Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, June 23, 1980, at 5:00 P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Martin Redfern, Don Hunnicutt, Keith Newhouse. MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Crocker, Peg Anderson, Newton Hailey, Larry Wood, Windell Cullers. OTHERS PRESENT: Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Ross Fefercorn, Thomas Prokasky, A. D. Woodward, Glenn Woodward, David Stewart, Harry Gray, Wade Bishop, Ralph Freeman, Lamar Pettus, Richard Boyle, Jim Alexander, Phil Taylor, Margaret Wills, Jim Lindsey, Buddy Warford, Art Mueller, Jeannie Hill, George Faucette, Jr., Buel Curtis and Mel Milholland, along with other members of the press and audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:07 P.M. Newhouse stated that he would like the MINUTES minutes of the June 9, 1980, Planning Commission Meeting revised to show the vote on the Oakland Meadows Concept Plat. With that addition, the minutes were approved as mailed. The next item for consideration was the approval of the Concept Plat of Brophy Circle Townhouses, a Planned Unit Development to be located North of Township Road, West of BROPHY CIRCLE TOWNHOUSES A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FEFERCORN - PROKASKY Brophy, and East of North College Avenue; Ralph Brophy - Owner, Ross Fefercorn and Thomas Prokasky, Developers. Thomas Prokasky and Ross Fefercorn were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Subdivision Committee's comments on this Concept Plat. Keith Newhouse, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, moved that the Concept Plat be approved with: 1. The setbacks in both the Northeast and Southwest corners to be reduced from 150 ft. to 25 ft., because of the nature of the land adjoining, the Committee felt that reducing the setbacks would not effect the property adjacent adversely. 2. The drives within the Concept will be considered private drives. 3. Waive the street light and sidewalk requirements, on streets within the Development because the Developers had planned to have lighting on each unit, which the Committee felt would be sufficient. Don Hunnicutt seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve the Concept Plat for Brophy Circle Townhouses with the above mentioned contingencies. Minutes of a Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 111110 Page 2 •. • The Chairman opened the floor for discussion. Bobbie Jones stated that this was a Public Hearing as the PUD site was less than five acres. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who was appearing in favor of the Concept Thomas Prokasky and Ross Fefercorn were present in favor of the proposal, but did not choose to speak at this time. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who was appearing in opposition to the request. There was no one present in opposition. Mort Gitelman asked why the entrance to the Southern section was off of Township and not off of Brophy Circle. Tom Prokasky stated that the anticipated development would be in four phases. He stated. that Phase I would be self contained, and that it has an eighty foot outside diameter loop, and could be sold as condominiums as a self contained project. He said when Phase II is completed, it will be written into the covenants that the two phases will meld. He said that if Phases II, III,F, IV should never be built, Phase I could stand alone. Gitelman asked if it was impossible to make a common entrance between Phase I and II, off of Brophy Circle instead of Township. Mr. Prokasky replied that there was a considerable slope, and that when the road was cut, it was cut from the top and filled to the bottom and that the elevations were awfully rugged. He stated that there was an easement and a gulley and also sewer coming down between Phases I and II, and, also, a drop basin. Mort Gitelman asked if the drive off of Township would be used for any phases other than Phase I. Prokasky stated that potentially, Phase II could get out that drive also. Jacks said that all phases could use the Township Drive. Mr. Prokasky stated that the way the internal drives would be developed, other phases would have more convenient access than Township Road. Gitelman stated that he was bothered that there was only 200 ft. separation between Brophy Circle and the Township entrance, and it is on a pretty steep hill. Jacks asked why the developers were requesting the waiver in setback requirements from R-1 from 150 ft. to 25 ft. Newhouse stated that there was considerable vegetation to buffer the two different uses, and that there would be a considerable difference in elevation. Newhouse said that even with the difficult terrain, the Developers were planning 56% open space (green space) in the PUD. Mr. Jacks said he thought the purpose of the PUD was to draw multi -family dwellings to the interior of the development. Mr. Prokasky stated that in some cases the site was less than 150 ft. deep. The Commission voted at this time and the Concept Plat for Brophy Circle Townhouses was approved (5-0). The next item of business was the Large LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT Scale Development Plan for The Parts THE PARTS STORE Store to be located at 1513 West 6th Street, 1513 WEST SIXTH STREET South of Hwy. 62, East of Arbuckle Lane and West of Razorback Road; A. D. Woodward, Developer. A. D. Woodward, Glenn Woodward and David Stewart were present to represent. Keith Newhouse moved that the Large Scale Development for The Parts Store be approved with the following stipulations: 1. If the lot split has not been processed on this tract, the Subdivision Committee recommends its approval. Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 • Page 3 • • 2. If the Highway Department installs asphalt sidewalks, that the concrete sidewalk requirements be waived, otherwise, if no asphalt sidewalks are being installed, a concrete sidewalk will be installed by this Developer. 3. Waive improvement of Arbuckle Lane. Don Hunnicutt seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve the LSD. The motion passed (5-0). The next item for consideration was a PETITION R80-11 Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition NEW TESTAMENT CHAPEL R80-11, New Testament Chapel, to rezone property located South of Appleby Road and West of Hwy. 71 North (605 Appleby Road), from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-2,Medium Density Residential District. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers was present to represent. The Chairman stated that Larry Wood's Planning Report had a recommendation to approve the rezoning,; as the request was consistent with the zoning of the surrounding property, water and sewer are available, and the R-2 could serve as a buffer between the commercial development expected to the East along the Highway. Harry Gray addressed the Commission. He stated the lot in question is a small tract of land on Appleby Road which is presently zoned A-1. He stated that the lot is a portion of this tract. He said the surrounding zoning is R-2 and C-2 with the exception that directly across the street, the property is zoned R-0. Wade Bishop addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not speaking in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that Appleby Road had been developed with the cooperation of property owners and the City of Fayetteville. He said the road was brought to full City Standards when the property around the road was developed. Mr. Bishop stated that he had developed the property on the North side of the road and had improved the road to City Standards by installing curb and gutter, drainage and widening the pavement 1-1/2 ft. Mr. Bishop stated that he would like to ask if the Gentleman planning to develop this tract of land is planning on improving Appleby Road, on his side to City Specifications. Harry Gray stated that he could not answer that question for the developer. Jacks stated that Ordinance 2321 states that when development takes place along an unpaved street, the Developer, at his expense, shall install curbs, gutter and sidewalks, and shall provide any additional street width, and right-of-way where needed. Bobbie Jones stated that according to the City Attorney, the Subdivision Regulations in regard to street requirements prevail because it is a "specific" code. She said her Office has not applied Ord. 2321 to the insuance of a building permit. Ralph Freeman, the prospective developer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jacks asked him if there would be a problem with bringing his side of the street up to City Standards. Mr. Freeman stated that financially it would be impossible, that he would probably have to scrap his plans for the development if that would be required. Mr. Jacks said there was a problem in forcing Mr. Freeman to perform off-site improvements as this was not a Subdivision, and lacked the acreage to be considered a Large Scale Development. Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 • Page 4 Mort Gitelman asked what the Street needed. Bobbie Jones stated that the street needs curb and gutter, storm drainage and widening of 15 ft. from the centerline to make it a total of 30 ft. wide. Mort Gitleman said that was not part of the rezoning request, but felt that under the ordinance, the Developer could be denied a building permit, until such time as the Developer agreed to improve Appleby Road. Mort Gitelman moved to recommend to the City Board of Directors to approve the Rezoning Petition R80-11. Keith Newhouse seconded. The motion passed (5-0). Mr. Bishop asked where he could further pursue improvement of Appleby Rd. The Chairman directed him to the City Attorney. The next item on the Agenda was the Public PETITION R80-12 Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-12, Bob Lee, PEOPLE'S CHURCH Homer Whitely, Gordon Jordon, Mike Gleason, 690 WHILLOCK 8 Ronnie Arnold, Trustees of the People's Church, to rezone property located North of Whillock Street and East of Hwy. 71 South (690 Whillock) from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. Attorney Lamar Pettus was present to represent. The Chairman stated that he had written comments concerning the Church from Larry Poage of the Fayetteville Fire Department: Mr. Poage had stated in his comments that the structure is sound and has a good floor plan in relation to fire exits. Bobbie Jones stated that the Church site was being considered as an EOA Child Care Center. The Chairman stated that he had discussed this item with Larry Wood, the Planning Consultant. Mr. Wood did not recommend the P-1 District, for the following reasons: 1. The P-1 District is not consistent with the recommended land use pattern adopted in the General Plan. 2. The P-1 District allows a number of uses which are not necessarily compatible with a residential neighborhood. 3. If the P-1 District should go to a residential use, it could be developed as high-density residential. 4. Both the Church and Child Care Center are conditional uses in a residential district. Mr. Jacks said Mr. Wood had told him he would recommend rezoning Medium Density Residential. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present Lamar Pettus addressed the Commission in favor the property is presently zoned R-1. If the property would be leased to EOA for five years, to be used as said that as the new owner of the property, he would with the City, that the Church would be used only as a Church facility or a Child Care Center, and at whatever time the Church or Child Care Center Facility was no longer needed, the building would revert back to whatever it is zoned now. Mr. Pettus said Larry Wood had also recommended having a larger water line installed. to R-2, in favor of the petition. of the petition. He stated that is purchased and rezoned, it a Child Care Center. Mr. Pettus enter into restrictive covenants Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 5 Pettus said that he would make the improvement and impose upon himself, as owner, any restrictions the City might deem necessary to get the Child Care Center into the existing Church. Richard Boyle, the Washington County Head Start Director for EOA, addressed the Commission. He stated that EOA had been searching for a Child Care Center for Head Start since last September. He said that there were many restrictions on a building to be used as a Child Care Center. He stated that the People's Church was the only alternative available to Head Start at the present time. He stated that he had tried to survey the neighborhood and get their opinions on the Child Care Center and that so far they had been favorable He said Head Start was in desperate need of a location to move two existing classrooms of children from the Veterans Administration Hospital Building. He said that it may be that if the People's Church site is not approved, that portion of EOA might be forced to go out of business. Mr. Boyle stated that in R-1 zoning, the limitation on a Child Care facility was 10 children. He stated that if the Church is utilized as a Child Care Center, that 35 children would be taken care of each day The Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the Petition. Jim Alexander, 533 Whillock, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not really opposed to the Child Care Center being placed in the Church. He said that he did have a problem with the street being substandard. He said the street runs from 18-21 ft. in width, that in the winter it was hard to travel on the road as people park in the street. He said there was also a hedge adjacent to the Church which makes vision of oncoming traffic almost impossible. He felt that the traffic situation might be dangerous to the children that might be using the Center. Phil Taylor, 598 Whillock, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not in opposition to the Child Care Center, but would also like to voice his concern over the traffic problems on Whillock, and that he felt that it might be dangerous for the children who must walk down Whillock every day to catch the school bus which stops on Highway 71. Margaret Wills, 699 Whillock, addressed the Commission. She stated that she lives directly across from the Church. She also felt that with the road conditions that traffic would not be safe for little children. She said that Whillock was not paved, and that in the summertime it was dusty. She felt that the additional traffic brought into the neighborhood from the Child Care Center would cause additional dust. Ernest Jacks asked if there were currently any plans to pave Whillock. Bobbie Jones stated that the paving of Whillock was in the 1980, Community Development Budget, but that that type of construction was running about 2 years behind schedule. Lamar Pettus acknowledged the sorry shape Whillock Street is in, and said he would cooperate with the neighbors as best he could to accomodate them. Don Hunnicutt asked if the hedge that was obscuring vision of traffic was on the Church's property. Mr. Alexander stated that it was not. Lamar Pettus stated that there would be a driveway all around the Church. Mr. Boyle stated that the traffic flow would come into the Church's parking area next to the hedge and leave at another point which would have better visibility. He stated that people dropping off their children would not all come at the same time, that the traffic would be staggered. Mr. Alexander said that traffic coming in and out all day would make matters worse, than if the area was • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 6 congested only at certain times of day. Mr. Boyle said that there would be no drop offs on the street, that they would be off street and that all parking would be off street. Mr. Alexander asked what the EOA would do when there was snow and ice. Mr. Boyle stated that if the road conditions were extremely bad, the children would be picked up in EOA vehicles with snow studded tires, and that if conditions were dangerous, the Center would be closed down. Mr. Boyle said that primarily, the children would be transported by their parents. Mr. Boyle said one family may bring several children. Mr. Alexander stated that would mean about 70 extra cars per day on a dirt road. Mr. Alexander asked if he could get a committment from the City to oil the road and cut the hedge down. Mr. McWethy stated that he could probably arrange for the oil to be spread on the street if someone would supply the oil. McWethy asked Mr. Pettus if he would pay that expense. Mr. Pettus stated that he would share the expense, but did not want to bear the expense of oiling the whole street. Mort Gitelman asked why the petition was for P-1 and not for R-2. Bobbie Jones stated that if the lot was zoned P-1, that the Head Start people would not have to reapply for a Conditional Use. Mort Gitelman asked Lamar Pettus what:hisobjection was to an R-2 Zoning. Mr. Pettus replied that in order to get an R-2 Zoning, a Conditional Use would also be required, and the EOA would have to wait an additional 30 days, and that they were working within a very tight time limitation, as the EOA had a time limit on how much longer they could hold classes in the VeteransAdministration Building. Mr. Boyle said they must be out of the V.A. Building August 1, 1980. Keith Newhouse made a motion to table the Rezoning Petition to give the interested parties time to get together and work on some type of arrangement, that would give everyone mutual satisfaction. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion failed to pass with Redfern, Jacks, Hunnicutt and Newhouse voting "Aye" and Mort Gitelman voting "Nay" (4-1). Mort Gitelman moved to approve the Petition for Rezoning with Mr. Pettus' covenants to be offered to the Board of Directors. It died for lack of a second. Mr. Newhouse again moved to table Rezoning Petition R80-12 until the July 14, Planning Commission Meeting and the motion passed (5-0). The next item for consideration was the PETITION R80-9 Rezoning Petition R80-9, Harold L. Cornish HAROLD L. CORNISH to rezone property located East of Crossover Road (Hwy. 265) and West of Hillside Terrace from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-0. Residential Office District and R-2 Medium Density Residential District. The Planning Commission recommended it to the Board of Directors for approval at the May 27, 1980 meeting. The Board of Directors referred this back to the Commission for their advice on zoning a 150 ft. strip along Hillside Terrace R-1, Low Density Residential District, so that Mr. Cornish can better evaluate his request. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Mr. McWethy stated that the petition had gone to the Board of Directors with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. He said that between the time the Planning Commission heard the petition and the time the petition was to go before the Board of Directors, a proposal was made to rezone the Eastern 150 ft. of this property South of the utility line to R-1, so that the people who had built single family homes in this area would have a compatible use across the street from their homes, the R-2 and R-0 would be further down the road and the 150 ft. of R-1. • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 7 would act as a buffer. McWethy stated that the feeling at the Board Meeting seemed to be agreeable with this arrangement, but the Board of Directors wanted the Planning Commission to make the final recommendation. Chairman Jacks asked if the Rezoning Petition was being changed to R-1, R-2, and R-0. Mr. McWethy stated that was correct. Mr. Jacks said he had talked to Larry Wood and Mr. Wood had told Mr. Jacks he thought the R-1 was a good idea. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He stated that he felt this was the best solution to the rezoning. He said that he had informed Mr. Cornish that in having the 150 ft. strip of R-1 along the road, he would be looking at a substantial off-site improvement requirement, as the street had never been completed. Mr. Lindsey stated that he had advised Mr. Cornish to divide the remaining 2.52 acres into no more than 3 Lots, and perhaps only 2 Lots. Mr. Lindsey said that he would like to know the Commission's feelings on what Mr. Cornish would have to do as far as rational nexus. He said that he had spoken with some of the neighbors and they had seemed agreeable in helping contribute to the improvement of the road Lindsey said that Mr. Cornish did not wish to bear the whole cost of improvement of the road but was willing to participate, assuming everyone else would be willing to do so. - Paul Poe, 4200 Hillside Terrace, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was in opposition to the petition when it came before the Commission May 27. He said he felt this was a much more desireable situation and would not be opposed to this arrangement. Bill Rollins, 4024 Hillside Terrace, stated that he felt as Mr. Poe did, that this was a better arrangement. Bobbie Jones stated that if she understood the proposal correctly, the Developers would have to submit a Subdivision Plat to subdivide this property. She did not feel that the property could be subdivided and developed without a Subdivision Plat. She stated that one split had been made on the property already and did not feel that after that split, the property would meet the minimum 5 acre requirement for a lot split without a formal subdivision. Mort Gitelman stated that he did not feel the Developer should have to improve the road. He said he could not see having the Developer pave Hillside and bear the cost himself when there are already existing houses along the street. Mr. Lindsey stated that he would be willing to covenant that this tract could not be divided into more than three tracts without upgrading the street. The Chairman stated that he agreed with Gitelman in that the Developer should not have to bear the cost of all the off-site improvements. Redfern asked Bobbie Jones if she wanted a subdivision plat for the whole triangular piece of property. Bobbie stated that the Developers might be able to perform one more division on the property before they would actually be required to submit a Subdivision Plat. Lindsey stated that this would probably be platted. Redfern stated that he thought this was a fair way to handle this problem, as the neighbors who were opposed to the petition when it came before the Commission on May 27 would now have a buffer between the R-2 and R-0 and their R-1 neighborhood. Keith Newhouse moved that the Amendment to the Rezoning Petition be accepted and recommended to the Board of Directors for approval with the acceptance of a Bill of Assurance that the R-1 parcel would be split up into no more than 3 Lots, with only a fair share of off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace being contributed by the Developer. Martin Redfern seconded Keith Newhouse's recommendation for approval and the motion passed (5-0). • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 8 The next item of business was CONDITIONAL USE a Conditional Use Request submitted by FIRST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD First Pentecostal Church of God to construct 1351 SOUTH MORNINGSIDE DRIVE a Church at 1351 S. Morningside Drive, Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Buel Curtis, Pastor, George Faucette, Jr., and Mel Milholland were present to represent. Chairman Jacks inquired whether the adjoining property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones replied that agendas had been mailed out; however, four were returned as undeliverable. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the Conditional Use request Martin Redfern seconded. It was approved (5-0). Keith Newhouse, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, stated the Committee had the following recommendations on waivers requested by the Church: 1. The 50 ft. setback from property adjoining on North and South sides of the lot be reduced to 33.6 ft. 2. Waive the requirement for a view obscuring fence or vegetation. 3. Request to reduce number of parking spaces must be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. • 4. Deny request to waive requirement that entrance drive be 12-1/2 ft. from adjoining property, but waive the 20 ft. requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. • 5. The Church will comply with City Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell's recommendations on installing monolithic sidewalk, curb and gutter on Morningside Drive and will work with Mr. Powell on the storm drainage and drop inlet. Ernest Jacks said he was concerned about waiving the screening. Don Hunnicutt said he would be more in favor of requiring the screening if the abutting property were R-1. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan with the above mentioned contingencies, Mort Gitelman seconded, and the motion passed (5-0). The next item for consideration was a CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Conditional Use Request for a tandem lot North of TANDEM LOT the 1800 Block of Zion Road submitted by Joe 1800 BLOCK OF ZION ROAD Fred Starr, Sr., property zoned A-1 Agricultural District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Rick Cowdrey had submitted a letter for Joe Fred Starr requesting the Commission to table this item. On a motion by Mort Gitelman and a second by Martin Redfern, item 8 was tabled (5-0). Art Mueller, a neighboring property owner, requested some clarification from the Commission. He stated that there was an existing 20 ft easement going into the tandem lot property. Bobbie Jones stated that the easement was on file and had been granted by a previous property owner. She stated that it was her understanding vJ Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 9 that this easement was the property of the present owner. Mr. Mueller stated that he understood this to be an access easement, it is only 20 ft. wide, and that the property was not in fact land locked. He said the easement is not for utilities. Mr. Mueller asked the Commission if it was not correct, that a tandem lot was required to have at least a 25 ft. access easement. After some discussion, the Commission agreed that was correct, the lot needed a 25 ft. easement. The nineth item of business was a Development Plan submitted by Lindsey & Sexton for property abutting a controlled access highway. Property located at 4032 North College Avenue is the site of the former Ozark Window Company. Lindsey $ Sexton The Chairman stated that he had received He said he had a favorable recommendation from DEVELOPMENT PLAN LINDSEY $ SEXTON 4032 NORTH COLLEGE were present to represent. written comments on this item. Clayton Powell City Street Superin- The Highway Department also favored Mr. Lindsey's proposal to control access to one way in and one way out. Mr. Jacks said Larry Wood, Regional Planner had also given him a favorable Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He stated that the property in question had not been platted with the property adjoining it on three sides (Bassett Place). He stated that the property had legal access. He said that the tract was small and could not accomodate a business that would need substantial parking. Mr. Lindsey said that he owned two adjacent lots. Lindsey said that he would close one access driveway off of Highway_71 and have one entrance from Highway 71 to the property designed in such a way that it would not encourage both entrance and exit. The exit would then be out another part of the lot to Frontage Road. He stated that the lots were separate and that he would grant an easement to the Ozark Windows lot so that it would have access to Frontage Road. The Chairman stated that he had a problem with this proposal in that, if the property was subdivided again, the development would only have access to the by-pass (sic). He felt that the reason for the By-pass was not to have access and that alot of access on and off the By-pass was unsafe. He stated that he would like to see a cul-de-sac coming off Frontage Road into the property, and use Stearnes Road for access to the By-pass Mr. Lindsey said the Frontage Road was on the lot in the rear and the land is trapped between two existing owners up against the By-pass. He stated that the lot has legal access at this time. Mr. Lindsey said when the By-pass came through, access was condemned on a lot of these pieces of land. Mort Gitelman stated that most of the parcels along the controlled access Highway were larger tracts of land, Bobbie Jones said that she was aware of some division of properties that had not come through the Planning Commission and had never been approved. Mort Gitelman stated that this piece of property existed before there was Jacks said he felt that the best solution would be to have all access off of the Frontage Road. That would be the safest situation, and would also comply with the By-pass Ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 10 Mr. Lindsey stated that development of this particular tract would not be feasible if the access was off the Frontage Road only. He said that it would be better to have access off the Frontage Road, but that he felt this one way entrance would be the most reasonable alternative. Jacks said that from the comments he had received, that Mr. Lindsey's plan seemed to be the best alternative. Redfern stated that there were three considerations: 1. An easement for the Lot on Highway 71 through the back lot. 2. One of the driveways off of the By-pass would be closed. 3. Property lines would be adjusted. Bobbie Jones stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows a 25 ft. setback from street right-of-way with planting and no parking between the building and the street. They may use this rather than the 35 ft. setback the Board of Adjustment granted without any requirements of screening. Keith Newhouse stated that he would make a motion to approve Mr. Lindsey's concept, with the condition that the Developer would do everything possible to eliminate two-way traffic (exiting) from the site onto Highway 71. Mort Gitelman seconded Newhouse's motion with the condition that only entry would be allowed off of Highway 71. The motion passed (5-0). Next on the Agenda, was a request WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT submitted by Joe Fred Starr for a waiver PUBLIC.STREET FRONTAGE of the requirement that a lot have frontage JOE FRED STARR on an improved, public street. The property in question lies West of Country Club Road and Northwest of West 27th Court. A single family residence is proposed. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. The Chairman asked what Clayton Powell, The City Street Superintendent had advised in his written comments. Bobbie Jones stated that Clayton Powell was not in favor of the proposal. Jim Lindsey stated that Gary Carnahan, of his office, had studied the problem and that he would address Gary's comments to the Commission. Lindsey stated that Mr. Starr presently owns Lot 149, which is platted in Country Club Estates, and that he could get a building permit on that lot. Mr. Starr wishes to build a single family residence on 5 lots, only one of which has been officially recorded. Lindsey stated that Mr. Starr would like to use the platted lot, which has access to an improved public street for access to the single family residence. Mr. Starr is agreeable to replatting the whole tract as one lot if it is the wish of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Starr would cul-de-sac the road stub if the Planning Commission required him to do so. Mort Gitelman asked if what Mr. Starr was proposing was to erase the property line on Lot 149 and consider the whole tract as one lot. Mr. Lindsey stated that was correct. (145, 146, 147, 148 & 149) Mr. Lindsey stated that it was his understanding that there was improved, public street 3/4 of the way along the South side of Lot 149, and that Lot 149 was paved on the East side also. Jeannie Hill spoke for Jerry Sweetser, a property owner in the neighborhood. She stated that if Mr. Starr's request was granted, West 27th Court would never be built, Planning Commission Meeting • June 23, 1980 Page 11 and Mr. Sweetser would not have access to his property to the West $ Northwest of this site. Ernest Jacks said he thought the Commission should redefine Lot 149 and leave the street as is. Mort Gitelman stated if the Commission granted Mr. Starr's request, the street would never be built. He said that the Commission needed to find out if West 27th Court has been dedicated as a Public Street or not. Bobbie Jones said she had regarded it as dedicated but not accepted for maintenance by the City because it was never improved. Mort Gitelman moved that this item be tabled pending an opinion from the City Attorney, Jim McCord. Keith Newhouse seconded Mr. Gitelman's motion to table, and the motion was unanimous (5-0). Bobbie Jones was instructed to notify Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sweetser, Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Starr when the matter is back on the agenda. The next item for consideration PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT was a request for approval to adjust property line SHERWOOD FOREST ESTATES boundary submitted by Doug Douglas for property DOUG DOUGLAS lying East of Lovers Lane -Canterbury Road and South of Starr Drive. This would necessitate a change in what was to be Phase II of Sherwood Forest Estates should that property ever be subdivided. Doug Douglas and Jim Lindsey were present to represent. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission for Doug Douglas He stated that Mr. Douglas had bought this property, and that it had never been properly filed or platted. He stated that as the property lay at this time, part of Mr. Douglas' driveway was outside his property line. Mr. Lindsey stated that the adjustment would amount to approximately 6/10 of an acre, and hoped to simply adjust the boundary line. Mr. Lindsey said that so far only a preliminary plat had been filed and the property line adjustment would show up in the final plat when the property was ready to be developed. Bobbie Jones stated that the Ordinance reads that a lot split is not required to adjust a property line when no new lot is created. Mort Gitelman moved that the Planning Administrator, Bobbie Jones, be instructed to treat this request as a boundary line adjustment. Don Hunnicutt seconded The motion passed (5-0). The twelfth item of business was an REQUEST TO VARY DRIVEWAY application submitted by Boyd David Cox SETBACK REQUIREMENTS for a variance from the minimum distance 2620 KANTZ DRIVE required between a curb (driveway) and interior side property line for property at 2620 Kantz Drive. Boyd David Cox was present to represent. Mr. Cox stated that he had two points he would like to address to the Commission: 1. The area on the East of the lot runs in front of some townhouses and was meant to serve as an open, green space, which the Developer hoped to keep as large • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 12 as possible. This area will be between an existing unit, and one which will be constructed at a later date. 2. The parking area has been moved to the West side of the development. He stated the drive to the parking area is close to the property line, and in order to comply with the 12.5 ft. setback, the driveway would have to be bent. He felt that by bending the driveway to comply, it might create an unsafe drive. The Chairman asked if the drive could be moved. Mr. Cox stated that the development was restricted by a 50 ft. building setback on the North side of the property. Mr. Cox said that the property immediately adjoining on the West is undeveloped; but the lot West of that was developed with apartments, and that their drive was setback 15 ft. from the property line. Don Hunnicutt asked what the building setback was on the East side of the property. Mr. Cox replied that the building is 29 ft. from the East property line. Jacks felt that the ordinance should be complied with; but, he felt that the green space in the front of the development was worth while. Redfern asked if the driveway would come up the West boundary line. Mr. Cox replied that it would if the variance was granted. The Chairman asked if the property abuts R-2. Mr. Cox stated that it abuts R-1 on the North and R-2 on the East and West. Mr. Lindsey explained that through an error, East Oaks Subdivision had been sold and platted leaving 50 ft. of R-1 between it and this subdivision. This set the R-1 zoning 50 ft. into the R-2 platted lots. Mr. Lindsey stated that the setback had not hindered them in their development, as it created a nice setback area,so they had not corrected it. Keith Newhouse moved to grant the variance. Don Hunnicutt seconded Newhouse's motion to approve. Martin Redfern asked if this meant the drive would be 5 ft. from the adjoining property line. Mr. Cox replied that was correct. Mr. Cox asked if it would be feasible to do the same thing when the building was constructed to the East. The Chairman said that it sounded like a good idea, but that Mr. Cox would have to come back before the Commission on that. The motion passed (5-0). The final item of business was a STUDY OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS request from the Board of Adjustment that a IN TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS study be made of the increased setbacks based on building height and side setbacks for Townhouse Developments in zones permitting townhouses. The Chairman read Bobbie Jonesscomments. Bobbie Jones stated that the normal setback requirement for a side yard was 8 ft., but that side setbacks may be waived to permit common walls between townhouses. The ordinance also states that any building exceeding 20 ft. in height, must be setback from the building line 1 ft. for each foot of height in excess of 10 ft. Therefore, a building having a 21 ft. height would have a setback of 19 ft. from the side property line. The Commission agreed that the setback was required for the purpose of space, air and light. Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1980 Page 13 The Chairman stated that he would not be opposed to reducing the setback where there are no openings or side walls. Mort Gitelman stated that there was a trend toward zero setback, and the Chairman acknowledged this to be true. Bobbie Jones said this would be possible so long as there is a zero setback requirement in a Townhouse type situation. Where there is not a zero setback situation, she felt the ordinance should be revised. Mr. Lindsey said that he had been at the Board of Adjustment Meeting where this had been referred to the Planning Commission. He said he thought the ordinance definitely needed revision, or perhaps a whole new ordinance set up for Townhouses. He had had one case in a townhouse development where the setback jumped from 8 ft., or 16 ft. between buildings, to 40 ft. between buildings. He said there needed to be some sort of flexibility when it came to Townhouses, especially when there is no setback but a common fire wall. The Planning: Commission agreed and Chairman Jacks appointed a committee to study the problem consisting of Martin Redfern as Chairman, Jim Lindsey, and Mrs. Don Mills. Mr. Redfern requested Ernest Jacks serve on the Committee also, and Mr. Jacks agreed to do so. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M. •