Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-14 Minutes• A meeting in the Board of MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., July 14, 1980, Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Chairman Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Crocker, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr., Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, Don Hunnicutt, Peg Anderson, Keith Newhouse. None. Ross Fefercorn, Bob Lee, Lamar Pettus, Chuck Easterling, Larry Wood, Jim Alexander, Margaret Wills, Jim McCord, Jeannie Hill, Rick Bashor, Otto and Marge Zinke, Dave Roach, Kathryn Stout, Debbie Wikstrom, Richard Atkinson, Herb Lewis, Elsie Johnson, Danny Wright, Becky Watkins, Conley Worley, Bill Graue, Michael Sheard, David McWethy, Ervan Wimberley, Mayor John Todd, Directors Colwell and Sharp, and other members of the press and audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. Don Hunnicutt stated that he would MINUTES like the vote count added to the minutes concerning the request to vary setbacks at 2620 Kantz. With that addition, the minutes of the June 23, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. The second item of business, the Replat of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, $ 6, Lewis Estates, was postponed because revised material was not submitted prior to the mailing of the Agenda. The third item of business was the BROPHY CIRCLE TOWNHOUSES approval of the Preliminary Plat of Brophy FEFERCORN-PROKASKY Circle Townhouses, a Planned Unit Development, PUD - PRELIMINARY PLAT to be located North of Township Road, West of Brophy Circle and East of North College Avenue; Ralph Brophy - Owner, Ross Fefercorn and Thomas Prokasky- Developers. Ross Fefercorn was present to represent. Chairman Ernest Jacks asked for the recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, acting Chairman for the Subdivision Committee, stated that the Committee had recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following considerations: 1. The waiver reducing the 150 ft. setback from R-1 will include a waiver of height requirements within the PUD. 2. Sidewalks will be required on the West side of Brophy Circle as platted. 3. The 20 ft. utility easement between Blocks 5C and SD will be requested by the utility companies. dedicated as • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 2 Beth Crocker stated that the Subdivision Committee had not discussed internal street lighting. Ernest Jacks stated that internal street lighting and sidewalks had been waived when the Planning Commission considered this Development at the Concept Plat level. Don Hunnicutt moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Brophy Circle Townhouses PUD with the three aforementioned conditions Beth Crocker seconded. Windell Cullers asked why the setback from R-1 had been reduced so radically. (From 150 ft. to 25 ft.) Beth Crocker stated that the property was steep and setback from Township Road in such a way as to make the setback reduction. reasonable. She stated that it was her understanding, the .R41 property to the Southwest probably would not remain R-1. Windell Cullers stated that he understood the problems with topography. He said that his problem was in the tremendous amount of reduction. He stated that the Planning Commission was giving a reduction of 125 ft. At this time the Commission voted on Don Hunnicutt's motion to approve the preliminary plat for the PUD. The motion passed (9-0). The fourth item on the Agenda was the REZONING PETITION R80-12 Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-12, PEOPLES CHURCH Bob Lee, Homer Whiteley, Gordon Jordan, Mike 690 WHILLOCK STREET Gleason and Ronnie Arnold, Trustees of the Peoples 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. (Tabled at June 23, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting.) Bob Lee, Trustee of the Peoples Church was present to represent. Chairman Ernest Jacks stated that the original request had been to rezone the property from R-1 to P-1. He stated the Trustees of the Proples Church had submitted a letter requesting that the rezoning petition be amended to rezone to R-2. Mort Gitelman moved that this item be removed from the table, and that the rezoning petition be amended to request the zoning be changed from R-1 to R-2. Martin Redfern seconded Gitelman's motion and it passed (9-0). Attorney Lamar Pettus addressed the Commission. He stated that he had come before the Planning Commission June 23, and at that time had been interested in having the property rezoned. He stated that since that time he has decided not to purchase this property, and that he no longer has any interest in the rezoning petition. Bob Lee, Box 92, Greenland, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Peoples Church had built a new Church on Highway 265. He said that the old Church is for sale. He stated that the Church needed to sell this property, and that a buyer was interested if the property could be rezoned to R-2. Keith Newhouse asked for Larry Wood's recommendation. Larry Wood "stated that R-2 was compatible with the General Plan for the area. However, he did have a hesitation in that the area is served by a two inch water line which is not capable of carrying fire protection, and that a six inch water line would be required. He stated with the Church existing on the property he did not believe a development plan could be submitted, only a reuse of the existing building. Ernest Jacks asked if the condition of Whillock Street has anything to do with Mr. Wood's recommendation. Larry Wood said that the narrow gravel road was indeed a problem. Ernest Jacks stated he had some concern that the persons living on Whillock Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 411 Page 3 had no notification that a Multi -Family zoning was being considered. Jim Alexander, 533 Whillock addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission to explain what R-2 Zoning means. Ernest Jacks stated that R-2 means Multi -Family Residential, which allows 4 to 24 families per acre Chuck Easterling addressed the Commission. He stated that he and his father were the prospective buyers of the Church. He stated that if the property was zoned R-2, they planned to turn the Church into a tri-plex. He stated that they had no plans to expand the structure, or to build any additional apartments on the property. Jim Alexander stated that if the property was zoned R-2, someone else could come in and build apartments. He said he would like to keep the area single family residential. He was afraid that if the Church property was zoned R-2, that other properties along Whillock that have yet to be developed would also be developed with apartments. Bobbie Jones stated that with R-2 zoning, the owner could build up to ten two-bedroom units on this site. Alexander asked what the Church could be used for if the zoning remained R-1. Jacks replied it could be used for a single family residence. Margaret Wills, 699 Whillock addressed the Commission. She stated that she would like the property to remain R-1. She stated that she had lived at this address for 15 years. She felt that if apartments were put in the Church site that it would down grade the neighborhood. She said that she had measured the road and that it was only 16-1/2 ft. wide, and would like to see the road improved before any further development of the neighborhood occurred. Keith Newhouse moved that Petition R80-12, to rezone the property at 690 Whillock be denied as the size of the water line is insufficient for R-2, and the road needs to be improved before any further development of the area occurs. Windell Cullers seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to deny. The motion to deny passed (7-2) with Jacks, Crocker, Hailey, Cullers, Hunnicutt, Anderson and Newhouse voting "Aye", and Redfern and Gitelman voting "Nay". Ernest Jacks stated that the Petitioners could appeal the Commission's decision to the Board of Directors. The next item of business was the request submitted by Joe Fred Starr for a waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on an improved public street. The property lies West of Country Club Road and Northwest of the street stub of West 27th Court. A single family residence is proposed. (Tabled at June 23, 1980 meeting for an opinion from the City Attorney.) A report is to be given, based on the City Attorney's opinion, from the Planning Office. Jim McCord, City Attorney, addressed the Commission. He stated that the question posed to him had been whether the unpaved portion of West 27th Court is, in fact, a dedicated street. In citing cases of law, McCord had concluded that it is a dedicated street. He stated that the City could accept this street at any time, and that the abutting property owners do not have the right to obstruct it, it is open to the public. He said he had been asked whether preceeding issuance of a building permit, for the construction of one single family residence, Mr. Starr could be required to COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED PUBLIC STREET - JOE FRED STARR (19 • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 4 improve the unpaved portion of West 27th Court that abuts his property. Mr. McCord stated that it was clear to him that Mr. Starr could not be so required. He stated this was not a Large Scale Development, and the ordinance specifically exempts single family residences from Large Scale Development requirements. McCord said he had rendered an opinion to the City Manager that Mr. Starr should be issued a building permit. McCord stated that it was his opinion that Mr. Starr should not have had to come before the Planning Commission. He stated that Mr. Starr was requesting the waiver of the requirement that a lot have street frontage. He said the property that Mr. Starr owns has frontage on two paved streets, West 27th Court and/or Country Club Drive. He stated that action by the Planning Commission was not necessary and that Mr. Starr should be issued a building permit. McCord stated that Mr. Starr, of his own volition, had signed a bill of assurance providing that he will never subdivide any of this property, until such time as West 27th Court is improved. Beth Crocker stated that there was a cul-de-sac into the property and asked if that would stay a dedicated street. McCord stated that he had advised Mr. Starr that he should have that vacated, or there would be a 25 ft. setback from that right-of-way. Mr. Starr had indicated to Mr. McCord that would not be a problem, but that at some future date he may ask to have that cul-de-sac vacated. Jeannie Hill, P. 0. Box 454, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was representing Jerry Sweetser, who owns property that is reached by West 27th Court. She asked if there were any plans to improve West 27th Court, she also asked who will have to improve the street. McCord replied that the City could accept a dedication at any time. He said that if Mr. Sweetser wanted to subdivide his property, he could improve the street. Jeannie Hill asked if all easements and right-of-ways would be respected. Ernest Jacks replied that they would. Ernest Jacks suggested moving to the next item since no action was required.by the Planning Commission on this item. The sixth item for consideration CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was the Conditional Use Request submitted by 848 ROCKWOOD TRAIL Rick Bashor to teach swimming lessons at 848 RICK BASHOR Rockwood Trail zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Rick Bashor was present to represent. Mr. Bashor asked Bobbie Jones if she had received proof of publication of a notice in the newspaper concerning Mr. Bashor's request for Conditional Use in R-1. Ms. Jones replied that she had. Mr. Bashor also had a letter signed by two adjoining property owners whose homes front on Rockwood Trail stating that traffic created by the swimming lessons did not adversely affect the neighborhood. Ernest Jacks stated that the Commission had received a letter from a Mr. Williams. Mr. Bashor replied that Mr. Williams property was on the back side of his home, and not facing Rockwood Trail. Ernest Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if she was aware of any protests to the swimming lessons. Ms. Jones said yes, she had received a complaint before the Conditional Use had been applied for. She stated the complaint had been by phone. Otto Zinke, 817 N. Jackson, addressed the Commission.. He stated that his property abuts the Bashor's and that he must travel Rockwood Trail. Mr. Zinke read a statement.to the Commission stating that the Bashor's had started giving swimming • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 5 lessons last summer, and that no variance had been requested. He stated this summer the Bashor's had advertised in the newspaper and the neighbors had been made aware that a commercial activity was being conducted at the Bashor's. He further stated that cars have been parked on Rockwood Trail, he said that Vinson Avenue comes into Rockwood Trail right at the Bashor's driveway. He said that Vinson and Rockwood is a blind corner, and that you cannot see from Vinson onto Rockwood Trail, nor can you see traffic on Vinson from Rockwood Trail going up or down the hill. He said that at least twice since he had been living at 817 N. Jackson, cars have come down Rockwood Trail upside down, stopping in the property just uphill from the Bashor's property. He said that this had happened during the summer when there was no rain or any condition to make the road slick. Mr. Zinke said that last summer there had been four or five cars parked on Rockwood Trail, at this dangerous intersection at Vinson and Rockwood Trail. He stated that since the notice of request had been posted, that he had seen no cars parked along Rockwood Trail, that the cars are now being parked on the Bashor's lawn. He stated that last summer the swimming lessons had been given on a daily basis, and that they had caused a considerable amount of noise. He said that he had noticed since the variance was posted that the noise had quieted down. Mr. Zinke said he was in an embarassing position of having to police a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. He said that by having to complain, it was causing a great deal of friction between himself and his neighbors. Zinke stated he would also like to comment on the correspondence. He said that the letter leaves the impression that parking has always been off of Rockwood Trail, he said that was not true. He said the letter leaves the impression that the swimming lessons have always been orderly and quiet, Mr. Zinke stated that, in his opinion, that was not true. He said the letter characterizes the activity as benevolent, Mr. Zinke agreed that the activity is benevolenti: He compared the swimming lessons to the activity that would be associated with a Doctor's practice, which is also benevolent, that it generates about the same amount of traffic, and has a place for parking, and would not be allowed where the Bashor property is located. Zinke stated that Mr. McCord's letter was interesting in that he found no objection to swimming lessons being carried on in someone else's neighborhood, and Mr Zinke said he could not see where that is relevant. Ms. Zinke stated that her husband's opinions reflect her own. Mr. McCord addressed the Commission and Mr. Zinke. He stated that he had spoken with the abutting owner to the West and that property owner had no objection to the swimming lessons. He said there had been times when he, himself, had parked on Rockwood Trail, but that Rick Bashor had asked him to park in the driveway from now on. Phillip Bashor, 848 Rockwood Trail, addressed the Commission. He stated that there had been no lessons taught last summer, but that Rick had conducted swimming lessons the summer before that. He stated that there had been a good deal of people coming and going last summer, which might have confused his neighbors. He said that Rick had conducted swimming lessons only during the summers when he was available to do so. He stated there was a big difference in a physician's use which would be year round, and the giving of swimming lessons by his son during summers when he is available. Dave Roach, 559 North Walnut, addressed the Commission. He stated that his younger sister takes swimming lessons at the Bashor's. He stated that he and his sister walk to the swimming lessons, and that he had not seen a car parked on Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 6 Rockwood Trail in the month that he had been taking her to the lessons. He said he felt the swimming lessons were very benevolent. Redfern asked if Mr. Bashor would have guidelines for his clients, that parking would be in the driveway and not on Rockwood Trail. Mr. Bashor stated that he had sent a letter to the parents of his pupils stated that there had been a complaint about cars parking on Rockwood Trail and that he strongly recommended parking in the driveway and not on the street. He stated there is a double driveway on the property and that it is large enough to accomodate six cars. He stated that he did not allow more than six children in any class He said that there are two classes in the afternoon which are divided by half an hour, and there is no overlap in parents picking up children from one class and parents bringing their children for another. Keith Newhouse asked the hours that the swimming lessons are held. Mr. Bashor replied that classes are held between 1:00 and 5:30. Peg Anderson stated that she approved of home occupations. She stated that she liked to see young people earning their own money. Peg Anderson moved to approve the Conditional Use for a home occupation at 848 Rockwood Trail, with the condition that parking be in the Bashor's driveway or yard, and that the home occupation is approved only for the summer of 1980. Beth Crocker seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve the home occupation. The motion passed (8-1) with Windell Cullers voting "Nay". Peg Anderson asked Jim,McCord to explain on what basis a home occupation could be turned down. McCord stated that each case must be decided on its own individual facts He said that the Conditional Use must be judged on the considerations of excessive traffic, ingress and egress, off street parking, availability of utilities, and general compatibility with surrounding property, and that failure to comply with any of these conditions was sufficient grounds to turn down a home occupation or Conditional Use. Peg Anderson said that in that case the Commission would have to assume that the party requesting the Conditional Use would comply with the regulations imposed by the Commission. Mr. McCord stated that the regulations apply only after the application is granted. He said someone inadvertently violating the regulations is not sufficient basis to deny a Conditional Use permit, because the applicant was not aware that they were in violation to begin with. Bobbie Jones stated that this was the reason the check list for a Conditional Use was prepared, and that there was adequate room on that list for Commission members to note their comments. She stated that her Office will continue to include a check list for a Conditional Use for the Commissioner's use in the agenda. Windell Cullers asked Jim McCord if the Commissioners could find nothing in the check list to deny the Conditional Use, and it's a question of whether the neighbors don't want the Conditional Use in their neighborhood, is there a legal reason to deny the request. McCord replied not if the Commissioners did not feel the Conditional Use would adversely effect the welfare of the neighborhood. He said that the fact that the neighbors do not want it is not a basis for denial. McCord said that the Commission would have to judge each individual case. Bobbie Jones stated that the Conditional Use must have a general compatibility with the neighboring properties. Windell Cullers asked if in that case someone meets all the qualifications, and every neighbor on every side opposes the Conditional Use, that the Commission cannot legally turn the Conditional Use down. Planning Commission Meeting • July 14, 1980 Page 7 • • McCord stated that in his opinion that was correct. The next item for consideration was REZONING PETITION R80-13 the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-13, KATHRYN B. STOUT Kathryn B. Stout, to rezone property located SHEPERD LANE North of Sheperd Lane between the two terminal points of Frontage Road and East of Highway 71 from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Kathryn Stout was present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked for Larry Wood, Planning Consultant's comments. Larry Wood stated that he recommended a C-2 zoning for the property in question. for the following reasons: 1. The request is consistent with the general plan recommendations, for commercial use of this property. 2. The request is consistent with the development pattern that is taking place in the area. 3. The property has the public facilities and utilities necessary to serve it as commercial property. Ernest Jacks asked if the request for rezoning was granted, would property be created that must have access to the by-pass. Larry Wood replied no. He said that Sheperd Lane is open, and that there are streets stubbed to serve this area He stated that the South property is also stubbed up by the Bassett development. Ernest Jacks asked if the person owning property to the West of the property in question cannot subdivide the property in such a manner that he could cut himself off and have to have access to the by-pass. Mr. Wood replied that the same applicant owns the property to the West. Mr. Wood said the property owner could sell that property, that there would be no lot size requirement. Jacks said in that case commercial lots would be created which needed access to the by-pass. Bobbie Jones stated that they could not obtain a building permit without coming before .the Planning Commission and also any division of the property must be approved by the Planning Commission. Jacks asked if the Planning Commission could turn down such a request. Bobbie Jones stated that the ordinance designates the by-pass as a "controlled access highway". Peg Anderson asked if there would not be a frontage road in this area. Jacks said there would be a frontage road in this area. Anderson asked if it would connect these two pieces of property. Jacks replied that it would. Mrs. Stout addressed the Commission. She stated that when the Highway Department "rezoned" what is presently Highway 71, they asked everyone up and down Sheperd Lane, which is an access road and not a City street, if they wanted to dedicate the land and fix the street, and that the Highway Department would put a stop light there. She stated that her husband and herself own most of the land on Sheperd Lane, she stated that the other neighbors on Sheperd Land did not want to contribute to the improvement 60 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 8 of Sheperd Lane. She Stated the City did not want to maintain the road and that it had been kept as an access road only to Sheperd Estates. She stated that she had purchased the property East of her home and had kept it for birds and animals. Ernest Jacks asked if there was anyone present in opposition to the request for rezoning. There was no one present in opposition. Peg Anderson moved to approve the Petition R80-13 to rezone property from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mort Gitelman seconded. Redfern asked why they were rezoning a road to C-2. Ernest Jacks replied that the road will not be dedicated until the property adjacent is developed. Bobbie Jones stated that the property to the West is zoned C-2, and this just extends the depth of C-2 from Highway 71. Peg Anderson's motion to approve passed (9-0). The Commission considered items REZONING PETITION R80-14 eight and nine together as they both VIRGINIA BYROADE concerned rezoning of properties within the historical district. REZONING PETITION R80-15 Both petitions were requesting NORTHWEST SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOC. that R-1 properties be rezoned to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Both properties are interior to the block lying South of Lafayette, West of Washington Avenue, East of North College Avenue, and North of Dickson Street. Debbie Wikstrom was present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked for Larry Wood's comments on these rezonings. Larry Wood recommended C-2 for the properties for three reasons: 1. The rezoning would bring the Eastern boundary of the C-2 in line. He said there was an existing jut -out of C-2 North of both of these applications. 2. The parcel of land is needed for business expansion, which is more related to the business side than the residential side. 3. He did not feel that the C-2 zoning would adversely affect the residential neighborhood East. He said that there would still be 150 ft. depth of residential zoning before reaching Washington Avenue. Ernest Jacks asked if this was not a case going back to when Highway 71 was stripped, that at that time it was zoned commercial at a 200 ft. depth off College Avenue. Mort Gitelman stated that it was done at a 210 ft. line. Jacks said that in one or two cases, something had been done to go beyond that 210 ft. line, he said that he understood that the Commission was being asked to move all the other properties back. Larry Wood stated that the Commission was being asked to move the zoning line to the East, and that zoning on the property to the North had already been moved to the East. Ernest Jacks stated that the Safeway property was the first to move East in the Block between Lafayette and Dickson. He stated that the Planning Commission had turned down this request and the Board of Directors had overruled their decision and • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 9 granted the rezoning. Mort Gitelman stated that was correct and that it had occurred in 1968. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience appearing in favor of this Rezoning. Debbie Wikstrom, P. 0. Box 567, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was representing Safeway, Ms. Byroade, and basically Northwest Savings and Loan. She stated that Safeway's loading dock was presently immediately adjacent to Ms. Byroade's property. She stated that Safeway's plan was to clear out this area if it is rezoned, and have a drive that goes around the loading dock. Ernest Jacks asked if the property designated as belonging to Ralph Coburn was actually Safeway property. Debbie Wikstrom stated that was correct. Keith Newhouse asked if Safeway was planning to take over the Northwest Savings and Loan property. Ms. Wikstrom stated,that, if possible, they would have passage on that property. Newhouse stated that if that was the case, Safeway could build their loading dock further South. Wikstrom stated that was not the present plan but was certainly a possibility. Keith Newhouse stated that the ownership of all the property that could be affected was notshown on the drawing submitted with rezoning petition R80-14. Debbie Wikstrom stated that was correct, that there was one more lot. Dick Atkinson addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning petition. The Chairman stated that he would like to see Mr. Atkinson's map, but at this time the Commission was hearing those in favor of the request. Mr. Atkinson presented a map showing the block located between Lafayette and Dickson Street which included all properties to be considered in both petition R80-14 and R80-15. He stated that his conception of evening out the line was entirely different from that of the Planning Consultant and Debbie Wikstrom. He stated that in the Block facing North College Avenue, there were two exceptions to the depth of the C-2 zoning and the rest of the property in the block was zoned R-1. He stated that if the Commission wanted to even up the line between C-2 and R-1, that the C-2 line should be moved West on those two properties. Atkinson stated that essentially, what was being requested was a sale of land by Mrs. Byroade, to Safeway, and a sale of land by Northwest Savings and Loan to Safeway, in order to, in his understanding, create a "super store". The Chairman asked if there was anyone else in the audience in favor of the rezoning request. There was no one else in favor. Dick Atkinson, 695 Gray, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning request. Carl Russell, of Smith and Russell, Architects, asked what the policy was in the case of property straddling a zoning district. Bobbie Jones stated that where a piece of property, in single ownership, as of the date of the ordinance, was divided by zoning district boundaries,the provisions of the zoning district can extend into the other zoning district on the property for a maximum of 50 ft. The property will not be rezoned, but the use and other provisions of the district can be extended. Dick Atkinson stated that what Safeway and Northwest Savings and Loan Assoc. were asking was to push the zoning back towards Washington Avenue. He stated that he was urging the Commission to deny the petition for rezoning for three reasons: 1. He felt that the granting of the rezoning would have an immediate and serious effect on Washington Avenue. nJ� • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 10 2. He was concerned about the precedent that this granting of rezoning would cause in the future. 3. He felt that denying of the petition would be consistent with the positions the Commission has taken in the past. Dick Atkinson, 'representing=Big Springs Historical District'spoke. Mr. Atkinson stated that he and the persons he was representing were not anti -Safeway. He stated that he felt Safeway could build a store large enough to accomodate its needs without encroaching on the Historical District. He said that Washington Avenue was a beautiful part of town, and had been recognized in the National Register of Historic Places. He stated that if a Federally Funded Institution has recognized this area, then the national interest is involved, that there should be a presumption against the changing of this area unless there was some compelling reason. Atkinson further stated that he would like to get into some detail as to the three reasons for not granting the rezoning. 1. Impact on Washington Avenue. He said that directly behind Safeway's loading dock, where the store intended to expand, is one of the grandest trees in town. He said that if Safeway expanded East the tree would be destroyed. Further, the house adjacent to the Safeway property would be diminished in value. Also, the extending of the C-2 zoning would diminish the esthetic 'value of the neighborhood and also the economic value 2. He stated that he was in agreement with Ernest Jacks in that College Avenue had been lost esthetically by gradual erosion, a piece here and there until it was unsavable. He said that the idea of an Historical District was to stop the encroachment. Denying this petition would set a precedent for the future, and would make it easier to deny such encroachments on the Historical District. 3. By reaffirming and denying this petition, the Commission will be telling the community that the Commission cares about this territory and are determined to protect it, unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary, which, Mr. Atkinson felt, had not been exhibited in this case. He said this block contains five of the most significant houses in the Historic District. Carl Russell addressed the Commission. He stated that he represents the Washington County Historical Society. He said that he concurred with the Historical District's apprehensions about this rezoning, particularly in regards to the establishment of precedent, for future requests for rezoning, along this boundary line. He stated that Safeway and Northwest Savings and Loan were both good neighbors, and that their quarrel was not with them. He said that they both run clean establish- ments. He said their fear lies with establishments that are not so clean. He could see no other form of opposition other than remaining diligent in their opposition to any further encroachments into the Historical District, and towards Headquarters House Herb Lewis, 327 North Washington Avenue, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present to represent the Tidwell sisters, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, and Carolyn Madison, as well as his wife and himself. He stated that they all feel this property should remain single family residential. He further stated that the Commission needed to look down the road. After Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 11 World War II, a gentleman had bought the now vacant lot owned by Northwest Savings and Loan. He had constructed a fine Hotel on the property. Twenty-five years later, the property was sold, or turned over and there is no guarantee that the future property owners will care for the property. Ms. Wikstrom stated that the C-2 zoning is already existing and there is no getting around it. She stated that from Washington Avenue there is no evidence that the C-2 even exists. Mrs. Byroade felt she had less noise from College Avenue due to the Safeway Store being situated as a sort of buffer. She did not feel that the impact on the neighborhood was quite as severe as her opposition had indicated. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing and turned the petition over to the Planning Commission for comments. Mort Gitelman stated that he had the minutes of the March 26, 1968 Planning Commission Meeting. He stated that Ernest Jacks and himself are the only two members remaining on the Planning Commission that were involved in this meeting. Gitelman stated that at that meeting, Safeway had requested rezonong on three lots at the corner of Lafayette and College Avenue, and the extension of the zoning towards Washington Avenue, in one case 53 ft., in another 60 ft. and on the other 15 ft. which resulted in the jog of R-1 and C-2 zoning. He further stated that residents of Washington Avenue and Safeway had been represented. They had argued where the 210 ft. line had come from. He said that Mr. Lieberenz had explained that this was part of the original zoning map Gitelman said that one of the interesting things about that discussion was that Safeway argued that they needed that rezoning so that entrance and exit from the store would be solely from College Avenue. Gitelman stated that from the time of that discussion and the time of actual construction, the lay out of the store and parking was quite different. He said the Commission had voted (5-3) against the rezoning and that Safeway had appealed the decision to the Board of Directors who had overturned the Commission's decision to deny the request, and rezoned the property for the Safeway Store. Mort Gitelman moved to deny Rezoning Petition R80-14 and R80-15. Keith Newhouse seconded Mort Gitelman's motion to deny. The motion to deny was approved unanimously (9-0). The next item for consideration was the REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE request for rehearing on Conditional Use ELSIE JOHNSON Request submitted by Elsie Mc Johnson to 2016 BERRY STREET have a Home Occupation or Child Care Facility at 2016 Berry Street zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. (Request denied at June 23, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting.) Attorney Danny Wright was present to represent. Ernest Jacks stated that the Planning Commission by-laws provide for a rehearing if the Commission feels there has been "factual error, ommission, or oversight". Jacks stated that Ms. Johnson had written a letter stating that she was requesting a rehearing based on factual evidence that was ommitted and oversighted.. Jacks asked what the factual error or oversight actually is. Danny Wright addressed the Commission. He stated that they were asking for a rehearing based on the situation that exists on the property. He asked the Commission to note that the street on which the Conditional Use would be performed is dead end or cul-de-sac. He said that most of the opposition to her request at the June 23, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting had resulted from fears in the neighborhood that traffic would be increased and that she could not provide adequate parking. Mr. Wright Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 • Page 12 • • stated that Mrs. Johnson does, in fact, have parking which consists of a driveway. It had been called to the attention of the Commission that her driveway had been fenced off and used for a play area. He said that the fenced off area had at one time been used for a play area but that there was another driveway for parking. Wright explained that all parents do not arrive at the same time. Wright further explained that Mrs. Johnson had some clients that came to drop their children off at 6:30 A.M., and that Mrs. Johnson had been informed at the last meeting that persons could not start their business that early in a residential neighborhood. He said that since the last meeting, Mrs. Johnson had ceased sitting for those persons. Mr. Wright said that Mrs. Johnson wants to comply with the law, but that she had been ignorant of it. He said that this was basically what they were requesting the rehearing on. Lamar Pettus, Attorney, representing the Cox's and the Reece's, spoke in opposition to the rehearing. He stated that no new facts had been brought up. He said that parking had been discussed at the last meeting. Also, people arriving and traffic on the road had been discussed. thoroughly. He did not believe there were any factual issues that had been overlooked at the last meeting. Peg Anderson stated that her reasons for being upset about this item did not perhaps stem from factual ommission or oversight. She stated she felt there had not been enough thought given to the new situation in the neighborhood, the Senior Center. She felt this was a new fact to the petition as it had not been decided when Mrs. Johnson applied for her petition. She stated there was considerable confusion when the Commission considered Mrs. Johnson's petition in':)that the Commission was not sure whether she was applying for a Home Occupation (with a maximum of six children), or a Child Care Facility (with a maximum of 'ten children). She stated in addition; there was no Conditional Use format given to the Commission members. She said she considered that an ommission and moved to hold a rehearing on this item. Newton Hailey seconded. Martin Redfern stated that he would like to point out how difficult it is for all members to be at the meetings. He said that it was difficult to count on the whole Commission hearing one particular case. He stated that the members that were here at the last meeting were perfectly capable of evaluating the situation. Mrs. Johnson had a fair hearing. Beth Crocker stated that she had a problem with Mrs. Johnson's reasons for requesting the rehearing, but that she had voted for Mrs. Johnson and she agreed with Peg's motionand reasons for moving for the rehearing. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to grant a rehearing and the motion passed with Crocker, Gitelman, Hailey, Cullers, Anderson and Newhouse voting "Aye", and Hunnicutt, Jacks and Redfern voting "Nay" (6-3). Ernest Jacks asked if the adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones replied that they had. She stated that all persons who had been notified previously were notified, as well as anyone who had appeared in the audience concerning this item, had been sent an Agenda, and related material. Ernest Jacks asked if the Commission wished to rehear this item at this time. Beth Crocker asked if the Attorneys were prepared for a rehearing at this time. Wright replied that he was prepared, and Pettus also replied that he was prepared. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Wright if he would like to speak in favor of this petition. Danny Wright addressed the Commission. Mr. Wright stated that he did not believe that Mrs. Johnson presented all the facts to the Commission at the June 9, 1980 meeting. He stated that he was not at the last meeting and would try not to rehash what had already been discussed, but asked the Commission to bear with him if he did • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 13 Mr. Wright said that Mrs. Johnson talked to all of her neighbors prior to filing her application and prior to the meeting. When she talked to her neighbors she asked them if there were any conditions they would like to impose and if there were any problems with her caring for children in her home. He stated that Mrs. Johnson had been caring for children in her home for approximately two years, and that she was ignorant of the fact that she needed a Conditional Use to care for the children. He said that in reference to the confusion of whether Mrs. Johnson was requesting a Home Occupation or a Child Care Facility, that Mrs. Johnson was requesting under Article 7, Section 7, a Child Care Facility. He stated that if there was opposition to this, that Mrs. Johnson would care for the children under Article 7, Section 10 „Home Occupation. He stated that he understood their concern about traffic, but that he did not agree with that opposition. He said the basic opposition was to traffic and parking. Mr. Wright asked the Commission to refer to the letters submitted by clients of Mrs. Johnson. Good child care is at a premium in the City. He asked the Commission to refer to Mrs. Johnson's letter to the Commission in which she furnished schedules of when parents bring their children to her home and when they pick them up. He said that according to Mrs. Johnson's schedule, between 7:00 and 8:00 A.M., two parties drop their children off at her home. Between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., one or two parents drop their children off. At 12:00 another parent drops his child off. Mr. Wright said that the maximum number of cars at Mrs. Johnson's home in the morning is two. He stated that this fluxuates as many of the children that Mrs. Johnson cares for are children of university students and their schedules fluxuate. Wright said that Mrs. Johnson's lot is 90 ft. wide and there is a driveway on the East side of the lot, which is 10 to 15 ft. wide. He stated there is plenty of room for a car to pull in and exit. The traffic enters off of Sang and exits on to Sang. He said the maximum number of departures would be two cars at the same time. He further stated that in addition to the driveway mentioned on the East side of the lot, there was also the driveway on the West side of the lot which had been partially fenced off for a play area. He stated that Mrs. Johnson was leaving the gate open in the mornings and late afternoons, when the children are not playing, for additional parking; and that could accomodate two additional cars. Mr. Wright said that there was not a question of adequate parking as Mrs. Johnson's parking facilities were more than adequate. In summary, Mr. Wright said he would like the Commission to consider the complaints. Mrs. Reece was complaining about traffic and parking when Mrs. Reece lives in Ft. Smith, and rents her home on Berry Street. Her sister, Mrs. Cox, lives across the street in the neighborhood. He said that he could not see any complaint other than traffic and parking. Wright stated that Mr. Pettus had stated at the last meeting that if the Commission saw fit to pass the Conditional Use, that his clients would request that the child play area be moved to the back of the lot, Mr. Wright said that to an extent this had been done. He said the 'Say area is more than 50 ft. to any property line except the West one and the Senior Center has agreed to screen that property line. At this time Lamar Pettus presented himself to the Commission in opposition to Mrs. Johnson's request. Mr. Pettus asked if he was correct in understanding that Mrs. Johnson was requesting a Child Care Facility and if the Commission does not think that is appropriate, she would like to have a Home Occupation. He said a Child Care Facility would allow for up to ten children. Pettus stated that nothing Planning Commission Meeting • July 14, 1980 Page 14 • • had been presented to determine that Mrs. Johnson complies with the ordinance. For instance, no more that 300 square feet of the home can be used for the care of the children. Pettus stated that the last time Mrs. Johnson was before the Commission she had stated that her whole home was used for the care of the children. Mrs. Johnson had also indicated that she had clients coming into the neighborhood after hours regulated by the ordinance. She had also indicated that there was someone outside her home who helps her care for the children. Pettus said that the presentation this evening was not an argument of new facts Mr. Wright had restructured his argument in order to fit in with the Commission's objections. Mr. Wrights statement that traffic generated by Mrs. Johnson's business would be less of a nuisance than the Senior Center was not valid. Pettus stated that it was his opinion and the opinion of the people he represents that Mrs. Johnson's business will create excessive traffic. Also, that Mrs. Johnson does not comply with regulations in that her whole home is used for the care of the children. Pettus went on to say that screening should be required and that Mrs. Johnson does not have adequate play area for the children. Pettus requested that the Commission turn down Mrs. Johnson's request for a Child Care Facility and Home Occupation. Mrs. Stratton, who lives directly across the street from Mrs. Johnson spoke in favor of the petition. She stated that there is a lot of traffic on Berry, but she did not feel that Mrs. Johnson's business of caring for children generated any more or that it was a nuisance. She said some of the traffic results from people not knowing Berry is a dead end street. Mrs. Johnson's business does not create an undue amount of noise, and she has found nothing going on across the street to disrupt the neighborhood. Chris Morton addressed the Commission. She said that Mrs. Johnson cares for her child. Day Care Centers are very expensive. Her husband is a student, and if she had to pay the exhorbitant prices for a Day Care Center her husband would be unable togo to school. Mr. Wright asked if the Commission was rehashing the facts that were brought up at the June 9 meeting. Mr. Jacks replied that they were not. Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Pettus's arguments seem to be bringing up arguments that had already been discussed. Mr. Wright stated that as far as screening, Mrs. Johnson would comply with any conditions or regulations. Elsa Ginness, 1670 Huntsville Road, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was a personal friend of Mrs. Johnson and had been to her home during business hours when Mrs. Johnson was caring for children. She stated that Mrs. Johnson does not use her whole home for the care of the children. Peg Anderson stated that if the Commission was rehearing this as a Child Care Facility, that Mrs. Johnson would have to meet all state regulations for her license and that the 300 square foot requirement would not apply. Beth Crocker asked if the Commission approves the Conditional Use as a Child Care Facility, and she was unable to get a license, would Mrs. Johnson then have to come back before the Commission and reapply for a Conditional Use for a Home Occupation. Peg Anderson stated that she would. Windell Cullers asked if the house immediately to the East was vacant. Mr. Pettus replied that the house is tenant occupied, and that it has been put up for sale. J ' Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 15 Newton Hailey made a motion to grant the Conditional Use, he said he thought Mrs. Johnson should be able to make a living in her home, as she was not really adversely affecting the neighborhood. He said therefore, he was moving to grant the Conditional Use for a Child Care Facility, for the care of no more than ten children for the period of one year, and that off street parking will be provided (no parking on the street). Peg Anderson seconded Newton Hailey's motion to approve the Conditional Use. Don Hunnicutt asked how the State monitors the Child Care Facilities. Windell Cullers stated that Nonnie Vance would be in charge of monitoring the Facility. Newton Hailey's motion to approve the Child Care Facility passed (8-1) with Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. The eleventh item on the Agenda was a Conditional CONDITIONAL USE Use Request submitted by Becky Watkins to do child 559 N. WALNUT care in her home at 559 North Walnut zoned R-1, BECKY WATKINS Low Density Residential District. Ms. Watkins was present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked if the property owners in the area had been notified. Bobbie replied that a sign had been posted on Mrs. Watkins property and Mrs. Watkins furnished proof that a notification had been published in the newspaper. Ms. Jones stated that Agendas had been mailed to the four property owners immediately adjacent. Jacks asked Mrs. Watkins if she had anything to add to the information the Commission now had. Ms. Watkins stated that she had all inspections required by the City and the State and that she had been discussing the Child Care Facility with Nonnie Vance. Peg Anderson asked if the Commission was considering a Home Occupation or a Child Care Facility. Bobbie Jones said that information had been supplied on the requirements for both. (No State license would be required for a Home Occupation of six or fewer children). Ernest Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience appearing against this request. There was no one present in opposition. Peg Anderson moved to approve the Conditional Use. Keith Newhouse seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve. The motion passed (8-1) with Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. The next item of business was the request VARIANCE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT for variance from the lot size requirement applicable to CONLEY F, VIRGINIA WORLEY a lot split submitted by Conley and Virginia Worley OUTSIDE CITY for property located outside the City lying North of Hwy. 16 West and East of Double Springs Road. Mr. and Mrs. Worley were present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked the Worley's if they had anything further to add to the information before the Commission. Beth Crocker asked if there was sewer service to this property. Mr. Worley replied there was not. Crocker asked the condition of the road. Mr. Worley replied it was gravel,.but the piece that was being split off was abutting Highway 16. Beth Crocker asked if the variance was granted, if this would then go to the Board of Directors. Bobbie Jones stated that the Board of Directors would have to approve the variance because one lot is less than 1-1/2 acres and does not have sewer. Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 • Page 16 • • Mr. Worley stated that the tract was 87/100 of an acre and that there was an existing dwelling on the property. Beth Crocker stated that 87/100 of an acre does not comply with the 1-1/2 acre requirement for homes served by septic tank. Mr. Worley stated that there are duplexes being built on one acre tracts near this tract, and that the duplexes were being served by septic tanks. Mort Gitelman stated that those duplexes would also be in the flood plain. Bill Graue stated that he thought that Mr. Worley was referring to Len Edens development. He stated there was about forty acres full of duplexes. Graue stated some of these duplexes were outside the growth area. Bobbie Jones replied that if the duplexes were in fact outside the Growth Area, the 1-1/2 acre requirement for homes served by septic tank would not apply. Redfern asked if Mr. Worley could withdraw the application and look for an acre and one half. Jacks replied that he could. Hunnicutt asked if the property on the corner was served by septic tank. Mr. Worley replied that it was. Bobbie Jones stated that the property on the corner was the first split on this property. It is what is known as Tipton's Garage. Redfern stated that because of the 1-1/2 acre minimum, if the Commission approved the split the Board of Directors could turn around and deny it. Don Hunnicutt stated that the Worley's would not be required to update the septic system because it is an existing use Redfern agreed with Hunnicutt. Beth Crocker stated she had a problem because of density. Other homes could be built near this site also served by septic tanks. Mort Gitelman asked if the remaining 4.9 acres could be split again. replied that it could not unless a Subdivision Plat is filed. Mort Gitelman said he could not see requiring an acre and one half as property could not be split again. Mort Gitelman moved to approve the variance for the minimum lot size. Hunnicutt' seconded. The motion passed (8-1) with Elizabeth Crocker casting vote. Bobbie Jones the remaining Don the "Nay" The next item for consideration CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was a Conditional Use Request submitted by MICHAEL G. SHEARD Michael G. Sheard to have moped and bicycle 325 W. DICKSON sales and moped, bicycle and motorcycle repair at 325 West Dickson zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. Michael Sheard was present to represent. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Sheard if he had any comments to add other than those included in the Agenda. Mr. Sheard stated that his legal description was for a larger space than would be occupied by his use. He stated that he would be utilizing 2000 square ft. The front 1000 square feet would be used for sales, and the rear 1000 square feet would be used for servicing and repairs. Windell Cullers moved to grant the Conditional Use, Redfern seconded, the motion passed (9-0). Planning Commission Meeting • July 14, 1980 Page 17 • • The next item of business was the VARIANCE.LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT request for a variance from the lot size requirement BILL GRAUE applicable to a lot split submitted by Bill Graue NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 667 for property North of County Road No. 667 and South of Mildred Lee Estates, Phase II. Bill Graue was present to represent. Jacks asked Graue if this had been before the Board of Directors. Mr. Graue replied that it had not, that this had been left out of Phase II, of Mildred Lee Estates. He had sold .64 acres to his son before the new lot split regulations had been passed and then had given his son .9 acre more land. He was trying to get back enough land from his son to meet the 1-1/2 acre lot size minimum requirement for two new parcels. Don Hunnicutt asked if there was a house existing on the West lot that Mr. Graue was wanting to split. Mr. Graue replied that there was not. Ernest Jacks asked if the West lot met minimum dimensions. Graue replied that it did not, that he was trying to arrange it so that it would conform. Ernest Jacks said he understood that the Commission was being asked to approve a lot split. Mr. Graue replied that was correct, but that he could end up with two lots. He said he wanted it in the minutes that he wants to sell a 1-1/2 acre lot, then if he can get enough land back from is son. for a remaining 1-1/2 acre lot he could build on it. Windell Cullers stated that in view of the fact that Mr. Graue would be creating two and possibly three lot splits, Windell Cullers moved to deny the request for a variance. Peg Anderson seconded. Peg Anderson asked if Mr. Graue should be required to file a Subdivision Plat in order to get this split off legally. Windell Cullers stated that was correct. Don Hunnicutt asked how many lot splits had been performed on this property as it was platted. Bobbie Jones replied that two lot splits had already been performed and this would be the third. Peg Anderson stated in that case, Mr. Graue could not divide the property again. Mort Gitelman stated that Mr. Graue would try to salvage one more lot for sale after this. Redfern moved to table the matter stating that a motion to table takes precedence over the other motion on the floor. There was no second to Redfern's motion; therefore, Redfern withdrew his motion. The motion to deny passed (6-3) with Crocker, Anderson Redfern, Cullers, Hailey and Newhouse voting "Aye", and Gitelman, Hunnicutt and Jacks voting "Nay". The next item for consideration ORDINANCES TO ADOPT was the Public Hearing on a proposed map MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN and ordinances to adopt a Master Sidewalk ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Plan for the City of Fayetteville and to establish regulations for its administration and enforcement. David McWethy, Mayor John Todd, Director Colwell, and Director Sharp were present to represent. David McWethy, Administrative Assistant, addressed the Commission. He said Planning Commission Meeting • July 14, 1980 Page 18 that the Street Committee of the Board of Directors had decided it was desirable to have a Master Sidewalk Plan, to provide for orderly development of sidewalks within the City.- At a Street Committee meeting several weeks ago it was decided that sidewalks would be installed on both sides of streets designated as Collector or Arterial on the Master Street Plan. He referred to the Master Sidewalk Plan Map and stated that Collector and Arterial streets were designated on the map in red. The Street Committee directed that sidewalks should be included in all zones except A-1 and R-1. Streets in Multi -Family and Commercial Zones should have sidewalks reflected on one side of the street. A sidewalk inventory was prepared by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission to determine on which side of the street these sidewalks would be installed. He stated that sidewalks would also be installed, regardless of zoning in areas in or around schools, for pedestrian safety of children, and in neighborhoods where it was necessary for people to pass to get from one area of the City to another. McWethy stated that a map was compiled and presented to the Street Committee for approval at its June 23, 1980 meeting. The Committee modified the map slightly by adding some additional areas so that most parts of town will have a way to get to a sidewalk which will take them somewhere. McWethy stated that it was the intention of the Committee that these sidewalks would be required to be installed by the property owner, only if they are reflected on the Master Sidewalk Plan, and if one of four things take place: • 1. If property is developed as a Large Scale Development. 2. If the property is developed as a Subdivision. 3. If a new house is built, on a vacant lot. • 4. If an existing structure is modified in such a way as to increase the number of dwelling units. For example, taking an older home and making it into a duplex or triplex. An individual property owner, in a developed part of town would not be required to install a sidewalk. In areas where there are terrain or topography problems, or similar instances, the property owner can appeal to the Board of Directors for a waiver. Windell Cullers asked if an existing house which is on the Master Sidewalk Plan is sold, would the Commission be able to require the new property owner to install sidewalks McWethy stated that in the case of a simple sale of a house; no, the new owner would not be required to install sidewalks. Windell Cullers asked if there was some way to get property owners to at least contribute to the installation of the sidewalks. McWethy stated that in the near future there may be some way to get the property owners to share in the expense, but not at this time. Redfern asked how much sidewalks cost to install. McWethy stated that customarily, the City Street Department does the sub -base work on the sidewalk. He said that the actual concrete work runs about $5.00 per linear ft. Ervan Wimberly stated that in some cases sidewalks run $20.00 per ft. If any sort of storm drainage has to be constructed, it can run as high as $25.00 per ft. • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 19 Redfern asked for an explanation as to what storm drainage is. Wimberly stated that if a sidewalk is added to an existing street, and there is a side ditch, there must be some way to drain the water from the side ditch. Windell Cullers asked if the sidewalk could be installed on the inside of the ditch. Wimberly stated that in most cases, Clayton Powell, the City Street Superintendent, includes sidewalks as part of the street widening program Wimberly stated that in some cases, it would be nearly impossible to line up sidewalks so that they are uniform and consistent. He said in order to get the sidewalks uniform and consistent, all existing culverts would have to be torn out, and then reinstalled, which adds much hidden cost to the sidewalks. In response, McWethy said that sidewalks would be required only where they are designated on the Master Sidewalk Plan, and if it comes under one of the four categories mentioned before. McWethy stated that actually, three of the four categories are speculative ventures for profit. In his mind, this kind of requirement in a profit making venture is not out of line. He said in cases where the cost is prohibitive, the Developer or whomever, would have the option of appealing to the City Board of Directors. Beth Crocker asked if the requirements set out in the Master Sidewalk Plan would take the place of the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinances. McWethy said no. The Master Sidewalk Plan under consideration applies only to streets that now exist. If someone is developing a new Subdivision that does not exist on the map, the Subdivision Regulations wouid apply. Mort Gitelman said he thought there should be a provision to cover the instance in which property on the Master Sidewalk Plan is rezoned so that the sidewalk requirement would be different. Windell Cullers stated that would also allow for getting more sidewalks as land is up gradedor used as a higher density. The Chairman stated there was not a provision for a performance bond or contract This might cause instances of isolated pieces of sidewalks. McWethy said this was a possibility, there are presently instances like that all over town. Bobbie Jones stated she had a couple of questions: In regard to administration, under Subsection 4, on which an existing structure is being modified, so as to increase the number of dwelling units, you might want to add "or to change the usage to a non-residential use". 2. Bobbie Jones asked if, where a sidewalk is to be installed on one side of the street only, if the Master Sidewalk Plan designates which side of the street the sidewalk is to be installed. McWethy stated that the Master Sidewalk Plan already designates on which side of the street the sidewalk is to be installed. These sidewalks are designated by the green lines on the Master Sidewalk Map. Windell Cullers commended the Board of Directors for making a declaration as to the installation of sidewalks. Keith Newhouse stated that many of the arterial streets are State Highways, which will require sidewalks on both sides, will asphalt sidewalks installed by the State be sufficient in this case. McWethy stated that the State asphalt installation will, in fact, be a shoulder. On Highway 62, this would be 8 ft. on one side and 4 ft. on the other side. Keith i•01 • • Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 Page 20 Newhouse asked if the sidewalk would be alongside this shoulder or in it. McWethy said, as he understands it, the sidewalk will be placed along the Highway right-of-way but next to the right-of-way line, removed from vehicular traffic. Mort Gitelman stated there would be 10 ft. of open space between the asphalt highway and the sidewalk. Beth Crocker referenced the memo by Harold Lieberenz concerning sidewalks. In his memo she understood that Clayton Powell wanted the sidewalks moved back from the right-of-way. She said that Ervan seemed to be saying that Clayton wanted them attached to the curb and gutter. Ervan said that he wanted the sidewalks 15 ft. off of the existing asphalt Bobbie Jones stated that she did not think Clayton particularly cared where the sidewalk was placed. It is not as complicated to have the sidewalk attached to the curb and gutter, because in that case, there would not be any additional engineering involved, the curb sets the grade. Bobbie Jones said at this time she would like to bring up something else in Harold Lieberenz's letter. She said there is a problem which had been coming up that Clayton has also mentioned. When the Office of City Planning is reviewing a Subdivision Plat, they have no idea on which side of the street the U. S. Post Office will require mail boxes to be installed. The Post Office requires that mailboxes be situated in such a way as to be accessible from the mail vehicles, so many inches from the curb, etc. In some cases mailboxes create an obstruction on the sidewalk Ervan stated he felt the sidewalks should be placed out of the travel lane. Bobbie Jones stated that she would like to see the sidewalk ordinance amended to put the construction of sidewalks back on the developer/subdivider rather than the builder. She said it has been a headache to enforce as it now is. Windell Cullers stated that he would like to see that also. He said in some cases there is a break down and that it is hard to tell if the Developer has complied with sidewalks until a very late date. Bobbie Jones stated that persons getting building permits are informed if sidewalks will be required or not, but that sometimes they ignore it or forget it. Peg Anderson left the meeting at 7:35. Mayor Todd addressed the Commission. He said the Board of Directors made a committment to start installing sidewalks about a year ago and that funds are being budgeted at this time. The Board had an obligation to spend the funds in such a way as to be most consistent with the needs of the community, and therefore, the Master Sidewalk Plan was designed. He said this would be a long range project. The Board was also working on bicycle paths and a bus system. Ernest Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to voice an opinion either pro or con. Ervan Wimberly asked what would happen along College Avenue where there were plantings. The Mayor stated that in a case like that, it could be appealed to the Board of Directors. Mort Gitelman stated that once the Sidewalk Plan is established, a business property or a commercial property which does not have sidewalks will be non -conforming, and that when the property is sold, or the use is changed it can be brought into conformity. Ervan asked if they would destroy the plantings and bushes. Morton stated that maybe a sidewalk would be better. The Chair recognized Director Sharp. He stated that there was a problem in definition of sidewalk. Sharp said the State Highway Department does not build sidewalks unless they tear up sidewalks. He said that a four ft. strip of asphalt the does Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 1980 • Page 21 not meet the definition of a sidewalk. Bobbie Jones asked if the Highway Department had indicated whether or not the City could build sidewalks in the Highway Department's right-of-way. McWethy stated yes, the City does have permission. Ervan Wimberly asked why a four ft. strip of asphalt cannot be considered a sidewalk. Director Sharp replied, it was because the Highway Department could reclaim the asphalt strip at any time without rebuilding a sidewalk to replace it. Bobbie Jones suggested her aforementioned suggestion be incorporated into the sidewalk ordinance, when an existing structure is modified to increase the number of dwelling units and/or change the use to a non-residential use. Redfern asked, in cases of hardship, would the complainant go directly to the Board of Directors. David McWethy stated that was correct. Windell Cullers moved approval of the Master Sidewalk Plan with the amendment to Item 4, Section C, as suggested by Bobbie Jones, and moved to approve an ordinance adopting the Master Sidewalk Map. Newton Hailey seconded Windell Cullers' motion to approve. Martin Redfern commended the Board on the adoption of a Master Sidewalk Plan. He stated, however, in lower income areas where a home owner is required to put in sidewalks, in some cases the cost would be exhorbitant. He thougtthe Board should consider this when people start coming before them asking for some relief. Beth Crocker stated that in most cases the people Martin was referring to were the ones that need the sidewalks the most. Mort Gitelman stated when one starts defining sidewalk a little foresight was needed in determining whether a sidewalk is strictly for pedestrian use rather than for bikes and skateboards, etc. Don Hunnicutt felt that schools should be placed in some type of priority position as far as sidewalks are concerned. He thought the schools might agree to eliminate some bus routes in order to help contribute to the building of sidewalks. The Commission voted on Windell Cullers' motion to approve and it passed (8-0). Windell Cullers moved to table the last two items on the Agenda until the meeting of July 28, 1980. The Chairman agreed. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. •