." Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 - 7 He said they had gone around with a petition and had found less than 3 or 4 people who were not opposed to the rezoning. Charles Wolfe (residing on Sandpiper Drive) also stated his opposi- tion. He said he had been one of the first people to purchase property in the area and that one of the deciding factors in deciding to buy was that the property was zoned R-1. He said he planned to retire here and didn't desire to retire next to an apartment house area Mr. Wolfe further stated that, even if there were plans to build an overpass to alleviate traffic congestion, he felt sure it would be at least 2 or 3 years in the future before construction would be done. He stated that any further development in the area before that time would be "ridicu- lous" since it would only increasethe traffic hazards in this already hazard- ous area Larry Wood stated that he had heard that the highway department was supposed to let the contract in August, but because of a design problem, the contract was delayed. He said he wasn't sure just when construction would begin. Mr. Wimberly stated that his developer's plans are not final and complete, for the reason that they didn't want to make detailed plans until they were sure the rezoning would be approved. He said that since the Plan- ning Commission woiuld have to approve anything before it was built, he didn't see why anyone should worry that once the rezoning was approved, an undesir- able development would be put in. Charles Medearis, attorney for several property owners in the area, submitted a petition containing 64 signatures of neighboring property owners who were opposed to the rezoning. He stated that the few people who had not signed the rezoning were either related to Mr. Comley, employees of Mr. Comley, or renters who didn't feel their signatures on the petition would be appropriate. He further stated that the letter Mr. Comley sent out to the adjoining property owners only "masked" the developer's real intentions for development. He said the letter stated there were "no plans for high density apartments", but did not say that there WERE plans for medium density apartments. He said that the undesirability of increased traffic, the odds of more crime, and other "social diseconomies" of the development plans made the majority of the neighbors very upset at the idea of rezoning in order to build multi -family structures. Charlie Cozort (residing at 356 Nightingale) also expressed his oppo- sition to additional growth in the area. After a short discussion between members of the Planning Commission, Peg Anderson moved to deny the rezoning request. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. Before a vote could be taken, Ervan Wimberly made a final plea to the Commission stating that he,felt development would be well in keeping with good planning. He stated that the area was isolated to the East by a swamp, to the South by the By-pass, and to the West by Johnson Road. He said that all his developer wanted to do was to make good use of the area at a better price than conventional development allowed. • • Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 8 Peg Anderson rebutted that she did not feel order to develop the area, since the developer stil using a PUD. Keith Newhouse called for a vote, and been taken, the motion to deny the rezoning request The next item for discussion was the review of the proposed revisions to Article 8, Section 12, Zoning Ordinance Regulations governing Planned Unit Developments. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, asked for comments and questions concerning his proposed revised PUD ordinances. He stated that he felt the Commission members were not all in agreement with the definition of a PUD. He referred them to his definition in the opening paragraph of the revised ordinance. Ernest Jacks commented that he felt the word "housing" in the defi- nition limited the PUD by leaving out all reference to commercial and indus- trial PUDS. Mr. wood replied that it had been his intention to address the ordinance to mainly residential PUDS. Mr. Jacks stated that he had hoped Fayetteville could get a good commercial PUD with some built-in incentives for nicer commercial development. He said that some of these incentives had been written into the screening ordinance by allowing lesser setbacks if screening was provided, etc. A discussion then ensued concerning the desirability of commercial PUDS and standards which would govern this type of a PUD. Aspects of several completed PUDS in the area were also discussed. Beth Crocker questioned how Mr. Wood had decided on a 2.5 acre minimum land area requirement for a PUD, and Mr. Wood replied that he had simply picked an acreage that seemed feasible to him. He stated that he had read a study which had concluded that a residential PUD could be feasible even on one acre of land, although most people didn't consider such a small develop- ment as a ''real" PUD. Bobbie Jones commented that she felt a good recommendation for a PUD would be to require a certain percentage of the clustered multi -family type structures to be built before any single-family (or a percentage thereof) structures could be built. A discussion then ensued concerning other as- pects of PUDS, such as design and clustering. Chairman Davis finally stated that she felt each Commission member needed to review the proposed ordinance more closely and bring their comments back to the group at the next regular meeting. She said the discussion of Mr. Wood's proposed ordinance would be continued at the next meeting. rezoning necessary in 1 had the alternative of after the vote having passed unanimously. PUD ORDINANCE Proposed Revisions The last item for consideration was the request from the Board of Adjustment that the Planning Commission review the zoning ordinance requirements that a lot have frontage on an imporved public street (Art. 8, Section 6 and definition of "lot" in Art. 17, Zoning Ordinance.) The Board of Adjustment requested PROPOSED REVISIONS TO Art. 8, Section 6 and Art. 17, Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1978 - 9 the Planning Commission to determine whether an unrestricted easement for access could be permitted in lieu of fee simple title. Chairman Davis noted that since this item was discussed at the same time Item #4 on today's agenda was considered, she did not feel further dis- cussion at this meeting was warranted. She stated that the committee she had appointed earlier in the meeting to study the legal aspects and ramifi- cations of this problem would address this item at the enxt regular Planning Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. RESOLUTION PC 56-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, November 13, 1978, the Planning Commission held a public hearing fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the North- west 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 Rezoning Petition R78-27, Dr. Donald Stanton; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning said real estate from R-3, High Density Residential District, to R-0, Resi- dential -Office District, said real estate being described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot #1, Block #2, Rosehill Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; also known as 903 West North Street. SECTION 2. That the above'described property be rezoned from R-3, High Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential -Office District, so that the petitioner may develop said property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of November, 1978. APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary • • • RESOLUTION PC 57-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, November 13, 1978, the Planning Commission held a public hearing fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the North- west 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 Rezoning Petition R78-28, Comley Finer Homes, Inc; 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 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 DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 20 of Swallow Circle and Redwing Circle of Johnson Road Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Washing- ton County, Arkansas, also including all of Lot 41 south of a line extended east from property line between Nightingale Circle and Redwing Circle to Skull Creek. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of November, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman