Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-14 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, December 14, 1981 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Joe Wilson, Newton Hailey, Martin Redfern (arrived late, left early). MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Windell Cullers. Bob Crafton, John LaTour, Robert Welch, J. Palmer Boggs, Harriet Jansma, Roy Smith, Allan Gilbert, Ginger Parker, Gordon Wilkins, David Horne, Betha Barrett, Jim Vizzier, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, others. The minutes of the November 23, 1981, meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. MINUTES The next item considered was the LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT Large Scale Development Plan for the SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Safeway Store located at 380 NORTH COLLEGE P, LAFAYETTE North College Avenue; Safeway Stores, Inc., Developer. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt Chairman, addressed the Commission. He stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended this item for approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review Committee comments and requests to be complied with. 2. The Developer will be allowed to use the easements dedicated to bring North College Avenue and Lafayette Street up to Master Street Plan standards until such time as the easements are needed for street improvements. At that time, the developer will make some other plans for meeting the parking requirements or seek a waiver of the parking requirements from the Board of Adjustment. Hunnicutt so moved. Jacks asked why the Subdivision Committee was not recommending Clayton Powell's recommendations on improvements. Bobbie Jones stated that by ordinance, the developer cannot be required to improve state highways unless the Highway Department itself requests the developer do the improvements. Hunnicutt stated the Developer is seeking a waiver of the right of way requirements from the Board of Directors at this time. Beth Crocker seconded Hunnicutt's motion with those two contingencies. The motion to approve passed (7-0). jq • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 2 The next item of business was FINAL PLAT the approval of the Final Plat of Steele Addition STEELE ADDITION to be located West of North College Avenue 71 B AND FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY and South;of 71 Bypass (Fulbright Expressway). Springdale Canning Company - Owner and Developer. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Bob Crafton was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Hunnicutt moved the Final Plat be approved subject to the following: 1. Show on the Final Plat that there will be no covenants. 2. Clarify the name of the street in the Subdivision. (Whether it will stay Millsap or be changed to Futrall). 3. Show the easement South of the drainage and utility easement on the South side of Tract 3. Obtain written concurrence from the utility companies on the sleeving under the concrete drainage ditch to the existing 25 ft. easement as discussed. Indicate where the concrete drainage ditch lies within the 40 ft. easement to the South of Tract 3. Joe Wilson seconded. Hunnicutt stated these corrections will be checked by Bobbie Jones the Planning Administrator prior to the recording of the Final Plat. Williams moved the motion be amended to show that written concurrence will be submitted by all utility companies on the requested reduction of the easement around the perimeter of Tracts 1 $ 3, and any other easement modifications, to Bobbie Jones. Wilson seconded the amendment. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business PRELIMINARY PLAT was the approval of the HAPPY ACRES SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat of Happy Acres Subdivision WEST OF OLD WIRE ROAD located West of Old Wire Road, North of Ash Street, and East of Juneway Terrace. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt stated no one was present to represent this preliminary plat at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The plat has several problems that need to be worked out and the Committee felt it should be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee before any recommendation is made to the Planning Commission. Hunnicutt so moved. Williams seconded. Gitelman stated he had a few comments he would like the Subdivision Committee to consider when evaluating the preliminary plat. He said he is concerned about all the lots that front on Old Wire Road, whose driveways will be on Old Wire Road. He felt the two corner lots should have drives on Ash Street or Dewey Drive. Also, the lot to the North of the proposed Dewey Drive should have its driveway access on Dewey Drive rather than Old Wire Road. This Voo • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 3 way there would be only three drives onto Old Wire Road instead of 6. The motion to send the preliminary plat for Happy Acres Subdivision back before the Subdivision Committee passed (7-0). The next item of business was CONDITIONAL USE the Conditional Use Request submitted JOHN LaTOUR .by John LaTour to construct a BROADCASTING TOWER transmission tower North of Texas Way and East of Oklahoma Way; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. John LaTour was present to represent. Chairman Ernest Jacks stated this item was tabled at the last meeting as there was no one present to represent. John LaTour addressed the Commission and apologized for his absence at the last meeting. He and his principle are attempting to bring a contemporary Christian format in a radio station to the Fayetteville area. It would consist of an FM transmission station that would broadcast only in the immediate Fayetteville area. The transmission is only 10 watts, so a high point is needed for the tower. The Chairman asked where the petitioner will put parking and the proposed building. LaTour stated as things stand now, an existing small building will be remodeled and used, at this time no construction except for the tower is planned. Williams stated the area is R-1. He understands that the tower is acceptable, but would the accessory commercial building be acceptable assaaconditionalluse. Bobbie Jones stated that a transmission tower or station for public broadcast would be allowed by conditional use in R-1. Williams asked how the nonconforming structures got into the R-1 in the first place. Ernest Jacks stated the city built them. Williams asked about the nonconforming structures being reused: Jacks said they could be reused if it is determined that the use will be less intensive than the previous nonconforming use. Williams asked if this would be a less intense use. Bobbie Jones stated the water system falls under a Use Unit 1 and 2. They are a City Wide use by right or a conditional use in all zones. She said this is not the same as a non- conforming use The Chairman asked if all adjacent property owners had been notified. Bobbie Jones stated they had as well as persons present at the last meeting who had wished to be notified. Robert Welch, 730 Skyline Driye, addressed the Commission. He stated he owns the property immediately adjacent to the concrete tanks. He said he objects to the intrusion of a commercial venture into the R-1. He felt it would lower his property values. Also,, he felt there are other alternatives that Mr. LaTour could consider before he puts the tower into the area. Since a Christian broadcasting station is proposed, perhaps the Methodist Assembly would consider allowing him to place the tower on their property. Welch said this is an especially scenic area and that he would hate to see the tower constructed. J. Palmer Boggs, 1 Texas Way, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives immediately adjacent to the project and that he recommends refusal by the Commission. He also feels it would be an intrusion into the R-1, that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He did not feel the tower was a compelling • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 4 necessity and recommended it be disapproved. Roy Smith, 515 Skyline, addressed the Commission. He stated he adjoins the property and was not notified of the proceedings. He stated if his geometry is correct, the tower as proposed, would be 85 ft. from his back deck, and just about at eye level with his deck. He stated he would not feel comfortable in any way with a tower that close to his home. Harriet Jansma, 900 Lighton Trail, addressed the Commission. She stated that she lives South of the proposed site and across the street. She stated that in addition to personal opposition that she shares with her neighbors, she felt it would be poor planning practice to take prime R-1 property with Southern .slope exposure that would be suitable for solar development, and placing a radio tower upon it. Williams moved the Conditional Use for a broadcasting tower be denied. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was the request for renewal of off-site parking for law offices at 123 West Spring Street submitted by Ginger R. Parker and Mary Ann Westphal property zoned C-3, Central Commercial Dist 13, 1979 for a period of one year only. Ms. Parker was present to represent. had been approved in 1979 and in 1980 also. present to represent but that the sentiment off-site parking could be approved do a mor Jacks asked if there had been any comp Bobbie Jones stated not to her knowled David Williams moved that the off-site Don Hunnicutt seconded. Joe Wilson stated he did not like the parking to this property. He stated if the occupants move, that a use could be put in parking. David Williams agreed and amended his parking be approved until the present use c Hunnicutt seconded the amended motion. RENEWAL OF OFF-SITE PARKING 123 WEST SPRING STREET PARKER/WESTPHAL rict. Originally approved August She stated that the off-site parking She stated in 1980, no one was of the Commission was that the e permanent basis. laints. ge. parking be approved. idea of granting permanent off-site property is ever sold or the present that would not be suitable for off-site motion. He moved that the off-site hanges. It passed (7-0). The next item for consideration WAIVER OF SAFETY ZONE was a request to waive the 25 ft. safety 310 EAST OAKWOOD STREET zone between driveways at 310 East GORDON WILKINS Oakwood Street submitted by Gordon Wilkins; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Gordon Wilkins was present to represent. The Chairman stated he had received a phone call from Al Donabauer stating he is in favor of the variance. 202 • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 5 Gordon Wilkins addressed the Commission. He stated this is the only lot left vacant on Oakwood. Mr. Donabauer owns the lot adjacent and his driveway is located on the property line. Wilkins stated that due to terrain, he cannot build the driveway 25 ft. into the lot. However, he can meet the 12-1/2 ft. setback requirement from the side lot line. He said the only. waiver he needs is from the 25 ft. separation between drives. Morton Gitelman moved the variance be granted. Joe Wilson seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The next item of business INTERPRETATION OF PLANNING was a request to waive the requirement ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION to dedicate land or cash contribution REGARDING PARKS CONTRIBUTION in lieu of land dedication for park sites submitted by David Horne, Attorney for IBI, Inc., on Meadowridge Subdivision, Phase II; property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. David Horne and Ben Israel were present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated this is not a request for waiver but a request for interpretation, as the Planning Commission cannot waive the requirement for contribution to parks. David Horne stated that from the ordinance, he felt this was the entity from which to request a waiver of the requirement. Jacks stated he had discussed this with Jim McCord and that McCord feels Mr. Horne is asking a constitutional question. Jacks said the Commission does not have the authority or the knowledge to handle this type of question. However, the Commission can consider an interpretation. Horne stated he is asking for a waiver. He feels the parks contribution is not applicable in this case, and he felt the ordinance provides for this procedure. Horne said the ordinance provides for routes of appeal. Hunnicutt suggested discussing the matter and passing comments on to the Board of Directors. Horne stated the question is whether this subdivision is in a designated area to receive parks land within a certain radius. Jacks stated'that in McCord's letter, he felt that the Ordinance is within the wording of the enabling, legislation to divide the City into four quadrants and set up requirements based on those quadrants. This appears to be what Mr. Horne is challenging. Bobbie Jones stated that Article V of Appendix C provides that a Developer may appeal to the Planning Commission if he disagrees with any of the Subdivision Regulations. She stated that McCord determined the Planning Commission can waive certain design standards, but cannot waive a subdivision requirement totally. Martin Redfern arrived at 5:40, P.M. Jacks stated he felt this was an appeal from the Planning Administrator's interpretation that this development contribute to the parks fund. Jacks asked Mr. Horne to tell the Commission why he felt his development should be exempt. Borne stated the Arkansas Statute he refers to in his letter is the Enabling Legislation authorizing the City to adopt the Green Space Ordinance to exact a donation of land or money for future acquisition of parks land. He felt in application to this case it is not in conformance. He felt there is no designated 003 • 1 • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 6 park land in the general area of this subdivision. Sites are not designated with any certainty or definitness. He said to require money or land dedication where no park site is designated makes it highly vague and uncertain. Jacks asked if Mr. Horne is challenging the general ordinance and not requesting a waiver or exception. Horne said the ordinance designates land sites and future designation of park sites. He felt to require a payment where no park sites are designated is out of the ordinary. Morton Gitelman asked Horne to show him where the subdivision lies in relation to the Community facilities map. Horne accomodated Mr. Gitelman. Jacks stated in the formulation of the ordinance, in regard to designation, McCord felt the City was within the intent of the Enabling Legislation to designate by assessment; to say so many parks areas are needed within an area and the ordinance was written around that approach. Jacks further stated he felt that Mr. Horne is challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. Jacks said he felt this needed to be referred back to the City Attorney. Gitelman stated the ordinance says the parks lands will serve the residents of the subdivision. Mr. Horne's argument is that there is no plan for facilities that will serve the residents of this subdivision. Gitelman said the plan does not have to designate with certainty a spot. The real issue is whether the contributions from developers will be for the benefit of the people building a house in his subdivision. Gitelman stated that if there are any park or recreational facilities designated within say two miles or so from that subdivision, the developer could be legitimately required to contribute even if no park is scheduled to be built there immediately. The question is how far to go with it. He felt the Commission needs to look at just what the plan shows in terms of when a particular development will benefit from its contribution. Gitelman felt the people drawing up the plan have the responsibility of showing where those park facilities will go. Gitelman did not think they needed to be adjacent to or on the the developer's property but close enough so the residents of the subdivision contributing would benefit. Gitelman said according to the community facilities map, Meadowridge Subdivision is located in the Northeast Park District. The Plan shows that by 1990, 54 acres of park land will be acquired to serve this area. Horne asked what the North boundary of the Northeast Park District is. Gitelman stated it is located just North of Lake Fayetteville. It runs East to the City Limits. Based on this Gitelman felt there is a plan designating over 50 acres of park land being acquired to serve this area. Gitelman stated this park land could be an expansion of an existing park, or it could be a parcel from a developer's tract of land if it is large enough, or it could be an acquired piece of property purchased with the fund. Gitelman said he felt there was an adequate plan for future acquisition of park lands. Horne said that under the Community Facilities Plan Enabling Act, the Planning Commission may prepare a Community Facilities Plan indicating set locations and the extent of future development. It may indicate areas to be reserved. It is geared to designate. If the Planning Commission is going to require money to go for acquisition of those areas, he did not think the Planning Commission could say it is going to buy some land somewhere without having a place. aoq • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 7 Morton Gitelman stated he felt the law is clear. He did not think it was a good idea to lable areas on the map as future park lands, because you would be labeling someone's property as future park lands, and they might not like it. Gitelman felt that Mr. Horne's argument would have to be litigated. Gitelman said that the designation of a quadrant of the City with a determination that by 1990 so many acres of park land will be dedicated takes care of the designation. Morton Gitelman moved the Planning Administrator's interpretation that Meadowridge Subdivision, Phase II be required to contribute to the Parks Land Acquisition fund be upheld. David Williams seconded. Horne asked what the next step in the appeal process would be. Gitelman stated a waiver could be sought from the Board of Directors, otherwise, this would have to be taken to court. The motion to uphold the Planning Administrator's interpretation passed (8-0). The next item of business was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement WAIVER OF LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT SPLIT BETHA BARRETT applicable to a lot split submitted by Betha Barrett for property located North of Cleveland Street, East of Ashwood Avenue and West of Sunset Avenue; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Betha Barrett and John Gabbard were present to represent. Ms. Barrett introduced John Gabbard her agent. Gabbard stated the lot is of sufficient size to support two R-1 lots, if split, without creating any nonconforming structures. He stated the splitting of the lot would make the best and highest use of the property. Jacks stated that according to Bobbie Jones, 5 ft. would be needed off the South side of the property to bring Cleveland up to City standards and 5 ft. off the West side of the tract to bring Ashwood up to City standards. Joe Wilson asked who owns the property to the North. Ms. Barrett stated Ms. W. A. Fowler owns the property, and at one time this property was part her.... lot. Newton Hailey stated that the petitioner's are probably more than willing to dedicate the rights of way. He stated the two resulting lots will be larger than the existing lots to the West and moved the variance be approved. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Martin Redfern left the proceedings at 6:04 P.M. The next item of business REQUEST FOR EXTENSION was a request that the approval period of ON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL the Preliminary Plat of Washington WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN PUD Mountain Estates be extended for one year. Jim Vizzier was present to represent. He stated the F. A. A. has an Omni Station on top of the hill. The present lease allows for a 1000 ft. clear zone around it which consists of about 72 acres in the heart of the mountain top. PDC • O • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 8 The lease is up in June. Vizzier stated he wrote them a letter asking them to come up and negotiate either moving the station, raising it, or reducing the size of the circle. Vizzier stated presently, the developers are negotiating with the F.A.A. He stated whatever occurs, the plat will not be changed. The number of lots may have to be reduced depending on how large of an area the Omni Station 2 requires, also a street or two may have to be adjusted. Williams moved the extension be granted. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Newton Hailey abstaining. CS The next item of business REPORT ON PROPOSED was a report on the proposed landscape LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE ordinance. Jacks stated this was brought off the table by Newton Hailey. Mort Gitelman addressed the model ordinance that had been distributed to the Planning Commission members. He stated he felt it would be better to have something specific to talk about rather than talking about an idea. The ordinance distributed is a California style landscaping ordinance. It is used primarily to screen parking areas from public view. It addresses vegetation and rigid screening such as fences around shopping centers and parking lots. There is also provision for 10o interior landscaping for parking spaces. He said the new Walmart Store could be used as a site to see what this landscape ordinance would do in relation to that type of development. Jacks stated he noticed a tree protection ordinance incorporated into this material. He thought this ordinance was a little bit tougher than the ordinance previously proposed by the landscape ordinance committee. Gitelman said the ordinance could always be adjusted as far as percentages. Jacks said he noticed that the ordinance submitted by Gitelman does not address buildings, only vehicular areas. Hailey stated he was not sure the Commission knew what it wanted as far e2 as an ordinance. He felt that tree protection, perimeters and interior parts of parcels should all be considered. He suggested drawing something up to give eD wo the Commission a number of options for discussion item by item. He said he is in favor of the landscape ordinance. He has spoken to some people in Bentonville g and they have met with little resistance from the General Public. They seem to feel there has been some good come out of the ordinance and that enforcement was no worse than the introduction of any new ordinance. It is required at the technical review level of review. Bobbie Jones stated it is not a big problem getting people to put landscaping on their plans, but a lot of times, it in no way resembles what they c put on the ground. Jacks said a Committee should be formed. He wondered if the Commission Ushould form a Committee now, or wait to see who the new members will be after the first of the year. There will be at least two new members. He said Frank ED, Sharp had expressed some interest in sitting on the Committee, and a landscape architect in town had expressed some interest; he could provide some technical assistance in forming the ordinance. Gitelman stated he was more interested in perimeter landscaping. He felt the City, by requiring improvements such as parking, has mandated this problem by • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1981 Page 9 making developers put in the cheapest development he can and still meet requirements. He said the City is either going to have to retreat on some of the required improvements or increase them by adding landscaping to the list of required improvements. He was not sure there was so much strip commercial and strip apartment development already, that this ordinance would make a dent in it. Gitelman felt that perimeter landscaping seems the best way to go for Fayetteville. Jacks felt the Committee should be appointed after the first of the year. He said he would like to ask Frank Sharp to git on the Committee and appoint a developer as well as the landscape architect he mentioned. Also, he thought it would be a good idea to have a new member sit on the Committee. Hailey said that in some areas, building permits for apartments cannot be cleared with a simple engineers stamp. Frank Sharp addressed the Commission. He stated the Planning Commission had asked the Board if they felt like they wanted the Commission to pursue the landscape ordinance and the Board indicated that it did. Bobbie Jones asked if the Commission OTHER BUSINESS would meet on the 28th. The Commission agreed they would adjourn until the second Monday in January DECEMBER 15, 1981 If a quorum can be brought together December 28, 1981, the Planning Commission will meet due to the advertisement of a meeting for the public hearing on a rezoning petition. Bobbie Jones stated the Commission had RETREAT discussed holding a retreat to familiarize new members with their duties, etc. She said David McWethy had suggested the Commission hold the retreat before the new members' first meeting, January 11, 1982. Jacks stated he would prefer to wait until after the first meeting in January to hold the retreat. Hailey stated he would like a resolution of appreciation drafted for the members of the Commission whose terms expire the first of the year. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION David Williams stated that ADDITION COMMENTS regarding Item 5; John LaTour, asked to CONDITIONAL USE construct a broadcasting tower and the JOHN LaTOUR Commission turned him down. Williams stated he was opposed to theLtower as he felt it would be environmental pollution. He wondered if the left over water tanks could be removed, since they are no longer used by the City. Frank Sharp stated the Board of Directors is looking into the possibility of using the tanks for underground buildings for storage and shop uses. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M.