Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-09 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 9, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Butch Robertson, Frank Skwiot and Julie Nash None Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Farrish, B.J. Dow, Paul David Lashley, Larry Wood, David Williamson, Mickey Jackson, Dennis Ledbetter, Frances Hafer, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the May 27, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES The following additions were entered by Commissioner Skwiot: Page 5, paragraph 10, should read Stubblefield, but he would not support the motion; Same paragraph second sentence, the integrity of the area; Same paragraph third sentence, He feels the teeth are there (reason to reject the plan). Commissioner Madison made the following corrections: Page 3, paragraph 5 should read, By way of compromise at Subdivision, Page 8, paragraph 6 should read, plan, when Thompson, Vice Chancellor of the U of A spoke and said the rezoning would not conflict with any University plans. Page 17, under Other Business, Madison did inquire once again, about the progress of obtaining a City vehicle for our tours. With these corrections the minutes stood approved as distributed. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PARR AND AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE The second item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed park and amendment to the Green Space Ordinance. 1. AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE Larry Wood asked if he might clear up some misconception about the park plan during the discussions on the General Plan and the Scope Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 2 of Work for the general plan. He understood that some Commissioners thought he said the City of Fayetteville has an abundance of Park land and what he was saying was that the City of Fayetteville has an excellent park plan and in the update of the general plan we do not need to change it very much. Wood stated it's a good park plan, its effective and we don't need to spend the money or time to do anything else with it. Wood stated once more they do not have an over abundance of Park Land. Jacks stated there was a proposed amendment to the Green Space Ordinance that would allow credit from one quadrant to another where an excess of acreage is acquired above the green space requirement. Both Paradise Valley Subdivision and Yorktown Square would like to bank their green space requirement now. Farrish asked if the Parks Board is in favor of this requirement. David Lashley stated they are in favor of an amendment to the ordinance because its an opportunity to gain land without paying out cash dollars and that is the purpose for the green space ordinance. Madison expressed concern that we would only have parks were developers have given us land. Lashley stated that a priority was looking for land to aquire for neighborhood parks, that the parks plan requires at least 5 acres for a neighborhood park and if we aquire one half acre here and one half acre there thats were we need to take the dollars and put it all together to buy a piece of land that will serve a larger area and would take in the Yorktown people. Jacks stated the Parks Board always has the ability to say yes or no when accepting land or apply it to a different area. Lashley stated they will put dollars back into the NE quadrant in place of that land that was swapped out, so the NE quadrant will get credit for $2200 dollars but it will come from the NW quadrant. Madison asked if Mr. Bishop gave money then would the money would have to be spent in that quadrant, Lashley stated yes, we would have to put the dollars back in that district and if we did not we would be in violation of the ordinance. Dow questioned if the chart on Fayetteville Parks Needs Assessment and the holding capacity deficits were included with the proposed parks, Lashley stated they are not included with the proposed parks and this has not been updated since we added Finger Park. Lashley then stated that we have twelve traffic zones and which were taken and divided up as equally as possible to come up with four quadrants, then priorities were established. Skwiot asked Lashley if the $85.00 and $105.00 was still an appropriate green space fee for the time and also asked Lashley if he forsaw any problems in the future. Lashley stated he did not have the expertise to say if the above mentioned park fees were correct but stated they • • • • • • Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 3 could possibly find out once they acquire the property at Gregg Street and it may be that the City Board would want to have the property appraised rather than swap it out. Skwiot asked Lashley if he saw any problems with the green space ordinance and Lashley stated they have covered most of the problems that we could anticipate at this point. Green asked if this amendment to the ordinance was something the Planning Commission wanted to recommend to the City Board and should this acreage on Gregg Street be purchased. Jacks stated yes, these were the two issues we are talking about. Madison pointed out a typing error on page 17 the neighborhood parks in greatest need should be 1,3,4,7,10 and 11. Green stated his concern with this ordinance was to add a provision that the credits being kept track get back to that quadrant. NOTION Green moved to recommend approval of this amendment to the green space ordinance with a provision that the language about tracking credits from one quadrant to another be added by the City Attorney, seconded by Skwiot. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. 2. PROPOSED PARR (GREGG S DRAKE STREET) Jacks asked Lashley if a name had been selected for this park and Lashley stated Quail Creek Park. Jacks asked if the Parks Board and Wade Bishop were in agreement over this land and Lashley stated they are not able to negotiate. Lashley stated the Planning Commission was to determine if the physical characteristics were suitable for a park and if it was consistent with our plan. Green questioned who's responsibility it was or if it was stated in the ordinance that tells us you are proposing to buy land. He understands the parks board is proposing take some parcels that are being dedicated and then you want the Commission to recommend you also buy some additional land. Lashley stated they were not asking the City to buy the land, but to acquire the land for parks, we are trying to work out the swap deal and the money we have to buy land is from the green space fees. Where the money comes from and what priority the City Board places on it will be up to them. Our master park plan has always pointed out that there is a high priority in this area for a park. Green stated that what you are asking us to do is agree or recommend to the City Board that this site is suitable for a park and the location is in accordance with the park plan. Green asked if there was a current //G Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 4 update on the Fayetteville Parks Needs Assessment other than what we have from 1970, the holding capacity numbers were based on 1970 numbers, and asked if the Parks Board felt the NW quadrant was still a number one priority based on whats happened and considering these numbers were published several years ago. Lashley stated there has been a lot of development in that area and, yes, it still remains the number one priority. Wood stated that when this assessment was done we did not have the 80's census information that we have now and since we have had the 80's information the NW quadrant has grown more than any quadrant in the City of Fayetteville (the NW quadrant received 37% of the growth that occured from 1970 to 1980). Madison asked Lashley if this new park would be classified as a neighbor- hood park or a community park and Lashley stated probably more of a community park because it would attract people from a larger area than just a neighborhood. MOTION Nash moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that they consider the parcel of land the Parks Commission desires and if considerations fell through for that particular piece of land we would like it to be reviewed again by the Parks Board, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 9-0-0. Green stated there was a motion from the last meeting to table this item, Green moved to remove this item from the table seconded by Nash. The motion passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - DAY CARS CENTER 16 SOUTH DUNCAN - DAVID WILLIAMSON The third item on the agenda was a request by David Williamson for a Conditional Use for a Day Care Center with a maximum of 40 children. Property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District,located at 16 South Duncan. Jacks noted this item was tabled from the last meeting for further documentation, notification of property owners and to have the Fire Chief present at this meeting. Carlisle also submitted pictures of the existing house for the Commissioners to review. Jacks asked Williamson if he had submitted a new drawing showing a turn around driveway with 3 parking spaces and plans for development of a new roof, exterior paint and blacktop parking. Dow asked Williams for the status from the Public Health Department, Williamson stated he talked to the county health department and all • • • • • • Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 5 they require is three sinks, separate hand washing facility, enamel paint on the walls for easy washing and when the work is completed the county health department would come over to the structure and review everything that is required. Carlisle stated she recieved a letter from Nonnie Vance with the Division of Social Services. Mrs. Vance was asked to send a letter to the planning office in regard to Mr. Williamsons request and the letter stated it has been explained to Mr. Williamson that in order to qualify for a State License he will have to observe and receive approvals from the health department, fire department and City. Carlisle stated the local codes must be complied with before the State and County can act. Robertson ask Williamson how big the lot was, Williamson stated 60X173. Madison asked about the shared driveway and where it was located, Williamson stated it was on the West side, Carlisle then stated it is on the property line and it had been grandfathered in and it is non conforming. Madison asked if the driveway strattled the property line did it affect the 60 feet of frontage, Carlisle answered no. Mickey Jackson, of the Fire Department, stated that the letter from Nonnie Vance stated approval will have to be given from the fire depart- ment. Dennis Ledbetter, assistant Fire Marshall, and I went over this morning to look at the building and we cannot give that kind of approval on this structure until a definate plan is submitted or probably until the work had been done and we could see the improvements that had been made. We found the building to be in a delapidated condition, very dirty on the interior and we see the need for a lot of changes and improvements in the building before it can be conducive to that kind of a use. Williamson noted he had talked to Fire Marshall Larry Poage about the improvements he intended to make. Williamson stated the interior requirements would be up to the State, Fire Department and City Codes. Jacks commented if this is a good location from the Planning stand point. Madison asked the Fire Department if the fire hydrant was sufficiently near by, Jackson stated yes there is. Dennis Ledbetter stated that without any definite plans to look at, we don't know if there are going to be handicapped children and if there are then the bathrooms have to be larger, the doors are different, you have to have to remote exits, we just need to see a better plan. Madison asked Williamson the minimum number of staff he plans to have, Williamson stated 3 workers, he also stated for children at the age of 3-1/2 years old the State guidelines require 1 worker for every 12 children, 3 workers will work for up to 45 children ages 4 to 5 //j Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 6 years old, the maximum number of children I can put in my building is 41.5 children, and he has shown the 3 parking spaces required by the City. Hanna stated they needed to consider the parking, effect of the pickup and dropping off of the children, ingress and egress, and the turning radius of 33' for the circular drive. He feels if we grant this the children will be dropped off or picked up either from a car pulling in or out into Duncan Street, it looks to dangerous, if Williamson didn't have to have the 3 parking spaces he would have 60 feet for the circular drive and that would be reasonable. Williamson stated he checked with the Planning Office on a circular driveway and the requirements for the City. The codes says you have to have 12' ingress, 10' space between and a 12' egress. Carlisle stated she showed the site plan to Clayton Powell and he stated the radius is not adequate, he said the parking could possibly be put in front of the building and make the turning radius greater, you need 20' instead of the 10' to back into. Madison then asked if the radius was insuffient, Carlisle stated yes. Farrish asked if the radius would be sufficient by itself if the parking was moved to another location, Carlisle stated that this would be considered commercial use and not residential we would have to have a 12.5' setback on each side property line and then the radius would be sufficient. Madison stated her basic concern about this piece of property is that it's too narrow and too small for a day care center with 40 children and on a Street as Duncan with heavy student traffic. Madison noted she was not convinced the drop off situation will work, because she is not satisfied that the drop off can ever be satisfactory. MOTION Madison moved to remove this item from the table, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 9-0-0. Madison moved to deny the Conditional Use for a Day Care Center 1. the size of the lot, and the problems with the parking and drop off. seconded by Hanna followed by further discussion. Farrish asked if there was a minimum lot size requirement for a Day Care Center, Madison stated this lot meets the minimum width of 60' for the R-3 zone that it is in. Farrish then stated we are moving to deny this based on the fact that its too narrow even though it does meet the minimum requirement of 60'. Carlisle stated the requirement in the code book states the lot must meet a minimum area of 250 sq. ft. per child and must have a play space outdoors of 80 sq.ft. per child. • • • Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 7 Williamson stated he has 10,083 sq.ft of floor space which equals 250 sq.ft. of confined area for the children, as for the play space Williamson stated he has 3,600 sq.ft. of outdoor play area Madison stated she would remove the lot size from the motion and that ingress, egress and parking would be sufficient. Farrish stated the parking spaces will need to be relocated, and he thought Mr. William- son should go back and rework his plan. It was noted that if the Conditional Use were denied, Mr. Williamson will not be able to bring this back to the Planning Commission for 1 year. Green stated the only problem he had was with the parking and driveway configuration. Green stated he would hate to deny if it means Mr. Wil- liamson would have to wait 1 year before this item could be heard again, therefore he was not willing to vote for denial. Farrish stated we can't vote for approval because its in violation of what we require on the parking. MOTION • Robertson moved to table this item until a better plan could be presented to the Planning Commission seconded by Dow. The motion passed 9-0-0. • LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - KIM FUGITT AMERICAN BED CROSS - 1147 MILSAP The fourth item on the agenda was request for approval of the large scale development for the American Red Cross submitted by Kim Fugitt. MOTION Green moved approval of this LSD as per the Subdivision Committee's report: Subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. Perk Test to the Planning Office; 3. Bill of Assurance for the improvements on Milsap on their property line; 4. dedication of addition 5' of ROW on Milsap; 6. grant a waiver of the screening requirement on the East and South with a substitution of 10% landscaping seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOE AND KATHY HORTON - FOX TRAIL ROAD, OFF HWY 45 EAST The fifth item on the agenda was a regulations (lot split) submitted by located on Fox Trail Road, off Hwy Growth area and is the first split. request for waiver of subdivision Joe and Kathy Horton for property 45 East. This property is in our Jacks asked Mr. Horton if the road was paved and Horton answered yes. Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 8 MOTION Hanna moved to approval, seconded by Farrish, the motion to approve passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WANDA SIMS - 1309 WEDINGTON DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations (lot split) submitted by Wanda Sims for property located at 1309 Wedington Drive, this is the first split. Jacks asked Wanda Sims if this property was cut off from water and sewer, Sims answered there was water and sewer available on the property. Carlisle stated this was a lot of record since 1943 and this 1.02 acres was split off sometime ago illegally. There is water and sewer on the property. This is not a land -locked piece of property as there is a 50' ROW for ingress egress along the entire West side of this lot of record. Mrs. Sims deed reads that they will provide any type of'ingress egress for the remaining three quarters of the lot. Madison asked where the access on the West side goes, Carlisle state nowhere, there is nothing on the remaining three quarters of this lot but wooded area. Farrish asked what piece of property is illegally split off and Carlisle stated the piece with the hatch marks on the plat shown. Carlisle also stated Mrs. Sims came in for a building permit and when the plat was pulled the Planning Office found this property had never been through a legal lot split. Madison asked Carlisle to explain how an illegal split can happen and at what point in our process should this have been caught. Carlisle stated there was a time when the County Court House processed deeds without a recordation stamp from the City Planning Office, they are now sending everyone to the Planning Office for the approval stamp on lot splits. Madison asked what year this was illegally split, Carlisle stated 1977. MOTION Hanna moved approval, seconded by Nash, the motion to approve passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 2035 RANTZ LANE - KIM FUGITT • • • • • • Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 9 The seventh item on the agenda was a request by Kim Fugitt for a Conditional Use for a Professional Office located at 2035 Kantz Lane, this property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Kim Fugitt, stated the Royal Oaks Subdivision is a Planned Unit Development, it is zoned R-1 with a Conditional use for multi -family dwellings with 50 lots available for such use. Fugitt stated they are in the process of developing, selling and leasing these lots and the constructed units. Fugitt then stated they would like to take one of these constructed units and use it as a leasing, sales and construction supervision office. Nash asked if this use would be just for the duration of the construction and Fugitt stated yes, but did not know how long the construction would last. Madison asked if this use would be for a temporary office and Fugitt stated yes. MOTION Madison moved approval of the Conditional Use for a Professional Office subject to: 1. maximum period of five years, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. COMMITTEE REPORT TREE ORDINANCE Nash stated the Board members had passed a resolution asking the Planning Commission to draft a tree ordinance, there have been two or three meetings on the subject where we have discussed and exchanged views on what we would like to do. Nash then noted at the 1st meeting a sub -committee was appointed consisting of Jack Butt, Chairman, Jeremy Hess and Patty Reid to draft a rough ordinance with 2 meetings after that to amend the rough draft. We now have the final draft to present at tonights meeting. Nash also stated this final draft was for discussion with the Planning Commission only and to set a date for a public hearing, there will be no vote tonight. Riff Fouke stated he enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the Committee and that the work was very serious but Fouke stated he does have a problem with the recommendation in two areas; 1) restricting the ordinance to trees only, in his own personal observation he feels the trees will cause obstruction as this ordinance encourages trees to be put in to spaces where visibility for left turns onto Highway 71 will be obscured. 2) Fouke also stated this ordinance should not be a stand alone ordinance and stated the ordinances need to all tie in together. Jack Butt stated he is very much in favor of the tree ordinance, but to impose the tree ordinance on Fayetteville will create some problems, but all of our ordinances from signs to building codes impose some /.? Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 10 kind of problem and the City deals with these problems everyday and are able to work them out. Butt noted, if a developer came into the inspection and Planning Department for a building permit, the inspection department would tell them we have a Southern Building Code you have to meet, we have required setbacks and heres the tree ordinance, chances are 90% will have no problem with meeting or exceeding all the City requirements, then you have the other 10% that want an asphalt jungle like Walmart. Butt stated we want to make this ordinance a commitment to put a certain amount of trees on every piece of property that is held for profit and that the property owners are committed to keep them there for ever and at their expense. If a tree dies then they have to replace it and if they received credit for a large tree that was saved and it dies then they have to replace it with 7 little trees. Butt aslo stated this is a political imposition on personal freedom of use of property just as building codes, setback lines, handicapped facilities and parking facilities. Dow responded to Mr. Foukes concern on the safety issue saying that was her major concern and she felt the committee's main objective was to keep the ordinance as simple as possible. Dow stated when the inspections and plans are done there will be a minimum target setback required from the corners. Dow stated she felt this was a very positive type of ordinance. Hanna stated Commissioner Nash did an excellent job as chairman on this rather difficult job of writing this tree ordinance, but felt an ordinance like this would not be practical and that it put a difficult step in the process of developing property in Fayetteville. Nash asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this issue. Charles Wooley, President of the Local Board of Realtors asked if there was to be another hearing so they may have an opportunity to read the final proposal. Nash stated City Ordinance requires they hold a public hearing before the commission could take a vote. Frances Langham expressed concern about prospective investors coming into this area and having one more item come up such as this ordinance, the cost of which would have some effect on developing property in Fayetteville. Wooley stated he thought the economics of this ordinance would have to be looked at to justify the ordinance. Green stated someone had said the City Board had asked the Planning Commission to draft a Tree Ordinance and stated that was not his under- standing unless there was a resolution he did not know about. Greens understanding was that the City Board supported the addition of landscape • • • • • • Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 11 material and that this needs to be clarified. Green asked if a cost estimate had been done to implement the ordinance and Mr. Butt answered no, the committee could not conceive of a less expensive way to other than to put it into the existing administration. Green stated he had a problem with looking at any proposed ordinance without knowing what the cost will be and the fact that they maybe the least expensive way to accomplish the objective does not necessarily mean that it's economicaly justified for the City or citizens. Farrish asked Green if he wanted, this to go to a public hearing and Green stated we should not take this ordinance to a public hearing until we have all the information we need to make an intelligent decision, especially the economic justification. Butt stated he would argue to the Board that cost should not be the issue. He stated if it cost a developer 3% more then that will go in the pocket of local landscapers, nurseries, concrete men and labors. Green addressed cost not being the only consideration stating his concern is not only what it will cost the first time but that there will also be a lot of indirect cost of maintenance, but larger than, that what will it cost the City of Fayetteville to administer and enforce this ordinance. Farrish stated he felt this ordinance was just another added burden to the developer, Hanna stated he basically felt the same way. Madison explained we are all concerned about the cost and what this ordinance will mean to developers in dollars and cents, she felt that maybe we were looking at the economics of this ordinance through the developers expenses and the City Administrations expenses. Madison stated there would be economic and financial advantages to this ordinance that will acrue to everyone. Butt stated this ordinance would cost the City and there would be no way for the City to make money on this or break even. He also stated this cost is a negative item on the City Budget for which there is no direct cost set and like the Parks and flowers on the square it is a quality of life expense. Butt stated the City puts thousands of dollars into the parks and there's no justification financially. Skwiot stated his background was more extensive than anyone in this room especially with industrial development and economic development in the communities. Skwiot stated in comparing figures Fayetteville seems to be growing on an average of 600 people a year and then stated that's not much growth, building permits are less now then in the mid sixties Skwiot stated we are not doing all we should do in the area of industrial and economic development and that what he has heard Planning Commission June 9, 1986 Page 12 about the cost effect just does not apply. Don Mills, 1925 Gates, asked what is wrong with the landscape ordinance that has prompted the tree ordinance. Nash stated there is not a landscape ordinance, we have screeing requirements for commercial zones. Jerry Sweetser stated he is not in favor of this ordinance and if someone told him he had to comply with this ordinance then he would probably do the bare minimum. Robertson stated we should not have a public hearing until we have all the facts to make an honest judgement on this ordinance. Robertson also stated to require the same amount of parking spaces plus an additional amount of planting area would reduce the size of the property to be used for building and he feels there are a mountain of items that have to be resolved before we take this to a public hearing. Nash stated we cannot vote for or against this ordinance until we hold a public hearing. Carlisle stated any proposed amendment to the ordinance will go to a public hearing and then be submitted to the Board of Directors. Nash stated then we either have to set a date for a public hearing or table this for further information. Madison asked Stan Green to give a cost effect at the next meeting. Green stated he would be happy to look at it for the next meeting but felt that the people that have been intimately involved in drafting this ordinance come up with the cost figures. Madison asked if the admistrative staff could call Larry Wood and ask him to do this cost effect. Carlisle stated she did not know if Larry would be the appropriate person to do this, Madison stated he did do it before and Carlisle stated she would ask him. Farrish asked if the cost was the only thing we wanted to look at before we hold a public hearing, stating there were still many unanswered questions. MOTION Madison moved to table this item until our next meeting pending ascertaining cost involved, and maybe to incorporate into the existing ordinance, seconded by Farrish. The motion passed 9-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Madison asked that Mr. Grimes supply the Planning Commission with the report that was supplied to the Board of Directors and compile a synopsis of his travel and anything pertaining to Planning. • • •