Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-28 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting was held of the Planning Commission at 5:00, P.M., Monday, July 28, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Keith Newhouse, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers, Peg Anderson, Newton Hailey. Don Hunnicutt, Beth Crocker. Larry Wood, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, Chad Kumpe, Jim Vizzier, General Bruce Kendall, George Abney, Ms. Bob Wright, Charles Pope, John Box, Dr, Terry Box, James Miller, and other unidentified members of the press and audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. The first item for consideration was the approval MINUTES of the minutes of the July 14, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Peg Anderson moved to approve the minutes with two corrections. She asked that on page 9, Dick Atkinson be identified as the representative of the Big Springs or Washington/Willow Historical District. She wanted it noted on page twelve, instead of "in lieu of" her comment be "in addition to". With those two corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The second item for consideration was PRELIMINARY PLAT the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Oakland OAKLAND MEADOWS Meadows located on Highway 156, one half mile East JIM LINDSEY of Oakland Baptist Church (on Old Wire Road), and one and one-half miles North of Sons Chapel (on Hwy. 45); Lindsey Family Trust - James E. Lindsey, Trustee and John R. and Rebecca Ann Rutledge, Owners. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the preliminary plat of Oakland Meadows with three contingencies: 1. County Road 539 will be improved as required by the County Planning Commission. 2. State Board of Health perc data approval will be shown on the Final Plat. 14 and 15 will be 3. The easement crossing the private drive serving Lots properly designated on the plat. Newton Hailey seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. General Kendall stated that the County Planning Commission had not required the Developers to improve County Road 539 when they approved the plat. Keith Newhouse stated in that case he would like to change his motion. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Oakland Meadows with two contingencies: Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 • Page 2 • 1. The Final Plat will show State Board of Health perc test approval. 2. The utility easement crossing the private drive serving Lots 14 and 1S will be properly designated on the Final Plat. Newton Hailey seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. Mr. Hailey stated that there had been no prior indication submitted to the City that the County Planning Commission had waived improvement to the County Road 539, therefore, the Subdivision Committee had felt it should be included in the City's approval to require it. General Kendall took this opportunity to discuss the problem with long private drives serving tandem lots in Subdivisions under the County's jurisdiction. He stated that any time two or more persons use the same drive, it comes under County maintenance. He stated that he would welcome suggestions by the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks asked if there would be any advantage to a meeting of both Planning Commissions. Kendall said he would like some kind of specific recommendation in relation to streets incorporating feelings of the Street Department and the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks asked Bobbie Jones to include the off-site improvements ordinance (Ord. 2570) as a discussion item in the Subdivision Committee agenda,for August 11, 1980. The Commission voted on Keith Newhouse's motion to approve and it passed (7-0). The next item for consideration was the approval of the concurrent plat of Replat of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Lewis Estates, bounded on the North by Howard Nickel Road and bounded on the West by North/South Salem Road and on the South by East/West Salem Road; James E. Lindsey and Nita V. Ann Rutledge, Owners. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the concurrent plat of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Lewis Estates with two contingencies: 1. The street rights-of-way will be clarified on the final plat showing the off set of pins and full right-of-way widths and dedications. CONCURRENT PLAT OF REPLAT - LEWIS ESTATES Lindsey and John R. and Rebecca 2. Developer will furnish State Board of Health approval of perc data. Newton Hailey seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. (7-0). The Planning Commission considered the next two items jointly. Item four was the approval of the concept plat of Garland Court, a Planned Unit Development located at the Northeast corner of Garland and Sycamore Streets; Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer. Developer is requesting a waiver of the requirement for approval of the concept plat. The motion passed GARLAND COURT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HAPPY HOLLOW COURT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT that a public hearing be held • Planning Commission Meeting • July 28, 1980 Page 3 Also, approval of the concept plat of Happy Hollow Court, a Planned Unit Development located on the West side of Happy Hollow Road and North of Fourth Street; Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer. Developer is requesting a waiver of the requirement that a public hearing be held for approval of the concept plat. Jim Vizzier and Chad Kumpe were present to represent. Ernest Jacks stated that due to Newton Hailey being involved in the Development, the Subdivision Committee could not hear these two items and had passed them on without recommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks stated that as he understands the request, the Developers are asking for a waiver of the advertisement requirement on a small land area PUD. He stated that the Developers had made an attempt to notify property owners around the sites, and there were several persons in the audience to hear these two items. Doctor Abney, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Trinity Methodist Church, addressed the Commission. He stated that their Church was across Sycamore Street from the proposed PUD. He stated that he had been made aware of the Planned Unit Development Thursday, and called a meeting of the Trustee's of the Church Friday evening. He stated that he, as well as those he represents, is strictly opposed to the PUD. Abney said that one of the members of the Church was very familiar with this type of housing and the persons who live there. He said that this member had said that it takes this type of people about two months to tear up the housing. He said that another member of the Church, a carpenter, was constantly busy maintaining this type of housing,because the persons living there tear it up. He stated that he was a Christian person and believed in helping people, but not these people. He stated that he did not want persons such as this near his Church yard. Abney stated that these people would be entering and exiting the development right across from the Church. He said these people all have five or six broken down cars that don't run. They don't have any mufflers and they are noisy. He said all of these cars will be out there by the Church all the time. He also stated that if he falls asleep in Church, he wants the preacher to wake him up not these kind of people racing their engines. He said they would be hothing but trouble. Mr. Abney stated he represents five hundred good,Christian people who feel the same way he does, and they want to request a public hearing so they can all voice their opinions. Peg Anderson asked what the Planning Commission's power is in a case like this; can the Commission, in fact, waive the public hearing. Ernest Jacks stated that there is a blanket power to waive any provision of the PUD Ordinance written into that Ordinance. Peg Anderson asked if the Commission was to consider whether adequate notification had been made to the persons surrounding the areas. Ernest Jacks stated, essentially that was correct. Peg Anderson asked if the material furnished the Commission was the names and addresses of persons notified. Newton Hailey stated that was correct, but that some of the property owners live out of town. Jim Vizzier stated that the Developers were not requesting the Commission to waive the public hearing, but that they would like to use alternate means of notifying the property owners. He stated they were requesting this because of the time frame set up for applying for HUD funding. He said that the Housing Authority had notified persons living out of town by registered mail, and persons living in the area by a hand carried letter, explaining that the hearing would be held today. • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 4 Windell Cullers asked how long the Developers had had to work on this project, and why all of the sudden urgency. Jim Vizzier stated that the Fayetteville Housing Authority had worked within the schedule, but due to some apparent concern over the scattered housing concept, the Little Rock HUD Office had held up the process. Chad Kumpe stated the Housing Authority had been working on obtaining sites for two years. Jim Vizzier said that they had been working on the scattered sites for only two months. Mrs. Bob Wright, who lives at the corner of Sycamore and Oakland, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was not notified in any way. Charles Pope, 1632 East Fifth Street, addressed the Commission. He stated he had contacted some persons regarding the Happy Hollow project, and they had been unable to attend the meeting. He stated that if the Commission waived the public hearing, these people would be deprived of their right to voice their opinions. The Chairman asked for a show of hands of persons in the audience present in regard to these projects. There were several persons present. Mort Gitelman moved to waive the notification requirements and hold the public hearing at this time. Peg Anderson seconded. Windell Cullers felt the motion was unfair. He stated that the reason for holding a public hearing was to give people an opportunity to respond to a request. He stated that if persons a block away were not notified, he did not see how the requirements could be waived. He also objected because the opponents did not have the usual fifteen days to prepare for the hearing. Peg Anderson stated that several people had shown up and had been given an opportunity to voice their opinions. The Commission voted on Gitelman's motion to waive the notification requirements. The motion failed to pass (4-3). Gitelman, Redfern, Anderson and Hailey cast "Aye" votes, and Newhouse, Jacks and Cullers cast "Nay" votes. Mort Gitelman stated it would be a tremendous tragedy to loose the HUD funds because the public hearing is not held today. Newhouse felt it was a tragedy that the HUD Office in Little Rock threw away a whole month. Bobbie Jones stated this decision could be appealed to the Board of Directors. She said that the persons present in the audience would receive notification in the newspaper of any appeal procedure. Redfern stated that this same Church had been in favor of an apartment complex just two months earlier. Doctor Abney stated that he had not been opposed to the apartment complex because Mr. Sweetser was building it. Dr. Abney stated that he did not like the kind of people that would be moving into a housing development for "public housing". The sixth item on the Agenda was a request VARIANCE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT for a variance from the lot size requirement BOX -FAIRCHILD applicable to a lot split submitted by ELM ST. AND GREEN ACRES RD. Box -Fairchild for property at the Northwest corner of Elm Street and Green Acres Road, zoned R-0, Residential -Office District. John Box and Dr. Terry Box were present to represent. Mr. Box addressed the Commission. He stated that he wished to split off about 80 ft. of property, on which there is an existing house, off the West side. He stated there is a new office building on the remaining portion of property. Mr. Box stated he would have the property surveyed by a surveyor. ►5 Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 5 Dr. Terry Box stated that he lives property and wished to have it separate building sits for financing. John Box stated the house and the deed. in the house on the 80 ft. strip of from the property on which the office office are presently on the same abstract and Ernest Jacks stated that the minimum lot size for a lot split is three acres, and this falls far below the minimum. Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. Box did not want to mortgage both the house and the office building, but the office building only. Martin Redfern asked Mr. Box to elaborate on the Bill of Assurance. Bobbie Jones stated that the Bill of Assurance was entered into with the City at the time the Board of Directors acted on the rezoning of this property. It had to do with a commercial driveway off of Green Acres Road and prohibited any commercial driveways off Elm Street. Mr. Box stated that the driveway for the house in on Elm Street and that he would maintain a legal easement along the North side of the lot for access. Regardless of whether the land is developed commercially or as offices, he would maintain the easement. Redfern asked if the Bill of Assurance would still be met. Mr. Box replied that it would. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request to vary the minimum lot size. Newton Hailey seconded, the.°motion passed (7-0). The next item for consideration OFF SITE PARKING was the request for approval of off-site 24 NORTH LOCUST AVE. parking for a proposed law office at 24 North Locust Ave; JAMES MILLER submitted by James F. Miller, Attorney at Law; zoned R-0, Residential Office District. James F. Miller was present to represent. Mr. Miller addressed the Commission. He stated that his office was on a corner lot, and that it was at one time a residence. He said that the lot is not sufficient in size to accomodate the required number of parking spaces. He said that he is within 300 ft. of a City Parking Lot, and that he is located in Parking District #1, which should be provided with adequate parking convenient to his location in the near future. He said there are about five off street parking areas within walking distance from his office. Therefore, he was asking the Commission to waive the off-street parking requirements for his law office. Peg Anderson asked if he had parking spaces for any cars. Ernest Jacks stated that Mr. Miller's clients would probably park on the street. He felt that the Commission was putting a good deal of traffic in the fringe residential areas, but that he understood that these areas are zoned so they can transition to office uses. Keith Newhouse was concerned about the frequency of granting approval of off-site parking using City Parking Lots. He asked if anyone has kept a listing of the number of times and spaces the Commission has approved. Bobbie Jones said they have not. Ernest Jacks acknowledged the growing problem. He said there had been a number of similar offices developed in the last few months. Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 • Page 6 • • Peg Anderson stated that a central business district often has parking problems, but that everything was close enough to walk to. Anderson moved to approve the request for off-site parking at City Parking Lots. Mort Gitelman seconded. Martin Redfern asked Mr. Miller if his was a voluntary contribution to the off- street parking district. Mr. Miller stated that the contribution was assessed, that it was included in his taxes, and was not voluntary. Martin Redfern asked how much was contributed per office. Mr. Miller replied that the cost was shared proportionately by property owners in the area. Peg Anderson's motion to approve passed (7-0). The next item for consideration was a DEFINITION discussion of Large Scale Development definition LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT based on oneacre lot size requirement.. LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT (Tabled July 14, 1980). Ernest Jacks said he felt the one acre lot size requirement was unreasonable. He said that in order to go through the process, sometimes it takes months to get a building permit. Morton Gitelman suggested applying the Large Scale Development theory to any structure that requires a building permit, the building permit being the criteria. Mort Gitelman stated that for the most part the Large Scale Development regulations are written for commercial structures. Anderson felt that if the Commission went this way with it, single family residences should be exempt. Ernest Jacks asked how much of a load it would add to the Subdivision Committee to down grade the acreage requirement on a Large Scale Development. Bobbie Jones stated that it would increase their work load as well as the work load of the Planning Office a great deal. Jim Lindsey stated that in Rogers, Arkansas, the Building Inspector applies the principles of the Large Scale Development requirements to any structure requiring a building permit. He stated that the Building Inspector has authority up to a certain point, and after that point, or if there are any problems, he refers them to the governing body (Planning Commission or Subdivision Committee). Peg Anderson stated there should be a check list, and if everything complies with the check list, then there is no need for the Subdivision Committee to hear it. Ernest Jacks said copies of the Rogers' Ordinances should be requested. Mort Gitelman stated he would be more comfortable if specifications were written to take in driveways, landscaping etc. He said a check list was a good idea, and the people could handle most of the requirements themselves. The Chairman appointed a Committee to study alternatives consisting of Chairman Keith Newhouse, Morton Gitelman and Larry Wood. The Committee set up a meeting for the 26th of August at 4:00 P.M., in the City Administration Building. Morton Gitelman requested copies of the Large Scale Development Ordinance for members of the Committee. • • • Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 7 The nineth item on the Agenda BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT was a request for an audience to discuss the recent APPEAL action of the Board of Adjustment on an appeal for JEREMY HESS minimum land area per two bedroom dwelling unit in R-2, requested by Jeremy Hess. There was no one present to represent. Larry Wood stated that Mr. Hess had a piece of property with a little over 18,000 square feet of land area. Mr. Hess wanted to build ten two-bedroom units, but the Board of Adjustment had turned him down as his square footage would only allow nine units. Mr. Hess says the building will be exactly the same size whether nine or ten units are built. Mr. Wood said he had talked to Mr. Hess and suggested the Commission might look at changing the land area requirement in connection with its study on setbacks and height restrictions. The Planning Commission passed this item on to be dealt with along with item 11. Ralph Brophy had called the Planning Office earlier in the day and asked to have his request to relocate sidewalks tabled. There being no one present to represent, Mort Gitelman moved that this item be tabled, Keith Newhouse seconded, the motion passed (7-0). BROPHY CIRCLE TOWNHOUSES RELOCATION OF SIDEWALKS The last item of business was a Report from a Committee studying minimum bulk and area requirements for townhouses and increased side setbacks based on height of structure, Martin Redfern, Chairman (Tabled July 14, 1980). Martin Redfern addressed the Commission. He stated the Committee has three recommendations:: STUDY ON BULK AND AREA AND INCREASED SIDE SETBACKS IN TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS 1. In a case where the side setbacks jump a tremendous amount when a structure goes over twenty feet, the Committee proposes that the Commission change the Ordinance to read that the additional setback will be accrued from the 20 ft. height so that after a building reaches 20 ft., it will be setback an additional foot for every foot in height over twenty feet. 2. Narrow down the minimum width for a townhouse from 24 ft. to 14 ft. in cases of condominiums and townhouses. 3. Clarify definition of townhouses and condominiums. Ernest Jacks said that in Commission would be faced with they should be considered row h Jacks further stated that is inappropriate. In cases of cases of individual ownership of apartments, the the problem of dividing them into lots. He stated ouses. in a case of individual ownership, the term townhouse individual ownership, the term would be condominium. 12-1 • Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 8 In regard to the height setback, Mort Gitelman asked what the setback would be on a building similar to Hillcrest Towers. Ernest Jacks stated it would be about 100 ft. Mort Gitelman said he thought that setback requirement was a bit unreasonable, because all of the green space would be nice, but it should be utilized also. Mort Gitelman asked if there was a floor area radius. Windell Cullers asked about building on 50 ft. lots, Bobbie Jones stated there is a minimum lot size which varies in the residential zones. She said a SO ft. lot could be built on if the setbacks are met, provided that lot had been in separate ownership from the lots adjacent to it since June 29, 1980. Bobbie Jones did ask if the Committee was recommending a change in the minimum land area for an individual townhouse, which is 2500 square feet. She said if the lot is only 14 ft. wide, it would have to be 178 ft! deep. Mr. Gitelman said it will probably ne necessary to make some amendments, in addition to those recommended by the Committee, at a later date. Ernest Jacks stated that most developments in terms of condominiums would meet minimum lot size requirements. Morton Gitelman moved to ask Jim McCord to draft an ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Committee, and have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing. Windell Cullers seconded Mort Gitelman's motion. The motion passed (7-0). • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30, P.M. •