Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-27 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, Novem- ber 27, 1978, at 5:05 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks, at 7:10 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Peg Anderson, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor (left and Windell Cullers. Chairman Rita Davis. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, Rick Briggs, Scott VanLaningham, Julia Rogers, Jerry Hart, George Handy, Wade Bishop, Vernon Fitzhugh, Charles Combs, J. B. Hays, Ervan Wimberly, Jim Witt, Rick Osborne, Will Rogers, Tom Comley, John Megee, Charles Wolfe, Clarence Oxford, Porter May, John Kyle, Sandy Simmons, Ronald Foster, and other unidenti- fied members of the audience. Vice -Chairman Keith Newhouse called the meeting to order. Ernest Jacks called attention to an error on page 2 of the minutes of the previous regular meeting of November 13, 1978. He noted that the last sentence on the page should read: "He stated that if the city would require ownership, then it would have to deal with only one property owner instead of two if the road- way ever needed to be dedicated." With that correction, the minutes of said meeting were approved as mailed. The first item for consideration was the Conditional Use Request submitted by Julia Rogers for approval of a tandem lot at 524 Sequoyah Drive, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Julia Rogers, Jerry Hart and George Handy were present to represent. Jerry Hart, nephew of Mrs. Rogers, presented the request. He stated that his aunt wanted to build a residential house behind her existing home, which would be one-story, instead of two-story like the existing one, because of his aunt's age. He stated that there was ample room behind her house to build, that she had ample room for easements, and that she would have access to water and sewer. He stated she planned to connect to water and sewer on Sequoyah Drive. He also stated that the sanitation department had stated that pick-up could be made at the same location as pick-up at the existing house, Ernest Jacks inquired of Bobbie JOnes whether the Committee was being asked to "approve a conditional use and not a tandem lot," or in other words, "two houses on one lot?" Mrs. Jones replied that, according to the ordinance, they could, only approve this request if it meets the tandem lot ordinance. MINUTES JULIA ROGERS Conditional Use Request 524 Sequoyah Drive • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 2 Mr. Jacks commented that the tandem lot ordinance requires the tandem lot to have 25' access to a public street and that this lot would have to be a legally divided, separate lot from the front lot. Mr. Hart stated that he had not interpreted the ordinance in this manner. Mr. Cullers also stated that he felt the proposed house would have to be built on a separately deeded lot with its own drive, etc., and Keith New- house concurred. George Handy asked for clarification, and Morton Gitelman responded that, although there was nothing wrong with the plan they had presented, the house would have to be built on a legally separated (split) lot and that a legal instrument would be required. Wade Bishop, present in opposition, stated that his house and lot were located directly behind Mrs. Rogers' and that if the proposed structure were built, it would be practically in his back yard. He said that he had "paid a. premium" for his property and felt this "would destroy the privacy" of his backyard, as well as change the entire atmosphere of the community. He said that it was reasonable to assume that the proposed house would become a rent house in the short future. He said that he had recently built a swimming pool in his back yard and that he felt his privacy would be Jeopardized. Mr. Bishop also stated that two other neighbors (Mr. Eoff and Mr. Moore) could not be present but they had expressed their wish that he enter their disapproval of the proposal, also. Mrs. Rogers stated that she had lived on this land for many years and had even sold Mr, Bishop a part of her land not long ago in order to "square him up." She said she still had plenty of land left to build on and that it costher about $31.00 every month during the mowing season to keep this back lot mowed. She said she felt she•had a right to improve her property in any way she could. Mr. Vernon Fitzhugh (residing at 609 Crest Drive), also present in opposition, stated that a few years ago an Improvement District had been formed for this area and that district did not permit any houses to be built between Crest Drive and Sequoyah Drive. He said that someone living off Rockwood Trail had tried to build and had not been allowed to do so. He also said that he wasn't sure Just exactly how this district might effect Mrs. Rogers' proposal. Peg Anderson inquired whether this Commission had any choice to turn down a tandem lot request if it met the ordinance requirments. Bobbie Jones replied that she felt that since the ordinance stated that this type of request was permitted "on appeal to the Planning Commission" that this meant that they could either approve or disapprove a request. Ernest Jacks stated that he felt they could not turn down such a request without a good reason. Beth Crocker commented that the tandem lot ordinance was written to deal with lots with topographical problems and was not intended to allow two houses to be built on one lot. Peg Anderson moved to deny Mrs. Rogers' request. Beth Crocker seconded the motion, which passed unanimously • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 3 The next item for consideration was CHARLES COMBS the request of Charles Combs for a Condi- Conditional Use Request tional Use to allow construction of a cabaret 1000 East 15th Street at 1000 East 15th Street, property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Charles Combs was present to represent. Mr. Combs presented his request stating that he had lived in this area for 28 years and was very familiar with the types of lodges and private clubs in the area. He said that many of these were very closely situated to resi- dential areas. He stated that it had "been a dream" of his for several years to build a nice private club and that the building he proposed would not be an "eyesore." He stated that he planned to set the building back as far as possible on the 15 -acre tract of land and that it would not be a source of noise. Mr. Combs passed around pictures of other commercial endeavors along this stretch and also pictures of an existing cabaret structure in another town which would be comparable to the one he proposed to build. Peg Anderson stated that she felt the big issue with this request was the problem with whether sewer service would be available to the site. Mr. Combs replied that he had talked with the City Engineer and that the City Engineer had suggested running a line from the back of his proposed building all along the North side of his property to connect onto the existing sewer line located at the NE corner of his property (a distance of approximately 600-700 feet). Mr. Combs said that it would be up to the engineer to decide whether there was enough grade to the land to allow the sewer. Mr. Jacks commented that he did not want to see this strip commercial- ized. He said that he did agree, however, that multi -family residences would not be a bad approach for the area. Newton Hailey stated that he thought the usage Mr. Combs was proposing (disco) was "stretching" the term "recreational facility." He said that this facility would not be drawing customers from the surrounding residential area only, but city-wide. He said that the definition of residential facilities was perhaps "not clear enough." Mr. Newhouse inquired whether there would be screening and other at- tempts to landscape the area, and Mr. Combs replied that there would. Mr. Jacks moved to deny the request. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed 5-3 with Jacks, Anderson, Hailey, Kisor and Cullers casting the "aye" votes and Gitelman, Crocker and Newhouse casting the "nay" votes. The next item for consideration was the preliminary plat of Eastwood Estates. Eastwood Estates is located on Crossover Road between Hwy. 45 and Manor Drive, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. J. B. Hays and Johnie Bassett, developers, and Ervan Wimberly, engineer, were present to represent. EASTWOOD ESTATES Preliminary Plat Crossover Road • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 4 Ervan Wimberly presented the plat by pointing out the location of the site in relation to the surrounding area. He stated that all the adjoin-- ing property owners' signatures had not been obtained and, therefore, he realized that all the Commission could do would be to give its opinion of the proposed layout. He stated that he understood that if this layout is approved that there would not be a provision for a north -south road, however, he felt that possibly a provision could be made for the developers to enter into a contract with the city agreeing to dedicate rights-of-way for a future road and that the buyers of these lots would be obligated to build the streets on the city"s call J. B. Hays,,developer, stated that he really did not want to obligate the buyers in this manner. He stated that there is a heavy demand for large lots in this area and that he already has prospective buyers for several of the lots. He stated that, although the back lots would not be able to be served by city sewer and would need septic tanks, the front lots could be served by the city sewer if the houses were built close to Crossover Road. Dr. Hays stated that the other developments in this area were large lots and that this proposal would be in keeping with the neighboring areas. Jim Witt, an adjoining property owner present in support, stated that he was "very much interested in seeing these tracts developed into large lots which would be in keeping with other development in the area." He also said that he didn't want to see it "cut up into 100' x 150' lots." He stated that he would "object all day" to that type of proposal. Mr. Jacks stated that he was concerned that there would not ever be a road for north -south movement in this area if this proposed plan was approved. Peg Anderson stated that she wasn't as concerned about not ever having a "through" street north -south as she was about not having "any public streets at all." She said that the proposed layout took them right back again to tandem lots. Mr. Jacks commented that the tandem lot ordinance was "sold" on the basis of giving landlocked lots or lots with special topographical problems a chance to be developed. He said he didn't feel that either of those condi- tions existed here. Rick Osborne, presented as an interested party in support of the pro- posal, stated that he was one of the prospective buyers of Lot 6 and that he clearly understood the sewer problem, but that he felt septic tanks would be workable. He stated that he was very interested in seeing lots available that were larger than the ordinary 100' x 150' lots. He stated that he and many people were. looking for lots that could give them "breathing room." Mr. Jacks stated that he still felt that some provision for future street needs should be made in this area . Ervan Wimberly reiterated the position he took at the Subdivision Com- mittee meeting by stating again that he felt that these developers should not be required to dedicate and build public streets that might never be needed. He said that if the lots were ever again divided, he felt the city could re- quire street dedications at that time. Then, he said, the great expense for building the streets might be justified if there were several lots in need of streets instead of these few lots being proposed. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 5 Newton Hailey stated that he was still concerned about the tandem lot effect of the layout and felt that this Commission had enforced the intent of the tandem lot ordinance on the immediate past consideration of the Rogers request. Bill Kisor stated that he liked the layout and large -lot idea and moved that the "concept" or "feasibility" plan be approved. Beth Crocker seconded the motion. Mort Gitelman stated that he was opposed to creating three lots that did not have access to a public street. He stated that this Commission made "country people" show access for ingress and egress and that he thought they could not afford the "luxury" of allowing these developers to not have to also comply. Newton Hailey stated that he objected to the layout. He said that a cul-de-sac at the end of the proposed drive could negate a tandem lot use. Mr. Gitelman stated that he was not concerned about assuring a north - south street, but that he was concerned about creating tandem lots. He agreed with Mr. Hailey that a cul-de-sac could solve that problem. He stated that he didn't think "anyone should be able to insulate himself from the public." Chairman Jacks called for a vote on the motion and second to approve the concept plan and the motion failed 5-3 with Hailey, Cullers, Anderson, Newhouse and Gitelman voting "nay" and Kisor, Jacks and Crocker voting "aye." The next item for consideration was the SUNSET WOODS proposed improvement plan by the Sunset Woods PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. Property Owners' Association for construction Improvement Plan of a swimming pool and tennis courts Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ernest Jacks stated that the Subdivision Committee had voted to recom- mend approval of this site plan upon the contingencies that (1) the easements called for by the Plat Review Committee are to be shown on the plat, and (2) traffic barriers would be installed on the ends of the access drive to prevent through traffic between Oak and Lewis Lanes. Mr. Jacks moved that this plan be approved. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was COMLEY FINER HOMES the feasibility sketch for a PUD replat of Feasibility Sketch Comley Finer Homes for Lots 1-20 and a part Johnson Road Addition of Lot 40 of Johnson Road Addition. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly, Tom Comley and Will Rogers were present to represent. Ervan Wimberly presented the request for approval of the feasibility sketch. He stated that this plan was basically the same as the one presented at the last meeting, other than single-family residents were now proposed for the North side of the addition, and that there would be a maximum total of only 43 living units in the 5.5 acres of land to be developed into living units. The remaining 5.2 acresof the 10.7 acre tract would be a common area. The multi -family units making up the majority of the living units would be mainly • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 6 "four-plexes" staggered instead of exact row houses with uniform fronts and backs. He said that these four-plexes would each share a common wall, but would be sold individually, not rented (townhouse concept). He stated that these would be nice houses selling for approximately $32,000 to $35,000 each. John Megee (residing at 434 Wren Circle), present in opposition, stated that he would like to know how Mr. Comley planned to develop the so-called "nature park" common area. He said he wondered whether there were plans to bulldoze the area off and then fill it in, or what. Mr. Wimberly replied that the upper common area would simply be cleaned off, landscaped to a small extent, reshaped as little as possible and then maintained in as natural a state as possible. He stated that the lower area would be developed into ball parks, etc. as specified on the plan submitted. He said that the Property Owners' Association would maintain the area once development was complete. Charles Wolfe, a neighboring property owner present in opposition, stated that this par area would require extensive filling, not just minor grading. He passed around pictures of the area taken the day before showing a large portion of the area covered and standing in water. He stated that, although there had been little rain to speak of in the past several days, the land was already swampy and inundated with water in many places. He said that this low area stayed damp even in summer and was practically a lake dur- ing rainy seasons. Newton Hailey commented that he had .no objection to the density of the proposed building site, but that he felt no construction or occupancy should be approved until the highway department's overpass was complete in order to alleviate heavy traffic problems. He asked about the construction timetable proposed and Mr. Comley responded that construction would commence probably in the latter part of next year and it could even be two years before completed. Peg Anderson asked what guarantee would be made that the park area would ever be built and Mr. Wimberly stated that he felt a Bill of Assurances could be obtained assuring that the improvements would be completed before any of the living units would be sold. Mr. Gitelman stated that it was common to require a Property Owners' Association to be formed to maintain the improvements, but Peg Anderson coun- tered that she wondered who would take care of them before the Property Owners' Association was formed. Mr. Wimberly stated that in some instances, the common areas are main- tained under contract with the city and the city's expenses in maintenance are charged back to the Property Owners' Association. Larry Wood commented that in that instance the city was a "third party" to the covenants. Mr. Jacks added that it would be a matter of litigation if Mr. Comley did not complete the park areas as proposed, and Mr. Gitelman added that they could require that none of the units could be occupied until all the common area improvements were complete, or they could require that all the improvements be complete before they would approve the final plat. Peg Anderson commented that townhouses were.a fairly new concept, and that she really liked them. However, she stated, liking them was a matter of taste. She said some people do not like apartments, some do not like duplexes, or lookta-like houses all in a row, etc., but she felt that many people, especially elderly people, like the idea of owning their own home but do not Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 7 want yards to maintain. She said that this type of people usually welcome townhouses. Porter May (residing at 3504 Sandpiper), present in opposition, stated that he had moved away from areas where apartments and row houses were com- mon and that he had seen the original plat for this area which showed more single-family homes and cul-de-sacs. He stated that he felt the area should be developed in that manner. John Kyle (residing at 332 Wren Circle), also present in opposition, stated that he had retained a lawyer to look at the development plans before he bought his home and that nothing like this was even thought of at that time. He also stated that he felt single-family homes (as originally platted) should be built. Sandy Simmons, a neighboring property owner present in opposition, stated that this neighborhood has a lot of elderly people who had previously lived in apartment houses and other densely -populated areas before moving to this area. He stated that they had moved here in order to live cose to town but in a country setting. He stated that he felt it was unfair to them to once again bring such highly -populated living units near them. He said that these people felt the had been "let down." Ronald Foster (residing at 407 Nightengale Circle), present in opposi- tion, stated that he had purchased his house only six months ago and that at the time he purchased, his lawyer had reviewed the plat and that no one had seen anything about plans for townhouses. Tom Robinson, present as an interested party, stated that he was gen- erally concerned with PUDs and that he could see no reason why the landowner could not give assurances that the common area would be built as proposed be- fore the living units would be sold. Charles Wolfe added that he had moved here from California where townhouses and multi -family living units were everywhere. He said that the common areas of these types of developments had a tendency to run down easily and that he, as well as many other people, had moved to Arkansas to get away from higher density living areas and wanted a "slower mode " of living in a "home -town" atmosphere. Bill Kisor stated that every since this developer had begun trying to replat this area that he had met with alot of opposition by people who had been given the impression when they purchased their homes that this area would remain single-family and he did not think it was right to force this type of replatting on them. Beth Crocker stated that she tended to agree with Mr. Kisor's state ment, although she whole<heartedly supported the PUD concept. Mr. Wimberly stated that the original plat of this area was 4-6 years ago and that 4-6 years ago most of the land south of his area which is now highway interchange was all farm land. He stated that this type of PUD was necessary as a buffer zone to this interchange area. Peg Anderson noted that the major portion of the proposed common area was in the flood plain and that since nearly half of the proposed PUD acreage was undevelopable as living units, a greater density of living units in land available for development was being planned. She said that she felt perhaps the PUD ordinance should be rewritten to not allow such a high density of living units when so much of the extra land was lost to flood plain. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 8 Bill Kisor moved to deny the feasibility or concept plan. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed 7-1 with Gitelman casting the "nay" vote. The next item was to have been a report COMMITTEE REPORT from the Committee appointed to study the question Tandem Lot Access of unrestricted easement vs. ownership in fee Requirements simple of property to be used as access to a public street. Beth Crocker moved to table the report. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item was the Public Hearing to DONALD STANTON be held regarding adding "veterinary Small Animal Public Hearing Out -Patient Clinic" to Art. 6, Sec. XII Unit 12, Use Unit Amendment Offices, Studios and Related Services, and Art. 6, Sec. XXV Unit 25, Professional Offices. Donald Stanton was present to represent. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request, and Mort Gitelman seconded the motion. Mort Gitelman then moved that the proposed Ordinance amending these units should be amended so that the second paragraph of Section 3 thereof would read as follows: "Veterinary small animal out-patient clinic. An office where vaccination and treatment of small animals is performed; where no x-rays, surgery or treatments requiring hospitaliza- tion are performed; and where no after-hours or weekend emerg- ency services are performed." Ernest Jacks seconded this motion amending the proposed Ordinance, which passed unanimously. A vote was then taken on the motion and second to approve the Public Hearing request, which also passed unanimously. The last item was a memo from Bobbie Jones, MEMO Planning Administrator, concerning the day care fa-. Day Care Center cility of Deborah Muruaga, 201 Louise Street. 201 Louise St. Mrs. Jones presented a letter she had received in reply to the memo she had sent Mrs. Muruaga on No- vember 22 concerning recommendations by the fire and building inspectors. Mrs. Muruaga stated that she would not use the basement apartment until the extensive remodeling recommended by the fire and building inspectors was com- plete. Mrs. Jones commented that the fact that there was even a basement apartment in the dwelling had not been brought out at the Planning Commission Meeting when Mrs. Muruaga had requested a Conditional Use for her day care center. Mrs. Jones stated that she would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until all the code requirements were met. Mrs. Jones stated that the inspec-t tors had advised Mrs. Muruaga that she must meet these requirements prior to occupying the day care facility. Mrs. Jones stated that she wanted the Plan ping Commission to be aware of this situation before the conditional use permit (given for one year) expired and a new permit would be applied for. • • Planning Commission Meeting November 27, 1978 Page 9 After a short discussion, Ernest Jacks concluded that it was the general concensus of the members of the Planning Commission that this issue needed no action at this time by the Commission. Bobbie Jones commented that, in the future, she and the building inspector planned to require fire and building inspections before placing any such conditional use request on the Planning Commission agenda. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.