Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-27 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., on October 27, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabteh Crocker, Keith Newhouse, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Peg Anderson. Cynthia Stewart, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Lynn Wade, Carl Russell, Jack Burge, Gary Carnahan, Dr. G.A. Sexton, Boyd David Cox, Herbert Hatfield, Wade Bishop, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the October 13, 1980 MINUTES meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with a correction to Page 3, Item 1, "recorded plat on the plat" should be corrected to read "recorded covenants on the Plat". The second item of business was the public hearing on the Rezoning Petition R80-24, Fulbright Investment Company, to rezone property located 1/8 mile South of 6th Street, East of Razorback Road, and West of Rose Avenue from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. Attorney Lynn Wade and Architect Carl Russell were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood's report on the requested rezoning. Larry Wood stated he is recommending the requested rezoning for the following reasons: REZONING PETITION R80-24 FULBRIGHT INVESTMENT COMPANY RAZORBACK ROAD 1. Even though only the property to the West is presently zoned Industrial, the properties to the North, West and South will probably eventually develop industrially. The City of Fayetteville has an option on the parcel of land to the North, and their plans are to install a solid waste disposal site. 2. Railroad facilities currently exist on the property to serve the Industrial zoning. 3. There is sufficient land available on the site to dispose of waste by septic tank and absorption field until such time as sewer can be extended to the site. 4. The property in this location rises quite rapidly to the East, this site is the lower portion of the slope. Mr. Wood said he expects the lower portion of the slope adjacent to future industrial to also develop as industrial property. l�Q • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 2 The Chairman asked if the Petitioner had any additional comments. Lynn Wade stated that the petitioner concurs with the Planning Consultant's comments. He said he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have, and that Carl Russell was available to answer any development type questions. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing in opposition to the Rezoning petition. There was no one present in opposition. Keith Newhouse moved that Rezoning Petition No. R80-24 be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. Windell Cullers seconded. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Grimes had spoken to her about the rezoning petition and that he had no opposition to it. The City has an option on the parcel of land to the North of this site, and perhaps would seek a rezoning on it in the future. Although, the City has a Conditional Use which would allow the City to use the property for the solid waste disposal site. The Commission voted on Mr. Newhouse's motion to approve. The motion passed (7-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt abstaining. The third item on the Agenda was the approval of the Large Scale Development plan for Hog Country Distributing Company to be located 1/8 mile South of 6th Street, LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HOG COUNTRY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY RAZORBACK ROAD East of Razorback Road, and West of Rose Avenue; Fulbright Investment Company - Owner and Developer. Lynn Wade and Carl Russell were present to represent. The Chairman asked for the recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Keith Newhouse moved approval of the Large Scale Development Plan for Hog Country Distributing Company with the following conditions: 1. The Developer will enter into a contract or Bill of Assurance (to be drafted by Jim McCord, City Attorney) to assume 1/2 the cost of the improvement of Razorback Road, if the Highway Department does not follow through with their plans to improve Razorback Road. Sidewalks will be required, to be installed by the Developer, for the Whole length of his property East of Razorback Road. 2. Existing screening will be accepted. If the developer ever clears the site, screening will be installed as per ordinance. 3. Septic tank waste disposal will be accepted for this site. The truck wash facility will be wasted separately. 4. Conform to Plat Review Comments. 5. Subject to Board of Director's approval of the rezoning petition for the property. Lynn Wade addressed the Commission, he said that the Developer fully intends to improve Razorback Road if the Highway Department does not. He stated however, Razorback Road is not adjacent to the Development site for the full length of the development. He wondered if the Developer should be required to bear the whole cost of the installation of sidewalks along Razorback Road. Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 3 Keith Newhouse said that had been discussed at the Subdivision Committee level, and that the construction of Razorback Road would benefit the Development site, and that the Developer should, in fact, be required to install sidewalks. for the full length of his property. The Subdivision Committee felt that, in this case, the off-site improvement should be required. Carl Russell said that approximately 300 ft. of sidewalks would not be on this Developer's property. Beth Crocker said that portion of property, not adjacent to Razorback, would not be developed as it is owned by the railroad, and that there will be a need for sidewalks on that portion of land. Newton Hailey seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve the Large Scale Development Plan with the above mentioned conditions. The motion to approve passed (7-0-1) with Don Hunnicutt abstaining. The next item of business CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was the Conditional Use Request JACK BURGE submitted by Jack Burge Construction 693 WEST NORTH STREET Company to change a non -conforming use from warehouse to office and display for an interior design business for a portion of the building at 693 West North Street, zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Jack Burge was present to represent. He stated that the building is located on railroad right-of-way, and that he is not the owner of the property, but is the owner of the building. He stated he has owned this building for about six years, and has occupied it for eleven years. The use of the building in the past has been a construction office, warehouse, wood -working shop and a sign painting shop. The building is presently being used for a.: construction office and warehouse The expansion is for his wife and her partner, a licensed interior designer. The entrance to the office will be existing. The office space of the interior design portion of the office will be SO ft. by 60 ft. for display, samples, desks and reception type uses In addition, Mr. Burge pointed out that the building was constructed in 1908, with timbers that came out of the first railroad bridge in Siloam Springs. Windell Cullers moved that the Conditional Use request be approved. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was the request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Dr. G. A. Sexton VARIANCE - LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT DR. G. A. SEXTON HYLAND PARK SUBDIVISION for property West of Canterbury Road and East of Rockcliff Road. (Part of Lot 11, Phase 2, and Part of Lot 1, Phase 4, Hyland Park Subdivision). The Chairman asked Bobbie Jones if she had notified adjacent property owners. Bobbie replied that she had notified the owner of Lot 24, as that was the only lot that would be affected if the variance is approved. Bobbie said she had a comment from the City Engineer's Office; "The sewer is somewhere at the back of the existing Lot 11, there is a house under Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 4 construction on Lot 11, Phase II, with this new division, they should reserve for themselves a private service line easement, rather than a public utility easement to get sewer from the house to the sewer line." The Chairman asked if there was anyone present to represent this request. There was no one present to represent. Jacks asked Bobbie if approval of the lot split should carry that contingency; that they satisfy the City Engineer regarding plans for sewering the lot. Bobbie said that she had originally thought the developer would ask to decrease the size of the easement which runs through the proposed lot; however, Gary Carnahan had told Bobbie that the Developers do not plan to try to decrease the size of the easement. Martin Redfern asked if the sewer is on Rockcliff Road. Bobbie said it is somewhere near Rockcliff. Bobbie Jones said that plans for sewer in this Development had changed several times, and that the Engineer for the project has not gotten all the information as to where the existing sewer lines are placed to the City Engineer yet. Beth Crocker stated that she is concerned about the buildable area on the proposed lot. With the size of the easement running through the lot, it limits the area that can be built upon quite a bit. Bobbie Jones said there would be a 20 ft. rear yard setback, but with the area, a 30 ft. x 100 ft. house could be built on the lot, if it was constructed on the North half of the lot. Beth Crocker stated that unless there is a specific buyer in mind, she felt that the Developers were putting a problem on somebody. Ernest Jacks asked if the easement was being used. Bobbie said that some changes had occurred in the placement of sewer lines, she does not know what is in the easement nor where in the easement it is located. Windell Cullers suggested moving on to Item 6 and postponing discussion of this item until such time as someone is present to represent. The next item for REQUEST FOR WAIVER consideration was the request DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE for waiver of the driveway 2620 KANTZ DRIVE safety zone and distance between side property line and driveway for property at 2620 Kantz Drive. Boyd David Cox was present to represent. He stated that the problem is the same that existed when the unit that faces this unit was constructed. The lots are slender, eight unit townhouse buildings have been constructed on them, the length of the lot. The Townhouse buildings face each other, and a park area is designed between them. This resulted in having the parking behind the buildings and almost to the property line of each lot. It would be better to run the driveway perpendicular rather than out to the 90 degree parking. He said that a variance has already been obtained for the first building from the Planning Commission. The second building has almost been finished, and he would like to obtain a variance for this building. Newhouse asked if there would be a turn -around. Mr. Cox replied there would not be a turn -around. He stated that the developers had considered a turn -around, but where it is shown on the drawing will actually be a container for trash. Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 5 Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request for a waiver from the 12-1/2 ft. setback for a driveway from adjoining property lines. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The seventh item on the Agenda was an ordinance amending Art. 7, Section 21 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to clarify the regulations pertaining to tandem lot development. Bobbie Jones stated that Jim McCord felt the Planning Commission needs to delete the tandem lot provisions in the Code and use the Section that allows the Planning Commission to waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street, (Art. 8, Section 6),or amend the ordinance as shown in the Agenda, which sets out some conditions for denial of a request to develop a tandem lot. Ernest Jacks felt that if the ordinance governing tandem lots is wiped out totally, there would be no control over the development of tandem lots. Bobbie Jones said that is correct, the Planning Commission could waive the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street, but they would not have the requirements that they could impose when dealing with a single family residence. Bobbie Jones said that the main change that is not in the ordinance presently, is Section 2 (a), that it will not reduce the property values in the neighborhood. Beth Crocker asked if the ordinance would change the definition of a tandem lot. Bobbie said that the proposed ordinance sets a tandem lot as a conditional use, which is not in the existing code as such. Bobbie said the present code says, "a tandem lot development, the locating of a lot which does not meet minimum road frontage requirements, behind another lot which does meet such requirements, may be permitted for single family units upon appeal to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions," and the ordinance goes on to state those conditions. Cullers asked if Section 2 (a) is in the present ordinance. Bobbie replied it is not. Martin Redfern said that Mr. McCord had said it would be hard to establish whether or not a tandem lot development would devalue other properties in the neighborhood. Bobbie Jones said that if the definition of a tandem lot is changed to make it a conditional use, that in granting any conditional use, that use must have general compatibility with adjacent properties, and other properties in the area. Ernest Jacks asked if this ordinance would make a tandem lot a conditional use in R-1. Bobbie Jones said it would. Mort Gitelman said he did not like calling a tandem lot a conditional use because the use would be single family, and it seems redundant to call a single family use a conditional use in a single family district. Ernest Jacks asked if this proposed amendment could be altered enough to send on to the Board of Directors. Gitelman said he would like to study the amendment before sending it on to the Board of Directors. ORDINANCE TO AMEND ART. 7, SECTION 21 OF APPENDIX A FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES Planning Commission Meeting • October 27, 1980 Page 6 • Windell Cullers moved to table Item 7 and Don Hunnicutt seconded. Martin Redfern asked if the existing ordinance is worked with, as long as all the requirements on driveways, etc. are met then would the tandem lot be an automatic use by right in R-1? Martin asked if Mort's thinking would be that the tandem lot could be evaluated without adding the section about devaluating properties in the neighborhood. Mort said he was not sure he agreed with the proposed amendment to the ordinance. He stated he was not sure he wanted the Planning Commission to judge the neighbors' objections to the tandem lot. The Commission voted on Windell Culler's motion to table Item 7. The motion was unanimous (8-0). Wade Bishop addressed the Commission. He stated that there had been a tandem lot request in his neighborhood to which he had been strictly opposed, as it destroyed the privacy of his back yard. He said at the time the Planning Commission had turned down the request for tandem lot, but the applicant had appealed it to the Courts, and had won the case. Mr. Bishop stated that he had not been notified when the case had been appealed to Court, and wondered if there was any way that interested parties could be notified when a case such as this is appealed to a higher court. Windell Cullers said that when a decision of the Planning Commission is appealed to a civil court, it is at that time, out of the hands of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bishop said he had found out that the tandem lot request had been appealed to a civil court by a lady in California and wondered why he had never been notified. The next item of business ORDINANCE AMENDING was an ordinance amending Appendix A, Art. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 8, Sec. 12 of the Fayetteville Code of REGULATIONS Ordinances to amend the City's Planned Unit Development regulations by providing that a Planned Unit Development shall be a Conditional Use in the R-1 zoning district and by clarifying the right of appeal of adjacent property owners Ernest Jacks stated that this item had been before the Planning Commission October 13, 1980, and the Commission had had some objections to the amendment. Jacks said he had spoken with the City Attorney and that he has modified the amendment to use some of the same language that the Large Scale Development contains. Jacks rind not feel that Beth Crocker's objections had been clarified. The amendment states " the developer or owner of the property"; Jacks felt it should read "the Developer of the PUD or the owner of any property adjoining the PUD".may appeal to the Board of Directors. Jacks felt that should be corrected before the ordinance goes on to the Board. Jacks said that the ordinance would make a PUD a conditional use in R-1. He said that according to the ordinance, a conditional use has eight conditions that must be met for approval. Mort Gitelman stated he is opposed to the philosphy of the amendment. He stated that the amendment not only makes a PUD for single-family uses a conditional use in R-1; but as a reason for denial it says the proposed PUD • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 7 would create a hazardous traffic condition. In R-2, R-3, and R-0 it will increase traffic. You cannot develop a greater density within a PUD than the surrounding zoning district. He said it seems that something is being added to the PUD Ordinance as an excuse to turn it down. Everything that goes into the PUD has to meet the density, water and sewer requirements etc. as a single family development. Mr. Gitelman said this being the case, he did not see why a PUD should not be a use by right. Keith Newhouse agreed with Mr. Gitelman. Gitelman said the more conditional uses there are in the ordinances, the more room for arbitrary action. Beth Crocker stated that she agrees with Mr. Gitelman essentially, but in view of the opinions expressed by the City Board, some ground is going to have to be given if there is to be a PUD Ordinance at all. Newton Hailey said he agrees with Mr. Gitelman, and that the amendment would be tinkering with the PUD Ordinance, and that the amendment is not needed. Hailey felt that the PUD should be a use by right. Hailey went on to say that the amendment grew out of two very special sets of circumstances that would probably not be reocurring. Jacks said he did not agree. He felt that any time a PUD with multi-family_;type housing is proposed in an R-1 district, the same arguments will come up. Hailey said that if the right to appeal is given, then that's what will happen and a can of worms will be opened up. Keith Newhouse was in accord, he felt that the PUD would be appealed on the basis that there would be rental property involved, and that it would decrease all the surrounding property values. Keith Newhouse wondered how it could be gotten across to the Board that the density would not be any different from that in R-1. He also said if the statistics are correct, 50% of the houses in Fayetteville are rental anyway. Cullers said that the primary reasoning is that if you take a PUD and put it in an R-1 area, it allows the possibility of having a large rental unit in an R-1 area, and that would make it an R-2 situation set within an R-1 area. Beth Crocker said perhaps multi -family uses should be disallowed in R-1. Cullers said that still leaves the higher density within the R-1 area. Beth Crocker stated that the density within the PUD has to meet the density requirements of R-1. Mort Gitelman said that he felt all conditional uses ought to be appealable or no conditional use should be appealable. Martin Redfern said he thought most PUD's would go in R-1. Ernest Jacks agreed. Ernest Jacks asked if the Commission wished to vote on this item. Mort Gitelman suggested that before the vote is taken that the appeal procedure should be separated from the reasons for denial. Windell Cullers asked Mort Gitelman what he thought the ordinance should say. Gitelman said he would like Section 2 taken out of the proposed amendment. Gitelman said that way, the PUD would be treated like any other conditional use. He felt that if the conditional use in R-1 was voted in, that there was no need for an appeal procedure. Windell asked if it was correct that there is no conditional use that is appealable to the Board of Directors; that appeal must be taken to court to overturn Planning Commission approval. Gitelman said that is correct. Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 8 Cullers moved that the amendment to the PUD ordinance be approved as written, with Section 2 stricken from the amendment. Mr. Cullers' motion died for lack of a second. Windell Cullers moved to approve the amendment to the PUD ordinance as written. Ernest Jacks asked if the clarification noted earlier in Item 2 should be included. Mr. Cullers said it should be read; "the developer of the PUD, or the owner of any property" in lieu of the existing terminology "the developer or owner of any property adjoining a PUD". The motion died for lack of a second. Hunnicutt said he would second with a change in item "A"; strike the part of the section that states "reduces property values". Hunnicutt did not feel that is a good condition for denial. He would rather it read "would not substantially change property values". Beth Crocker moved to send the amendment to the Board without a Planning Commission recommendation. Keith Newhouse seconded. The motion passed (7-1) with Windell Cullers voting "Nay". The Commission took Item 5 VARIANCE - LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT off the table as there was now someone DR. G. A. SEXTON present to represent. HYLAND PARK SUBDIVISION Mort Gitelman left the proceedings • at 6:15, P.M. Gary Carnahan and Dr. G. A. Sexton were present to represent. Ernest Jacks stated that the main question that had come up was the question of whether there would be enough building space on the lot. Gary Carnahan asked if it was not correct that to change the easement would take a separate action by the Board of Directors. Bobbie Jones said that is correct. Carnahan stated that originally, the Developers had planned to extend Rockcliff Road further into the Development. He stated that utilities were put in before that phase of the Development was built. Hunnicutt asked if there were any utilities presently in that easement. Carnahan stated there is an electric line, a telephone line and a t. v. cable line. Carnahan stated that the back line of the lot as proposed ends in a bluff. He said there is 40 ft. difference in elevation between the lot in question and Lot 11 of Phase II. Carnahan said the lot does look abnormally small, but there is enough room to build a 30 ft. x 80 ft. house on the lot. Carnahan said the Developer's feeling is that if someone buys the lot and does not wish to build on the North side of the lot, that they would then petition the Board of Directors and the utility companies to vacate or adjust the utility easement. Hunnicutt asked if it would do any good to back the lot line up to the bluff. Carnahan said that the reason the back lot line was not extended to the bluff is that Dr. Sexton is building his house on the bluff, above the lot and he does not want someones'back yard coming immediately below his patio. Beth Crocker said she felt the easement should be vacated or reduced before • someone comes in and buys the lot and finds out they are restricted to their building area. Crocker stated she is opposed to the variance. Redfern stated that he felt Beth Crocker had a good point. Planning Commission Meeting • October 27, 1980 Page 9 • • Beth Crocker moved to deny the request for variance and Martin Redfern seconded. Redfern said he felt this problem would be fairly easy to resolve. Ernest Jacks suggested Gary Carnahan work on this and resubmit his request to the Planning Commission. Windell Cullers wondered if the Planning Commission could deny this request since there is room to build a house.on.the lot. Ernest Jacks said the Planning Commission has a responsibility to protect the buyer of the lot. Beth Crocker said that when a lot of this size is purchased, that the buyer should be able to assume that he can build on it and not be restricted to such a small buildable area. Don Hunnicutt said by granting this request, the owners of the lots or the builders would be back before the Board of Adjustment requesting variances from setback requirements. Martin Redfern withdrew his second and Beth Crocker withdrew her motion to deny. Crocker then moved to table this request for waiver of the lot size requirement until November 24, 1980, in order to give the developers a chance to work out the problems with the easement. Carnahan stated it would take at least 30 days to get clearance from the utility companies in order to vacate or reduce the easement. He said that Dr. Sexton is working within a tight time frame on the financing of his home. Hunnicutt asked if utility lines would have to be moved. Carnahan said that the telephone line would probably have to be moved. Martin Redfern seconded Beth Crocker's motion to table this request.until the Planning Commission's November 24, 1980 meeting. The motion passed (7-0). The nineth item on the agenda WAIVER STREET FRONTAGE was the request for waiver that a REQUIREMENT - 22 E. MEADOW building have frontage on a public HERBERT HATFIELD street submitted by Herbert Hatfield at 22 E. Meadow Street, zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. Art. 8, Sec. 6 of the code provides for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver on condition that all structures must be located on lots so as to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, sanitation vehicles, fire protection and required off-street parking. Herbert Hatfield was present to represent. He stated that the lot is situated between the Motor Company and the Telephone Company parking lot. In 1970, he had traded the Telephone Company 10 ft. off his lot that faces Spring Street, for the 28 ft. between the Phone Company parking lot and the Motor Company building. He said he intends to hook his two buildings together and setback 15 ft. from the alley and have the lot face his driveway behind the Motor Company. The building will be used for a storage building with overhead doors on each end large enough to permit fork lifts and trailer trucks to enter. Beth Crocker asked Bobbie Jones if Mr. Hatfield was requesting a zero lot line setback. Bobbie Jones said that the property is zoned C-3 and that Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 10 permits a zero lot line setback from side property lines. She said that Mr. Hatfield is asking the Commission to consider this lot as not having frontage on a public street, so that the North line would be considered a side property line, with zero setback requirements. Mr. Hatfield stated that he is constructing this storage building for the use of the new hotel. They wish to store materials that will be used in the construction of the hotel and cannot be stored out in the weather. Redfern asked if the Hotel would use the building continuously. Hatfield stated that when construction of the hotel is completed, the Telephone Company wishes to use the building to store telephone directories. Beth Crocker said the building does not appear large enough to drive a truck through. Mr. Hatfield said he would install 12 ft. by 12 ft. overhead doors in the building. Beth Crocker asked how the trailer trucks would get out of the building. Mr. Hatfield said he is setting the building 15 ft. back from an existing 10 ft. alley, which would be adequate for exiting the building. Windell Cullers moved to grant the request for a waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street, Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The tenth item of business ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A was an ordinance amending Appendix ZONING - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH A - Zoning - to the Fayetteville $ HEIGHT Code of Ordinances to amend the minimum lot width for a townhouse; to amend the height regulation for buildings in excess of 20 feet in height; and to amend the definition of townhouse and define condominium. Public hearing was "continued" on August 25, 1980. Martin Redfern, Chairman of the sub -committee set up to study these amendments, gave his report. He stated that the existing Sections 2 and 4 of the Zoning Ordinance provide that for every foot of height over 20 ft., the additional setback requirements will be accrued 1 ft. for every foot of height over 10 ft. The amendment proposes that the additional requirements will be accrued from 20 ft. so that a building will be set back an additional foot for every foot of height over 20 ft. Keith Newhouse left the proceedings at 6:30, P.M. Redfern said he did not feel there would be any problems with this amendment. Redfern said he had gotten together with Ernest Jacks, and Jim Lindsey to see if they could coordinate lot widths with lot area minimums and land areas per dwelling unit. In studying this problem the Committee had found that the lot area minimum requirements control the width requirements. Mr. Redfern said Larry Wood had submitted some proposals: if an individual townhouse width is reduced from 24 ft. to 14 ft. in width in a development, the development lot size would be 5000 square feet instead of 10,000 square feet. The individual townhouse lot would be reduced to 1850 square feet from 2500 square feet. The Committee had asked Larry Wood to make sure there would be no inconsistencies with the requirements for one -family, two-family, etc. as the requirements change for the increased density. Mr. Wood had submitted figures for land area requirements, such as a duplex in R-2, would now have a minimum width of 44 ft. instead of 60 ft. Redfern said he had checked with Mr. Freeman Wood, Building Inspector for the Planning Commission Meeting • October 27, 1980 Page 11 • City, and Mr. Wood had said that there would be no problem with the Southern Standard Building Code. Redfern said the Committee had come up against the following problems: 1. With parking areas containing three or more spaces, turning room is required, that might be a problem. 2. Parking area setback requirements have to be met, which might be difficult with the reduced lot area. 3. Minimum distances between drives might be a problem with the reduced lot areas. The Committee is proposing that the lot area minimums, land areas per dwelling unit etc. be amended to reflect the new figures submitted by Larry Wood and the Committee. The Committee found that in a situation with three units and common walls, there will be a parking problem for the middle unit. This problem will not occur with rental units, but it will occur where there is separate ownership, and three different lots are created for separate ownership. Ernest Jacks said he had a problem with changing the figures for lot area minimums and land areas per dwelling unit. He felt that the minimum width should be reduced only. Cullers asked why it was necessary to change all the computations. Redfern said that they could be used as a guide, in computing dimensions for buildings and setbacks within the lot. The Commission considered a drawing that had been worked up by Larry Wood showing different types of units that could be constructed on the reduced lot widths. Martin Redfern said that there is a bit of urgency in modifying the height setback requirements. He said he felt the numbers as far as minimum lot widths, land area per dwelling unit, and lot area minimums could be studied further. Bobbie Jones said that if the lot width minimum is reduced, and not the area minimum requirements, there could be problems. Larry Wood said that the figures (computed for the minimum requirements) would be easier for the Planning Office and the Developers to work with, instead of computing each development individually. Bobbie Jones voiced her concern about meeting minimum parking requirements with the reduced lot width and minimum land area modifications. Martin Redfern moved that the amendments to the ordinance be approved as recommended by the Committee, and that Bobbie Jones notify the public and hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. Windell Cullers seconded Martin Redfern's motion to approve the proposed modifications to the zoning ordinance. Ernest Jacks said these new regulations should only apply to townhouses or condominiums that are owned separately. If the units are not under separate ownership, the building is an apartment house. Jacks said the ordinance should be left along, except where it pertains to Townhouses and condominiums. • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 Page 12 Martin Redfern withdrew his motion and Windell Cullers withdrew his second. Beth Crocker made a motion to table this discussion, and Windell Cullers seconded. Ernest Jacks suggested a meeting between the sub -committee and Bobbie Jones to see if inconsistencies in the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance can be worked out. Windell Cullers said that, as a condition of his second, he would like the notice of public hearing to reflect what will be discussed before the public hearing is held. The motion to table passed (6-0). The Committee will meet with Bobbie Jones and Larry Wood to discuss this item. The eleventh item on the Agenda OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT was a Committee Report on off-site RELATED TO SUBDIVISIONS OR improvements not related to LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS Subdivisions or Large Scale Developments. The Chairman stated that this committee was to give a report, the committee consists of Mort Gitelman and Keith Newhouse who had both left the proceedings. Ernest Jacks suggested this item be placed on the next agenda. Newton Hailey stated he has a meeting OTHER BUSINESS with the Fayetteville Housing Authority on October 28 or 29. There is a section of R-0 property to the East of the Shenandoah Mobile Home Park on East 16 By -Pass which is presently owned by the Industrial Park. He said that the Housing Authority can make an offer on this parcel of land and place 10-16 apartments on it, however, since apartments are a conditional use in R-0, the Housing Authority will have to come before the Planning Commission to request a conditional use. Newton wondered if there was anything obvious about this parcel that would prevent the conditional use from being granted. He said the reason the property is zoned R-0, is that the Planning Commission did not want the "I" of the Industrial Park extended across the by-pass (1Sth Street). Newton said they are also considering a site on Washington Avenue. Ernest Jacks asked Newton Hailey if he was asking for an informal opinion from the Planning Commission on whether he should proceed. Jacks said that area seems to be developing R-2, and that he could see no obvious problem with a conditional use request. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00, P.M. ,A Vcif