Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-08 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting was held of the Fayetteville Planning Commission at 5:00 P.M., Monday, September 8, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey, Windell Cullers, Peg Anderson. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Martin Redfern. Mel Milholland, Richard Mayes, Jim Stephens, Lindsey, Tom Hopper, Dr. Mitchell Singleton, Baker, Larry Wood, Ernest Lancaster, Cynthia and other members of the press and audience. Rick Cowdrey, Jim Mary Martin, James Stewart, Bobbie Jones, The first item for consideration was approval MINUTES of the minutes of the August 25, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. Beth Crocker asked that the 8 ft. height on her recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the fence screening the Appleby Acres Subdivision be ommitted. Also, Mort Gitelman requested that on Page 9, paragraph 4, that R-1 be changed to R-0. With those corrections, the minutes of the August 25, 1980 meeting were approved as mailed. The next item of business FINAL PLAT was the approval of the Final Plat TOWNSHIP COMMON of Township Common located North of NORTHW00D HOMES CORP. Township Road, East of Hwy. 71 B, and West of Old Wire Road; Northwood Homes Corporation - Owner, Milby Pickell - Developer. Mel Milholland was present to represent. The Chairman of the Subdivision Committee gave his recommendation. 1. The first condition that the Subdivision Committee imposed upon Mr. Milholland was that adjoining property owners be notified. Mr. Milholland submitted proof that all property owners have been notified. 2. The second condition was that easements coincide with those requested by the Plat Review Committee. Mr. Milholland has complied with that condition. 3. Thee first four items in Mrs. Jones comments at the Plat Review Committee be complied with (A, B, C, P, D). 4. Sidewalks will be as per recommendation from City Board of Directors and/or City Attorney, Jim McCord. Sidewalks along Township Road were waived on the preliminary plat; however, the Master Sidewalk Plan has since been adopted and shows sidewalks on both sides of Township Road. Planning Commission Meeting • September 8, 1980 Page 2 Keith Newhouse moved that the Final Plat for Township Common be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Developers will comply with Mrs. Jones Plat Review comments A, B, C, $ D. 2. Sidewalks will be in accordance with the City Ordinance. Don Hunnicutt seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was the approval of the Final Plat of Mayes Oakwood Subdivision, located outside the City, North of Weir Road (County Road 94), in the Salem Community, MAYES OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION RICHARD MAYES OUTSIDE CITY Richard L. and Ethel Mayes, Owners and Developers. Richard Mayes was present to represent. Keith Newhouse stated that the Subdivision Committee was recommending. approval. He stated that the plat had been recorded at the Courthouse and held up because it had never been signed by a member of the Planning Commission. Newhouse moved that the Final Plat be approved and that Windell Cullers go to the Courthouse and sign the Final Plat of Mayes Oakwood Subdivision. Don Hunnicutt seconded Newhouse's motion to approve. The motion passed (7-1), with Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" vote. The next item for consideration SOUTHERN HEIGHTS - PHASE I was the approval of the Preliminary Plat PRELIMINARY PLAT of Southern Heights - Phase I, located off S F J COMPANY the end of Rodgers Drive, South of Lighton Trail, and North of Huntsville Road; S $, J Company - Owner, Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Rick Cowdrey and Jim Stephens were present to represent. Keith Newhouse stated that the Subdivision Committee had approved this Preliminary Plat with two contingencies: 1. A T -Turn Around be constructed at the Southeast end of Rodgers Drive, and the 1000 ft. maximum for a dead-end street be waived. 2. Waive the maximum distance between street lights between Lots 6, 8 & 9. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Ernest Jacks asked if Rodgers Drive was a gravel road. Bobbie Jones replied that all of the existing streets in the area are gravel. Bobbie further stated the existing Rodgers Drive will be constructed, by the Developer, to City Standards, except it will have only 20 ft. of pavement and no curb and gutter. Also, all streets within the Subdivision will be constructed to City Standards Ernest Jacks asked if the Developer was going to construct Rodgers all the way from Oklahoma Way. Bobbie said that is correct. Bobbie Jones said that Rodgers would be constructed with 6 inches of SB -2, with 20 ft. of asphalt paving 2" thick, a bar ditch and underdrain. No sidewalks will be constructed on the existing section of Rodgers. Planning Commission Meeting • September 8, 1980 Page 3 The Commission voted on Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. The motion passed (8-0). Harriet Jansma stated there is an existing utility easement in the middle of the Rodgers Place Subdivision, which is directly to the West of this proposed Subdivision. She stated that the easement has no apparent use, there is no water or sewer in the easement. She asked how to go about closing the easement. Bobbie Jones said there is a procedure to follow in the vacation of an easement. She said the information Mrs. Jansma would need could be obtained in the City Clerk's Office. She stated that written clearance would have to be obtained from the utility companies. • The next item of business was the CONCEPT PLAT - REPLAT approval of the Concept Plat and Replat of KANTZ PLACE Kantz Place, a Planned Unit Development to be PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT located North of Hwy. 45 East and West of East Oaks Drive; Ball Family Trust, Owners and Developers. Keith Newhouse stated the Subdivision Committee is recommending approval of this concept and replat with two conditions. 1. The tennis court on the North side of the PUD will be moved to meet setback requirements. 2. Kantz Avenue will be renamed. Elizabeth Crocker seconded Newhouse's motion to approve. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration was LOT SPLIT - VARIANCE a request for a variance from the lot size SIZE REQUIREMENT requirement applicable to a lot split submitted MITCHELL SINGLETON by Dr. Mitchell Singleton for property West of Green Acres Road, South of Elm Street, and North of Poplar Street. Also, includes a request for a waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street. Dr. Singleton was present to represent. He stated that basically, he had found a good location for an office, but had more lot space than he needs. He stated that he was requesting the split in order to make part of the lot available for sale. Singleton stated that the property to the South is developed in two office buildings. He said that he would request the purchaser to develop the lot in keeping with the neighborhood, which is basically professional office buildings. He said he would give an easement to make access available. Dr. Singleton said the property split off would be 1/2 acre. Peg Anderson voiced some concern over the possibility of the 1/2 acre being developed other than as a professional office building. Dr. Singleton said that the property is zoned R-0, and that limits what goes in there to some extent. Peg Anderson moved to approve the request for a waiver of the lot size requirements, and, also, the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street. Keith Newhouse seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve. eve) 1^ te- 14,-41 Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1980 Page 4 Mort Gitelman requested that a condition of approval be that a 25 ft. minimum width, easement be provided for access. The motion passed (8-0). The seventh item of business REZONING PETITION R80-18 was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition DICKSON $ OLIVE R80-18, Mary Campbell Fletcher, MARY CAMPBELL FLETCHER to rezone property located on the Northwest corner of East Dickson Street and North Olive Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Having received a written request by the applicant, Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request by the applicant to withdraw the rezoning petition. Newton Hailey seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. Jim Lindsey stated that he had advised Mrs. Fletcher to withdraw her application, as it did not fit in with the general plan for the property, as outlined in Larry Wood, Planning Consultant's comments. He stated that an alternate plan would be developed that would better suit the R-1 neighborhood. The Commission voted to approve Keith Newhouse's motion (8-0). The eighth item on the Agenda was a CONDITIONAL USE Conditional Use request submitted by MARY MARTIN Mary E. Martin to operate a child care 2335 SWEETBRIAR DRIVE facility (maximum of 10 children) at 2335 Sweetbriar Drive, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District Mary Martin was present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated that adjacent property owners were not notified, nor was a sign posted on the property as this is a Child Care Facility. Beth Crocker asked if the fence in Mrs. Martin's back yard was a board fence, and asked if it went all the way across her back yard. Mrs. Martin replied that the fence goes all the way across the back yard and, also, the sides of the house. She said it is a board fence. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the Conditional Use request for a Child Care Facility at 2335 Sweetbriar Drive. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was a Conditional Use Request submitted by DUPLEX James W. Baker to construct a duplex on the WOODLAND AND SYCAMORE STS. Northeast corner of Woodland Avenue and Sycamore Street, zoned R-1, LowDensity Residential District. Ernest Jacks asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified. Mrs. Jones said that they had been notified, and that the applicant had been responsible for notifying them himself. Mr. Baker was present to represent. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1980 Page 6 Bobbie Jones stated that the drawing submitted by the applicant needs some adjustment in setbacks, the applicant did not allow for the Master Street Plan in his drawing. She said in the drawing, the rights-of-way are shown as 40 ft. for both streets. She said that Woodland requires a 50 ft. right-of-way and Sycamore requires a 60 ft. right-of-way. Mrs. Jones stated that sidewalks will be required on Sycamore Street. Peg Anderson moved that the Conditional Use request be granted with the condition that City Ordinances will be complied with. Keith Newhouse seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve. The motion passed (8-0). The next item was a discussion DISCUSSION ITEM of the regulations governing the development REGULATION AND GOVERNING of Planned Unit Developments in the City PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS of Fayetteville. Ernest Jacks stated that he had requested the attendance of the Mayor, John Todd, and Ernest Lancaster for this discussion. Jacks said he had asked several members of the Board to give their feelings or attitudes on the PUD Ordinance. He said he got the impression that the PUD Ordinance is acceptable to most people when it consists of a large piece of property with the development drawn into the property. He said that problems develop on the smaller PUD's in that people look on the PUD as being multi -family housing in a single-family area. Jacks said it had been suggested that adjacent property owners be given the right to appeal a PUD. Also, that there should be grounds on which to deny a PUD. Peg Anderson said that according to the Ordinance, the procedure for appeal shall be the same as the appeal for a rezoning petition. She stated that the appeal procedure for a rezoning can occur only after disapproval and does not allow for an appeal for an approved rezoning. Bobbie Jones said that rezonings always goto the Board of Directors, for final approval, and that persons can be heard or present their case at that level also She further stated that it takes a 3/4 majority of the Board of Directors to approve a rezoning where more than a certain amount of adjacent property owners are in opposition. Peg Anderson said in that case, the appeal procedure should be changed for a PUD, because, in fact, there is no appeal procedure for a rezoning recommended for approval. Peg Anderson said that another question is whether a PUD is a use by right in R-1, or a conditional use in R-1. Ernest Jacks suggested a meeting of a small group of the Board members and a small group of Commission members to get together and discuss these questions and others. He felt that perhaps the concept itself is questionable to some members of the Board. Beth Crocker said that she felt one part of the concept that seems questionable is in the small PUD. She read from the PUD Ordinance that, "uses permitted in the PUD will be the same uses permitted in the zoning district, except a PUD in an R-1 district can include all uses included in Use Unit 9''. She said that people are objecting to rental type units. She said that this could be handled by restricting the type of units that are constructed in a small area PUD, but still allow for townhouse type construction. People seem to dislike duplexes and triplexes in R-1. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1980 Page 7 Bobbie said that people in the R-1 neighborhoods will probably view townhouses as rental units. She said she did not believe housing could be restricted from rental uses. Beth Crocker said she was not interested in restricting rental but that she was suggesting a different type of unit, in a small area PUD. Ernest Lancaster arrived at 5:50, P.M. The Chairman gave a brief outline of what the Commission had discussed in relation to this discussion item to Mr. Lancaster. Jacks said that the main problems with the PUD Ordinance have been with the small area PUD's. He said that people do not object to a large area of land with a building in the middle of it. Mort Gitelman said he was not sure if the difference lay in a small or large PUD. He said a developer of a large PUD would be more likely to develop the property with the buildings on the perimeter of the property and the open space more in the center so that what the neighbors see is a tri-plex and not the open space. Developers do not necessarily pull the development into the center of the property. Mort said he thought perhaps the question of whether the PUD will be a use by right or a conditional use was the basic problem. Ernest Lancaster said he felt the Commission had voted on the PUD's as they should have, according to the ordinance. He said that he feels the philosophy of the PUD has changed since the ordinance was first passed. He said his idea of a PUD was similar to what had been planned for the top of North Street (Sunset Woods) and at Summerhill. He felt these PUD's were completely different from what had been proposed at the Sycamore/Garland site and at Happy Hollow Road He felt that apartments are not acceptable in a PUD. He said that the Board had gotten the feeling from the people in opposition that they did not want their neighborhoods changed to allow apartments. In the case of Garland/Sycamore, the Commission had turned down a rezoning just six months earlier that would have allowed for apartments in that neighborhood, and had then come back and approved the public housing. Peg Anderson asked if the objection had been to the small area. Lancaster said that a PUD complex was completely different from a public housing complex. Windell Cullers said that when the Commission had discussed the small area PUD, they had discussed it in terms of ownership and not rental. Keith Newhouse said that the objection to the Public Housing had been to the type of people that would be living in the housing and not to the PUD concept. Newhouse said he was upset that the Board went along with that type of thinking. Lancaster said that the persons in the neighborhood had had no objection to the rezoning to allow for apartments, but that the Commission had turned down the request for rezoning. Beth Crocker said that an R-2 density in that neighborhood would have been a lot different from the PUD which had been proposed and would have had the same density as the surrounding neighborhood. Windell Cullers said the Commission should decide whether a PUD will be a use by right whether it is rental property or under separate ownership. Mr. Lancaster said that the Commission had turned these two PUD's over to the Board of Directors with no back ground information or discussion information to review before the meeting. Peg Anderson pointed out that the Board had desired and announced that they would hear these two appeals the next night if the persons objecting wanted to appeal. Beth Crocker said that these two PUD's had been just like all the others. She 554 Planning Commission Meeting • September 8, 1980 Page 8 • • said-. that she did not feel that development should be restricted to not include rental. She asked Mr. Lancaster if he felt the criteria for a PUD was a swimming pool and a tennis court. She said that there are lots of people who need housing but can't afford that type of housing. In her opinion, Fayetteville does not need a PUD if it is going to exclude people. Windell said he has a problem with the PUD in that the streets do not have to be built to City Standards. Ernest Jacks said the streets within a PUD must be built to City Standards, the only difference is that they do not have to be as wide, and within a PUD, the number of units that can be built along a street that is not as wide is restricted. Windell said another problem with the PUD is the fact that it will be difficult down the road to get the property owners association to pay for maintaining recreational and private facilities, such as the streets. Mort Gitelman agreed that there could be some problems in this respect. Windell Cullers said that another objection he has to the PUD, is that it allows for a rental type of development to be "plopped" down in an R-1 Residential neighborhood. Newton Hailey stated that Larry Wood had pointed out that 50% of all the houses in Fayetteville are rental houses Jim Lindsey said that perhaps, if the PUD's for the public housing had been designed so that they could be owned at some time in the future, there may have been a different attitude towards the PUD's. He said that another thing that hinders the PUD, is that people in general recognize a need for the PUD, but are not necessarily ready for it. Windell Cullers asked Claude Prewitt how he would feel if a PUD for rental was put in the middle of his R-1 development. Claude Prewitt stated that if the PUD was put in according to the guidelines, with a density of 7 units per acre, he would have no objection to it in his neighborhood. Peg Anderson said that the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors make decisions under different circumstances. She said that the Board is basically a political body and does have to consider the opinion of the .people. On the other hand, the Commission is set up to make decisions based on planning and what is right or wrong from a planning standpoint. Anderson said that if the PUD is a use by right, it may be a mistake to have a public hearing. Mort Gitelman said that a note should be addressed to the Board saying that if the Board wishes to explore the concept of the PUD further, the Commission would be happy to meet with them.. Peg Anderson seconded this statement. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M.