Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION FETING A meeting was held of the Planning Commission at 5:00, P.M., Monday, August 25, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Beth Crocker, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers, Peg Anderson, Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Newhouse Larry Wood, Vic Pepper, J. B. Hays, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Ron Woodruff, Harry Gray, Butch Papon, Jim McCord, Claude Prewitt, Dr. Sugg, and other members of the press and audience. The first item of business was the approval MINUTES of the minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting held August 18, 1980, and the minutes of the August 11, 1980, regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Peg Anderson asked that, on page 5, paragraph 4, the word voted be changed to moved. The Chairman requested that in the Special Meeting Minutes, page 9, paragraph 2, that the wording be changed to state that the comprehensive plan would be prepared "either privately or by North West Arkansas Regional Planning Commission". With those two corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The Planning Commission addressed the second and third items at the same time, as they pertain to the same piece of property. The second item consists of the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan of a proposed Shopping Center Development for the Gottlieb Corporation on property located North of Appleby Road and West of Highway 71-B (College Avenue). Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Third, the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Appleby Acres Addition, a Commercial Subdivision, containing 24.73 acres, located North of Appleby Road and West of Highway 71-B (College Avenue). Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Owners: The Gottlieb Corporation and J. B. Hays. Developer: The Gottlieb Corporation. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Beth Crocker, in the capacity of Acting Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, moved that the Large Scale Development Plan for the Shopping Center and the Preliminary Plat of Appleby Acres Subdivision be approved with the following contingencies: 1. Waive the requirement of:a10 ft. by 25 ft. loading berths for the smaller stores. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OLD 71 DRIVE-IN PROPERTY GOTTLIEB CORP. $ J. B. HAYS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLEBY ACRES SUBDIVISION GOTTLIEB CORP..$ J. B. HAYS 2. Waive the 50 ft. setback on the West property line of the development for the truck berths on the larger stores, from 50 ft. to 42 ft. and 46 ft. J� • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page 2 3. Easements requested have been worked out by the Engineer. 4. Owner will dedicate 25 ft. from the Centerline of Appleby Road on the North side of Appleby Road for the street. 5. Screening will be as per ordinance with a preference for a solid board fence. 6. Waive frontage requirements for lots 3, 4, $ 5. 7. Sidewalks will be installed on Appleby Road and on College Avenue as required by the Board of Directors. 8. Planning Commission to discuss the most Easterly exit on Appleby Road. 9. Development will be subject to all Plat Review Comments including the widening of pavement 15 ft. from centerline, and installation of curb., gutter and storm drainage on Appleby Road. Don Hunnicutt seconded Beth Crocker's motion to approve. The Chairman asked if adjoining property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones replied that they had. Harry Gray gave an outline of what the Developers of the Shopping Center are proposing to do on this site. The Chairman asked if the existing avenues of trees would be saved. Gray replied that they would be saved to about 150 ft. into the property. Harry stated there are two proposed entrances off of Appleby Road, and two proposed entrances off of Highway 71, one of which will be a major entrance/exit. The Chairman asked about traffic control. Mr. Gray replied that the developers are trying to get a left turn signal installed at the main entrance on to College Avenue. He stated the Developers are also planning to line up this entrance of the development with Rolling Hills Drive, which is presently off -set. Newton Hailey voiced his concern about a lack of stack space for persons turning North onto the Highway from Appleby Road. He asked for suggestions from the Planning Commission. Hailey stated he would not be so concerned, if there was a guarantee that the left turn signal would be installed. Harry Gray stated he could not; guarantee that it would be installed. Gray outlined some problems with the site regarding grading and elevations. He stated that plans had been made to dispose of drainage, and that the developers would be doing extensive fill work around the site. Don Hunnicutt asked about the retaining wall the developers are proposingto help control drainage. Harry stated that the developers will install two to three hundred feet of retaining wall. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. Ron Woodruff, 3034 Malinda, addressed the Commission. He asked .the persons appearing in regard to the proposed shopping center and subdivision to stand so the Commission could get an idea of how many persons were concerned about the development. Mr. Woodruff presented some questions and problems that the adjoining property owners have in regard to the development: • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 2S, 1980 Page 3 1. He requested that screening consist of a solid board fence at least 8 ft. in height. Also, he hoped that the Planning Commission would require some vegetation screening along with the fence, to help buffer noise from trucks pulling in and other business activities. 2. The adjoining property owners would request that any lighting be directed towards the development rather than towards their property. 3. That the Developers be restricted as to the installation of intercoms, and if they are installed, that the volume be strictly regulated. 4. The property owners are concerned about trash collection, and hoped that any areas for collecting trash would be screened. 5. Adjoining property owners are concerned about drainage and erosion. He stated there is presently an embankment, about 5 ft. high to control drainage. He stated they would like some assurance that drainage will not be directed onto their property. 6. The property owners are requesting that the Commission not waive the SO ft. setback on the West property line, for the truck berths. 7. The property owners are concerned about the present condition of Appleby Road. Mr. Woodruff stated that he feels that Appleby Road would not be able to handle extra traffic created by the Development. Mr. Woodruff stated that he would like the Commission to address these questions and problems. Butch Papon, of the Gottlieb Corporation, addressed the Commission and the audience. He stated that the reason more trees will not be saved, is because of the tremendous amount of cut and fill that will have to be done before the site can be built upon. He said that any trees that are removed, will be donated to the City. Mr. Papon stated that the Developers are agreeable to a fence, but asked that a 6 ft. fence be considered. He went on to state some problems that could arise with an 8'.ft: fence. Mr. Papon said that lighting would not be facing into the neighborhood. Lights would be visible, but would not face toward the property owners. Trash collection areas will be screened as per the ordinance. The grocery store will be situated on the North end of the site and should not pose a problem to the adjoining property owners. As far as erosion, the site will be designed with rip rap or some other measure to avoid erosion. Mr. Papon stated that as far as the intersection on Appleby Road, the ordinance calls for the drive to be 150 ft. from the intersection, and the drive at Appleby Road is actually set back further than that. He said there will be stack room provided on the site. Mr. Papon went on to say that the ordinance requires the truck dock to be 50 ft. back from the property line. However, it allows the building itself to be within 20 ft. of the property line. The buildings are 42 and 43 ft. back from the property line, whereas they could be right up to 20 ft. from the property line. The Developers are requesting an 8 ft. waiver and a 4 ft. waiver on the truck docks. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page 4 Denver Fletcher, 3042 Malinda Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated that the property owners would prefer an 8 ft. fence. The other property owners as well as himself, would like the fence to be built prior to the beginning of construction. Vic Pepper, of the Gottlieb Corporation, and Construction Superintendent for the project, stated that utilities would have to go in there and that if a fence is put up it will be torn down. He said perhaps the fence could be erected after the site work is done and prior to the construction of the buildings. John Taylor, 3020 Malinda Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated that he lives in the first house on the South side of the proposed development. He would like the fence to be 8 ft. and felt it would be better for security reasons, and would also be more view obscuring. Marty Woodruff, 3034 Malinda, addressed the Commission. She asked if the Developers could give some estimation of when the fence will be built. Vic Pepper stated the Developers would try to have the fence constructed 90 days after the beginning of construction. Mr. Papon stated that they are somewhat at the mercy of the utility companies. Rex Taylor, 3020 Malinda, addressed the Commission. He asked if there would be nothing but grass between the pavement and the West property line. Butch Papon stated there would be some rip rap, but that there are presently no plans for any major landscaping. Mr. Taylor asked how the developers plan to make vegetation view obscuring. Mr. Papon stated the Developers were requesting a waiver of that requirement, but if it is denied there will probably be a fence and no vegetation. Mr. Taylor felt that a fence alone would not be sufficient, as there would probably be a lot of noise from the development. Ernest Jacks stated that the addition of vegetation to the fence would actually do very little to buffer noise from the development. Don Hunnicutt stated that the buildings themselves would buffer some of the noise. Wade Bishop, 523 Crest, addressed the Commission and the audience. He stated that he would like to request that the screening along the West property line be waived for a distance of 192 feet back from Appleby Road. He has some R-0 property along Appleby with 192 ft. depth that he would like to keep free. He stated he will construct screening there himself. Bishop complimented Ron Woodruff's presentation and told the Commission that he does not feel any of the property owner's requests are too unreasonable. Jack Laib, 3024 Malinda Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated he would not like the setback requirement waived. He said if anything, he would prefer it went 8 ft. the other way. Beth Crocker stated that the buildings could be built within 20 ft. of the property line. She stated that the waiver had been requested for the truck berth only, that the buildings are the required distance from the property line. Peg Anderson stated that she has much reservation about waiving the 50 ft. setback. Martin Redfern asked if the Subdivision Committee had addressed the exit off of Appleby Road. He said it is hard to see what is coming from the South where Appleby Road intersects College Avenue. Harry Gray stated the Development needs an entrance off of Appleby Road He said that Appleby Road would be widened as required by the ordinance. Mort Gitelman stated that at least there will be a signal at the main entrance. Planning Commission Meeting • August 25, 1980 Page !f-- • • Beth Crocker amended her motion to be approval of the shopping center and subdivision with the following contingencies: 1. 2. 3. Waive the Waive the Obtain 25 requirement of 50 ft. setback ft. dedication a 10 ft. x 25 ft. loading berth on the smaller stores. requirement for the larger berths. from the centerline of Appleby Road. 4. Screening will consist of an 8 ft. wooden fence with the South waived from the screening requirement. 5. Waive frontage requirements for Lots 3, 4, $ 5. 6. Widen Appleby Road 15 ft. from the centerline along curb, gutter and storm drainage. 192 ft. the North side and install 7. Sidewalks will be as required by the Board of Directors. 8. All other Plat Review comments will apply. At this time the Commission voted on Beth Crocker's passed (8-0). The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-16, David R. Crittenden and James Mashburn, to rezone property located on the South side of North Street between Woolsey and Park Avenues from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District. Dr. David Crittenden was present to represent himself and Dr. Mashburn Dr. Crittenden stated that he is requesting the rezoning to permit himself to build a professional office building for his own and his associates occupancy. The property is directly across the street from Washington Regional Hospital. Crittenden stated he is an internist, and that many of his patients are housed in special quarters in the hospital, so that he has to constantly commute to and from the hospital. Dr. Crittenden's associate also has several of his patients in the hospital and has to commute to care for them. Neither one of them has a substantial amount of outpatients. Dr. Crittenden presented some drawings and schematics to the Commission, but stated that these were by.no means final plans. Crittenden said that the proposed structure would be traditional in design and that it would occupy about 50% of the proposed property. At this time Dr. Crittenden presented some slides to the Commission and the audience. The slides portrayed an area that was generally unkempt and in various stages of decay Crittenden went on to state other reasons why the property was suitable for R-0 zoning. Crittenden said that the two houses presently on the property are small frame houses and would eventually deteriorate. The empty lot would never be suitable for single family residential, in his opinion. This property has a controversial history. Since the last rezoning attempt, the hospital has doubled in size, and the motion and the motion REZONING PETITION NO. R80-16 CRITTENDEN $ MASIIBURN NORTH STREET BETWEEN WOOLSEY;. $ PARK Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page County Health Building has been constructed. Both Gregg and North Streets have been improved, and North Street has much more traffic. Crittenden further stated that he would be willing to stipulate that the land, if rezoned, would be strictly used for Use Unit 25, which is strictly for medical and dental offices. The Chairman asked for Larry Wood's, Planning Consultant, comments. Larry Wood stated that he recommends to the Planning Commission that they consider establishing an R-0 District from Woolsey, East to Highway 71-8, for the same reasons as given at the prior rezoning petitions for this property: North Street is a principle arterial street which constitutes four lanes of traffic. He feels the R-0 would provide a transitional buffer from the single family to the South. It would provide a reasonable use alternative for those parcels of land facing North Street which , in the future, will no longer be desirable for a place to live. It provides a reasonable use relationship between the hospital and the offices. Also, he feels the Professional Offices are compatible with residential because they are quiet, clean and their hours of operation are usually from 8 to 5. Newton Hailey asked what the setback from R-1 property is 'for R-0. Bobbie - Jones stated that the side setback for R-0 property contiguous with R-1 is 15 ft. and that would be the required setback from the South. J. B. Hays, 967 Arlington, addressed the Commission in favor of the rezoning. He stated he feels the rezoning would improve the area. Since this is primarily a day time operation, it would disrupt the neighborhood very little. He feels the rezoning would improve the tax base for the property. In addition, he said it may save some lives. Michael Howard, 1037 Woolsey, addressed the Commission.in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed Office Building. Howard presented a petition to the Commission signed by 108 property owners in the neighborhood. He felt the rezoning and the addition of an Office Building in the neighborhood would aggravate an already inadequate traffic condition, and lower property values Hugh Kincaid, 944 Park, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that he had lived at his present address for 45 years. He stated that he had been on the City Council about 30 years ago when the present zoning ordinance was created. One of the primary concerns when the ordinance was created was protecting residential areas, and preserving their maximum property values. Walter Brown, 1138 North Vandeventer, addressed the Commission. He stated that he also owns a house at 336 West North Street. Doctor Mashburn bought the two lots on the East of his house, and Doctors Cole and Lushbaugh bought the two lots on the West of his house. These doctors have been very bad neighbors, and have let the property run down. The neighbors have no confidence in the R-0 zoning. He cited Dr. Joe Hall's offices on Park and Lollar Lane and how they have expanded. Mr. Brown felt that if the Planning Commission granted this rezoning, it would be spot zoning. He stated that the Board of Directors had indicated to these property owners that North Street would not be four lane from Gregg to College, but they have no written assurance of that. Carl Rose, 934 Park, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had built his home in 1948. Many of the people in this neighborhood are senior citizens. If Dr. Crittenden could convince him that this is an emergency situation, he might look at the proposed office building in a different light. The petitioners are asking for this rezoning to benefit two people. He hoped the Commission would preserve • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page & 'j the neighborhood. The persons living in the neighborhood keep their homes up well and if you drive through the neighborhood, you will not find many homes like the ones Dr. Crittenden portrayed in his slide presentation. He said that Dr. Mashburn could have cleaned these lots up a long time ago and the City has the authority to make him do so. He stated that if the Planning Commission is going to rezone, they should start at College and work back. William Alien, 1041 Woolsey, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives directly across from the proposed rezoning. Addressing Dr. Crittenden's comment that building had been going on in the area; from the railroad tracks up to North Street, Mr. Allen said he could not recall anything being built there, other than adding on to the hospital. Fayetteville is large enough that other places could be found for these proposed offices. He hoped that the beautiful neighborhood would be left alone. David Epstein, 1101 Woolsey, addressed the Commission. He stated that he, as well as other neighbors had invested tremendous amounts of money in their homes. The reason he had done this is because of the nice housing close in to the City. There are many reasons for wanting to live close in, fuel costs for one. Part of the attraction of Fayetteville is the ability to live close to where you work. This is an established residential neighborhood. He urged the Commission to be aware of the overall quality of the area. Ann Hauser, 929 Park, stated that she strenuously objects to ruining a good and stable neighborhood, just because doctors want to make more money than they are making already. She stated that the rezoning would effect many people. Rezoning would bring in a dreadful amount of traffic. Woolsey and Park are both narrow streets. She cited the new doctors building on Highway 265 and stated that their practices have not diminished, they have increased and wondered why these doctors could not build there. She said she would be ashamed to admit that she owned the houses that were portrayed in the slide show, and even more ashamed to admit that she had human beings living in them. Mr. Wright spoke representing Joe Upchurch He stated that Mr. Upchurch opposes the proposed change in zoning and echoes the feelings of the other neighbors. Mrs. Fred Stephens, 833 Park, addressed the Commission. She stated that persons living in the neighborhood can no longer park on both sides of the street. According to Dr. Crittenden's plans, he is providing only 20 parking spaces. She had been counting the number of cars parked on the clinic lot at Dr. Hall's and the average has been 43 cars. Dr. Hall's practice did not start out that large. Ms. Stephens was afraid that eventually the doctors office would have to expand and would further encroach on the neighborhood. She stated she has lived at her present address for 32 years. Roy Allen, 311 West North Street, stated that when he built his house in 1950, North Street was a dirt road. The street was not widened a few years ago, it was widened 25 years ago and that the neighbors had created an improvement district and the property owners had borne the whole cost of widening and improving North Street. He said that changing the zoning in the area was a danger to the properties existing there. Attorney Hugh R. Kincaid, addressed the Commission. He stated he is representing two opponents. Dr. Crittenden is making the same arguments that had been made at the previous attempt to rezone this property. The Commission has been vindicated in their decision ten years ago not to rezone the property in that it had maintained its healthy character. In reference to Larry Wood's recommendation, he stated that the mere fact that traffic has increased on this street is not a reason to change the zoning. Changes in the neighborhood have occured because the City could not Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 • Page 9 9 • control it, meaning the Hospital and its activities. Mr. Kincaid asked the Commission to make the same good decision that they made ten years ago. Dr. Crittenden readdressed the Commission. In response to the comments about his greed, he stated he does not thi:nk_he should be held responsible for what Dr. Hall has done. Dr. Mashburn's property is not totally unimproved, some improvements are going on right now. He does not own this property, he has an option to buy it, and has never let any property of his deteriorate. Crittenden stated that much of the discussion has reflected feelings and situations of decades ago, and that maybe it is time to look at 1980 and 1990 and what the community's needs will be then. The Chairman closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. Mort Gitelman stated that Ernest Jacks and himself were on the Planning Commission ten years ago, when the owners of this property applied for rezoning. He had voted down the rezoning. Gitelman said he had not looked at the houses on North Street as having deteriorated. He did not think that zoning was specifically for the protection of residential neighborhoods, that zoning is for allocating the uses that are necessary for the entire community. Sometimes that means that neighborhoods must change with changing times and changing circumstances. In this case, Mr. Gitelman wished to make a motion to deny for two reasons: 1. He does not agree with the Planning Consultant in that he does not see anything that needs buffering. If the property remains in the R-1 zone on the South side of North Street, North Street itself becomes the buffer. 2. In the vicinity of the hospital, there is already land that is zoned R-0 and commercial which could accomodate the uses the Doctors wish to implement. Gitelman stated further, that he does not believe that North Street would be widened due to the prohibitive cost, and that creating a strip of medically related uses along North Street would bring more traffic into the interior streets and destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. Gitelman felt that the creation of medically related uses along North Street would breed circumstances not compatible with the Residential zoning. Windell Cullers seconded Morton Gitelman's motion to deny. Newton Hailey stated that he does not necessarily agree that there is vacant land available. However, he does not agree with the spot zoning. Once the property is zoned R-0, it is open for a number of uses Peg Anderson stated she feels it was a terrible mistake for Washington Regional Hospital to be built where it is. She said she was not sure there would be a better alternative along North Street, and in that sense, she agrees with Larry Wood's comments. However, she felt this would be a case of spot zoning, and did not agree with mixing houses with other uses Beth Crocker stated she is in sympathy with both sides. She could see Dr. Crittenden's need to be close to the Hospital. However, she felt the neighborhood is a nice one, and would not like to see it encroached upon. Martin Redfern stated this is one of several nice areas in town. It is within walking distance of schools, the hospital, the park and shopping centers. The Commission voted on Mr. Gitelman's motion to deny, and the motion passed (8-0). Ie Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page 0 7 The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-17, J. B. Hays, to rezone property located approximately 300 ft. East of North College Avenue (Highway 71-B) and approximately one-fourth mile South of Rolling Hills Drive from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District. Harry Gray and J. B. Hays were present to represent. The Chairman asked for Larry Wood's, Planning Consultant, comments. Larry Wood stated that he recommends that the Planning Commission consider the R-0 zoning for two reasons: 1) The property presently abuts commercial on the North side, and he suspects that before too long, the property will abut commercial on two sides. He sees this(tract as more or less a transition and a buffer between commercial on Highway 71, and the residential that is developing East of this tract. 2) The nature of the property would allow offices or apartments to be constructed on the property with less disruption of the environment. Peg Anderson asked where exactly the property is located. Harry Gray replied that its South property line lines up with Wet Willy's Water Slide and that it is directly behind it. Harry Gray stated that the Developers feel this is the best land use. He said that access is bad because of the steep nature of the property. J. B. Hays addressed the Commission and stated that he is the owner of the property. He plans on building access through the C-2 property he owns to the North. Peg Anderson asked what the nature of the property to the West is. J. B. Hays stated that piece of property is partially zoned commercial and is owned by Hank and Nancy Mahler. Harry Gray stated this is a beautiful hillside, but is quite noisy due to the Highway. Martin Redfern asked if the Developers would change the grade of the property. Harry Gray stated that the property would have to be flattened to some extent. Also, there would be a retaining wall built to the North. Don Hunnicutt asked if the proposed street would be City Dedicated. Harry Gray replied that it would be City dedicated and built to City Standards. Hank Mahler, 112 Fletcher Street, addressed the Commission. He asked if there was really going to be a road built to the property. Harry Gray replied this is the only route into this property at this time, unless an alternate route can be found. Mahler asked if there is a possibility that the property would be served through Brophy's subdivision. Harry Gray stated that would be a possibility if it could be worked out. Mahler stated he would not like to see traffic funneled out Township. Gray said it would go down to College. Peg Anderson moved to approve the rezoning petition. Mort Gitelman seconded. Gitelman said that while he approves of the rezoning, he would not approve of a private road to serve the R-0, that he would oppose anything other than a dedicated street built to City Standards, out to College Avenue. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to approve and it passed unanimously (8-0). PETITION R80-17, J. B. HAYS NORTH OF COLLEGE $ SOUTH OF ROLLING HILLS Planning Commission Meeting 411 August 25, 1980 Page 1 i o • • The sixth item of business AMENDMENT TO A PUD was a°request for an amendment to an SUNSET WOODS approved PUD submitted by John C. and JOHN AND ANN SUGG Ann W. Sugg. The Sunset Woods PUD was approved 12-11-78. At the time of approval, any structure within a PUD containing two or more units and located within an R-1 Zoning District had to be set back 100 feet from the perimeter of the PUD bordering other R-1 property. A more recent ordinance requires graduated setbacks based on the number of units in a structure. A two-family unit requires a setback of 50 feet from R-1 property or single family development. The applicant requests approval to convert an existing single family dwelling at 1001 Sunset Drive to a two-family dwelling. Dr. Sugg was present to represent. He stated that the property in question is his old home which he built in 1954, when Sunset Drive was a dead end street. He further stated that the house is large, 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, and would be unsuitable for anyone other than a large family. The house would be better marketed if it was converted to a two-family house He stated there is plenty of yard space, that two residences could be made out of this house easily, that it would be the best use to put the property to. Claude Prewitt addressed the Commission. He stated that he understood that this would be a lot split. This house would be converted to a two-family residence, that it would meet frontage requirements, that the only difference between this and an R-1 lot would be the 16 ft. side separation, instead, there will be a common wall. Peg Anderson asked how far the residence is from the R-1 property. George Holcomb replied that it is 32 ft. Ernest Jacks stated that was less than the required 50 ft. He asked Bobbie Jones if approval of this plan would require a waiver. Bobbie Jones replied that it would be a waiver from the 50 ft. required setback. Windell asked if the owner could retain ownership and rent the duplexes if this was approved. Prewitt said that Sugg could retain ownership. Windell asked if it could be operated as a rental unit. Prewitt stated it could. E. J. Holmes, 805 Sunset, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has reservations about Dr. Sugg's plans to change his home to a duplex. He was afraid that this might set a precedent and that other rental units would develop and perhaps apartments. He said he would like to keep the neighborhood single family residences. Rob Strand, 802 Sunset, addressed the Commission. He stated he does not think that four cars could fit into the driveway. He also stated Sunset is steep and in the winter time it is very slick. He felt that perhaps persons living in this residence might be tempted to park in the street. He further stated that Sunset is sometimes congested. He did not think that this house being located at the top of the hill would be a good place to add congestion. He stated that the neighborhood, being situated close to campus, might be susceptible to rentals. Lewis Johnson, 740 Sunset, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Holmes, and would like to see the neighborhood remain single family residential. Irene Holmes, 805 Sunset, addressed the Commission and stated this is a nice home and she could not see why it could not be sold to a family and kept single family. She asked if the zoning would be changed. Jacks stated it would not. • • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page ]2 ii Dr. Sugg stated he could not envision duplexes up and down Sunset. He said there is only one other house that could be multi -family on the street and it would not lend itself to the same type of treatment that he is applying to his old home. Windell Cullers stated that the granting of this request would allow for rental property in this neighborhood. Windell Cullers asked if this house was included in the PUD when it was submitted. Claude Prewitt stated that this house was included in the PUD, but as a single family home. Newton Hailey stated that Dr. Sugg was in his rights to ask for this amendment to the PUD. He said there was adequate water and sewer available. He moved to approve the request to amend the PUD, and grant the waiver of the side setback requirements. Mort Gitelman seconded Newton Hailey's motion to approve. Windell Cullers voiced some concern about amending the PUD to make this a two family house Mort Gitelman stated that there would be a lot line down the center of the house, and the only thing the Commission was waiving was the side setbacks. Each lot will meet the minimum requirements for lots in R-1. The Commission voted on Newton Hailey's motion to approve, the motion passed (7-1) with Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. Martin Redfern left the meeting at 7:40 P.M. The next item of business LOT SPLIT was a request for a first and second waiver of the WEST SIDE OAK BAILEY ROAD preliminary and final plat requirements to HELEN EDMISTON subdivide property for 1.04 acres of total property located on the West side of Oak Bailey Road between Sweetbriar Subdivision and Huntingdon, a PUD, submitted by Helen Edmiston. Applicant requests a variance in the minimum three acre lot size requirement for a first waiver and a variance in the minimum five acre lot size requirement for a second waiver. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Claude Prewitt was present to represent. He stated that the property was purchased with an existing house on it. They have rehabilitated the house and it has been sold, but the lot had to be made smaller (80 ft.) to make it affordable. He said that he would like to split up the remaining property to make two additional lots. There is an existing 30 ft. easement dedicated to Keith Gardner, off the North end of the property. The property sits on a fully improved street, (Oak Bailey Road) with sidewalks on the other side of the street. Ernest Jacks stated that the Lot Split Ordinance was put into effect to prevent persons from illegally subdividing property. He said he did not feel that was the case in this instance. Claude Prewitt stated that the remaining lots will exceed all subdivision requirements. Peg Anderson moved to approve the waivers from the lot split requirements. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0). 24:07 r - • Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page 3/z The next item on the Agenda CONDITIONAL USE was a Conditional Use Request J. B. HAYS submitted by J. B. Hays to have a carpet 2887 N. COLLEGE AVENUE and building material sales establishment at 2887 North College Avenue. A building material establishment is a conditional use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in this C-2 zoning. J. B. Hays was present to represent. Dr. Hays stated that he has traded the Lucky Seven Building to Mr. Bassett, and that they wish to move the carpet business to this location on Highway 71. He said that it is his understanding that carpet sales is permitted, but he would need a conditional use for the building materials. Ernest Jacks asked if the Lucky Seven would have all the little outbuildings that they had at their previous location. Dr. Hays said he had indicated to the renters that he would not want the outbuildings out near the street. Peg Anderson moved to approve the Conditional Use for carpet and building materials sales. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Windell Cullers asked if the renters would still have the outbuildings. Dr. Hays said that as the owner, he would control it. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was PUBLIC HEARING the public hearing on proposed ordinances PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO to amend the Fayetteville Code of FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES Ordinances, Appendix A - Zoning, Article 5, Sections II and III for the purpose of amending the minimum lot width for a townhouse in a townhouse development, to amend the side setbacks between detached townhouses without common walls, to amend the height regulations for buildings in excess of 20 ft. in height; to amend Article 17 of said Appendix A - Zoning to redefine "townhouses" and for other purposes. The Chairman stated that there had been a Committee formed consisting of himself, Martin Redfern, Larry Wood, Jim Lindsey and Don Mills, which had made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Chair recognized the City Attorney, Jim McCord. McCord stated that he had tried to pattern the definition of "townhouse" after the definition in the Building Code. The definition, according to the Building Code, is "a single family dwelling unit constructed in a series, or group of attached units with property lines separating such units". Mr. McCord advised the Commission that the horizontal property act allows for the sale of individual apartments without the sale of any real property. Ernest Jacks stated that both definitions presume ownership. McCord stated that is correct. In a townhouse situation, real property is involved, in a condominium situation, there is no real property involved. McCord stated this applies strictly to residential propert*es. Ernest Jacks stated that as far as minimum width of a townhouse, he could see no reason to not strike the minimum width for townhouses completely. McCord said the Commission might want a minimum total width for a townhouse or condominium development. Jacks said that there should be an area minimum and, also, an area per dwelling unit minimum, from a density standpoint. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 Page 0 i3 Claude Prewitt stated that those minimum requirements are already in the code. This will probably develop as entry level housing, as young couples are hard pressed to buy a conventional home with prices the way they are today Ernest Jacks stated that he could see no reason for a minimum lot width, as the minimum area requirements are already established. Peg Anderson stated, regarding height, that she could see no reason for a maximum height requirement. Peg Anderson moved to continue the public hearing and refer these items back to the Committee that made the recommendation. Mort Gitelman seconded Peg Anderson's motion. The motion was passed (7-0). Larry Wood stated that he is considering OTHER BUSINESS recommending that the City modify the Planning Area boundaries. MODIFICATION OF PLANNING AREA He said that in order to certify BOUNDARIES property in or out of the Planning Area, he is suggesting that the boundary be modified to pick up entire quarter sections and quarter/quarter sections. He asked if the Commission has any difficulty with this idea. He presented a map to the Commission with some of these areas shown. The Commission was in accord with Mr. Wood's proposal. Jim McCord stated that it had come DISCUSSION PUD ORDINANCE out in the Board of Directors Meeting at the appeal of the public housing PUD's, that there appeared to be some ambiguities in the PUD Ordinance. McCord said that he did not realize that adjoining property owners had the right to appeal a PUD to the Board of Directors. He was aware that the Developer had that right. McCord said that if the Planning Commission feels the adjoining property owners have the right to appeal to the Board, the Ordinance should be amended to clarify at which level they.'should appeal. Ernest Jacks stated that he understood that there are Board members who have problems with the PUD Ordinance in general. He wondered if perhaps a couple of Board Members and a couple of Commission Members should get together and discuss the Ordinance. Jim McCord said that he does not think the Board has that much of a problem with the Ordinance, but that they feel it should be clarified in some areas. A session with some of the Board Members would probably be helpful Windell Cullers asked why it would be reasonable for the Developers to appeal to the Board and not the adjoining property owners. McCord said he was not saying that it was not reasonable. McCord suggested that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Board of any amendments that the Commission feels are in order. He stated that there are areas of the PUD Ordinance that need to be clarified, and oneofthem is whether or not the property owners have the alternative of appealing to the City Board of Directors. Planning Commission Meeting August 25, 1980 • Page f5 /`- Ernest Jacks said he would send word to the Mayor to appoint two people from the Board and the Commission in turn would appoint two people to form a committee. and discuss problems and bring them back to the Commission. One Commissioner felt it should involve the entire Board and the entire Commission. Peg Anderson stated that there should be some basis on which to turn down a PUD. McCord stated that one problem the Board has with the PUD Ordinance is that they are located in R-1, and the Board feels, in a sense, that a PUD increases the standard density of the R-1. Ernest Jacks stated that the entire PUD Ordinance should be included in the next agenda as a discussion item. • • The meeting adjourned at 8:17, P.M.