Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City 1980, at 5:12 P.M., in the Fayetteville, Arkansas. Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 11, Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Redfern, Windell Cullers, Newton Keith Newhouse. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman. Crocker, Don Hunnicutt, Robert Hailey, Peg Anderson, and Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Larry Wood, Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, Cliff Walker, Jan Parker, Warren McDonald, Bob White, Gordon Houston, Neal Albright, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order and presided. The minutes of the January 14, 1980 MINUTES meeting were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was the conditional use request James E. Lindsey submitted by James E. Lindsey to 4044 Frontage Road construct a 100 ft. to 150 ft. high antenna tower in conjunction with an office building for KFSM-TV. Office to be constructed at 3996 Frontage Road; tower to be erected at 4044 Frontage Road, zoned C.2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Present to represent were Jim Lindsey and Cliff Walker, Manager of the branch office for KFSM-TV. Chairman Jacks asked if the notification to the adjoining property owners was cleared up. Mr. Lindsey said he had the initials of Mrs. Katherine Stout and Johnie Bassett on a copy of the plat to show they were aware of the proposal. Mr. Lindsey said due to the location of Ken Lance's new office building and Ralph Goff's building being so close to the property line, he decided to relocate the antenna tower,and the new location gave them a better angle to broadcast to Mt. Kessler. He added they were also in a higher elevation. Mrs. Anderson moved to approve the conditional use request. Mr. Newhouse seconded it. Mr. Hailey asked if there was another way other than building a microwave tower in the valley. He said this bothered him because of the Sign Ordinance. Cliff Walker stated they attempted to locate in the downtown area where they could trans- mit from a rooftop without a tower, but they had picked the lowest spot. However, he said there is a very good possibility that the tower will not have to be the height they have requested. He said they are going to have an engineering survey done to see how low it can be and reach Mt. Kessler. He said their chief engineer had in- dicated it might be less than 100 ft. high. He said in order to have land lines put in, they would have to contract with the telephone company; and he didn't think it would be feasible. Mr. Jacks asked Mr. Walker if there was not some danger of some- one building something between the tower and Mt. Kessler. Mr. Walker said that was possible. Mr. Hunnicutt asked if they planned to put a sign on the tower. Mr. Walker said he did not think so. Mr. Walker said the tower will be light grey. He said there would be a 6 ft. microwave dish on top of it. Mr. Walker added it is more like a radio tower and is basically for microwave purposes. Mr. Redfern asked if it will have guy wires and was told it would not. Mr. Walker said it will have a 6 ft. by 6 ft. base. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 2 The motion to approve the conditional use request passed 6-2, with Hunnicutt, Crocker, Newhouse, Jacks, Anderson, and Cullers voting "Aye" and Redfern and Hailey voting "Nay". The next item for discussion was HOUSTON PLACE the approval of the concept plat of PUD Concept Plat Houston Place, A Planned Unit Develop- Porter Road ment, located East of Porter Road and South of Deane Street; Gordon and Linda Jo.Houston, owner -developers, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, Present to represent were Gordon Houston and Neal Albright. Mr. Newhouse stated the Subdivision Committee diddnot recommend approval of the Concept Plat of Houston Place because it does not meet the purposes for a PUD for the following reasons: 1. It does not show more efficient use of land; 2. It does not show more efficient use of public facilities; 3. It does not show more usable open space through structure grouping and other design techniques; and, 4. The Committee did not feel there were any natural and/or physical features to preserve. Mr. Newhouse added they questioned how the open space and flood plain were computed. He said it didn't follow the spirit of the PUD. In keeping with that recommendation to the Planning Commission, he moved to deny the Comcept Plat of Houston Place. Mrs. Anderson seconded it. Mr. Albright said they plan to revise the drawing, reduce the number of units to 40, widen the "street", and resubmit it. Mr. Albright stated if the concept plat is denied, he wanted some specifics of what is wrong with the plan. Mr. Albright said he would like a waiver for the scale to allow them to use 1"=50'. Mr. Albright said it had been their intent to follow the PUD Ordinance and apparently they had misinterpreted it. Mr. Newhouse stated Mr. Houston's idea of efficiency of land use seemed to be how many units he can get on the land; and this is not, in Mr. Newhouse's view, part of the Ordinance. Chairman Jacks asked Mrs. Jones how much distance is required between buildings. Mrs. Jones told him 10 ft. Mrs. Crocker stated Mr. Houston had commented that the Planning Commission had approved every other PUD. She said this is the first PUD they have seen since the new PUD Ordinance came into effect. She added that:a PUD is a conditional use of land and is a variation of the Zoning Regulations. Chairman Jacks stated the reason the Ordinance was revised is because the spirit of the PUD Ordinance was not coming through. Mrs, Anderson said the preservation of the natural features can't be helped in this case because there aren't any to be preserved on this property. Mr. Hailey stated if this plat came back to the Planning Commission in the same form he thought they should call a public hearing. Mrs. Anderson stated not only did it not meet items 1, 2, and 3 as mentioned by Mr. Newhouse, but in the definition of a PUD Ordinance the whole purpose is to permit design flexibility, building clustering, grouping of open space, increased density and alternatives to public facilities. Mrs. Anderson stated she didn't see any way unless it involves some of these things that it is in the spirit of the Ord- inance nor the intention of it. She added she would not approve it in any case with- out meeting some of these things. Mrs. Crocker pointed out if it did come back Mr. Houston should be aware of the ISI Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 3 off-stie improvement ordinance. Mrs. Crocker stated she feels Mr. Houston should have some responsibility in paving the existing gravel road (Porter Road) with his increasing the density that much. Mr. Hailey said he did not think this plat is efficient land use, but agreed that point could be "argued all day". Mr. Hailey also said that with the lot sizes shown and no lay out of how the buildings would be, the Commission has no idea of how parking would be handled. Mr. Houston said it will be on each lot with the dwelling units. Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Albright if he was going to widen the 14 ft. street. Mr. Albright said he was open to suggestions. Mrs. Anderson pointed out that the Plat Review and Clayton Powell were the ones who make such suggestions. Mr. Hunnicutt stated the driveways should tie into the street.and there should not be any open space between the street and the lots. Mr. Hunnicutt stated the plan submitted is not clustering, and Mr. Houston will have to work out some other arrangement. Jan Parker (Lot 11 and part of Lot 12 of University Acres Subdivision) stated the back of her house faces this open field that Mr. Houston proposes to build on. She asked how they are going to get a loop street in there where there is a bridge and creek and water stands there all the time. She said when it rains all the pro- perty to the North of her stands in water. She said it is a beautiful piece of property back to the South and cramming all of these duplexes in there is unfair to the neighborhood. She asked what the proposed logging track would be. Mr. Hailey pointed out the Planning Commission can ask for the drainage plans under the Ordinance. Mrs. Jones stated the drainage plans had to be submitted to Street Superintendent Clayton Powell for approval. Chairman Jacks stated the motion was to disapprove the Concept Plat of Houston Place The motion passed 8-0. The next item for discussion was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-2, Memorial Parks, Inc. (Fairview Memorial Cemetery to rezone property located NW of State Highway 45 East and West of Winwood Drive from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to A-1, Agricultural District. There was no one present to represent. Mr. Wood stated he recommended the A-1 District for the following reasons: 1. The property in question involves an established cemetery which is not likely to change in use for many years to come. 2. Of the three districts A-1, R-1, or P'1 the A-1 District is the only one which allows a cemetery. There was no one present to speak in favor of Or in opposition to the rezoning. Mrs. Jones stated this includes Lot 13 of Harter's Fairview Addition. She said they wanted to build a structure to store tools and garden tractors for maintenance of the cemetery grounds. Mrs. Jones said in the future they are also proposing to build a mausoleum in the center of the cemetery. Mrs. Crocker asked if the lot going down Winwood was not part of the cemetery Mrs. Jones said at one time it had been; at that time an association owned the ceme- tery, but now the ownership has changed and one of the former owners had kept that part of it. Mr Cullers moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that they approve the zoning change from R-1 to A-1. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 8-0. REZONING PETITION R80-2 Memorial Parks, Inc. Hwy. 45 East The next item for discussion was the request submitted by Harold Bemis to lessen the dedicated right HAROLD BEMIS Lot Split --Right-of-way Dedication 1405 North Gregg I( A Planning Commission Meeting February 111 1980 Page 4 of -way requirements for the Master Street Plan in connection with a lot split at 1405 N. Gregg, zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Attorney Bob White was present to represent. Mr. White stated the right-of-way grant was given in order to get the lot split. He said the grant to the City erroneously called for 20 ft. off the eastern boundary of Mr. Bemis' property. Part of the easement grant states it is the intent to provide 40 ft. from the centerline of the existing ROW and this falls across the front porch of an existing house on Mr. Bemis' property. He is currently re- modeling this home for rental purposes, but he cannot build within the confines of the street right-of-way. He said this amended easement would allow the City to build the street and still have a 10 ft. right-of-way grant to the West of the curb line. He added if the City needs a temporary construction easement he will be glad to grant that. Chairman Jacks stated he had received a note from the City Manager stating the right-of-way is needed to widen Gregg. Mr. Cullers asked if the street is not going to be any closer to the house why did Mr. Bemis need to change anything. Mr. White stated Mr. Bemis couldn't get a building permit. Mr. White added that something will have to be done about the right- of-way grant because as it stands now it is an improper grant. Mrs. Crocker asked if the easement would have to be corrected. Mr. White said the intent of the grant was to give the City 40 ft. but no one knew where that was going to fall. He said he thought the sentence about the intent of the easement to be 40 ft. West of the centerline of the existing right-of-way would take precedence over the portion calling for 20 ft. off the East side of Mr. Bemis' property. Mrs. Jones said neither the owner nor the purchaser wanted to get a survey at the time of the lot split and this had been the only way to word the easement. Mr. Cullers asked if the survey had been made would she have been able to tell the easement went right through the porch. Mrs. Jones said she would have had a better idea of where the easement was. Mrs. Jones said she had talked to Mr. Bemis and the realtor about it but they didn't want to go through the process to appeal the right-of-way requirement at that time. She said any action the Commission takes must be a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Mr. Cullers said considering the past history, could trying to get a permit be- cause of the right-of-way set 3 precedence. Mrs. Anderson asked if the City Board could issue a building permit. Mrs. Jones pointed out he couldn't make any additions within 25 ft. of the right-of-way without a variance from the Board of Adjustment. She said she would like to research the matter because she was not sure whether Mr. Bemis could not get a permit because he wanted to make an addition to the structure and couldn't meet the setbacks; or whether he had started work without getting a permit and had been told to get one or stop work. Mrs. Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that they deny the request for the lessening of the right-of-way and recommend to the appropriate body that a building permit be allowed. Mr. Cullers seconded it, which passed 8-0. The next item for discussion was the CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE conditional use request submitted by J. B. J. B. Hays Hays to operate an office and garage for CEMS Central Emergency Medical Service (formerly 620 N. College EMS) in a building at the rear of 620 N. College. This building is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This represents a re- quest to change a legal non -conforming use. Present to represent was Warren McDonald. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 5 Mr. McDonald stated the adjacent property owners had been notified. He said the appropriateness of this facility is in it being on the major thoroughfare and not being surrounded by other places of business. The use of this building in the past has been for mechanical work. Chairman Jacks asked him what this place would be used for. Mr. McDonald stated Washington Regional Medical Center has announced a discontinuation of ambulance service. In December, a study group came up with a plan for a EMS. He said they took the plan before the Quorum Court and it has been approved. He said the property would be where the service was located and there would also be a service garage for the ambulances. Chairman Jacks expressed concern about the traffic. Mr. McDonald said they had approached F. H. Martin (on the State Highway Commission) and Mr. Martin said he feels the State would provide some signage for the service in both the North and South directions. The other problems with the traffic, he added, are no more than what they have now. Mr. Newhouse stated, having driven an ambulance himself, it was up to the people driving the ambulance to use some caution. Mr. Cullers moved to approve the conditonal use request. Mr. Newhouse seconded Mrs. Anderson said she didn't see why it wasn't considered a City wide use by right. Mrs. Jones said the Ordinance could be amended and she would like to have the Commission call a public hearing to see what zone it should be in. The motion to approve the conditional use request passed 7-1, with Newhouse, Crocker, Hailey, Anderson, Cullers, Hunnicutt, and Redfern voting "Aye" and Jacks voting "Nay" because of the traffic problem. it. The next item for discussion was the PUBLIC HEARING public hearing to consider AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE an amendment to Appendix A, Setback from centerline of easements $ alleys Art. S, Sec. (V); Art. S, Sec. (VI); Art. 5, Sec. (VII); Art. 5 Sec. (VII (a)); Art. 5, Sec. (X); and Art. 5, Sec. (XI) of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to amend or delete the requirement that the setback of buildings be from the centerline of an easement or alley. Originally scheduled for January 28, 1980, which meeting was cancelled due to the weather. Mrs. Jones stated the Ordinance was written to take out all requirements of set- backs based on centerline of easement or alley; but the notice was written to elimin- ate or amend those sections. At the time the C-4 District was set up the C-3 re- quired a setback of 1S ft. from the centerline of an easement or alley. The 8 ft. from the centerline of alleys in the C-4 District is to give you at least 16 ft. between buildings. Mrs. Jones added at the time the C-4 District was established, it was researched with the utility companies. Mrs. Jones said, as an example, in the C-1 District the 20 ft. from the centerline of a utility easement along the side of lots forcesthe buildings to be 40 ft. apart. Mr. Cullers asked Mrs. Jones what provoked this amendment? Mrs. Jones said this was precipitate&Iy a subdivision of an R-0 property with side lot easements. In the R-0 Zone the setback is worded 25 ft. from the centerline of an easement or alley; and with an easement, it allows no building space. Chairman Jacks asked if she wanted to delete all the requirements except for an 8 ft. minimum from the centerline of an alley. Mrs. Jones stated that to do that the proposed ordinance should be amended as follows: leave Sections 1 and 2 as written; amend Section 3 to read "from centerline of public alley = 8 ft."; delete Section 4 as written; Section 5 becomes Section 4, and would be amended to read "from centerline of a public alley = 8 ft."; and Section 6 becomes Section 5, and would be amended to read "from centerline of public alley = 8 ft.". Mrs. Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Board that these changes be made. Mr. Hunnicutt seconded it. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 6 Gary Carnahan asked if there would be any additional setback from an easement in a community. Mrs, Jones said not in any zone unless there is a setback required from a property line which is greater than the easement. The motion to recommend approval to the Board of Directors passed 8-0, The next item for discussion was PUBLIC HEARING the public hearing to consider an AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE amendment to Appendix A -Zoning- Home Occupations $ Child Care Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Art. 7, Sec. 7 to clarify the regulations pertaining to a child care facility and to Appendix A -Zoning -Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Art. 7, Sec. 10, and Art. 17 to clarify the regulations pertaining to home occupations. Mrs. Anderson (Chairman of the Committee which recommended the changes) stated one amendment states that, in an R-1 Zone a licensed child care facility may be approved for no more than 10 children or whatever is approved by the State Licensing Board, whichever is fewer. This proposed ordinance would also amend the definition of a home occupation to include a child care facility handling not more than six children at one time. In an R-1 District the time limitation is presently from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. The second proposed ordinance would allow the Planning Commission to vary this restriction upon a determination that such a variance will not adversely effect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Mrs. Crocker asked if it only applied to an R-1 Zone. Mrs. Jones said the time limit applied only to the R-1 Zone. Mrs. Anderson stated the time limit and allowance to vary applied to all home occupations in the R-1 Zone not only babysitting. There was no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendments. Mrs. Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the two proposed Ordinances be adopted as written. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 8-0. The next item for discussion was PUBLIC HEARING the public hearing to consider an AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE amendment to Appendix A -Zoning- Tandem Lots Fayetteville. Code of Ordinances, Art. 7, Sec. 21, to clarify the regulations pertaining to tandem lot development. Mrs. Anderson pointed out in the proposed tandem lot ordinance under Sec. 1 2(a) stated "the tandem lot development will not reduce property values in the neighbor- hood". Mrs. Anderson asked how it could keep from reducing property values. Mrs. Crocker stated that point could be argued by any property owner. She questioned whether it could be used as a legal basis to deny. Mr. Wood said there would have to be appraisals obtained by both sides of the issue, and a judge would have to deter- mine if a reduction in property value resulted. Mr. Cullers said that would be the first thing anyone opposed to a tandem lot would jump on. Mr. Redfern stated it is possible to have some kind of calculation on this. He commented that there would not likely be any reduction in dollar value because of inflation, but there might be a reduction in actual value if it was adjusted for price increases. Mr. Cullers asked why we want to change the Tandem Lot Ordinance. Mrs, Crocker said there is a misunderstanding as to why we have it. She said she thought the reason the Tandem Lot Ordinance was passed is to get to those lots on top of the mountain where you can't build a public street. Chairman Jacks said the reason it came up is because of the terrain and the topo. Mr. Cullers said the past cases of deep lots showed an excellent land use He Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 7 said the property will go on the tax rolls without a lot of developing costs. He added that the new lots will be as big, if not bigger, than the surrounding pro- perties. Chairman Jacks stated where we run into problems is having people putting in tandem lots in developed areas. He stated he didn't see any reason to change the Ordinance. Chairman Jacks said it does become a matter of where they plan to do this type of developing. He said there are some very deep lots that could be develop- ed beautifully. Mrs. Anderson said when people buy a lot and have the lot next to them cut up she does understand their objections; but, she said, she agrees with Mr. Cullers. Mrs. Crocker said there is a difference when you buy into a neighborhood and you see how all of the other lots are laid out at that time. Mrs. Crocker said she thinks the Ordinance should be changed.because of the need to specify reasons it can be disapproved. Chairman Jacks said what it really boils down to is that a person can't buy into an area with bigger lots and be guaranteed it will stay that way. Mrs, Jones pointed out there is a section in the Zoning Ordinance which says that on a rezoning a certain percentage of property owners can object and it then requires a favorable vote of three-fourths of the Board of Directors to rezone the property, Mr. Cullers stated he would be more in favor of eliminating the Ordinance than putting restrictions on it. Mrs. Crocker asked Mrs. Jones if we needed this Ordinance. Mrs. Jones said that a tandem lot is limited to a single family residence; however, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance 2555 to amend Art. 8, Sec. 6, to permit the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for frontage on a public street for any use and in any zone provided the property owner provides safe and convenient access for fire protection and sanitation vehicles. Mr. Cullers said the Tandem Lot Ordinance wasn't really a problem but it didn't need to be eliminated. Mr, Cullers asked Mr. Jacks why he thought it should be changed. Chairman Jacks said this change came up because there aren't any restrict- ions such as the lot size or reasons for denial. Mr. Cullers pointed out that Ordinance 2555 is a lot more lenient than the Tandem Lot Ordinance. Mr. Cullers moved to table this discussion until Morton Gitelman could be present. Mrs. Crocker seconded it, which passed 8-0. Chairman Jacks appointed Morton Gitelman and Beth Crocker to study Ord. 2555 in accordance with what the Commission would like the Tandem Lot Ordinance to say. The next item for discussion was REPORT the report from the Nominating Com- Nominating Committee mittee and election of,new officers Election of Officers for 1980; Chairman, Vice -Chairman, and Secretary for Planning Commission. The nominating Committee consisted of Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cullers, and Mr. Hailey. Mrs. Anderson stated the Committee nominated Chairman Jacks for another 1 -year term of Chairman, Mrs. Crocker for Vice -Chairman, and Mr. Cullers for Secretary. Mr. Redfern moved that all nominations be accepted. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 7-0-1, with Jacks abstaining from voting and Cullers, Hailey, Redfern, Hunnicutt, Newhouse, Anderson, and Crocker voting "Aye". Mr. Newhouse and Mrs. Anderson left the meeting at 7:05 P.M. 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1980 Page 8 The next item was the discussion of DISCUSSION improvement requirements for driveways. Driveway Requirements Mr. Jacks asked if our curb cut ordinance pertained to this. Mrs. Jones stated it does, but also City Attorney McCord's memo stated the section in the Zoning Ordinance applies only to "off-street" parking areas and has no application to driveways leading to a parking area. Mrs. Jones said the ordinances do not make any distinction between paved and unpaved streets, single family homes, apartments, or commercial uses. She said the curb cut ordinance gives minimum standards for a concrete driveway and does not mention any other standards. Mr. Jacks stated there should be some kind of clarification. Mrs. Jones said the only 2 points she saw not in favor of paving a driveway are: (1) most of the paving is done with petroleum products, and (2) the increased cost factor to new home owners. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Redfern and Mr. Cullers to study the matter and make a recommendation. The next item was the discussion DISCUSSION of regulations governing Storage and sale of fuel wood, hay, etc. storage and sale of fuel wood, hay, etc, Mrs. Jones stated she had grown up using wood for heating fuel and she knew rats, snakes, and scorpions existed in wood piles. Chairman Jacks asked what brought this up. Mrs. Jones stated she has noticed a lot of wood piling around the area at stores and in residential areas. Mrs. Crocker pointed out that winter time wasn't the only time you have it. Mr. Redfern wondered if the possibility of arson was a problem. Mrs. Crocker stated she agreed with Mrs. Jones that it could be a problem. Mr. Redfern stated that it really wasn't a problem at this time. The Commission did not choose to take any action on the matter at this time. The next item for discussion was SKATING RINK whether the parking requirements for a Parking Requirements skating rink should be based on total square footage of building or square footage of skating floor. The Board of Adjustment recently denied a variance request for The Skate Place, 661 W. Ash, but recommended that the Board of Directors give consideration to amending the parking requirement for a skating rink. Mrs. Crocker stated she takes her children there and is grateful to have such a place in Fayetteville. However, more than once she's seen cars spilled out onto the street and she doesn't think the requirement should be changed. Mr. Hailey stated his children also attend The Skate Place. He said the parking places are needed when all the parents come to pick up their children at the same time and must go inside to get them, Mr. Hailey said The Skate Place has been in operation for 2 years even though they have never been issued a Certificate of Occu- pancy because all the parking required by the Ordinance has not been paved. Mr. Hailey also pointed out that when Mr. Carter asked the Planning Commission for ap- proval to add 4 indoor racquetball courts in February 1979, he had shown 87 parking spaces and he only has 30. Mrs. Crocker moved that the present parking requirements not be changed and the City 'pursue the problem with vigor"of Mr. Carter's failure to furnish the required parking spaces. Mr. Hailey seconded it, which passed 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M. vb