Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, September 13, 1982 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Jr., Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Barbara Crook Morton Gitelman Larry Wood, Vickie Butler, Robert Middleton, Truman Yancey, Jim Vizzier, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy and members of the press The first item for consideration was approval of the MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1982 and Minutes of a Special Planning Commission meeting of August 30, 1982. In regards to the Minutes of the Special Meeting, Ernest Jacks stated he felt the Minutes were not clear as far as his reasons for not being willing to settle for only two access roads. He asked that an addition be made on page four to reflect this. The reasons he was not willing to settle for two access roads were 1) it wasn't certain that the FAA was going to take a piece of land and 2) if the FAA did take a big portion of the land, the developer would probably re -subdivide and the density would still be enough for three access roads. David Williams stated he agreed this should be brought out on page four after his own comments in paragraph 11. The next item was an appearance by Robert K. Middleton from the University of Arkansas, who distributed materials on a Four -State Regional Planning Conference featuring a Planning Commissioners Institute to be held on October 1 and 2, 1982. Mr. Middleton stated he was present to encourage as many planning commissioners as possible to attend the conference, as he thinks they will profit from attending. He pointed out that our Chairman Ernest Jacks will act as moderator for a session on Friday, October 1. He especially encouraged everyone to register for the Workshop on Saturday, as good attendance is needed for this workshop to be successful He said that some Planning Commissions have been funded for these conferences by their City Councils, and he suggested our Planning Commission look into this possibility. He said that it would be helpful to register for the conference at least five days in advance. He said there was another conference taking place at the same time, and that information on these could be obtained from Susan Claywell at the University of Arkansas Division of Continuing Education. Ernest Jacks stated that the City Manager's Office has, in the past, been cooperative as far as funding these conferences, and said he would contact City Manager, Don Grimes, regarding this possibility before the next meeting. 4 -STATE REGIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE ROBERT K. MIDDLETON UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 132 • • • em ttz C� 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1982 Page Two The next item of business was to hear a request for renewal of a conditional use submitted by Linda VanAsche for Vickie M. Butler (of Montessori School) for daycare, toddler, primary and elementary age children's school at 1624 N. Garland Avenue (in Trinity United Methodist Church); property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bobbie Jones stated this was a conditional use which had been first approved August 24, 1981, for a period of one year only and with a maximum of 100 students. She said that adjacent property owners had been notified. Vickie Butler was present to speak and stated she was requesting an extension for the same usage as that which had been granted last year. In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, she stated that she had not had any problems with the neighbors. Bobbie Jones stated the Planning Office had received a complaint from one neighbor in the form of an allegation that there had been a court case prohibiting the use of the Church for a school. He was asked to bring in a copy of this court proceeding and has not done so. Ms. Butler stated she had received a call from this neighbor adjacent to the playground side and he said the Church was not to be used as a school. She spoke with the Reverend Roy Poyner, Pastor of the Church, and he knew of no ruling that the building was not to be used for anything but a church. Bobbie Jones said the original building permit to build the church was issued in the 1960's, an expansion was done in 1970, at which time there was a lawsuit to block the expansion work and the files in the Planning Office indicate notes on this in which it says the Judge ruled in favor of the church. David Williams moved approval of extension for the conditional use for one year. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers. Vickie Butler said that their enrollment was presently below 100 and asked if they wished to go above 100, do they need to come before the Planning Commission again. Ernest Jacks said they have been approved for 100 students only. David Williams said he intended his motion to be for one year only for the following reasons: If there are complaints from the neighborhood, the Planning Commission looks at the issue again and considers whether or not they will keep extending the approval. In this situation there has been an allegation, although there has been no complaint formally presented. He said he would not want to penalize the School because someone says they are going to complain, but on the other hand, if there is a complaint and a real issue, he would not want the approval to be open-ended. Bobbie Jones said she had spoken to the City Attorney who stated that, if there was a court ruling, it would pre-empt any action by the Planning Commission. David Williams stated, in that case, he would change his motion to move approval of the extension for an unlimited time period with a maximum of 100 children. Windell Cullers agreed to second the amended motion. The motion passed, 8-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST MONTESSORI SCHOOL TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1624 N. GARLAND AVENUE VICKIE BUTLER 133 Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1982 Page Three The next item was a request from Attorney Truman Yancey to be allowed to re -petition within less than twelve months Rezoning Petition R81-20 for property located at 1908 West Sixth Street (denied by Planning Commission January 11, 1982 and denied by Board of Directors January 18, 1982). Bobbie Jones pointed out that this was not a rehearing but a request to repetition for a public hearing within less than the 12 -months stipulated. Truman Yancey was present to speak. He stated the original rezoning petition was from a person who intended to buy the landand did not. He stated now the petitioners will be the owners of the land and there will be a larger piece of land involved. Referring to the map included with today's agenda, Mr. Yancey explained that the portion of Lot 7 cross -hatched on the map indicates the land involved in the original rezoning petition. He stated that the new petition would also include the balance of Lot 7 to the east of the cross -hatching and all of Lot 8. David Williams stated his understanding was that, according to the bylaws, there are only three conditions under which the Planning Commission could rehear a petition within the year and Mr. Yancey's reasons are not any of these. He said he thought, by ordinance, the Planning Commission cannot answer that question. Ernest Jacks read from the Bylaws: "Rehearing shall be for the sole purpose of calling attention to a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration." He said the point he thought Mr. Yancey was making is that this is not a rehearing - his request is to re -petition within less than the prescribed minimum of one year. David Williams stated we should not waste Mr. Yancey's time if, by ordinance, the Planning Commission cannot do this. Bobbie Jones said this is the same question as that involving the property at Highway 16 and Crossover Road. She said the ordinance says he must submit reasons to justify reconsideration. David Williams asked if the ordinance overrides the bylaws. Ernest Jacks said he did not think there is a conflict. Ernest Jacks read from the Ordinance: "Re -petition for Amendments: No application for zoning amendments will be considered by the Planning Commission within twelve months from the date of final disapproval of the proposed amendment unless there is evidence submitted to the Planning Commission which justifies reconsideration." Jacks said he did think there was a difference between a rehear- ing of the same petition and a re -petition for the same piece of property, and thinks the Planning Commission has the option to hear it. After further discussion, David Williams moved to allow the re -petition. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt. Julie Nash asked Mr. Yancey why he did not want to wait until January. He said the conditions of the previous petition no longer have anything to do with the property and he sees no reason to wait. After some discussion, the motion passed, 8-0. REZONING PETITION R81-20 REQUEST TO RE -PETITION WITHIN LESS THAN 12 MONTHS TRUMAN YANCEY 131 • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1982 Page Four Ernest Jacks stated that the County MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS has proposed a zoning ordinance to be OF NON -SEWER LOTS compatible with the City's - he said they picked up the minimum 11 acre in the City's Regulations Controlling the Development of Land for non -sewer lots as the City has in the Growth Area, but they also added an additional stipulation to require a minimum width of 150 feet. Jacks stated this would mean it would not allow a narrow lot that you weren't interested in dealing with because you could, in those cases, get septic tanks so close together you hadn't really accomplished anything with the acre and a half. He said that would mean that the proportion would be one to three; 150' x 450' would be the smallest size combination of a lot you could have and still have 11 acres. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to consider a similar revision to our ordinance or if they. wanted to talk to Larry Wood as part of the update. It was generally agreed by all present that the Planning Commission would not concern itself at this time with any changes in minimum width requirements of non -sewer lots. Ernest Jacks said if the County passes this ordinance they will have that stipulation in the Growth Area. Bobbie Jones stated the most restrictive ordinance would prevail in any case. Windell Cullers asked that a report be given at the next meeting by the committee which was appointed to look into the grandfather clauses as pertains to the width of lots (non -conforming lots P, non -conforming structures). He said. this was to have been reported on back in May. Ernest Jacks said at the last meeting RESOLUTION TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS at which the topic of the General Plan was GENERAL PLAN RESTUDY addressed, it was left that the Planning Commission would continue with having an update done by Larry Wood, .and thatthis was passed at a City Board meeting. Jacks said he asked Jim Vizzier to prepare a statement about what a restudy would amount to. Jacks read from the statement, in part: That it proceed with the help of a private planning consultant to update and detail the General Plan to make it more useful in supporting planning recommendations. This study will be concerned with the following aspects of the General Plan: (a) The populations patterns, economic activities,environmental limits and social concerns that affect community aspirations. (b) A handbook of information about each neighborhood to support plans for preservation, development, or change. These neighborhood plans will include an estimate of public investment required by .the various alternatives. The supporting information will be in enough detail to help the Planning Commission and Board of Directors weigh the various public and private proposals that come before them. (c) Revisions to the General Plan to reflect the conditions identified in (a) and the changes developed in (b). (d) Revisions to planning regulations adding incentives for better development. 135 • • Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1982 Page Five Ernest Jacks asked for questions or reactions from the Planning Commission. Melanie Stockdell asked, if we take under consideration some resolution to the Board, does that then imply that, along with the General Plan Restudy, comes the services of Mr. Vizzier or any other person's services. Mr. Jacks said the only question before us now is do we want to send a resolution to the Board saying we want to proceed with a restudy. Melanie Stockdell asked how long a restudy takes. Jim Vizzier said it would take 1 to 11/2 years without committee meetings, but otherwise it would take at least 18 months, if there are public meetings and if the City wants to spread out the costs. Barbara Crook said she thinks we would be in a better position to take a resolution to the Board after we have begun to proceed with the update. David Williams spoke in regard to Item (a) read by Jacks. He said he thought there were two or three ways any one of those things could go and a plan process would at least look at the major ways they could go and look at the options or the limits that are just matter-of-fact about that. He said we can look at two or three realistic probabilities as opposed to looking at one possible economic outcome. He is inclined to want to take advantage of the lull in development to proceed with an update. Don Hunnicutt stated we need to give the Board some information on which they can base a decision. He suggested the General Plan Update Committee might discuss this issue. Windell Cullers suggested appointing a committee to decide whether or not we need the restudy and make a recommendation back to the Planning Commission. After some discussion, it was agreed that the General Plan Update Committee initially discuss the issue of the General Plan Restudy. Ernest Jacks said he wanted to serve on the committee, and that Mort Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Jr. and Julie Nash had each agreed to serve on the committee. Jacks said he had asked Jim Lindsey to sit with the committee from the developer's standpoint. He said the Chairman was to be elected at the first committee meeting. David Williams noted from the information OTHER BUSINESS distributed on membership in the American Planning Association, that if the entire Planning Commission joins, there are reduced dues of $25 per person, along with receipt of a magazine and a newsletter. Ernest Jacks said he would bring up the issue of funding these dues for planning commissioners with City Manager, Don Grimes. Bobbie Jones asked for clarification of the two planning conferences being held at the same time. Ernest Jacks said there were two concurrent meetings, one being the Municipal League and the other the Planning Commissioners Institute, and that there were some parallel sessions. 411 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M. 136