Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 11, 1978, at 5:15 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis, Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Bill Kisor and Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Peg Anderson. Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood, Gail Biswell, Rick Briggs, Scott VanLaningham, Kent Clement, Mel Milholland, Milby Pickell, Harry Gray, Claud Prewitt, Tom Robinson, Dave Fulton, Grace Vawter, Walter Robinson, Tamara Gilmore, LaJoyce Vann, Jim Jackson, Mike Wilson, Lyman Hanthorn, Charles Atkinson, Wade Bishop and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Rita Davis called the meeting to order. Ernest Jacks called attention to an error at paragraph 6 of page 5 of the minutes of the previous regular meeting of the Commission held on November 27, 1978. Mr. Jacks noted that he was given the title "Chairman" when he is not Chairman of this Commission. With that correction, the minutes of said previous meeting were approved as mailed. The first item for consideration was the Conditional Use request submitted by The Parnell Group, Inc. for a Building Supply on Tract C of property located South of Highway 62 and East of High- way 71 By -Pass; property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Com- mercial. Kent Clement was present to represent. Chairman Davis stated that the applicant was also seeking a waiver of the maximum driveway width and approval of off-site parking. She noted that over-all parking in the shopping center was sufficient and that Tract C had an agreement to use parking on the other tracts of the center in the event its own parking was inadequate. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had voted to recom- mend approval of the use to the Planning Commission subject to the following contingencies: (1) Utility easements being worked out satisfactorily with the gas company; (2) Board of Adjustment approval of the waiver of teh 20' easement center- line setback, the Conditional Use for the builder's supply, and waiver of the maximum driveway widths, (3) Approval of the off-site parking agreement; (4) Access to the development areas platted "future" all being from within the shopping center rather than making additional curb cuts on the highway; (5) The City Traffic Engineer checking layout of the entrances to the parking area with the highway department; MINUTES THE PARNELL GROUP Conditional Use S. of Hwy. 62 West P, E. of Hwy. 71 By -Pass Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 2 (6) Screening being extended down the entire eastern boundary of the property to the southern edge thereof; (7) Any and all other Plat Review comments being met. In addition, Mr. Jacks stated that the developers were asking that the maximum width allowed for driveways (40') be waived so that they could build 3 - lane 50' wide drives. He noted that since the shopping center was in actuality three separate developments, although the over-all layout of the center was the same as a regular shopping center. Mr. Jacks moved to approve the conditional use for the builidng supply establishment, and Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Jacks then moved to allow the waiver of the maximum driveway widths from 40' to 50'. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Jacks moved to approve the off-site parking as long as all property owners executed the agreement granting parking privileges to all customers of all establishments in the shopping center anywhere in the parking areas therein. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was a preliminary plat of Northwood Homes, Inc., a Planned Unit Development lying North of Township Road and East of Century Estates and Butterfield Subdivisions; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mel Milhol- land and Milby Pickell were present to represent. Mr. Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had voted to recommend the Planning Commission upon seven contingencies: Private drive lanes to stay 16' in width rather than the 20' asked Review members; Signatures of all property owners obtained before submission of NORTHWOOD HOMES, INC. Planned Unit Development Preliminary/Plat North of Township Rd. approval to (1) for by Plat (2) final plat; (3) (4) (5) (6) requirements) be met; and (7) Dedication of an additional 20' right-of-way along the North side of Township Road. Mr. Pickell stated he had two problems with the procedures which he would like to express: (1) Notification of Adjoining Property Owners: Mr. Pickell said that he felt it unreasonable to ask a developer to see each property owner individually to obtain their signatures. He said that this takes many, many hours and then many of the owners will simply refuse to sign. He said that this procedure "gives them (the adjoining property owners) the impression they can object to the devel- opment, come in to the meeting and object, and then ... no development." He further stated that Mrs. Jones had allowed him to send registered letters when he was putting Huntingdon through and that had been a much simpler procedure. He said he felt the method of notification required should be changed. Chairman Davis stated that Mr. McCord, City Attorney, was working on a clarification of this part of the ordinance. Sidewalks constructed along Township Road; Street lights erected according to ordinance; Protective Covenants submitted according to Plat Review requirements; Other miscellaneous Plat Review comments (other than storm drainage Planning Commission Meeting • December 11, 1978 Page 3 • • (2) Off-site improvements: Mr. Pickell stated that, from the way the ordinance reads, any costs of improvements brought about principally by require- ment of. the subdivision are to be born by the developer. He said that the Plat Review committee had wanted him to widen Township, curb and gutter it, and add storm drainage. He said that he felt that it was unfair to ask a developer to do more than the ordinance requires. He stated that the extra, "unnecessary" costs were ultimately born by the purchaser of the homes. He stated that he felt it unfair for these committees "to tack extra requirements on when they are not required." He stated that developers need "something consistent" to go by. Bill Kisor said he felt the Commission had always been consistent in re- quiring sidewalks. However, Mr. Pickell rebutted that sidewalks had not been consistently required in PUDs. Claud Prewitt, a member of the audience, stated that another PUD recently approved on Township Road (Westwind) had not been required to put sidewalks on Township, although they had been required to give an additional 20' right-of-way. Mr. Pickell stated that he felt that if PUDs had to meet all the regular subdivision requirements, he did not see any advantage to them and that he felt the PUD regulations "should be totally redesigned." Larry Wood commented that, in his opinion, sidewalks WERE required in PUDs by virtue of the fact that PUDs "must meet subdivision regulations and these regulations state that !'Sidewalks shall be installed, according to existing city standards and specifications as adopted by the city board of directors, along one side of all streets and cul-de-sacs and around the entire circumference of the vehicular turnaround in cul-de-sacs. ..." Mr. Wood stated that firm ordi- nance requirements regulate PUDs also. Mr. Pickell questioned "then where is the economy?" Mr. Wood responded that the economy was the greater density allowed. He said that sidewalks and street lights are required improvements regardless of a regular subdivision or a PUD, although the quality of curbs, gutters, paving, etc. could be lower in PUDs. Mr. Hailey pointed out to Mr. Pickell that if he was looking for only economy, he should recognize the fact that he (Pickell) was actually paving two roads when one would have been sufficient. Mr. Pickell responded that he was trying "to leave some green area" and make a "nicer street to be compatible" to the surrounding area. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the plat upon the seven contingencies above stated. Mort Gitelman seconded the motion, which passed 7-1 with Mr. Hailey casting the "nay" vote. Mr. Hailey explained that he was not in agreement with approving the plat without all the property owners having been notified. Mr. Pickell stated he would like to have the sidewalks along Township waived. Mr. Newhouse moved to allow the waiver of these sidewalks and Mr. Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. A general discussion was had concerning pros and cons of sidewalks along city streets and/or state highways. Chairman Davis then called the question, and after a vote having been taken on the motion to waive the sidewalkrequire- ments, the motion passed 6-2 with Mr. Cullers and Mr. Gitelman casting the "nay" votes. Planning Commission Meeting • December 11, 1978 Page 4 • • The next item for consideration was the SUNSET WOODS final plat of Sunset Woods, a Planned Unit Develop- Final Plat ment located West of Sunset Drive, North of Cleve- West of Sunset Drive land Street, South and East of Eva Avenue; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential Dis- trict; Sugg -Bowen Enterprises, developer. Harry Gray was present to represent. Mr. Jacks -stated that he felt this final plat could be approved contingent upon approval of the covenants, street lights provided according to ordinance, and other Plat Review comments. He stated that sidewalks had previously been waived because of the terrain. Bobbie Jones commented that the platted development overlapped a platted right-of-way for North Street. She said she had been informed the right-of-way would be closed by petition. Mr. Gray responded that a decision had been made to close the right-of-way by city ordinance and that steps were being taken to institute the procedure immediately. He commented that the right-of-way property would revert equally to Sunset Woods and the adjoining property owners to the north upon its closure. He also commented that Clayton Powell had stated that he knew of no future plans to improve the right-of-way. Claud Prewitt stated that covenants were prepared and had just been deliv- ered to Mrs. Jones. Mr. Jacks stated that a Plat Review comment had been made to insist that the city be made a party to the covenants in order to enforce the upkeep of the private streets. Tom Robinson, present as an interested party, stated that he had no objec- tions to the development as platted, however, he felt the covenants were a "terribly important part" of the proposal and that he felt the final plat should not be approved without the covenants being reviewed first by the City Attorney, or at least approved contingent upon the City Attorney's approval thereof. A discussion ensued concerning the city's liability for maintenance of PUD and other private drives in the event of non -maintenance by private property owners' associations, etc. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the plat subject to the following: (1) Approval of the protective covenants by the City Attorney; (2) North Street right-of-way being vacated and made a utility easement; (3) Street lights being erected according to ordinance provisions; (4) Other Plat Review comments. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was the REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING request submitted by Grace Vawter for a Public To Amend Ordinance Hearing to be scheduled regarding amending the Definition of "Family" Zoning Ordinance definition of "family". Dave Fulton and Grace Vawter were present to represent. Dave Fulton stated he felt there was a conflict between the housing code and the zoning ordinance regarding the definition of ".family". He said that the problem which originated his feeling the definition inadequate or conflicting began when a complaint was made to the City by someone concerning four university boys who were renters in a house owned by he and Mrs. Grace Vawter. Mr. Fulton stated that the four boys had been good renters, making less noise and taking better care of the house and grounds than most other renters they had. He said • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 5 that he did not feel the ordinance definition was suitable for a university town which, for the sake of economy as well as the shortage of housing available, made it unlawful for more than three unrelated people to live in one dwelling. Mort Gitelman stated that when the present "family" definition was being worked out, the decision to limit the number of unrelated people in one household was made from an "automobile or parking available" viewpoint. He said that most residences do not have adequate parking available for any more than three vehicles and that to prevent parking along streets, etc., the limitation to three people seemed a good compromise. Bobbie Jones commented that her office had received three phone calls from people who were against changing the definition. She stated that a call was received from an Elsie Johnson and from a Mr. Don Voth. She stated that Mr. Voth (333 Smith Ave.) had no objection to allowing these students to stay in the house through the semester, but that to change the definition "would make the ordinance meaningless." Mrs. Vawter admitted that the boys had had a noisy party, but that it would not happen again. Since the party, she stated, the boys had been very quiet and orderly. She stated that the boys felt many people were against students and that they "felt they were being persecuted and not being treated fairly" simply because they were students. Bobbie Jones commented that she felt at least 500 of the residences in Fayetteville probably contained more than 3 unrelated people. Ernest Jacks agreed. Chairman Davis stated she felt the question being asked was whether the Commission wished to advertise a public hearing to amend the ordinance to change the definition of "family". She then asked whether there were any further comments to be made on the question. Mort Gitelman responded that the U. S. Supreme Court allowed the city to write an ordinance requiring people in a residence to be related to each other, and at the other extreme, to write an ordinance allowing an unlimited number of unrelated people to live together. He stated that the Commission recognized the need for unrelated people to live together in situations "other than in sin" and felt the decision to limit the number to three was simply a good compromise. A discussion was had concerning the differences between "boarding and rooming houses" and unrelated people living in one dwelling. Bill Kisor moved to deny the public hearing request to change the ordi- nance definition, but to allow the students to remain in the house until the end of the spring semester. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for consideration was UARK FEDERAL CREDIT UNION the Conditional Use request submitted by Uark Conditional Use Request Federal Credit Union for an office at 940 W. 940 W. Douglas St. Douglas Street; property zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. The petitioners were also requesting approval of off-site park- ing. Walter Robinson, attorney, and Mrs. Tamara Gilmore, manager of the credit union, were present to represent. Walter Robinson presented the request to the Commission stating that the Zoning Ordinance allows uses in Unit 25 on appeal. .He stated that the use in question would be a professional office, which is allowable on appeal in R-3 zones. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 6 He also stated that they were requesting permission for off-site parking as provided in the Ordinance. The credit union, he said, had obtained permission from the University to allow its customers to park in U of A Lot 36. This park- ing lot is located about 100 fet from the building proposed to house the union. Mr. Robinson commented that the union would not need very many parking spaces to be available as the majority of its customers were "foot traffic" from within the campus. He stated that since all the customers of the union were employees of the University and already held University parking permits, they could use Lot 36 if they wished anyway. Mrs. Gilmore stated that the neighboring residents in the area had been concerned about the rezoning petition the union had brought to the Commission in the past She stated that the rezoning petition asked for a C-2 status for the area and that the neighbors were afraid that passage of the C-2 would invite other businesses into the area She said the petition had been dropped because of the great objections thereto. However, since this petition was simply for a conditional use for this one building, she could not see how the neighbors could have too much objection. She stated that the union conducted a quiet business and its main contacts were maid via telephone or mail. The business would generate very little additional traffic, she said. Mrs. Gilmore related that the present office of the union was situated in Old Main, but because of rennovation plans, they would be forced to move soon. Jim Jackson, attorney for the adjoining property owners opposing the use, stated that over 30 adjoining property owners and neighbors had signed the petition opposing the rezoning and that presently 29 of the original 30 were joining in the present opposition to the conditional use request. Approximately 10 of those people were present at the meeting and Mr. Jackson asked them to stand. Mr Jackson outlined the history of the neighborhood, stating it had been essentially residential for many years. Mr. packson stated he felt that to allow this conditional use would be in effect "spot zoning" to the extent that "a non -conforming use would be sitting in the midst of a conforming use." He also stated that to allow this would be "injurious, preferential treatment." Mike Wilson, a neighboring property owner present in opposition, stated he owned two houses in the neighborhood, one of which adjoins the property in question. He said that an alley separates his property from the credit union property, and that he feared the alley would be blocked by people unable to find other convenient parking in the area Blocking the alley, he stated, would prevent access to his property. Betha Barrett, 625 Oakland, also present in opposition, stated that the only access to the house in question is on a hilly, one-way street where parking is not permitted on either side of the road. She stated that she could foresee people parking cars along this one-way street, causing a traffic hazard. LaJoyce Vann, a member of the audience and officer of the credit union, urged the Commission to approve the usage of "a very quiet, orderly business." Beth Crocker inquired whether the University might possibly provide a place for the credit union on University property. Mrs. Gilmore replied that the University did not have any other available office space, but that it might possibly provide "a lot for a mobile home" which they could use. She stated that the University could not "provide direct monetary support" to the union, but that it had always assisted it in every other manner possible. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 7 Bill Kisor moved to deny the conditional use request. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Windell Cullers then commented that the other buildings in the immediate area (along Douglas Street) were already highly University oriented (4-H House, etc.) and he inquired of Mr. Jackson whether one more university oriented busi- ness which would not add additional traffic to the area and which would probably maintain the house better than the present occupants would be so objectional. Mr. Jackson replied that the "limits are already stretched" as far as possible. Lyman Hanthorn, a neighboring property owner present in opposition, stated that he could foresee driveways in the neighborhood being blocked by patrons of the credit union and asked "once the gates are opened, where does it stop?" Chairman Davis called for a vote on the motion to deny the request. The motion died on a 3-3-2 vote with Crocker, Cullers and Hailey voting "nay", Newhouse, -Davis and Kisor voting "aye" and Gitelman and Jacks abstaining. Mr. Cullers then moved to approve the conditional use for one year and Newton Hailey seconded the motion. The motion again failed on a 3-3-2 vote with Crocker, Cullers and Hailey voting "aye", Newhouse, Davis and Kisor voting "nay" and Gitelman and Jacks abstaining. Mr. Gitelman explained that he abstained since he was a member of the credit union and Mr. Jacks stated that he was simply unsure how he felt he should vote. The next item for consideration was the request for a rehearing on a Conditional Use request for a tandem lot at 524 N. Sequoyah Drive; petition submitted by Julia Rogers; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Charles Atkinson was present to represent. Chairman Davis noted that it was a policy of the Commission to rehear a petition when it was found that a "misrepresentation of facts" or an "error" had occurred at the original hearing. She noted that at this meeting the Commission would only decide whether to rehear the petition and that a rehearing would not be had at this meeting. Charles Atkinson, attorney for Mrs. Rogers, stated he would like to make it clear that the applicants had simply not understood the events at the first hearing. He said he would also like to make it clear that the lot "will be legally divided" and that he had come"hat in hand" asking for a chance to make a "fair representation" of Mrs. Rogers' request. Mort Gitelman moved to schedule a rehearing on the request. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REHEARING REQUEST Julia Rogers Conditional Use Request 524 N. Sequoyah Dr. The next item on the agenda was a report COMMITTEE REPORT from the Committee studying the question of unre- Unrestricted Easement stricted easement for access vs. ownership in fee vs. Fee Simple Ownership simple title of property to a public street. Mort Gitelman, Chairman of this Committee, stated that it was the Commit- tee's recommendation that there was not any good reason "not to allow unrestric- ted easements in lieu of fee simple title ownership." Mr. Gitelman stated that the City Attorney agreed with them "that as long as the easement is not dedicated to the City, the easement is just as good as anything else." Mr. Gitelman • • L Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 8 recommended that the Planning Commission schedule a hearing on the matter. Beth Crocker, another member of the Committee, stated that it was the Committee's intention to restrict their recommendation to pertain only to tandem lots in residential areas. Bobbie Jones questioned whether the recommendation should pertain onl to the tandem lot ordinance and not to general access requirements. She said the Commission should spell out exactly what the unrestricted easement was to cover. She noted that minimum frontage specifications in residential areas are spelled out plainly, but in commercial areas the ordinance simply calls for "safe and convenient access." Mr. Gitelman responded that they were aware of the problems, but they definitely intended the unrestricted easement to apply only to the tandem lot ordinance and not to commercial developments. Chairman Davis responded that she would like some guidance or "in -put" from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gitelman moved to ask the Board of Adjustment to give recommendations on the subject. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was a STUDY OF PUD REGULATIONS review of the proposed revisions to Art. 8, Sec. 12, Zoning Ordinance Regulations govern- ing Planned Unit Developments. Ernest Jacks suggested that a committee be appointed to study the pro- posed regulations in more depth as "these still leave us with essentially a conventional subdivision and this is just not what we want." Chairman Davis appointed Mr. Jacks as chairman of the committee to study the PUD regulations. Newton Hailey and Beth Crocker were also appointed to serve on the committee. Mrs. Davis commented that she would like to get a few "developers' ideas" and said she would call Ervan Wimberly and Helen Edmisten to see if they would agree to join the committee. The last item on the agenda was to be STUDY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY a review of rights-of-way requirements for REQUIREMENTS certain types of streets. This review was re- quested by the Board of Directors at their. August 15, 1978, meeting. Bobbie Jones commented that perhaps a technical group other than Planning Commission members should be asked for recommendations. Larry Wood stated that he did not feel the present requirements should be changed, and that he felt Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent, should be asked to explain to the Commission "just what all goes into" the rights-of-way. Chairman Davis agreed that Mr. Powell should explain the make-up to the Commission and asked Mrs. Jones to invite Mr. Powell to so do. There being no further business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 o'clock p.m. • RESOLUTION PC 58-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, December 11, 1978, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plat dated January 12, 1978, known as SUNSET WOODS, a Planned Unit Development, submitted by Sugg -Bowen Enterprises, developer; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because the necessary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that Sugg -Bowen Enter- prises enter into and furnish the city with the necessary subdivision contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The necessary subdivision contract be executed with the City of Fayetteville prior to filing of the final subdivision plat with the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office. SECTION 2. That the City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves the final plat, along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the SUNSET WOODS subdivision described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ••i,> SUNSET WOODS, A Planned Unit Development, more particularly described as follows: A part of the Northwest Quarter (NW*) of the Southeast Quarter (SE*) and a part of the Northeast Quarter_(NE4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW*) of Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 30 West in Washington County, Arkansas, described as follows: Beginning' at' the.Northwest corner of said NWy of the SE* and running thence North 89°33' East 928.5'feet; thence' South 17°241 West 135.8 feet; thence North 89°15! East 149.7 feet;'thence South 00°33' East 569.1 feet; thence South.89°35! West 118.9 feet; thence' South 00°33' East 95.0 feet; thence South 89°16130" West 255.0 feet; thence South 00°46130" West 89.39 feet; thence South 89°42' West 1322.3.feet;:. thence North 00°33' West 215.9 feet; thence North 89°40'30" East 661.8 , feet; thence North 00°32130" West 665.2 feet to the point of beginning. • PASSED AND APPROVED this llth day of December, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman