Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-09 Minutes• • • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 9, 1980, at 5:00 P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Windell Cullers, Don Hunnicutt, Peg Anderson, Keith Newhouse and Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Martin Redfern, Larry Wood, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, Ervan Wimberly, Brian Disney, Emil Utecht, David McWethy, Rebecca Schumacher, Semon Thompson, Eric Lloyd, Elsie Johnson, James Jernigan, and other members of the press and audience. Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. The minutes of the May 27, 1980 meeting of the MINUTES Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The first item for consideration was the action PETITION NO. R80-8 on Rezoning Petition R80-8, J. B. Hays, to rezone J. B. HAYS property located on the North side of Old Farmington Road and West of Hwy. 71 By-pass from A-1, Agricultural to R-2 Medium Density Residential District. Public Hearing was held May 27, 1980. The Public Hearing was closed and action tabled until June 9. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, made a correction on Item 2 of his Planning Report Recommendation in which he had stated that access to the proposed site was restricted. Mr. Wood said that statement was no longer correct. He said he had obtained more current information from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to the effect that service roads would be built on three sides of the intersection of Highway 62 and Highway 71, and on the fourth side a substandard connection would be built. Mr. Wood stated that he still felt a negative recommendation for this project. He felt that there was not a public need to "jump outside the by-pass" in that location and rezone to medium density residential. Wood stated that if the developer felt a need for more density, the PUD Ordinance was available Larry Wood stated he saw a need for buffering along the service road, but he did not see an interior site need at this time. Don Hunnicutt asked Larry Wood what he thought should go along the service road. Wood responded that he thought apartments would develop for the most part and immediately adjacent along the service road. Bobbie Jones stated that there were a couple of triangular pieces of land adjacent to the proposed service road that were not owned by Lynch and Krupe (the owners of the property East of the subject property). Keith Newhouse made a motion to deny the request for rezoning based on the negative recommendation by the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Newton Hailey seconded Newhouse's motion to deny, the motion passed (5-2-1 ) with Mort Gitelman, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey, Keith Newhouse and Elizabeth Crocker voting "Aye", Don Hunnicutt and Ernest Jacks voting "Nay", and Peg Anderson abstaining. Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 2 The next item of business was the approval OAKLAND MEADOWS of the Concept Plat of Oakland Meadows located CONCEPT PLAT Northeast of a curve on State Hwy. 156, and LINDSEY $ RUTLEDGE three quarters of a mile East of Oakland Church and Cemetery; James E. Lindsey and John R. Rutledge Owner and Developer. Gary Carnahan and Jim Lindsey were present to represent. Keith Newhouse, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, said that the Committee recommends approval of the Concept Plat with the condition that any further division of the property be accomplished by plat rather than by lot split, and that this be written into the plat as a covenant with the City. The Chairman asked the Developer's feeling on this covenant. Jim Lindsey stated this was fine with him. Keith Newhouse made a motion to approve the Concept Plat of Oakland Meadows with his before -stated condition. Hunnicutt seconded Newhouse's motion to approve. Mort Gitelman stated that it appeared there were a lot of driveways going onto State Hwy. 156 and no streets within the subdivision itself. Keith Newhouse said the developer had designed the driveways so this was to have a 60 ft. "right-of-way" up to the lots in back. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He said there were a few considerations when a piece of land is subdivided; 1) you have to have a quality piece of property that is marketable 2) the economics have to work 3) the rules and ordinances that have to be dealt with. Mr. Lindsey said due to the terrain, he felt a street would not be put in on Lots 14 and 15 unless 13, 14, 15, P, 16 are put together. He stated he had designed this property in accordance with the ordinances applicable, and that no pieces of property were land locked. He stated that his only other alterna- tive would be to put interior streets and start multiplying the number of units. Gitelman said he felt Mr. Lindsey's objectives could be met without having so many driveways coming out onto the highway, either by a common driveway, or by easements. Gary Carnahan said that easements could be provided on the tandem lot driveways that could be used for Lots 8, 11, 13 and 16. He felt that if this was done they would have to restrict Lots 11 and 12 if it was provided that +ot #10 driveway could be used as a common driveway. At this time, the Commission voted on Keith Newhouse's motion to approve the Concept Plat for Oakland Meadows with the::developer to covenant with the City that the lots will not be further divided unless an approved subdivision plat is filed. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration was the approval LEWIS ESTATES of the Concept Plat to replat Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 F, 8 CONCEPT PLAT of Lewis Estates located South of Howard Nickell Road REPLAT and East of Salem Road; James E. Lindsey $ John R. Rutledge, Owner & Developer. James Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked Keith Newhouse for the Subdivision Committee's recommendation on this Concept. Mr. Newhouse stated that the Committee felt this Concept Plat had some of the same problems as the Oakland Meadows Concept Plat, and that the Committee had voted to approve this Concept Plat with the same consideration as on Planning Commission Meeting • June 9, 1980 Page 3 Oakland Meadows, that is: The developer will covenant to the City that any further division of the property will be by an approved plat rather than by lot split. Elizabeth Crocker felt that there would be a problem with driveways coming onto the roads. Peg Anderson said this was not a state highway. Crocker said that was correct, but that three sides of the Concept Plat were paved roads. Keith Newhouse moved that the Concept Plat for Lewis Estates be approved provided that Developers covenant to the City that any further division of the property be by plat rather than by lot split. Elizabeth Crocker seconded. The motion was unanimous (8-0). • Next on the Agenda was the rehearing of the REHEARING LSD Large Scale Development Plan for the Mission MISSION BLVD. BAPTIST CHUCH Boulevard Baptist Church to be located North of Hwy. 45 East and East of Lisa Lane; Mission Boulevard Baptist Church, Owner and Developer. (Consideration to be on Water $ Sewer and Drainage problems only.) Brian Disney, Pastor, was present to represent the Church, and Emil Utecht was present to represent those opposed to the Church. The Chairman read written comments by the Water and Sewer Superintendent, Don Bunn, and the City Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell. Neither gentleman could foresee any problems with either water, sewer or drainage. Bobbie Jones had submitted a letter to the Commission stating that she had spoken with Mr. Joe Gaston with the Department of Soil Conservation. She stated that Mr. Gaston had noted the natural drainage flow would run East and West somewhere in the area of the common lot line of Lots 20 and 21 on Lisa Lane, and from that point it would run North in the gutters of Lisa Lane. The Chairman asked for comments. Bobbie Jones stated that she had spoken with Mr. Don Bunn, City Water and Sewer Superintendent, and he felt either a main or a sewer yard line could be used. If a sewer yard line were used, Mr. Bunn did not know of any limit on the distance it could be run so long as there were clean outs at certain intervals and the proper- grade. The Chairman recognized Mr. Utecht and asked if he had any comments. Mr. Utecht yielded the floor to Mr. Gaston of the Soil Conservation Department. Mr. Gaston stated that Mr. Utecht had invited him to take a look at the situation, and that he had made a visual observation. Mr. Gaston said if the Church and parking areas are constructed, the Lots on the East side of Lisa Lane will be getting additional water, and that unless provisions are made, the water will run across the lots and eventually find its way onto Lisa Lane. Mr. Gaston said there was a drain or break in the curb going to the West of Lisa Lane, and that part of the water would find its way to the drain, but there would be a tremendous amount of extra water when the area was paved and a roof put on the Church. Mr. Gaston felt the drain could not handle the extra water created by the parking area and the Church. Mr. Gaston stated that the general slope at the South end of the subdivision is more or less down the central area, but that it does veer to the west and into the area of the back of the lots on Lisa Lane. He said that before Lisa Lane was constructed, the normal drainage was to the West down through the swale and that it eventually went in to a small branch of the creek. He said the normal drainage has been altered to a small extent, and he felt when this excess water is created, the drain will not be sufficient to handle it. Floyd Pothast asked Joe Gaston when the aerial photo was taken. Mr. Gaston replied that it had been taken in 1972. Mr. Pothast asked if the houses were built on Lisa Planning Commission Meeting • June 9, 1980 Page 4 Lane when the photo was taken. Mr. Gaston replied that part of them had already been built The Chairman stated that Mr. Gaston's report was somewhat in variance with the report submitted by the City Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell, in that the drainage does veer off to the West. Mr. Gaston replied that about 500 ft. from the Highway the water veers off to the West. Mr. Gaston said he got his information from a stereoscopic map. Windell Cullers asked Mr. Gaston if there was only one possible way for the water to drain. Mr. Gaston said that was not necessarily so, that alternatives could be implemented so that the water would drain to the north, but that would change the natural water course. Mr. Gaston also stated that the water could be diverted very easily. Elizabeth Crocker said she would like to hear Mr. Disney's comments. Brian Disney presented himself to the Commission. He said he would like to assure the neighbors on that side of his development that he was cognizant of any concerns as far as drainage. He said they would make sure that they do not create any additional problems. Mr. Disney stated that there was a drainage problem on Lisa Lane long before the Church decided to build their church adjacent. Mr. Disney said they were trying to correct part of the drainage problem by excavating, and leveling part of the land so that there would be a rise to prevent some of the water from flowing into the lots to the West of the Church site. This would slow the flow of the water considerably. Mr. Disney felt the drainage would be better when the Church has finished excavating than it is as it exists. Keith Newhouse asked if the area by the driveway would be landscaped. Mr. Disney stated that it would. Mr. Disney said the Church was leaving about 30 ft. of natural screening (vegetation) between the Church and the lots adjacent on Lisa Lane. Windell Cullers moved to approve the LSD in regard to water, sewer and drainage. Elizabeth Crocker seconded and the motion was passed (7-0-1) with Peg Anderson abstaining. The next item for consideration was the CONDITIONAL USE Conditional Use Request submitted by David MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CENTER McWethy (City Manager's Office) to have a NORTH SANG AVENUE Multi -Purpose Senior Center at 818 North Sang Avenue; Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. David McWethy was present to represent. The Chairman asked Bobbie Jones if the adjacent property owners had been notified; after some discussion it was agreed that they had been sufficiently notified. David McWethy addressed the Commission and the Audience. David McWethy stated that 6 months ago the City Board of Directors established a Senior Center Committee for the purpose of trying to find a suitable site for a Multi -Purpose Senior Center. He said that this particular site was located in a way that working family members with a parent living with them could easily drop off an elderly relative. This would be a place where an elderly family member could spend the day with their peers. Activities would be provided of a social interaction type. There would be meals served, but no overnight accomodations would be provided. It would be a daylight hours operation from 8:00 to 5:00, five days a week. Mr. McWethy could see no problem with noise, but that traffic might be a problem. McWethy said there would be 2 to 3 delivery type vehicles, and probably a couple of "Dial -a -Ride" vans. He said there would be some traffic from people dropping off their relatives. Mr. McWethy said that the Center would be purchased with Community Development, • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 5 Block Grant Funds, some Community Development funds will be used to remodel the interior of the building (kitchen, etc.), and Community Development money will be used to comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the Planning Commission. He said if the Commission required the parking lot to be paved, or screening to be put up the Center would comply with those requirements. McWethy asked if there were any questions. Mr. J. K. Poole, 2111 Berry Street, addressed Mr. McWethy and the Commission. He stated there was an existing traffic problem on Wednesday and Sunday nights and Sunday mornings. He said that if 100 people a day were served, or coming and going from the Senior Center, that the traffic problem would be even worse. He also said that as the Church existed now, there was not enough parking space and he felt people would be parking in the street. Mr. McWethy acknowledged the traffic problems. He said he felt the traffic from the Senior Center would not be as great a problem as that from the Church. He said the only vehicles that would be parked at the Center during the course of the day would be 2 vans for picking up people, a couple of delivery vans, and the cars for the staff. Mr. Poole stated that he had received a letter that said there would be 100 people served per day McWethy introduced Mr. Semon Thompson, Executive Director of EOA. Mr. Thompson addressed the audience and the Commission. He stated that he appreciated Mr. Poole's concern about the traffic problem. He said if all the vehicles that the Senior Citizen's Center might generate were operating at one time, and were to appear at the Center, it would be an average of approximately 25 vehicles per day, that would include 3 vehicles for vending, 2 vehicles for picking up people in the local community to deliver them to the Center for meals, 2 vehicles for delivering meals into the County (Lincoln, Springdale, Prairie Grove). He said the 100 meals that would be prepared at the Center would include meals taken out into the County, that the 100 meals per day would not all be served at the Center. He stated that he could control the staff in that he could direct them to come down Sang from Wedington Drive, and he felt the vendors would also cooperate. He stated that there would be about 10 vehicles per day sitting stationary at the Center for the staff. Bill Martin, 2133 W. Berry Street, addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission to keep in mind the Conditional Use Request submitted for a Child Care Center on Berry Street and the additional traffic problems that would propose along with the Senior Center. He asked Mr. Thompson how many people would be fed at the Church per day. Ms. Rebecca Schumacher stated that about 55 people would be fed on site. Mr. Martin asked if that would be per meal. Ms. Schumacher stated there would be only 1 meal served per day. Mr. Martin stated that if the Church parking area were paved, the people on the down side of the Church would get excess water resulting in drainage problems. Mr. Martin asked if the EOA Offices would be transferred to this property. Mr. Thompson stated only to the extent that the Nutritional Director (Rebecca Schumacher) for the program would have an office in the building, and that there was no intention of moving EOA Offices to this site. Mr. Poole asked if EOA was requesting the grant for funds to purchase the site. David McWethy stated that was not correct, but that the Center would be purchased with Community Development Funds by the City of Fayetteville. W. L. Russell, 2134 West Berry Street, addressed the Commission. He asked Mr. Thompson what his projection was on the amount of vehicles that would be dropping off people at the Center. Thompson stated that it would amount to about 8 vehicles. Mr. Thompson said that a study had been made this past week of the amount of traffic generated by participants of the Hillcrest Towers' meal program, and that an average of 8 privately owned vehicles per day were generated by the program. Ms. Schumacher stated that most of the participants come to the Towers via the "Dial -a -Ride" transit program. rt/ Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Thompson said that EOA was trying to acquire funding for 2 more vans for transit which would cut even further, the amount of participant traffic at the proposed Center. Carl Springston, 724 North Sang, addressed the Commission. He stated that he lives about 3 houses South of the proposed Center. He said there was currently a big traffic problem on Sang. He said he did not feel a residential neighborhood was appropriate for this type of program. He stated concern over the possible devaluation of his property. He was also concerned about school children who walked on Sang and the hazard that would be proposed to them by the extra traffic generated by the proposed Center, and he felt this should be considered. Jerry Smith of 2340 Berry Street, addressed the Commission. He voiced his concern over the traffic problem already existing on Sang and Berry. Ruth Ernest, 1932 W. Berry Street, addressed the Commission. She stated that at this time she had a problem getting through on Berry because the street was so narrow. John Crook, 2126 W. Berry Street, addressed the Commission. He felt the additional traffic generated by the Senior Center would be more than the neighborhood could handle at this time. Mr. Poole stated that the traffic was so bad on this street that it may even be a hazard to the elderly people that may be using the Center. Mr. Russell asked if the placing of the Senior Center in their neighborhood would have any effect on the present zoning. David McWethy replied that it would not, it would be a Conditional Use and would not effect the present Residential Zoning. Mrs. Bill Cox, 2025 W. Berry, addressed the Commission. She stated she felt the Senior Center would be a nuisance to herself and the neighborhood. David McWethy stated that this site was selected by a Committee consisting of representatives of the Council on Aging, EOA, and the Community Development Director. He said that they had looked at a number of sites. He said this site was large enough, was in good condition and was fairly close in, and that it was affordable, and that this was the only site they could find that met all of those concerns. He stated that he did not feel the traffic would be that much of a problem, because there would not be that many vehicles generated by the Center. At this time the Chairman requested comments from members of the Committee who selected this particular site for the Senior Center. Mrs. Sylvia Schwartz spoke for the Committee. Mrs. Schwartz stated that the Committee had looked at many places as possible sites for the Center and had found very few as attractive as this site. She thought that the traffic problem might possibly work itself out with the high cost of gasoline, etc. She stated that the EOA was planning to pick participants in the Center up in their vans. Ms. Rebecca Schumacher addressed the Commission for the Senior Center. She stated that the EOA vans would hold about 14 persons, there were 2 vans at this time and if funding were provided there would be 2 more vans. These vans make several trips per day, and most of the elderly persons participating in the program would be transported via EOA vans. Mr. Thompson interjected that actually very few elderly participants drove their own cars. He stated that they had studied this problem, and they had counted an average of 8 privately owned vehicles coming into the Center, and that included the vehicles of some volunteers. He stated that he did not feel that at any time the amount of vehicles would exceed the amount of a Sunday service at the Church. Ms. Schumacher said that most people prefer the transportation provided by the program to driving their own vehicles, or having someone drive them. Newton Hailey asked if the Senior Service anticipated serving more than the 55 meals presently being served per day, or if they anticipated more participants. 5.3 • • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 7 Thompson replied that they were anticipating increasing the meals served on site up to 75 meals per day, and only if there was an increase in funding. He stated that he was concerned that the increase in funding may not be realized. Mr. Hailey asked if Mr. Thompson could see a corelation in increased funding and the amount of private vehicles coming into the Center. Mr. Thompson replied that there could be an increase in vehicles if the amount of meals served was increased, but that he could not convert that into an actual number of cars. Don Hunnicutt asked if church services were being held at this time. McWethy said that they were. He said the Church was moving further North on Sang and the Senior Center was planning on occupying the old Church site by the end of the summer. Keith Newhouse stated that, as he understood it, there were two sources of meals at this time, the Newman Center, and the Adult Center at the Hillcrest Towers. Rebecca Schumacher said that the meals were presently being prepared at the Newman Center only, that they were then loaded up and distributed to Hillcrest Towers, and other places in the County. Newhouse stated that the way he understood it, there would be a total of about 25 vehicles on the site. Newhouse stated that he did not see where that would be a big problem. Ms. Schumacher said that some of those vehicles would not be at the site all day long. Newhouse asked if the parking area were paved, how many vehicles it could accomodate Mr. Thompson said about 25. Rick Mason, Community Development Director, addressed the Commission and the Audience. He stated that the anticipated clientelle that would visit the Senior Center on a full day basis would be 25 to 30 persons. He said the 8 cars that Mr. Thompson was talking about, would be persons that come by and drop other persons off. He stated that the vans would bring a load of people, go out and get another load of people. He said that one van may bring in 30 to 40 people, and this would cut down on the amount of traffic, as far as the number of vehicles. He said it was not anticipated that there would be more cars at any time than could fit in the parking lot. He said that parking all over the. Streets would not happen. He said that the 75 participants that would be fed on site would probably be at the site between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M., that there would not be 75 people there all day. He stated that as it stands now, the EOA Nutrition Kitchen serves all of Washington County. He said the present kitchen site is not large enough to accomodate all the meals needed to insure the elderly persons in need to get one hot, nutritious meal per day, and that was why the new site was needed. He said that Hillcrest Towers would not be shut down, that persons who could not get to the Senior Center would still be served at Hillcrest Towers. A gentleman (unidentified) asked if the EOA moved from the Senior Center what would happen to it, who would then occupy it. McWethy said that the City would first try to move another agency onto the site. McWethy said that the day the Church site was no longer used for the Senior Center, an appropriate R-1 purpose would have to be put there, or come back before the Planning Commission and get permission to use it for some other purpose. The same gentleman said that if the Senior Center was approved, that he would appreciate some type of visual screening around the parking areas. The Chairman recognized Jerry Smith, 2340 Berry Street. He asked how the meals would be brought in, if it would be by delivery trucks, (produce, milk, etc.). Mr. Thompson stated that the delivery trucks would average 3 per day. Lewis Stratton, 2009 W. Berry Street, addressed the Commission. He said that Mr. Mason had stated that meals would be served from 11:00 to 1:00 and that Mr. McWethy had stated that the Center would be open frome 8:00 to 5:00. He said that there were quite a few school children getting out and walking in the neighborhood in the morning and in the afternoon. He said that in the winter, the roads were icy and that he did not feel this particular site was desirable for the proposed purpose. Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 • Page 8 David McWethy told the neighbors of the Senior Center site that after the Center is open and they have any problems or complaints, to feel free to call him in the City Manager's Office and he would do his best to get action taken to correct any problems. Mr. Thompson said they would work to reschedule delivery vans if they became a problem. Bobbie Jones stated that if a problem arose after the Conditional Use was granted, any complaints should be directed to David McWethy in the City Manager's Office. Ernest Jacks asked for Planning Commission comments. Peg Anderson stated she felt the need was strong for a Senior Center. She said people generally do not like services located near their homes. She said she felt there was a need and therefore she moved to grant the Conditional Use for a Multi - Purpose Senior Center, with directives to the City to provide proper paving of the parking area, any screening that might be needed. McWethy said he would have a vegetation screen or a solid board fence, whichever the neighbors perferred. Windell Cullers seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve the Conditional Use. Ms. Ruth Ernest asked the Commission if she had any alternatives as far as protesting the Commission's decision to grant the Conditional Use. The Chairman informed Ms. Ernest that she could begin a civil action through an attorney. Don Hunnicutt said that a vacated Church such as this proposed site was not desirablefor many uses, and that the proposed Senior Center was, he felt,a good use for this vacated site. . Peg Anderson's motion was approved unanimously (8-0). The next item of business was the Conditional CONDITIONAL USE Use Request submitted by Eric Lloyd to change a 352 NORTH WEST AVENUE non -conforming use to allow a Bike and Stove Shop ERIC LLOYD at 352 North West Avenue, Zoned R-0, Residential Office District. Eric Lloyd was present to represent. The Chairman asked Mr. Lloyd if he had anything additional to add, other than the information enclosed in the Agenda. Mr. Lloyd said he did not have anything to add, but that he would be happy to answer any questions. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to Mr. Lloyd's request. There was no opposition. Peg Anderson moved to approve the Conditional Use submitted by Eric Lloyd. Windell Cullers seconded. The motion was passed unanimously (8-0). The next item on the Agenda was a Conditional CONDITIONAL USE Use request submitted by Elsie M. Johnson, to have ELSIE M. JOHNSON a Child -Care Facility at 2016 Berry Street, Zoned 2016 BERRY STREET R-1 Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson was present to represent. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing in opposition to Elsie Johnson's request. Attorney, Lamar Pettus, addressed the Commission representing Mr. $ Mrs. Bill Cox, and Mr. £ Mrs. J. D. Reece, who were in opposition to the requested Conditional Use. The Cox's live immediately across the street from Ms. Johnson, and the Reece's own the property immediately to the East of Ms. Johnson. Peg Anderson wondered if this would be a Home Occupation or a Child -Care Center. Planning.Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 9 She asked Ms. Johnson if she was planning to turn her whole house over to the care of the children. Ms. Johnson said that the children would eat in the kitchen, watch television in the living room, nap in the bedrooms and play outside. Ms. Anderson wanted Ms. Johnson to know that she must comply with the various regulations. That she should not change the outside of her house, only immediate family would be involved in the operation of the child care, and that she could not have a sign. That there would not be any extra parking, and that it would be operated only from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. There was some discussion between members of the Planning Commission and Bobbie Jones, the Planning Administrator, to clarify whether this was proposed to be a Child - Care Facility (Use Unit 4) subject to the conditions of Art. 7, Sec. 7, or a home occupation (Use Unit 8) subject to the conditions of Art. 7, Sec. 10. They said that if Ms. Johnson was proposing a Child -Care Facility, that no more than 10 children could be taken care of at one time, and she must have a state license. If she was proposing a home occupation, no more than 6 children could be taken care of on-site at one time. This might also require a State License. Ms. Johnson said that she had talked to the people at State Social Services and that they had informed her that she must have approval by the Planning Commission before she could have a day care facility. She said that she was waiting on approval from the Planning Commission before she went back to the Social Services requesting a day care facility and that she would do which ever was approved. Peg Anderson stated that the Commission had been turning down child care facilities in R-1, but that a Home Occupation was another matter. Peg Anderson stated that she had looked at the site and did not feel it was adequate for a Child -Care Facility that would accomodate 10 children, but that she would go along with a Home Occupation to accomodate 6 children. Elsie Johnson's application listed the request as "Child -Care"; however, the check list prepared by the Planning Office listed it as a "Home Occupation" and contained requirements for both. The Commission felt that, according to her description of her intentions, that what was requested was a Child Care Facility for 10 children. The Commission asked Bobbie Jones to list the requirements for a Child Care Facility in an R-1 District. Bobbie Jones read Art. 7, Section 7, of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with a Child -Care Facility in an R-1 District. Elizabeth Crocker stated that she had looked at the proposed site. She said it appeared that the fenced play area was in fact the driveway which had been fenced off. She felt that there was not enough room for a car to pull into the driveway and turn around. Ms. Johnson said that she had enough room for people dropping off children to park, drop their children off, and turn around. She stated that her parking area was on the opposite side of the lot from the fenced play area. Lamar Pettus told the Commission that his client's objections to the Conditional Use were in regard to item 6 of the Requirements; the Use would cause increased traffic in the area. He said that there was another objection; • the people off their children would use the other driveways in the area for turning around and dropping off their children. He said that the working parents would probably be dropping off the children in about the same time frame and questioned the adequacy of Ms. Johnson's parking area. He said that if the Conditional Use was approved, he would like the following conditions. met 1) the fenced play area be moved to the rear of the lot instead of the existing one at the front of the lot; 2) provide space for people dropping off their children to turn around. James Beard, of 1941 W. Berry, addressed the Commission. He stated that mothers dropping off their children were presently parking their cars on the street when delivering the children. He said that there was presently a problem with persons • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 10 attending Church parking in the street. Elizabeth Crocker stated that if the Use was approved, that the gate to the fenced play area would definitely have to be opened up so that people could pull in to drop their children off. Windell Cullers made a motion to deny the Conditional Use. He stated that he was making this motion because the persons around the site were opposed to it. Don Hunnicutt seconded Windell Cullers' motion to deny. The motion failed to pass (4-4) with Hunnicutt, Cullers, Jacks, Newhouse voting "Aye", and Gitelman, Crocker Hailey and Anderson voting "Nay". Peg Anderson moved to approve Ms. Johnson's request as a Home Occupation with 6 children or less to be operated only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. to be approved for 1 year only, and with the condition that a place would be provided on Ms. Johnson's property where parents may deliver their children and turn around. Mort Gitelman seconded Ms. Anderson's motion. The voting went (4-4) with Gitelman, Crocker, Hailey and Anderson voting "Aye", Hunnicutt, Newhouse, Jacks and Cullers voting "Nay". The Request for Conditional Use was considered to be denied, as there were not 5 votes for approval. The next item of business was a Request from James P. Jernigan to waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on improved Public Streets, Lot 5, Block 5, Fairland Addition has public streets (Lucien F, Lytton) platted on 2 sides. James Jernigan was present to represent. Mr. Jernigan had no other comments other than those in the Agenda but invited any questions. Ernest Jacks stated that there were some objections to the request submitted by Clayton Powell, the City Street Superintendentrand asked Mr. Jernigan if he had any comments. Mr. Jernigan stated that it was not the best street, but that City Sanitation Trucks were picking up on the street. Some of the Commissioners acknowledged that they had had difficulty driving to the lot in question. Windell Cullers asked for a definition of an "improved street'1. Bobbie Jones said it can be a gravel or dirt street if the City is maintaining it. Windell Cullers made a motion to grant the request. He stated that the site was bordered by two platted streets and there is a street there to some degree. Peg Anderson seconded Windell Cullers' motion to approve, it was unanimous (8-0). JAMES P. JERNIGAN WAIVE REQUIREMENT LOT HAVE IMPROVED STREET FRONTAGE The next item of business was a request for approval to vacate alleys in Sunset Addition and Fair Park Addition between Razorback Road and Lewis Avenue, with agreement of all adjoining property owners. Bobbie Jones was present to represent for Ed Connell of the City Engineer's Office. Bobbie Jones stated that the Highway Department was taking right-of-way for the widening of Hwy. 62 West and the City was requiring additional easements outside the Hwy. Department's right-of-way for relocation of water and sewer. She stated that the alleys were not open for use as alleys. She said that if the alleys were closed and kept as utility easements, the only effect vacation of the alleys would have would be that the property owners of the adjoining property would be able to build closer to the easements. Ernest Jacks asked if the University was opposed to the alley vacation. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE ALLEYS SUNSET F, FAIRPARK ADDITIONS Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 11 Bobbie Jones said that the University surveys of adjoining tracts of land with a had been performed by the same surveyor. Windell Cullers asked if it would be were approved. Bobbie Jones stated that all the utility companies had alleys be retained as utility Windell Cullers moved to be vacated as petitioned. Morton Gitelman seconded was unanimous (8-0). was concerned because they have two 20 ft. conflict, and that both surveys. a problem for the City if the vacation she did not see any problem with the vacation and that no objection other than that they would prefer the easements. recommend to the Board of Directors that the alleys Windell Cullers' motion to approve and the motion The next item for consideration was a Public AMENDMENT TO Hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Planning PLANNING AREA MAP Area Map of the City of Fayetteville, to redefine the territorial jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for the purpose of Act. 186 of 1957. Frank Blew was present to represent. The Chairman stated that he had had a discussion with Wes Burkett, the Planning Commission Chairman for the City of Farmington. Mr. Burkett had stated that Farmington was interested in incorporating some land to the North and Southeast into the Farmington City Limits, which was presently defined as Fayetteville Planned Growth Area. Elizabeth Crocker stated that Farmington is legally entitled to this land. Mort Gitelman asked if the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission felt this .was timely. Ernest Jacks stated that Larry Wood felt that it should not be turned over to Farmington until a Planning Commission was set up to control development of the property. Frank Blew stated that the last time this was before the Planning Commission, Larry Wood had felt it would be better to wait until Farmington had developed a Master Street Plan. Mr. Blew stated that was to be accomplished by the Farmington City Council. Mr. Blew said that he was not present in behalf of the City of Farmington other than if there was some comment on the Water District, water lines or the wording of the proposal. He said the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission is working with the City of Farmington in developing subdivision regulations, master street plan and zoning. He stated that what they had accomplished so far was unknown to him. Mort Gitelman moved to recommend to the Board of Directors amending Fayetteville's territorial jurisdiction to give this portion of land to the City of Farmington, and futher recommend that the City of Fayetteville Board of Directors make its ordinance effective when the City Board assertains through the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission that all of the ordinances in Farmington are in effect, and the City of Farmington is ready to take over regulation of this area. Peg Anderson seconded Mort Gitelman's motion and it was passed unanimously (8-0). 'l J • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 12 Upon a motion by Elizabeth Crocker and a SIDE SETBACKS second by Windell Cullers, the request from the BUILDING HEIGHT Board of Adjustment that a study be made of the TOWNHOUSES increased setbacks because of building height and side setbacks for townhouses in zones permitting townhouses, (Item 12), was tabled until the next Planning Commission Meeting, June 23, 1980 (8-0). Ernest Jacks stated that there was one item OTHER BUSINESS under other business. He stated that Larry Wood had said that the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission has realized that there is some Federal 701 money available to help with the planning of the Planning Area. Mr. Wood would like a letter of support from the Fayetteville Planning Commission to approve the grant application for this money. Mort Gitelman moved to resolve to let the Chairman write a letter of support. Hailey seconded, the motion was unanimous (8-0). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M. FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS P. 0. DRAWER F June 13, 1980 72701 (501 ) 521 7700 Ken Riley NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Box 745 Springdale, AR 72764 Dear Mr. Riley: By a recent vote, the Fayetteville City Planning Commission is on record as supporting the application of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission to the Arkansas Department of Local Services for funding assistance in developing the necessary planning for growth within the County's portion of the City's Planning Area. Considerable development within the Planning Area has been underway for some time and it has been obvious that County regulation is not adequate to provide the necessary control of that growth. A joint City -County Committee has studied the problem for some months and has now reached the point when professional planning for the required legal documentation is necessary. We of the Planning Commission, believe the problem to be critical, and would look forward to your favorable view of the application. EJ:cs Sincerely, NING COMMISSION ?J