Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 25, 1979, at 5:00 P.M., in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Rita Davis, Chairman Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Windell Cullers. Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey. Bobbie Jones, Wayne Jones, Leon Cox, James Baker, Linda Holt, Ervan Wimberly, Mel Milholland, Harry Gray, members of the press. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. Bill Kisor requested that the minutes of the June 11 Planning Commission meeting be corrected to reflect that he was in attendance. Rita Davis also requested that the minutes be corrected to reflect that she was in attendance. Elizabeth Crocker requested that the minutes be corrected to read "Winwood Homeowners Association" rather than "Windbrook Homeowners Association" on Page 4, at or about the middle of the page. Following these corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was a request for a waiver on the large scale development plan for an apartment complex to be located on the North side of Wedington Drive between Cabinet Lane and West End Avenue; Leon Edens, Owner; Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. This item had been tabled from the June 11 meeting for lack of proof of notification of adjoining propery owners of properties having a different zoning classification from the subject property. Bill Kisor reported that the Subdivision Committee had discussed this large scale development and that the developer had decided to go ahead with a view -obscuring hedge so that a waiver will not be needed. Ervan Wimberly agreed that the developer wished to withdraw the request for a waiver of screening. The Commission accepted the withdrawal request by general consenus LEON EDENS Large Scale Development Request for Screening Waiver Wedington Drive The second item on the agenda was approval of the preliminary SHALOTT ACRES plat of Shalott Acres located on County Road 649 one mile South Preliminary Plat of Highway 16 West, West of the Fayetteville City Limits; Outside City, County Road 649 Danny K. $ Cynthia Johnson and George €, Dorothy Long, Owners & Developers. This item had also been tabled on June 11 because there was no one present at that time to represent the proposal. Wayne Jones of McClelland Engineers was present on behalf of the developers. Bill Kisor reported that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this proposed subdivision and that all the problems have been worked out. He stated that it also looks as if they may even get County Road 649 paved. Mr. Kisor moved that the plat be approved. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion. Mrs. Crocker informed the other members of the Planning Commission that the developers are planning an above -ground sewage disposal system on two of the three lots. Mr. Kisor said that the systems have approval of the State Board of Health. Wayne Jones explained the systems as a mound type system with the leach field being above ground and under constant pressure. He said these will be the first of their kind in Washington County. He advised that the systems presently being installed are under the constant supervision of the State Health Department. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve the preliminary plat of Shalott Acres was approved unanimously (7-0). • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 2 The next item on the agenda was a letter from Ken Lazenby requesting that the restrictions imposed in the granting of a Conditional Use for duplexes on East Farmers Avenue be removed. There was no one present to represent the request. The request to construct 5 duplexes on East Farmers Avenue had been approved by the Planning Commission on February 13, 1978 with the stipulation that no construction on the duplexes could begin until the street had been paved and that Mr. Lazenby give the additional right-of-way needed to widen the street to a SO ft. right-of-way. Mr. Lazenby's letter of June 9, 1979, requested permission to build the duplexes prior to the paving of East Farmers Avenue. He indicated in his letter that the paving had been designated for a Community Development improvement, but that the work has been delayed and the project moved from number three on the Community Development priority list to number six. Three persons spoke in opposition to removing the restriction from the approval of the conditional use. James Baker, 1397 East Farmers Lane, noted that Mr. Lazenby had said in his letter that Farmers Lane has been fixed. Mr. Baker told the Commission that there are still placed in the road where it is bad and that last winter people had gotten stuck on the road and had to be pulled out. Mr. Baker said that Mr. Lazenby's letter had said his expenses on the property were so high, but that Mr. Lazenby had never touched the lots or anything; Mr. Baker said the property is now grown up like a jungle. Linda Holt, 1286 East Farmers Avenue, agreed with Mr. Lazenby's letter that crushed limestone had been put on the road and that they now have a deep layer of dust all over everything. She also stated that the street had been moved from number three on the street priority list for Community Development to number six. Leon Cox, 1400 East Farmers Avenue, said that the situation is not changed since four years ago and that he did not think the street could handle that many vehicles. He said sometimes it is like running an obstacle course to drive down the street with cars parked on the street, kids and dogs. He said if each family in the five duplexes had two cars, that would 20 additional cars on the street. Chairman Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if all the adjoining property owners had been notified of this request. Mrs. Jones stated that all the persons on the adjoining property list from the original request were notified and that only one envelope had been returned. Peg Anderson moved that the Commission not grant the request to remove the restrictions included in the approval of the conditional use request in 1978. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. Morton Gitelman stated that when this first came up, there was a representation that a single-family house would be built adjacent to Mrs. Holt's property. He asked if that had been built yet and Mrs. Holt stated that it has not. Bill Kisor stated that he was out there and that there were two vehicles parked in the street and it was very hard to get by them, so that he agreed that something would have to be done to the street. The motion to not grant the request to remove the restrictions included in the 1978 approval of the conditional use for duplexes on East Farmers Avenue passed unanimously (7-0). KEN LAZENBY East Farmers Avenue Letter on Conditional Use The next item considered by the Commission was a draft of the proposed amendment to the requirements for off- site improvements for developers. Chairman Jacks questioned if the Commission wished to discuss this since the Chairman of the draft (Keith Newhouse) was not present. Bobbie Jones stated that she would like to point out one fact - proposal would. almost completely outlaw lot splits. She state has enough of an enforcement problem in the area of lot splits OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Proposed Amendment the Committee submitting as written the d that her office now and that if • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 3 the ordinance is amended to require off-site improvements before she can grant a lot split, there would really be problems. Mrs. Anderson questioned if it was meant to apply only to lot splits within a subdivision. Morton Gitelman stated that he was a member of the Committee submitting the draft for the proposed changes and that it was intended to cover all lot splits and not just those in subdivision. He said that the Committee felt that a developer might feel he was being treated very unfairly if he had to put money into a fund to improve an existing County road or a substandard street in connection with his subdivision while someone right next to him could use lot splits to get four or five lots and not have to contribute anything.and avoid any responsibility for improving the unpaved road. Mr. Gitelman informed that the intent was to curtail lot splits in those areas with unpaved or unimproved access which are primarily out in the County and in the Planning Area. Mr. Gitelman said the proposed amendment would impose a greater responsibility on developers and that he thought the spokesman for the developers who was on the committee felt that it would be unfair to continue the use of lot splits to avoid this responsibility entirely. Mr. Gitelman said that because the Commission had been encountering some situations out in the County of people who are actually using the lot split situations as developers ---he said the Committee called them "lot split developers.." Peg Anderson asked if this would apply to areas within the City and in the older areas of town where they split from one property to another. Mr. Gitelman said that that was not the problem the Committee particularly addressed: the Committee addressed those that are outside the City Limits. Ernest Jacks asked if this would get into off-site improvements on those. Bobbie Jones said that she has one on her desk at this time at the intersection of Halsell Road and Cross Avenue in which the streets are unpaved and the sewer would have to be extended. Mr. Gitelman said that there are some provision in the proposal for waiving the off-site improvements. Ernest Jacks asked if provision Number 2 under D, Waivers would cause the Commission problem's by being overused The section provides that one of the reasons where the off-site improvements will be waived is that so much of the surrounding property is already developed that the possibility of improving an off-site, sub -standard street is unlikely. Mr. Gitelman cited as an example a case several years ago where someone bought four or five lots in the South part of town which had been previously subdivided and where the street was paved, but not to current standards. Street Superintendent Powell had wanted the whole street redone. He said the waiver was written to cover the situation where someone buys vacant land where everything around them is already developed. Mr. Jacks noted that the amendment addresses State Highways and questioned whether it should include Federal Highways. Mr. Gitelman said this talks about just right- of-way. Mr. Gitelman stated that the Committee had not thought about Federal Highways. Bobbie Jones stated that when any State or Federal Highway is to be widened, this is done by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and that the AHTD looks to the City to obtain and pay for the additional right-of-way and easements needed. She said this is how the widening of Highway 71B South is being done. She said that the Subdivision and large scale development requirements already require the dedication of right-of-way sufficient to meet the Major Street Plan. Mr. Gitelman said that the Committee just wanted to be "darn sure" that no developer was going to have to pay cash money to widen a State or Federal Highway. After further discussion, it was agreed that the proposal should be changed to include any highway maintained by the AHTD. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Gitelman if he thought the wording of Subsection (4) of Section (d) Waivers should be changed to read: "The subdivider proposes alternative off-site improvements which will protect the health, safety and welfare and equally benefit persons residing . . . .in the area." Bobbie Jones pointed out that this proposed ordinance did was not written to apply to large scale developments and that she thought that was the original intent. Mr. Gitelman said the Commission might want to give further thought to how this • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 4 would affect lot splits and suggested that this matter be put back on the next agenda for further discussion. Chairman Ernest Jacks agreed and so instructed the Planning Administrator. Chairman Jacks reported for the Committee studying the required size of parking spaces as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. An outline of the proposed changes had been mailed to each Commissioner prior to the meeting. Mr. Jacks explained the proposed changes. He said that, insofar as he could determine, the proposals seem to be standard for architectural and engineering provisions. He explained why he thought the standards for parking spaces within a parking garage tended to be smaller as being because the land becomes more valuable when you are building up on it and that people tend to drive more carefully within a parking structure. Concerning the relationship between regular -sized parking spaces and compact -sized parking spaces, he said he had talked to Mr. Hadawi who is working on the design of the City's proposed parking deck and that he had recommended a limit of 20% on compact -sized spaces He said that Mr. Hadawi had told him that in some large shopping centers the ratio is sometimes as much as 50%. He said the allowance for compact -sized spaces will allow people to use the corners and tuck compact -sized spaces into areas too small for full-sized cars. He said he had originally thought compact cars had a tighter turning radii, but was not now sure of that; therefore he was not proposing a narrower aisle width for compact cars. Mr. Jacks pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not contain any requirements for a developer to furnish special parking spaces for handicapped persons. There is a requirement written into the Building Code, but the Planning Administrator has not been enforcing that and he was not sure whether the Building Inspector was or not. Therefore, Mr. Jacks said he had included it in the proposed amendment so that the Planning Administrator would be checking it. After further discussion, Morton Gitelman moved to send the proposals to the City Attorney to be prepared in ordinance form and to instruct the Planning Administrator to set a public hearing at the earliest possible date. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). Bobbie Jones advised the Commission that Engineer Mel Milholland was present on a similiarly related matter. She said that the present ordinance prohibits parking spaces so designed that it is necessary to back into a street or alley. She stated that Mr. Milholland has an appeal going to the Board of Adjustment to waive this restriction on the layout of some parking lots he is designing for the City. Mr. Milholland said that he is in the process of redesigning some of the City's parking lots and that he has found that he can get maximum utilization of the lots by using 90 degree parking spaces and by backing one row of the parking into the alley. In addition, he said they can also widen the driving land (or alley) wide enough to permit two-way traffic in the alleys. Mr. Jacks expressed his concern that the alleys might be blocked for emergency vehicles if backing into the alley was permitted. Bobbie Jones said that many of the alleys are used for commercial deliveries. She said that one concern she would have would be that of being blocked into a parking space by a commercial delivery vehicle. Mr. Milholland also advised the Commission that the North half of the parking lot on the Southeast corner of Church Avenue and Meadow Street (Northwest of the new First Federal Building) is laid out with 9 ft. by 19 ft. parking spaces on a 90 degree angle and that the East row of parking is designed to back into the alley. He invited the Commission to make a personal inspection of that lot before acting on any revisions to the parking requirements. Chairman Jacks asked to see the engineering lay out for the parking lot just discussed and said the Commission would have to decide whether to leave that restriction in the ordinance when the public hearing is held. COMMITTEE REPORT Size of Parking Spaces • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 5 Chairman Jacks asked Bobbie Jones whether she had received COMMITTEE REPORT a draft of some proposed changes in the subdivision Subdivision Approval Process approval process from Planning Consultant Larry Wood. Mrs. Jones replied that she had not yet received such a draft and advised the Commission that Mr. Wood was also recommending some other changes in the Subdivision Ordinance that would be more consistent with the present approval process. She noted that the Ordinance does not make provision for a Plat Review Committee, which .is being utilized at present. The Commission discussed the May 1, 1979, request of GREGG AVENUE the Board of Directors that the Commission Request from Board of Directors initiate public hearings on rezoning of properties for Commission to Initiate Rezoning in the Gregg Avenue area which have not been recently rezoned. Bobbie Jones informed the Commission that Gail Biswell and Elizabeth Crocker had both indicated to her that they thought the Commission had given this matter consideration on May 14 and had decided at that time to do nothing. Chairman Jacks said that he had attended the May 1 Board of Directors meeting. He said it seemed to him that the Commission has an option of rezoning to match the land use plan or of amending the land use plan. Peg Anderson noted that the land use plan calls for multi -family zoning and that that was the last decision of the Planning Commission. She thought the Commission had no desire to change that. Ernest Jacks noted that the Board of Directors had not followed the Commission's recommendation in that matter. Rita Davis said that she viewed that part of Gregg Avenue in two parts: the part already zoned R-3 seems wider, perhaps because there are not streets on both sides; but after the street takes that turn it really does become bad and narrower, and there are all these lots with small houses on them. Mr. Jacks called to the Commission's attention that there are properties down there which are still zoned I-1 and that he thought these were the properties which the Board of Directors were concerned about. Windell Cullers suggested that the Commission )ust let the Board of Directors tell the Commission in a formal way just what they want the Commission to consider. Morton Gitelman stated that the Board cannot tell the Commission what to do. The Board's suggestion is that the Commission initiate a rezoning petition. He said that just because some of the people who live there want the City to rezone their neighbors' property, the Commission doesn't have to do so. Mr. Gitelman suggested the Commission do nothing on this matter at this time. Mr. Cullers moved to send a message to the Board of Directors that the Commission has reviewed the Board's informal request on the Gregg Avenue rezoning and the Commission has chosen to take no action at this time. Mrs. Anderson seconded the motion which passed unanimously (7-0). Under "Other business" the Subdivision Committee had referred BILL KISOR the approval of the large scale development plan FAYETTEVILLE PLUMBING $ HEATING for Bill Kisor to construct a plumbing and heating 4200 Gabel Drive contractor's facility on Lot 12, Perimeter Large Scale Development Plaza to the full Commission. This was done because Mr. Kisor would have to abstain from voting because of a conflict of interest and Mrs. Crocker was the only other Subdivision Committee member present. The subject property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. The Commission had approved the conditional use at the previous meeting of June 11. Bobbie Jones stated that there were no problems with the proposed development. She said that Mr. Kisor had been more than cooperative with the Plat Review Committee. Rita Davis moved that the large scale development plan for Fayetteville Plumbing and Heating be approved. Windell Cullers seconded the motion which passed 6-0-1 with Mr. Kisor abstaining. • • Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 6 Also under "Other business" Ervan Wimberly of Northwest CEDARWOOD ADDITION Engineers requested a change in street ;pattern in Amendment to Preliminary Plat the preliminary plat of Cedarwood Addition which was approved by the Commission on May 25, 1979. Mr. Jacks read aloud the letter from Mr. Wimberly outlining the proposed change to extend Street "B" to intersect with Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and to terminate Street "A" and Country Way in culs de sac. Mr. Wimberly stated that Street "8" would have 1,000 ft. sight distance in both directions and that each of the other streets would have only 350 ft. of sight distance in one direction. He said the number of lots would be unchanged. Mr. Wimberly said that Street Superintendent Powell thought there should be two entrances from Crossover Road and Mr. Wimberly agreed that that would be good. Elizabeth Crocker expressed concern over the sight distance available from Street "A" and Country Way and remarked how dangerous she thought the entrance to Sequoyah Woods Subdivision is. Peg Anderson moved to approve the change in the preliminary plat of Cedarwood Addition to have only one street, Street "B", intersect with Highway 265 (Crossover Road) Rita Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). Planning Consultant Larry Wood had prepared PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS a draft of the changes proposed by the Committee Draft of Proposed Regulations studying the Planned Unit Development regulations. Copies had been mailed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. Mrs. Anderson questioned the wording pertaining to commercial uses in a PUD. Mr. Jacks informed her that any commercial uses in a PUD would have to be on land zoned commercial and would only be considered when a PUD exceeds 500 dwelling units. He noted that the existing ordinance allows commercial with only 100 dwelling units and that the land is not required to be zoned commercial. Mrs. Anderson also questioned Section 2.16, Variance and asked if a variance should be granted without holding a public hearing. She said the Commission might grant a variance without the people around the property having any input. Bobbie Jones suggested that the ordinance be more specific as to what the Commission could vary. Mrs. Anderson questioned if there should be some provision for an appeal by an adjoining property owner. Mr. Jacks said that the neighbors would have an opportunity to come before the Commission at the concept level. He also advised that smaller PUDs could only be approved after the Commission held a public hearing. Mrs. Anderson stated that she felt "usable" open space should be defined earlier in Section 4.15, rather than at the end of that section. She also felt that Subsection 6 of Section 4.15 dealing with the maintenance of private streets should contain the same provision as in the maintenance of open space whereby the City may maintain the streets and prorate the cost of such maintenance among the property owners as a tax lien on the property. Mr. Jacks said that that was the idea. Rita Davis said that she did not like the idea of designing streets where no parking would be permitted on the street. She cited an experience she had on Park Street where no parking is permitted on the street and she had no choice but to park in the yard of the neighbor of the person she was visiting. There was further discussion of a requirement whereby if the POA did not maintain the private streets, the City could provide the maintenance and charge it back against the lots. Bobbie Jones asked that there be contained in the ordinance some standard wording which must be included in the covenants and the property owners' association agreement protecting the City from the dissolution of the covenants and association by the property owners. She said she would like a paragraph or two that she could give to developers and advise them to include them in substantially the same form. She was concerned that some of the PUDs already approved by the City might not have this protection. Bobbie Jones also noted that the minimum lot size and width included in the existing ordinance are not included in the draft. She asked if this would permit a multi- Planning Commission June 25, 1979 - Page 7 storied condominium She was advised that it would do so. Mr. Jacks felt the word "residual" in Subsection 3 of Section 4.16 (4.15 on draft) should be changed to read "remainder" because of the similarity in sound with "residential" Mr. Jacks noted that this draft would not permit PUDs in the A-1 District. Several persons noted that the property could be rezoned to R-1 if a PUD were proposed. Mr. Jacks said that General Kendall with the County Planning Board has also been furnished with a copy of the draft and the County may consider allowing PUDs in the County in the future, but without private streets. The Commission returned to a discussion of allowing private streets within a PUD on which no on -street parking would be planned. Mrs. Davis stated that she presumed that that could be considered before the Commission approved the PUD. Mr. Jacks said that the width of streets had been discussed at length. Mrs. Davis said she personally could not think of a reason why you would not be allowed to park on a street and that that could really get to be a problem. Windell Cullers said that it is unreasonable to assume that people are not going to park on a street. He questioned why a street should even be built in the first place that will have houses along it realizing that most people have two cars and when they have visitors they are going to park in the street. Ervan Wimberly said you might have a short street that leads back to a cluster of houses with a parking area and in that case no one should park on the street. It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces for a single-family dwelling, four for a duplex and one and one-half spaces per unit for townhouses in Use Unit 9. It was acknowledged that this would not take care of special situations if the family gave a party. Several Commissioners noted that even in the newer subdivisions, many people park in the street instead of their driveways ---in some instances the driveway is occupied by boats and such. Ervan Wimberly pointed out that with current street standards the developer is paying for 2 inches of hot mix and 8 inches of base material for the parking lanes when 111 inches of hot mix and 4 inches of base would be sufficient for parking. Mr. Jacks said that the Committee had hoped to send this on to the City Attorney to be drafted in ordinance form and set for public hearing. Windell Cullers asked if they could discuss the question of parking on streets at that time. Rita Davis said that she was now convinced that the Commission was going to have to pay more attention to drainage. She related how an icy patch had remained in the 2100 block of North College last winter even when there was no water elsewhere in the streets. She felt the Commission should have caught this when a large scale development plan was processed for part of the property. Bobbie Jones informed her that because of that particular situation, she had been instructed by the City Manager not to issue any building permits for that immediate area until a permit was obtained from the AHTD for the driveways and drainage. This had been done on the permit for Ken's Pizza. There being no further business, the meeting r:.. was adjourned at 6:40 P.M.