Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, November 24, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Keith Newhouse, Cullers, Newton MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hunnicutt. Jacks, Mort Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Peg Anderson, Martin Redfern, Windell Hailey. Lois Stratton, Andrew Ziser, Roy Cate, Mildred Sisemore, Richard J. Keating, Ralph Brophy, Robert Melton, Carl Russell, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the November 10, 1980, meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The second item of business was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-28, Lois Stratton, to rezone property located on the East side of One Mile Road, North of U. S. Highway 62, from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Lois Stratton was present to represent. In the absence of the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, the Chairman read Mr. Wood's Planning Report. The Planning Consultant did not recommend C-2 Zoning for this property but would recommend R-0 Zoning for the following reasons: MINUTES REZONING PETITION R80-28 LOIS STRATTON EAST SIDE ONE MILE ROAD 1. The property under application sides onto an existing single-family house and faces an undeveloped single-family lot; this residential area should be protected. 2. The abrupt transition from commercial to single-family residential should be softened by less intensive uses 3. The establishment of a transition area will strengthen the City's position for not extending the commercial area any further North than it currently exists. Ernest Jacks said that a study had been performed on this area and that single-family residential had been recommended. He asked Mrs. Stratton if she had any comments. Mrs. Stratton stated that this land is part of a tract that is already zoned Commercial and she had assumed that it would be feasible to rezone this small piece too. Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 Page 2 The Chairman asked for any comments in opposition to the request. Andrew Ziser, 2856 Susan Carol, addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to voice his opinion. He stated he is representing Fred Black, 1020 One Mile Road, which is the first house to the North of the property under petition. Ziser stated that the quality of life in this neighborhood would be destroyed if the property is zoned C-2. He felt the commercial zoning would increase traffic, which would increase the chances of automobile accidents. One Mile Road is not paved, and is very dusty, more traffic would make the situation worse. The rezoning would increase the noise level which is already high from traffic on Highway 62, and, also, from the drive-in. He felt the commercial zoning would cause a litter problem and the prevailing wind from the South would blow odors and trash into the residential areas. He felt the Commission should not consider R-0 Zoning for the same reasons. He asked the Commission to deny the petition. Peg Anderson said that the Commission hadapproved some development in this area, but the approved development would have access onto Highway 62 only. She said that there are some nice houses in this area and moved to deny the petition. Windell Cullers seconded. Beth Crocker said that when the Commission approved Phase I of this development, it was part of the motion that any development of Phase II would include improvement of One Mile Road. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to deny the petition for rezoning, the motion passed (6-2) with Keith Newhouse and Newton Hailey casting the "Nay" votes. Keith Newhouse asked Mrs. Stratton what her feelings were on R-0 Zoning. Ms. Stratton stated that she had planned on putting offices in the North part of the Development and felt that R-0 Zoning would be satisfactory. Peg Anderson said that due to the size of the tract, with the R-0 Zoning, development would be considered a Large Scale Development and said that improvement would have to be made to One Mile Road with such development. Keith Newhouse moved to amend the petition to a request for R-0 Zoning, and moved that the Amended Petition be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. Martin Redfern seconded. The Chairman asked for any comments from the audience. Mr. Ziser stated he was against the R-0 Zoning for the reasons he mentioned before. Beth Crocker asked if there would be a difference in setbacks in the R-0 and the C-2 Zoning and asked if screening would be required. Bobbie Jones stated that the development could be closer to the street right-of-way if no parking is placed between the buildings and the street, the side property line setbacks would be 10 ft. instead of 15 ft. The setback from the rear property line will be greater in R-0 than in C-2. She said that screening is not required between an R-0 district and an A-1 district. Peg Anderson said she did not like putting the R-0 in this single family neighborhood. Newton Hailey asked how far the North line of the proposed R-0 district would be from the North line of the existing C-2 district. Bobbie Jones::sald this property is 112 ft. North/South and the C-2 wraps around this tract. Bobbie said that the R-1 area that exists across One Mile Road from this property is a platted subdivision. Newton Hailey said he felt the R-0 would be a good buffer between the existing C-2, and the R-1 neighborhood. Also, with the Large Scale Development, One Mile Road would be paved. Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 Page 3 The Commission voted on Keith Newhouse's motion to approve the amended petition to a request for R-0 Zoning, the motion passed (7-1) with Peg Anderson casting the "Nay" vote. Peg Anderson suggested that the single family home owners might want to rezone their property to R-1 before the second phase of this development begins; that way, screening would be required between Phase II of Mrs. Stratton's development and their neighborhood. The next item for consideration REQUEST FOR WAIVER was a request for waiver of the safety ROY CATE zone between driveways and of the requirement 1320 WIMBLEDON that a driveway be located 12-1/2 ft. from the side property line for property at 1320 Wimbledon (Lot 30, Summerhill, a PUD) submitted by Roy Cate. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Roy Cate was present to represent. Mr. Cate stated that the lot is located on a cul-de-sac, and has only 45 ft. of frontage. If the drive is placed the required distance from the property line, it will be in the middle of the lot. He felt that if it is placed closer to the property line, it will look nicer. Newton Hailey asked when Mr. Cate discovered this, as it appears the house is already under construction. Mr. Cate replied that the foundation has been poured. He submitted his request for waiver before the foundation was poured, but had to wait the required period of time to get on the agenda. Jacks asked if there was anyone present in the audience appearing in opposition to the waiver of safety zone for driveways. There was no one present in opposition. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request for waiver. ' Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was the Conditional Use request for "child care for 10 children" in the home of Mildred Sisemore, 2665 West Sixth Street CONDITIONAL USE - CHILD CARE MILDRED SISEMORE 2665 WEST SIXTH STREET (Highway 62 West). Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District. Mildred Sisemore was present to represent. She stated she would like very much to keep children in her home.. Peg Anderson asked Mrs. Sisemore if she is licensed by the State. Mrs. Sisemore stated that she is in the process of getting her license. Windell Cullers moved to approve the Conditional Use request. Keith Newhouse seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The Commission considered Item 5 on the Agenda, a petition to vacate and abandon a 20 ft. alleyway running North off West Sixth Street between Locust Avenue and Church PETITION TO VACATE ALLEY BETWEEN LOCUST AND CHURCH RICHARD J KEATING Avenue, submitted by Richard J Keating, Margie Combs, C. E. Grubbs, Cecil Chappell, Minnie L. Harvey, Mrs. Grady Collins, and Dr. David Crittenden. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Richard J. Keating was present to represent. Mr. Keating stated that the Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 Page 4 alley originally ran for two blocks, and that half of the alley has already been vacated South of 6th Street. It presently runs for 250 ft. The property owners adjoining the alley would like to have it vacated so that it is not left unattended. Peg Anderson asked if the alley runs all the way to Archibald Yell Boulevard. Mr. Keating replied that it does not. Peg Anderson moved to approve the request to vacate the alleyway. Beth Crocker seconded. Keith Newhouse stated there appears to be a concrete block structure in the middle of the alley. Mr. Keating replied the structure had been there since the 1940's and that the alleyway has never been used. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to approve. It passed (8-0). The sixth item of business was eliminated. Bobbie Jones reported the lot split at the corner of Wood Avenue and Huntsville Road had occured prior to the ordinance date for minimum lot size requirements adopted in December, 1979. The seventh item of business was the request for waiver of safety zones between driveways and WAIVER OF SAFETY ZONE FOR DRIVES 2510 BROPHY AVENUE RALPH BROPHY of the requirement that a driveway be located 12-1/2 ft. from a side property line for property located at 2510 Brophy Avenue (Lot 6, Block 3, Brophy Subdivision), submitted by Ralph Brophy. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. There was no one present to represent (Ralph Brophy arrived later)) Bobbie Jones stated this lot is right at the end of a street, and the catch basin is located at the end of the street. She said the lot is shaped like a pan handle. There is an easement that is part of the lot that could be used for future street purposes to extend the street. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request for waiver of safety zone. requirements, Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The eighth item of business WAIVER OF SAFETY ZONE FOR DRIVES was a request for a waiver of E. COPPER OAKS PLAZA safety zone:between driveways ROBERT MELTON and of the requirement that a driveway be located 12-1/2 feet from a side property line for property at 2656, 2642, 2657 and 2705 E. Copper Oaks Plaza (Lots 3, 4, 7 $ 8, Block 1, East Oaks Subdivision) submitted by Robert Melton. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Robert Melton was present to represent. He stated the lots in question are located around a cul-de-sac, and the frontage varies from 65 to 70 ft. Lot 3 is steep and the grade is about 15%, and by starting at the property line and bringing the drive in at an angle, they can be brought down to about a 6% grade. Melton stated he owns all the lots on the street, and that it may be possible to maintain the 25 ft. setback between drives. Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 • Page 5 • Peg Anderson moved to approve the request. Keith Newhouse seconded. Morton Gitelman stated that many waivers had been requested for the safety zonesrequirements where culsrde-sac-are concerned, and wondered if perhaps the safety zone requirement made sense where a cul-de-sac is involved. It was felt the regulations should not be changed, but the Planning Commission would continue to hear waiver requests. The Commission voted on the motion to approve and the motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY DRIVE was a request to construct a temporary LINCOLNWOOD DRIVE private driveway approximately 185 feet in DON HECKATHORN length on the undeveloped dedicated street right -of- way of Lincolnwood Drive at 601 N. Sang, submitted by Don Heckathorn. Carl Russell was present to represent. Mr. Russell had nothing further to add other than Mr. Heckathorn wishes to add on to an existing house so that it will become a corner lot when the subdivision is developed. If the driveway were constructed according to .requirements, when Lincolnwood is improved, the drive would set deeply into the lot. Mr. Russell said he had discussed this arrangement with Clayton Powell, the City Street Superintendent. Clayton said he would like approval by the Planning Commission, and if approved, he would recommend Mr. Heckathorn sign a Letter of Agreement or a Bill of Assurance that Mr. Heckathorn would. 1. Maintain the temporary driveway until such time as the Subdivision and its streets are developed. 2. Maintain an existing metal culvert from a filled in pond on Lot #7, to the creek crossing the undeveloped right-of-way. 3. Maintain an existing concrete culvert in the right-of-way where the creek crosses the right-of-way until the subdivision and streets are improved and developed. 4. Not.sell or develop any lots (his home excepted) without building the streets and making other improvements as required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Fayetteville. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request under the conditions outlined by Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent. Newton Hailey asked if Mr Russell had any objections to any of Clayton's requests. Mr. Russell took no exceptions. Windell Cullers seconded Keith Newhouse's motion to approve. Bobbie Jones stated that there would be no time limit on the temporary drive. Mort Gitelman asked if the approval of this request would mean that City services, such as trash collection would have to be performed on that unopened street. Mr. Russell said that Mr. Powell had made it clear that would not be so. Mr. .:Powell had mentioned barricading the end of the street. Mr. Gitelman was also concerned about whether this would affect Mr. Heckathorn's fire insurance. Planning Commission Meeting • November 24, 1980 Page 6 • The Commission voted on the motion to approve, it passed (8-0). Carl Russell asked if the Commission would rather have a Bill of Assurance or a Letter of Agreement.stating that Mr. Heckathorn would comply with Clayton's comments. Morton Gitelman said that a letter would probably suffice. The next item of business COMMITTEE REPORT was a committee report on off-site OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS improvements not related to Subdivisions or Large Scale Developments. Keith Newhouse, acting in the capacity of Chairman, gave his report. He stated that the Committee felt that off-site improvements for developments other than Large Scale Developments and Subdivisions could be covered by making a change in the wording of Article 8, Section 11, Appendix A (Zoning Ordinance). The Ordinance presently reads " The development of a lot or parcel larger than one acre must be processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development provided by Appendix C, Article IV, Section I of the Code of Ordinances." He suggested the wording should be changed to "The development of a lot or parcel, other than single family, where there is no subdivision plat, must be processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development provided by Appendix C, Article IV, Section I of the Code of Ordinances." Beth Crocker wondered if there were any parcels around that are part of an old subdivision that might be exempt from this. Bobbie Jones:said there are. After some discussion, Mort Gitelman thought all bases could be covered by the following wording; "The development of a lot or parcel, other than single family will be processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development as provided by Appendix C, Article IV, Section I of the Code of Ordinances. This requirement process may be waived by the Planning Administrator at the time a subdivision plat is submitted for the parcel." The Commission was in accord. Mort Gitelman moved to schedule a public hearing on Article 8, Section II, Appendix A at the next opportunity. Keith Newhouse seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Chairman Ernest Jacks gave his report COMMITTEE•REPORT on Green Space. He said the Committee had GREEN SPACE waited until after the election to see if the new constitution would pass. If it had, there would have been some extra millage to perhaps purchase park lands. The Committee decided to present a concept to the City Attorney for the drafting of an ordinance -to bring back to the Committee for discussion and subsequently to be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The essence of the:.proposed ordinance would be a cash in lieu of land arrangement. This would be based on the actual density of a development instead of possible or maximum density of a development. There would be a provision whereby PUD's would be given credit for land developed for recreational purposes, but not for open space that is not developed. Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 Page 7 Jacks stated that Loris Stanton had attended the meeting and had discussed economics. Also, Jim Lindsey had seemed in favor of this arrangement. Martin Redfern gave his report COMMITTEE REPORT on townhouses. He stated that the TOWNHOUSES results of the Committee meetings were in a proposed ordinance that had been passed out to the Commission. The changes that had been generally agreed upon were the setbacks relative to height changes, they are in Section 3 (F) and Section 6. As far as lot area, land area and minimum width requirements in relation to Townhouses; that portion of the ordinance that stated requirements for minimum lot width, land area per dwelling unit and lot area has been deleted, a section has been added that states "Although townhouses have no specific requirements as to minimum lot width, lot area, or minimum area per dwelling unit, they must conform to the district densities, yard requirements, height regulations, parking and access requirements, and all other applicable City Ordinances." Townhouses and condominiums are both defined. Ernest Jacks stated that he felt the definitions of these developments are the key. According to the State Horizontal Property Regime, a condominium is defined as ownership within a structure where there is no property division, there is a.property owners' association in this case. A townhouse is where land is sold along with the house itself. Martin Redfern said that the portion of the amendment stating "other City Ordinances" had been included for smaller developers so that they would have a guideline to follow as density will be the controlling factor. He stated this draft of the ordinance has not been submitted to the City Attorney, and that he may want to change the proposed ordinance from a legal point of view. Bobbie Jones said that the public hearing on this item had already been advertised. Mort Gitelman suggested it be published with the next Agenda as a continued public hearing. Martin Redfern moved that the draft be submitted to Jim McCord and that a public hearing be held. Keith Newhouse seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Morton Gitelman stated that COMMITTEE REPORT this committee on tandem lots had been TANDEM LOTS formed due to a suggestion from Jim McCord to Bobbie Jones after the Julia Rogers case and the resulting law suit. McCord had drafted some amendments to the ordinance that would give reasons for turning down a tandem lot request. Gitelman stated that he did not feel that tandem lots should be a Conditional Use, and also, there were other things in Mr. McCord's draft that he did not agree with. Beth Crocker and Mort Gitelman had. worked with Mr. McCord's proposed ordinance and had come up with the following: The draft by Mr. McCord had set out five conditions whereby a Conditional Use for tandem lot would have to be met before it would receive Planning Commission approval. One of the requirements was that the development of the Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 • Page 8 • tandem lot would not reduce property values in the neighborhood. Crocker and Gitelman felt that statement should not be so strong and they propose to amend it to read "tandem lot development will:.not significantly reduce property values in the neighborhood. In determining whether property values will be significantly reduced, the Planning Commission shall consider the size of the lots in the vicinity of the proposed tandem lot, in comparison with the lots to be created by the proposed tandem lot". The Planning Commission would be able to determine whether the density of the neighborhood is going to be significantly changed. The Committee is also recommending a slight wording change in the 25 ft. access requirement, to make it clear that the tandem lot developer has to have a minimum 25 ft. wide strip for access, and either own title to the access strip or have a perpetual easement. Gitelman said that is the gist of the subcommittee's recommendation, and wondered if the Planning Commission would like to take up the issue of whether the tandem lot should be a Conditional Use or a Use by Right. Ernest Jacks said that he is not in favor of making a tandem lot a use by right because there is room for long drives into the lots, etc.,Ae.:cited a proposal by Ervan Wimberly which had had long drives to tandem lots. Gitelman stated that by making the tandem lot a Conditional Use, at least the neighbors have a chance to voice their concerns over the development of a tandem lot in their neighborhood. Mort Gitelman moved to send Mr. McCord's draft on the tandem lot ordinance back to him with the subcommittee's suggestions and comments, so that he could prepare a final form for submission to the Planning Commission, and schedule a public hearing. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Jacks stated that he had attended a meeting :OTHER BUSINESS of the Arkansas Municipal League in Little Rock. He said he received many requests from attendees from other cities in Arkansas for information on some of Fayetteville's regulations on signs, development requirements, and recordation of deeds. Jacks said the University of Arkansas would host a work shop on planning on request, if at least fifteen would attend. He felt the Planning Commission might benefit from a work shop with the County Planning Commission. It would be a one day affair, and he wondered if there was any interest on the part of the Planning Commission to participate. The Commission was in accord. Jacks said he would set the work shop up for some time after December 3, 1980. Peg Anderson suggested the work shop take place after the first of the year. Jacks said he would set it up for sometime in January, 1981. Wade Bishop stated that when the HERITAGE EAST SUBDIVISION Planning Commission had approved his REQUEST TO DELETE RESTRICTIONS Final Plat for Phase I of Heritage IN COVENANTS ON DENSITY • East Subdivision, they had imposed a restriction in the covenants that only. duplexes could be constructed, and that the City be made a third party to enforce those covenants. • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1980 Page 9 He was requesting that restriction be deleted from the covenants. Beth Crocker said that there had been some problems with single family homes being built in R-2 zoned subdivisions,and the mixing of homes with duplexes and other multi -family type housing. Windell Cullers said there had been much discussion and concern in the approval of the Final Plat for Heritage East about the density and the restriction of the construction of multi -family housing. Wade Bishop said he had successfully mixed duplexes and apartments with single family homes in his past subdivisions, and had never had any complaints. Ernest Jacks said the problem would occur if the subdivision ever changed hands, and the new owner decided to develop the subdivision to its maximum capacity. Mort Gitelman suggested that Mr. Bishop mark on the plat, which lots he intends to develop with multi -family housing. Wade Bishop asked if the Commission was going to make everybody else do this. He said he is seeking permission to put triplexes in Phase I. Peg Anderson moved to remove the covenant restricting development to duplexes: and the covenant making the City a third party to the covenants. Newton Hailey said he would like some time to think this over.. He said it is his understanding that the soil is less than adequate in this subdivision. Wade assured Mr. Hailey that he had had engineers work on the soil problem, that fill work had been done, and that the subdivision was stable. He stated the area is in the 100 year flood plain, but that he had done such extensive • fill work, that the rain would over -flow Highway 16 By -Pass before it would flood his lots. Martin Redfern said that the restrictions had gone through the Planning Commission with the approval of the whole Commission. Peg Anderson said the developer himself suggested the restricting covenants. Mort Gitelman seconded Peg Anderson's motion to remove the covenant restricting the development to single family homes and duplexes, and also, the covenant naming the City as a third party. The motion passed (6-2) with Newton Hailey and Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" votes. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45, P.M.