Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-28 Minutes6 • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Frank Burggraf, Sue Madison,'Trey Trumbo, and Joe Tarvin. Melanie Stockdell and Stan Green Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Phillip Moon representing Mrs. Powell, Mr. Grigsby and Mr. McBroom from the East Huntsville neighborhood, Wade Bishop, John Ragland, John McClarty, Jack Edmiston, Bobbie Jones, Terry Taylor, members of the press and others. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey who opened the meeting by welcoming the newest member of the Planning Commission, Frank Burggraf who has taken Barbara Crook's position on the Planning Commission. Then the minutes of the May 13, 1985 meeting were considered. MINUTES Joe Tarvin had several corrections to the minutes. (1) On page 2, 5th paragraph, pastor stating that there are about 120 families who are mainly from the neighborhood. Tarvin felt that the pastor had stated that some families were from Mission Blvd and other areas of town but did not specifically state that these families were from this neighborhood. (2) On page 4, 7th paragraph, 4 ft. should be changed to read 49 feet. (3) On page 4, last paragraph, Tarvin replied that it is 80 Feet instead of 60 feet. (4) Page 7, Paragraph 6, 9th line, change r/w to street. Then add to the end of that sentence, "except for an area such as that adjacent to the church where the occupants are only there a limited amount of time. (5) Page 9, paragraph 7, line 3: . . . the way he understands the city street design standards, the dimension of a Collector Street is 36' in width with 60' of r -o -w. A local street is 31' wide with 50' r -o -w. The street as proposed is 31' wide and Tarvin said that he has no objection to building Township to this width. Collector Streets and Local Streets both have two lanes of traffic. He noted that the primary . . . Stated that they would both carry the same amount of traffic. . . . for breakdowns . . and as previously stated that there should be one lane for emergency parking. He had a problem justifying taking another five feet of r -o -w when the r -o -w standard for the street proposed does not require any additional r -o -w. Taking five feet from each side will create problems for adjacent owners. (Last sentence) He concluded that he had a • 133 Planning Commission • May 28, 1985 Page 2 problem with building a local street in width and requiring a collector street in right of way. Sue Madison's corrections (6) Page 5, paragraph 6, last line. traffic will be defused -- should be diffused. Hailey stated that.with those corrections,. the minutes were approved. • • WADE BISHOP - REZONING R85-15 SOUTH SIDE OF APPLEBY ROAD, 1000 FEET EAST OF GREGG_AVENOE Piblic hearing opened. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant presented a favorable planning report based on (1) there currently exists R-2 to the east and west of the property under application (2) Most of the development in the R-2 to the east is smaller lot, single family mixed with duplex and multi -family and considered this a continuation of that development pattern and (3) public facilities and services are available to serve the proposed development. Wade Bishop represented this development stating that he felt that had designed a plan with a little "flair", putting curves in the streets to slow down the traffic and make -the area more beautiful. He explained that it would eventually open to Drake Street to the south as well as Appleby Road to the north. He reminded the Commission that he was one who exercised the R-2 district very conservatively, stating that duplexes would possibly be put in the end of a cul-de-sac but not to a great extent and then away from the single family residences. No questions were addressed to Mr. Bishop. Hailey closed the public hearing. Ernie Jacks made the motion to approve the rezoning, Fred Hanna seconded the motion to recommend to the City Board that they look favorably upon this rezoning. Hailey addressed question to Bobbie Jones regarding the legal description because of a property line discrepancy. Jacks stated that there is a property line dispute and remarked that perhaps it should modify the motion. Jones stated that the legal description should be as Is shown on the deed. She felt that the question really is "where the center line of Appleby Road lies on the ground". She felt that this dispute needs to be kept between Mr. Bishop and Mrs. Powell. Jacks modified motion to recommend for approval this rezoning of the property as petitioned with the adjusted property line. Hailey stated that this will go to the Board. The motion passed 6-1 with Burggraf voting nay. WADE BISHOP - PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH OF APPLEBY ROAD, 1000 FEET EAST OF GREGG AVENUE Ernie Jacks stated that although this was heard at the Subdivision Committee, they are bringing this to the Planning Commission. There are several concerns: Plat Review Comments; They are asking for four waivers. Two of these are for the length of dead-end streets, one • 13" Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 3 being John Wayne Drive which is 620' long with the maximum length for this district being 500'. The other dead end is only temporary until Drake Street is completed and Quail Creek: can be tied on. Another waiver request is for maximum distance between street lights, maximum being 300' with a request to allow up to 450' between street lights. The fourth is a waiver of the requirement for sidewalk to extend around an entire cul-de-sac when the other side is simply going to be a drainage ditch with the back of the lot backing up onto this cul-de-sac. There is also the concern of the property line dispute. Sue Madison stated that she objected to this development due to the layout of the street. She referred to the last City Board Meeting on May 21 and to three different board members stating that streets need to tie together and go someplace and that Quail Creek was the only street in this development that would ever tie to any other street. She then read aloud comments that Marilyn Johson had made at the Board meeting: "I wish the Planning Commission would be aware of all the cul-de-sacs that developments are putting in and try when a development goes in to connect those to something where it just doesn't dead end. . . . I think the Planning Commission needs to take a very close look at that when they are looking at their Subdivision approval and working around those and working with those problems before they develop rather than us having to address those afterwards." Mayor Noland agreed. She stated that she had not polled the Board members but that she had talked to Jeremy Hess and Ron Bumpass and that they were also in agreement with Marilyn Johnson's statement.. Madison stated that in this development, unless cul-de-sacs could be platted all the way to the property line so that ultimately can connect to something, there would be seven cul-de-sacs. She stated that she also objected to the street light waiver, however; her main concern was the dead end street waiver and the numerous cul-de-sacs. Madison suggested that they loop some of the streets in order to give a fair share of traffic flow. She remarked that she felt the City Board had given the Planning Commission a clear direction concerning cul-de-sacs and that the Planning Commission should heed their comments. Jacks commented that although he understood what the Board had stated, he felt that the Planning Commission should not overreact to the statements. Jacks also stated that he realized the Township issue had gotten out of hand but the Planning Commission had always intended for those cul-de-sacs to intersect with Township. He felt the Board's point was well -made and that the Planning Commission should be on their guard against letting that happen. However, in this case there is a pancake-shaped piece of property bounded on the west by a stream (flood plain) that would take a bridge to cross and on the other side is the airfield and that the Planning Commission cannot say how long the airfield will exist. To make a point, the two long sides of this property are bounded by facilities that will block movement in those two directions. Jacks stated that he doesn't see a problem in the • 135 Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 4 cul-de-sac line either in the north or the south. He stated that even though there are a lot of cul-de-sacs he doesn't see a bad arrangement for this development. Madison pointed out that this was just 'rezoned and that Phase I shows 62 lots. Even though the desire to hold this to 12 units per acre, to 396 possible units. Madison felt this was a be using Quail Creek Drive. She is not saying rid of all cul-de-sacs but she felt that it would the number of cul-de-sacs. to R-2, Multi -family Mr. Bishop expressed that still comes out lot of units to all that they should get be in order to reduce Frank Burggraf commented that he thought cul-de-sacs served a purpose but that in most cases in this development they were very steep which he felt would cause a lot of difficult lots and harm the site. He felt like a better plan would be one that wouldn't include flood plain within lots and he also wanted to see some land dedicated for public use. Burggraf felt that by using the Planned Unit Development Bishop would be able to put the roads in the kind of order which would give them the density they are seeking but without the steep grade. Discussion was held between Jacks, Hailey and Madison regarding what was decided on the Parks and Recreation Board regarding this property. Bishop stated that they had the opportunity to speak to the PRAB if they would rather donate land, however, an agreement was reached for this project to donate cash in lieu of land. Jones stated that the figure stated in Plat Review Minutes was based on Single Family Residential and that it would need to be refigured according to which lots are designated as multi -family lots. Hanna stated that he concurred with Jacks regarding the cul-de-sacs. He stated that he had gone out to the property and had Mr. Bishop take him out and show him the plan "on the ground". He stated that on the part where there are 4 cul-de-sacs coming down that there is about a 25' drop from Quail Creek Drive into the cul-de-sac. He felt that it wasn't too steep. Hanna also felt that it would be very difficult to put a road through to Gregg Street. He felt that the plat was drawn as well as possible with access to the north and the south. He stated that he understands the City Board's opinion on cul-de-sacs but that on this piece of property they were necessary for comfortable living. He also stated that he felt it was a nice lay -out. Madison questioned whether it would be practical to have Ripple Creek and Whispering Springs connect in a loop or Oakbrook and Whispering Springs. Hanna replied that he had a hard time visualizing that it would really help. He didn't feel like the difference would be that great in a loop versus a cul-de-sac. Madison felt it was important to have cul-de-sacs with r -o -w dedicated to the property line so in the event of extension they would be prepared to connect. Hanna felt • 134 • • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 5 that due to the lay of the land he could see no possibility of putting in a street through a gulley. Madison made a motion to deny the preliminary plat of Quail Creek Addition, Second. by Burggraf. Halley asked Madison to address her reasons for this motion. Madison asked to see a new street design with more connections between the streets and also the option of connecting streets to areas outside the subdivisions at later date. The motion failed 5-2, with Madison and Burggraf voting nay. At this time Madison asked whether a Planning Commission member can appeal a decision to the City Board and Madison stated that if it was possible, she intended to appeal this decision to the Board of Directors. Jones read section of code stating that the applicant could appeal to the Board of Directors, but stated that there was nothing in the code referring to a Planning Commission member appealing to the Board. Hanna made a motion to approve the preliminary plat which, opened doors to what should be included in this motion. Jacks stated that the property line dispute should be included. Tarv:tn asked for a recommended approval regarding the sidewalk waiver be included. Discussion by Burggraf, Madison and Milholland regarding street lights led to a clarification by Milholland. Milholland stated (1) there is only one street that has a 10% grade which is not uncommon in Fayetteville whatsoever. (2) Dispute on land on Appleby Rd. is a matter of details of common corners of the northeast corner of this property and the southeast corner of the property north of it. He stated that there is a monument that can be measured from to take care of the property line dispute. Mr. Bishop has stated that he will dedicate 25' off the north side of his deed and his deed will correspond with the one to the north. Tarvin questioned what would happen if the north property line of Mr. Bishop's turned out to be the south property line of Appleby Road. Milholland stated that the intent is to provide service. Mrs. Powell (Property owner to the north) stated that the map she received does not agree with her survey. It shows the line in a different place and she believe we need to have that resolved before this is approved. Hanna stated that it would reflect in the motion that this must be resolved. Bishop asked if the burden of proof could be left up to Mrs. Powell to prove that his survey was wrong. Halley stated that we do not get involved, It must be up to the two property owners. Hailey called for vote to the motion that the preliminary plat be approved subject to: (1) plat review comments, (2) property line dispute being resolved, (3) waiver of length of dead end streets approved, (4) waiver of maximum distance between street lights approved, and (5) recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval of the waiver of sidewalk 137 Planning Commission • May 28, 1985 Page 6 • • requirements around the cal -de -sac where ttie drainage ditch is to be located. Motion passed 5-2, with Madison and Burggraf voting nay. LBE, JACK EDMISTON, REZONING R85-16 LOTS 1, 9, AND 10, BLACK 10, PARKER'S PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW ACRES Larry Wood recommended change to I-1, but not C--2 District. Two reasons: (1) I-1 District fits the nature of the development that currently exists to the north and to the east of this property and (2) public facilities and services are available to serve the development. Public hearing opened. Hailey asked Mr. Edmiston if he had any remarks to which Mr. Edmiston replied that I-1 would be fine with him. Public hearing was closed and referred to Planning Commission. Hanna stated that under I-1, no convenience grocery store is allowed. He stated that property in this area had been discussed at a prior meeting. Jones clarified that C-1 or C-2 will allow a convenience grocery. It will also allow a.service station. Hanna questioned what I-1 would allow. Jones stated that I-1 will allow a service station but would not allow a convenience grocery. Both zones will allow an eating place without dancing or entertainment. Jacks stated that this area did not develop the way it was originally planned out. He also stated the background of this area; that it was originally intended for multi -family and when that didn't pan out, it seemed the ideal location for warehousing. The I -zone was originally intended for warehousing and light industrial He also stated that he felt a strong need to take a look at this area and recognize trends and reality and possibly re -plan this area. He asked that Larry Wood take a serious look at this area in terms of re -planning. He stated that he didn't necessarily want to stop this rezoning, but felt the need for investigation of this area to be imperative. Because of the widening of Gregg, there is going to be an increased amount of pressure for commercial in this area. Wood stated that going back to a request for a study on this area, it was originally recommended that Light Industrial activity be considered all the way from Township on the north to Tune Construction on the south. There was an undeveloped area that was not desirable to live in, anchored by Industrial activity. The commission also recommended a north -south road pattern to try to cut down on the truck traffic moving east and west. None of these suggestions were followed through on. There was no committment to the north -south road pattern but there was a commi.ttment to rezone to Industrial. Commercial services, like restaurants, started going up in this area, although it was not the intent of the Commission's rezoning to I-1 originally. However, there is no way to prevent this because of the structure of the Use Units, other than developing new Use Units or getting some of those commercial uses out of the industrial area. Multi -family development 139 Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 7 is beginning to move into the area that was planned for industrial. Madison stated that she felt the commission was just deceiving themselves trying to have an Industrial Zone in an area that was mainly commercial and multi -family and that some changes should be made. Jacks agreed, stating that especially since Gregg is being widened, the time is here for a change. Jacks stated that he would be in favor of this petition. Madison asked if Chestnut would still be brought through regardless of their decision on this item. Jacks assured her that Chestnut is a platted street and will be put through. Tarvin questioned that if this property was zoned C-2, would this tend to pull more C-2 west of this area. Hailey stated that it was his personal opinion that C-2 would be spot -zoning. He stated that he was not in disfavor of I-1. Hanna stated that he would be more in favor of I-1 or C-1. There was some discussion over what certain lots were zoned in that area. Lot 7 was determined to be R-3, Lot 8 was determined to be R-2. • Tarvin made a motion to approve zoning to I-1, Hanna seconded. John McClarty, the prospective buyer, spoke saying that I-1 would be fine. Stating that C-1 would not allow the back piece of property to be used as a miniature golf course. C-2 was the only zoning that took in all three of the uses. McClarty felt that it was a quirk that a miniature golf course would not be allowed in this zoning. He stated that they had an offer in to buy one of these lots to have a restaurant. C-2 would open up the property for future development. He stated that he felt he could serve the needs in this area for a restaurant. He stated they would not be causing a trouble spot. He stated that he would prefer C-2 or I-1, but that C-1 would suit his primary need at this time which is to relocate his restaurant. Jones clarified that a miniature golf course could go in I-1, however a convenience grocery could not go in an I-1 zone but can go in C -I or C-2. A restaurant can go in any of the three zonings. Madison stated that she didn't have any objections to rezoning this property to C-2, except that it is spot zoning. She also stated that she would support the motion to rezone the property to I-1. Hailey stated that the motion is to recommend to the City Board to change the zoning from R-2 to 1-1. Motion passed 6-1 with Jacks voting nay Jacks remarked that he felt they should do a complete study of this area. Madison asked how much undeveloped area was actually in that vicinity. Jacks remarked that there is definitely more there than meets the eye. Hailey asked if Jacks would like to set some parameters. • 13'1 • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 8 Jacks left it fairly open stating definitely from Leverett to Gregg and from Poplar to Sycamore. Larry Wood was asked to undertake this study. WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE THOMAS PUGH CONSTRUCTION 3248 CHARING CROSS Fifth item, waiver of driveway safety zone. Jacks made approve. Madison seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-1. REQUEST TO RE -PETITION FOR REZONING FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF TAHLEQUAH NORTHEAST CORNER HUNTSVILLE AND SHERMAN AVENUE Because all other business besides this item business, it was decided to move item 9 up two members of the Huntsville area present and Mr. McBroom. motion to was Planning Commission to item 6. There were to speak. . Mr. Grigsby Request by Lindsey and Associates to re -petition to rezone this property to R-0, Residential Office District to be put on a future agenda. This was to decide if the Planning Commission would re -hear this petition. Jones stated that at the last City Board meeting, Lindsey requested to withdraw this petition. The ordinance states: No application for zoning amendments shall be considered by the Planning Commission within 12 months from the day of final disapproval of the proposed amendment unless there's evidence submitted to the Planning Commission which justifies reconsideration." Another section reads: "A petition for amendment may be withdrawn before publication of the notice and posting signs for the public hearing. After the publication and posting of such notice, the petition may be withdrawn at the discretion of the Planning Commission. If the petition is permitted to be withdrawn at the Public Hearing, it shall be in the Planning Commission's discretion whether or not a petition affecting part or all of the same property may be refiled sooner than one year from the date of withdrawal." Hanna stated that this has been heard several times, both at the Planning Commission and at the City Board of Director's Meeting. Taylor stated for the information of the Board that if Lindsey had checked with the Planning Office prior to withdrawing this petition, they would have been told that they could down -zone without withdrawing. They could have changed from C-2 to R-0 at the Board Meeting; however, since they have withdrawn, a new petition will have to be filed, and it will have to be re -advertised. Hanna stated that the first time they came back through was because • I�0 • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 9 of an error when it was very obvious that if the Commission and the Board voted against C-1, they were going to vote against C-2. Mr. Grigsby stated that he thought a representative from Lindsey and Associates was going to be at the meeting to ask for R-0 for offices of some sort. He stated that they would not be opposed to having offices, i.e., real estate, insurance, or doctor's offices, at this site but they would want a Bill of Assurance stating that all that would be put there would be professional offices. He stated that it had been quite a hassle because they had been to so many meetings. He expressed his wish that the Planning Commission settle this matter one way or the other. He also stated that the neighborhood would not be comfortable with more than three offices in that building. He stated that it would be better to have offices in there than to just have it sit like it is. Newton asked if they would have no objections to coming back here again for a another rezoning hearing. The question tonight is whether the Planning Commission members want to hear it again or ,if they have to wait twelve months to bring another petition through. Mr. Grigsby stated that if it came up again that the neighborhood would definitely be here. Mr. McBroom stated that he would like to have it left just like it is. Hanna brought to their attention that in an R-0 District you can put other things besides offices, such as apartments. Grigsby and McBroom were both very opposed to the idea of apartments. Grigsby stated that he wouldn't mind it being left just like it is, but he certainly didn't want apartments or an auction house. The only acceptable thing would be professional offices. Hailey debated to whether or not they Planning Commission should let this petition be brough back through for the third time. Other members stated that they were against hearing this petition again. Madison stated that if the Planning Commission denied the re -hearing, the petitioner would have to wait one year to come back through. Grigsby and McBroom agreed that that would suit them fine to wait a year before having to come back on this petition again. Jacks made a motion to deny the re -petition. seconded by Prank Burggraf. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Trey Trumbo abstaining. PARKING STUDY LARRY WOOD. NW ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wood stated that he had started the parking study that he was to perform. He stated he had pulled all of the uses out of the zoning ordinance, found the parking requirement for each use, and identified where the conflicts between Use Units are. He mentioned that we have the same uses listed in several different Use Units with different parking • 'Nl • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 10 requirements. He stated that there is not an updated parking requirement in the last ten years. fihe standards that he has found date back to 1971. He stated that he is convinced that these standards are not valid at this time. He commented on "Shared Parking". Gottlieb Corporation which developed the Northwest Arkansas mall originally wants to develop Fiesta Sqare (the north Wal-Mart Store). Mr. Gottlieb questioned whether a shared parking ordinance would be included. This would be based on the type of use and the hour of the day and the mix of the use in that Center. There is a formula which helps to reduce the overall parking requirement. They share each other's parking places. He asked the Planning Commission if they would like to consider this type of concept. He said if so, they would not have to wait for the parking requirements because this is a separate part of the ordinance from the requirements. Wood stated that he spoke with some transportation representative and received some draft ordinances, one of which looks like one we can use. Jacks wanted to know of the shared parking was only applicable to groups of stores or "shopping centers". Wood stated that the Planning Commission would have to establish the number in the group as a minimum. Wood elaborated on the study that has been tried. Hanna, Hailey and Jacks were all in agreement that shared parking was an excellent idea. Burggraf suggested that also in the large parking lots there should be some standard set for circulation in these parking areas when they get over a certain size. Madison agreed that there should be some standard. - Wood asked if the Planning Commission would like to see a draft of this shared parking ordinance and the Commission unanimously agreed to his preparation of this report. BED AND BREAKFAST INN'S BOBBIE JONES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR Halley introduced the subject and asked the commission for some feedback on Jones' ideas. He also requested that Barbara Crook be consulted for her ideas since she had been in on the initial investigation into both Bed and Breakfast and also on the Update Committee recommendations. Junes stated that she had gotten requests for Bed and Breakfast Inn. One was in R-1, one Involved a house in an R-2 District. She said she felt that there will be more requests and the Bed and Breakfast Inn's are getting more popular and that the commission would do well to adopt some regulations because as it stands now there are regulations governing motels which have to be in a C-2 or C-3 District. There are also regulations governing a rooming house or boarding house which can only go in a R-3 or C-3 District and the code of ordinances specifically states that these are not for transients. Transient is defined In the dictionary as "someone staying just a short time." INQ Planning Commission • May 28, 1985 Page 11 • • Jones stated that she had told them it cannot be a rooming house or boarding house although the State Health Department's regulations do classify it as a rooming house. Jones remarked that many of the other codes that she had gotten copies of stated that they used them as boarding houses or rooming houses even though their codes stated that they weren't to be used for transients. She illustrated some points that she had learned: (1) In New Orleans, if it is in a residential zone, they cannot stay for less than thirty days. (2) In Little Rock, a guest cannot stay for more than three days, and even in commercial zones their length of stay is limited to seven days. She expressed concern over the handling of the parking requirements. Eureka Springs only restriction was that they had to have adequate parking. In some of the zoning districts in Little Rock they do allow stacking the cars in driveway. The Capitol Zoning District does state that it has to be a single family residence with rooms to let -- it's not just a bunch of rooms to be rented out. A family has to live on the premises and have rooms to let besides. There was some discussion among the Planning Commission members regarding the difference in rooming houses and Bed- and Breakfast Inns. The need was established as an alternate to motels. Madison asked if Jones felt there was a need for this type of lodging in this area. Jones replied that the people she had had ask her about it thought that there was a need. One example was that a woman had a sick relative in the hospital here and wanted something more "homey" to stay in than a motel. Hanna stated that he felt that some guidelines need to be set up for the Bed and Breakfast Inn. He said that a week to ten days should be the maximum that a person should be allowed to stay and also that the Bed and Breakfast Inn should only be allowed in houses where the owner of that house resides there. Hanna also stated that he felt "zoning" wasn't really that important but that he felt a Bed and Breakfast Inn should be a Conditional Use in all zones..- This way if there are neighbors that are opposed or if it doesn't fit in the neighborhood, this would give the neighbors a chance to oppose the Conditional Use. Hanna further stated that he felt that Bed and Breakfast was a good idea if the guidelines were set and adhered to. Jacks agreed. After some discussion, the commission felt that perhaps they should also put a limit on the number of rooms that can be rented out in a house. It was decided that each one would have to be looked at on an individual basis. Other items discussed were the type and number of meals offered to the guests should be breakfast only. Signs were discussed. Hanna also proposed that each home be inspected by the fire department and Halley remarked that this would also be subject to the City's Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Tax. • 1ys • • • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 12 Jones stated that she felt this would give her some guidelines. She encouraged the Planning Commission to contact her with any ideas or suggestions. She also stated that she would send a copy to Barbara Crook. Madison stated that when this ordinance came up she would be very opposed. She stated that there is no fire code in the state of Arkansas and that she had stayed at some Bed and Breakfast Inn's, only as a last resort. Burggraf felt that the commission could set some standards. Madison expressed that she had talked to the fire inspector less than three weeks ago and found out that motel rooms and so forth do not have to be under any fire codes. The other members of the commission felt that they could set some guidelines in this area. UPDATE COMMITTEE FINDINGS BOBBIE JONES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR • Hailey instructed the commissioners that these were for their review prior to being advertised for a public hearing. Jones presented the new ordinances with their changes to the Planning Commission Members. She discussed each one individually. (1) An Ordinance Amending Section 18-28(1) of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Amend Driveway Safety Zone Requirements: Jones stated that this ordinance had been amended to be applicable only to single family residential lots rather than just a blanket change. She stated that it still maintained the 25' separation between driveways for anything other than single family residential and will still maintain the 12 1/2' setback from side property lines for anything other than single family residential. She further explained that it would allow a safety zone of 10' between individual driveways on single family residential lots with the driveway being 5' from the side property line but not applying to (a) a joint driveway (driveway providing access to two adjoining lots or (b) residential lots on the turning circle of a cul-de-sac. (2) An Ordinance Amending Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Delete the F-1, Flood District. Jones stated there were no changes in this ordinance. It is simply to delete the flood district from the zoning ordinance because the Flood Plain Regulations that have been adopted by.the City are more concise. (3) An Ordinance Amending Article 4, Section 2 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Authorize the Reduction of Side Setbacks for a Single Family Dwelling in a Previously Developed Subdivision, Platted Prior to June 29, 1970. Jones stated that this ordinance has been reworded to reflect that this should be approved • /yN Planning Commission • May 28, 1985 Page 13 • • by the subdivision committee. (4) An Ordinance Amending Article 4, Section 4(a) of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Authorize the Enlargement of Certain Non -conforming Structures. Jones stated that this would allow enlargement within the side setback, front setback and even within the rear yard setback but would be primarily open structures such as open carports or detachable awnings. She further stated that this would also allow them to go upward such as the addition of a second floor. (5) An Ordinance Amending Article 5 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Add District R1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Jones commented that the only reason it was not passed last time was because there was no Use Unit 29. There is now a Use Unit 29 which needs to be put into Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Burgraff inquired as to how building height was measured. Jones replied from graded lot to top of building. Burgraff felt that there should be a written definition due to the sloping lots in this area. Jones asked for recommendations. After much discussion, it was decided that a definition should be included in the ordinance. (6) An Ordinance Amending Article 7; Section 1 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Regulate the Use of Accessory Structures. Jones stated that the main change in this ordinance re -draft was the change regarding the satellite dishes. Also section 3, dealing with the trash containers. Burggraf questioned whether a trash container could be considered a structure. Wood stated that anything with a fixed position on the ground or attached to something with a fixed location on the ground. Burgraff questioned whether a simple structure (shed for lawnmower) was considered a structure. Jones stated that it was a structure and must meet the setbacks; however, if it is not larger than an 8 x 10, it does not need a building permit. Jones went on to say that the definition of structure: Structure or Building -- Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground. Among other things structures include: buildings, mobile homes, walls, fences, billboards, etc. Burgraff questioned whether a camping trailer has to be inside setbacks. Jones stated that a camper trailer is a recreational vehicle and does not have to be within the setbacks. (7) An Ordinance Amending Article 7 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances by Adding Section 23 to Authorize Accessory Residential uses in Non -Residential Districts. Jones stated that there have been a number of requests from persons wanting to live on a piece of property and also have their business on this property and at this time the ordinance does not allow them to do this. At this time, one of those • 1115 • Planning Commission May 28, 1985 Page 14 uses, either the residence or the business is considered to be a non- conforming use. Wood commented that he felt the wording in the ordinance gave a free reign so that if someone had 10 acres of Industrial they could have a business and then build apartments. He didn't feel like this was the intent of the Planning Commission and felt that some more work needed to be done on this particular ordinance amendment. After open discussion, the Commission referred this item back to Bobbie Jones and Larry Wood for research and reconsideration. (8) An Ordinance Amending Article 17 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Amend the Definition of Off -Street Parking Space. Jones stated that there is a provision for an exception for duplexes and single family homes with a joint driveway centered on the property line may be designed so that no more than four (4) parking spaces back into a public street. Madison questioned if this would be too many automobiles backing into the street. Taylor informed her that the way it was set up now, there are still four vehicles per duplex backing into the street. • Hailey asked Jones to put a clarification on the front of each ordinance amendment expressing the commission's intent for each change. • Hailey asked for a movement for Public Hearing on these ordinances excluding the one that was turned back to Jones and Wood. The motion passed 7-0 to advertise public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Hanna questioned why Consumer's wasn't required to put up a Bill of Assurances on Lee Street when they came in recently for their permit. Jones explained that Consumer's were only remodeling the inside and not changing any exterior walls so therefore the Planning Office could not require anything of them at that time. Hanna felt that the Consumer's shopping center would be the one who benefitted the most from having that street brought up to standards. Jones stated that the only section of the ordinance that she could use to require street improvements would prove too vague. Madison asked that her handout be submitted as a part of this document. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. • IH6