Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 9, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Julie Nash, Frank Farrish, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Butch Robertson and Gerald Seiff MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: B.J. Dow Dewitt Smith, Dave Jorgensen, George Faucette Jr., James Webster, Fred Derwin, Everett Balk, Larry Wood, Al Raby, Eric Kelly, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-23 WILLIAM H. BASSET - NORTH OF ROCK. & WEST OF WASHINGTON The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-23 submitted by William H. Bassett and represented by Dewitt Smith and Dave Jorgensen. Request was to rezone a part of lots 2 and 3, block 1, Hick's Addition and a tract of land north of Block 1, Hick's Addition all containing 23,463.6 sq. ft., located on the north side of Rock St. west of Washington Ave. 107 feet north of Rock St., from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District to R-0 (Residential Office) District. This item was tabled at the October 26, 1987 meeting for engineering plans on the drainage situation. Dewitt Smith advised that Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates had submitted to Ms. Carlisle an engineering letter that suggested how the water and drainage problem could be solved. He also noted the letter addressed the erosion control on the site. Mr. Smith said he had visited with some of the adjoining property owners prior to this meeting and found there was some concern for one of the inlets that would be taking the water off the site. He said Mr. Bassett would offer a Bill of Assurance to comply with whatever appropriate engineering to get the water under control. Chairman Jacks said he had always understood between the retaining wall and angle of repose, stability did not exist to well and Mr. Jorgensen had shown his to be twice the angle of repose and asked if it would stay there. Mr. Jorgensen said the stability of the slope was the evidence, by the fact that the slope was still there. Jorgensen also added it was not the most desirable slope from the standpoint of the question of stability and maintaining the slope, would be very hard to maintain with mechanical equipment. Commissioner Seiff thought the maintenance would be down right dangerous and 2 bck • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 2 Chairman Jacks agreed and had a feeling with that angle it could very well be one of those sluff off situations and wipe out some people below. Commissioner Seiff advised he spoke with Mr. Jorgensen today about the same problem. He said he visited the site and saw that the slope was beginning to sluff off and there was concrete coming down behind the hill. He said it was a dangerous situation. Mr. Jorgensen said he letter was implying that a parking lot could be built if done properly and that he would not be guaranteeing that settlement would occur over the years. Mr. Jorgensen said his letter was very cautious to the construction of a parking lot at that site. Chairman Jacks felt there could be a lot of liability for someone and frankly he did not think the City should permit such a parking lot from an engineering standpoint unless there was a guarantee of of someone willing to take the responsibility for safety. Commissioner Seiff asked if the City required a grading permit and Carlisle replied "no". Carlisle advised as a point of order the Planning Commission should remove this item from the table before further discussion. MOTION Seiff moved to remove rezoning petition R87-23 from the table, seconded by Nash. The motion to removed passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Hanna said assuming the parking lot was built according to the plans with a 66% slope on the east side noted it would be reasonable to assume, that if the parking lot was not properly maintained on a regular basis, that it would cave in and cars would fall down the slope. Mr. Jorgensen said there was a possibility of that occuring and he was suggesting if a parking lot was built that some type of vegetation should be established along the sloped areas to hold down the erosion and possibly improve the appearance of the site. Chairman Jacks said the engineering had nothing to do with the rezoning which was what the Planning Commission was called upon to talk about. He advised the Planning Commission that the question before them was should the property be rezoned from R-2 to R-0. Mr. Smith asked if the rezoning was granted was there a system that could require a person to comply with certain regulations. Sandra Carlisle said she could administratively make a stipulation on the building permit to have the City Engineer approve the drainage before signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Smith said he would be glad to go with whatever the Commission would desire either to address the drainage and stability today or table the whole thing until he could speak with Mr. Bassett. Commissioner Madison asked if a parking lot were to be built according to City • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 3 standards in existance on that property, then it began to cave way, settle, sluff off or whatever would there be anything that would require the property owner to fix the parking lot. Carlisle advised the only recourse would probably be District Court and not the Planning Commission. Seiff said the problem with that was it would be after the horse was out of the barn and possibly some people could be killed. Seiff said at least now the Planning Commission had a chance to act. Mr. Smith felt the zoning issue should be separated from the drainage issue, but at the same time he did not want to portray that he was trying to ram the zoning down and then do somthing that was not right. Mr. Smith said he would delay the zoning issue if the Planning Commission were in agreement that that would be the proper way to proceed with some direction. Commissioner Nash asked if it would be possible to put some type of probationary period on this rezoning petition possibly to review in one year. Mr. Smith offered to have the rezoning site reviewed in one year by the Planning Commission. • Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to this request. • Letitia Shockley, 139 S. Washington asked if this rezoning was tabled for one year, what do the adjoining property owners do with all the drainage problems caused by this mess. She said a parking lot was needed, but she did not understand why this would be tabled and still have the problem. Ms. Shockley also noted the property in question was not zoned R-0 at present and asked why was Mr. Bassett permitted to use the lot as a parking lot now. Dash Goff stated he owned property all to the west of both the parking lot and Mr. Swenson. He said the drainage study called for putting the water back to the west and then into his drainage system. He said he had already had legal action concerning the drainage system which cost him approximately $800.00. He said the line was a private line that he installed and was only an 8" line and it did not go into the City sewer system, but merely carried the water out to the street. Mr. Goff noted that Mr. Bassett had been leveling the property off for the last year and had probably added 3 feet to the height of the lot and that the water had never run up hill before, but it did now. Mr. David Swenson stated he lives on Rock Street and agreed with Mr. Goff saying that the system could not handle any additional water through that drain. He said the engineering study noted that the drainage would go into the existing drainage system, which would not be adequate as Mr. Goff had stated. Mr. Swenson also said he did not want this petition tabled because it would be a nowhere situation and he did not want to come down to City Hall another time over this matter. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 4 Chairman Jacks advised the property owners if they wanted to complain about the use as it stood then they would need to speak with the City Attorney. Commissioner Hanna said he was not in favor of tabling or rezoning the property in any manner that would encourage further building up of that piece of property. He felt the slope would be to deep and filling it was not feasible, so personally he was opposed to tabling or rezoning the property in question. Commissioner Madison agreed with Commissioner Hanna and she tried to pretend that pile of dirt was not there and to look at it from that point of view, although that was difficult. She said the property surrounding the parking lot was mostly used as single family houses. She felt R-0 zoning on Washington was not keeping with the neighborhood and she might be inclined to see some R-0 up on County Avenue, but thought the area was so small it would be hardly worth the investment. MOTION Commissioner Madison moved to deny the request for R-0 zoning, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Robertson said he sympathized with the people who lived around that thing, but he did not see how the Planning Commission could deny the request because they do not like the way it was engineered. He said the Planning Commission was not engineers and that was not what they were asked to do. Robertson said the Planning Commission was asked to either agree with the rezoning or to not agree. Robertson noted the rezoning did fit with the General Plan and Mr. Bassett had offered a Bill of Assurance to handle the drainage problem and in view of that Robertson would vote against the denial of the rezoning petition. Commissioner Hanna said if Mr. Bassett owned the property the Planning Commission would have no control over his filling that and building it up. Hanna felt rezoning the property from R-2 to R-0 was encouraging Mr. Bassett to continue with that filling with no control from the City. Commissioner Green said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson and felt the situation could of been handled differently if the rezoning was asked for before the ground work had been started. Green felt it was a terrible situation and probably a dangerous situation. Green said for some reason the adjoining property owners have not been told what to do and asked Carlisle if the parking lot was a zoning violation as it existed. Carlisle advised that no one had called the Planning Office to make a formal complaint and that she was unaware that the parking lot was being used. Carlisle also added that Mr. Bassett had thought that 9 spaces had been grandfathered in. Commissioner Green felt the best thing to do was to table this petition to give the people who were opposed to it a chance to find out what the possibilities might be to enforce a violation and to work with the owner/developer for a solution. Green said he hated to vote for the petition, but also saw no basis for voting against the petition. • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 5 Farrish asked if the proposed use would fall under the Large Scale Development plan where it could be looked at and a rezoning decision would be based on the use of it. Chairman Jacks advised Commissioner Farrish that the property in question was under an acre therefore it would not be classified as a Large Scale Development Plan. Farrish noted that a petition had been brought forward for a rezoning with an intended use as specified as a parking lot and then as the Commission discovers there are no real rules or regulations governing the further development of the property. Commissioner Seiff suggested if the petition was denied then the developer could come back in about a year for another rezoning change and that would give the developer time to construct the parking lot correctly. Farrish said the engineering plan that had been presented solved neither the drainage or stability problem. He said if the developer would want the property rezoned then he would suggest the item be tabled to give the developer time to develope a suitable plan that would be acceptable to the adjoining property owners and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Madison stated she was opposed to the rezoning because it was out of • character with the neighborhood on Washington and not because of the stability. • MOTION Commissioner Green moved to table this petition until the next regular Planning Commission meeting to allow City Staff to research the situation from a standpoint of compliance with existing City Ordinances and safety and to determine what enforcement possibilities might already exist, seconded by Commissioner Robertson and followed by discussion. In answer to a question from Commissioner Nash, Carlisle advised a violation notice would be generated in the Planning Office and if no action was taken the violation would be turned over to the City Prosecutor. Commissioner Madison stated she was opposed to tabling the petition and not against pursueing the legality of the current use. The question was called and the motion to table failed to pass 4-0-0, Jacks, Green, Robertson and Farrish voting "yes" and Madison, Nash, Seiff and Hanna voting "nay". Chairman Jacks advised another motion was on the table to deny the petition as requested. The question was called and the motion to deny failed to pass 4-0-0, Madison, Seiff, Hanna and Robertson voting "yes" and Jacks, Nash, Green and Robertson voting "nay". • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 6 MOTION Nash moved to recommend the rezoning from R-2 to R-0, with the offered Bill of Assurance for the drainage to be approved by the City Engineer and that the Planning Commission have the right to review the use in one year, seconded by Commissioner Robertson and followed by discussion. Farrish asked Carlisle what kind of regulations would the developer be under for the construction of a parking lot as far as the stability of the slope and creating a hazardous situation. Carlisle advised there was not much addressed for parking lots in the application for a building permit other than setbacks and the degree of parking. Farrish felt the Bill of Assurance could not regulate the construction of the parking lot and what regulations would the City Engineer have to go by. Carlisle advised if a Bill of Assurance was offered for the drainage problem the City Engineer would have to sign off on the stability, erosion control and drainage. James Brooks stated he owned property on the east side of Washington Ave. Mr. Brooks said he did not want the property rezoned because there were a lot of things to take into consideration. Mr. Brooks said the engineer said the site was an unsightly piece of property and he did not know what the Planning Commission would do if their neighbor started hauling in dirt and rocks and piled them next to their homes. Mr Brooks said he would not care if the parking lot was there if Mr. Bassett would just do it right and not abuse the property and the adjoining property owners. Mr. Brooks also advised he had a lot on 130 W. Rock Street that the people at PSI could use free for a parking lot. Dave Jorgensen said his letter was just making a general statement saying that if certain things were done "yes" the site could possibly be used as a parking lot. He would also anticipate if the property were rezoned and if the parking lot were allowed that proper engineering drawings and plans should be submitted to the City Engineer for his review. The question was called and the motion to recommend the rezoning from R-2 to R-0 with a Bill of Assurance for drainage approval by the City Engineer and a review by the Planning Commission in one years time, failed to pass 4-0-0, Jacks, Nash, Green and Robertson voting "yes" and Madison, Seiff, Hanna and Farrish voting ,Inay11 * See attached memo from Sandra Carlisle to the Planning Commissioners Madison asked if there were any sentiment on the Planning Commission to pursue the thought of having some sort of cut and fill ordinance or permit requirement. Chairman Jacks advised it was a big deal and Fayetteville had needed that type of permit for years. Madison requested that the Planning Office compile some information on cut and fill permits or ordinances. Carlisle advised that would be addressed further in the update of the new General Plan. yi4 • I • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-27 GEORGE FAUCETTE JR., - 208 N. BLOCK STREET The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-27 submitted by George Faucette Jr. Request was to rezone a part of Lot 5, Block 2, Original Town Plat (8820 sq. ft.), located on the east side of Block Ave. approximately 100 feet north of Spring St. from R-0 (Residential Office) District to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-2 District was recommended for the following reasons: 1. Over the last 10 years the Planning Commission and City Board have gradually moved away from the office district recommendation of the General Plan for the area from Dickson St. to Spring St. and hwy 471 (College Ave.) to Block Ave. This had been caused by a greater demand for uses in this area other than office and many of the structures in this area are not suited for reuse or remodeling as office buildings; 2. There is presently a C-3 District to the east and west of this property; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for the petition as requested. Chairman Jacks asked Planning Consultant Wood if it would be more reasonable for C-3 to simply spand into the areas rather than getting into the thoroughfare commercial zoning in that area. Mr. Wood replied "yes" it would be, but as he understood the applicant could not use the C-3 District and as C-2 District was already in the area could not see much difference with the C-2 recommendation. George Faucette stated he was part owner of the property in question and made one comment other than his letter about the C-2 versus the C-3 request. Mr. Faucett noted that the setbacks in C-3 were very minimal and C-2 had more of a requirement and the other was a use unit for C-2 that was not available in C-3 zoning that was needed for the property in question. Commissioner Madison said she was under the impression that Mr. Faucette was also seeking a conditional use for a warehouse. Mr. Faucette said he was, but that was not precisely correct in this case. Mr. Faucette said he needed use unit 17 (Trades & Services) for the electrical repair service and use unit 21 for warehouses, which were not permitted in a C-3 zone. Mr. Faucette said the intentions of the property was that an electrical contractor wanted to make what was formerly a show room, into an office and use the back part for non -sales and items held for his construction business. Commissioner Madison said if the only storage that was going to take place was • 1 • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 8 storage associated with the business then she felt that would not be warehousing. Chairman Jacks felt that thoroughfare commercial was the proper zone for sub- contractors who would bring materials in and out and not so much for a C-3 District. Jim Hill of Beaver Electric said he did commercial industrial contracting and the normal process would be to only stock at the location in question what they would use for service calls. He said the major materials would be delivered to job sites and his proposed site would not be a heavy use at all. Madison asked if he would be open to the public and Mr. Hill replied "no". Mr. Hill noted he would have two semi deliveries a year at the location in question, but there was also a parking lot that went with the property so the semi could pull in and unload off the street. Chairman Jacks if anyone in the audience would like to speak against the petition as requested. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend the rezoning as requested from R-0 to C-2, seconded by Commissioner Seiff. The motion to recommend the rezoning to the Board of Directors passed 7-1-0, Jacks voting "nay". REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE - WAREHOUSES GEORGE FAUCETTE JR., - 208 N. BLOCK The third item on the agenda was consideration of a request for conditional use for warehouses located at 208 N. Block. Application submitted by George Faucette Jr., property currently zoned R-0, pending a rezoning recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Directors for C-2 zoning. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to grant the conditional use as requested passed 8-0-0. Madison said she would like some assurance that the semi would use the parking lot and not Block Street. Mr. Faucette assured Commissioner Madison that the parking lot would be large enough for the semi to pull into and off the street. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT - WINGFOOT JAMBS WEBSTER - GULLEY ROAD - OUTSIDE THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a final plat for Wingfoot Subdivision submitted by James Webster. Property located east of Gulley 2�� a • 1 • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 9 Road and north of Hwy 45 and outside the Fayetteville City Limits. The proposed Subdivision contains 7.0 acres of land and a total of 3 tracts. Mr. Webster noted there had been no changes from the preliminary plat approval and had nothing to add. MOTION Commissioner Farrish moved to approve the final plat as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nash. The motion to approve the final plat passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AIRWAYS FREIGHT EDD CAUDLE - WEDINGTON DRIVE The fifth item on the agenda was a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Edd Caudle and represented by Dennis Becker. Property zoned R-0, Residential Office, the intended use of the property is for offices. This item was tabled because of improper notification on the developers part. Commissioner Green advised he was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting and after reading the minutes he felt he must have been at another meeting. Carlisle advised a change had occured and the developerhhad'copted to wait until the next Subdivision Committee meeting and requested this to be a tabled item. Carlisle advised Jim McCord said the adjoining property owners could sign a waiver of rights of notification which would hold up in court and is due process. Green said he realized another opinion may have been given, but the Subdivision Committee had gone through the process of approving this thing. Commissioner Green was informed that the property owner had been notified of Mr. McCords opinion and obviously opted to wait until the next Subdivision Committee meeting. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to table this Large Scale Development and refer it back to the Subdivision Committee unless the letters are obtained which would be satisfactory to Mr. McCord, Seconded by Commissioner Hanna. The motion to table passed 8-0-0 Corrected minutes will be distributed by mail. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ABC INDUSTRIES CONSTRUCTION, MANAGEMENT, DESIGN, INC. - INDUSTRIAL PARE WEST The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Construction, Management, Design, Inc. (CMD) and represented by Mr. Fred Derwin. Property located at lots 8 and 9, Fayetteville Industrial Park West. Proposed use is a manufacturing plant, property zoned I-2, Heavy Commercial District. • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 10 Commissioner Green reported this Large Scale Development Plan was heard by the Subdivision Committee on Thursday, November 5, 1987 at 3:30 p.m. Green advised the Subdivision Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Large Scale Development subject to: 1) plat review comments; 2) agreement of the off-site imrpovements for street and storm drainage by the Fayetteville Development Corporation and; 3) a bill of assurance for the sidewalk along Pump Station Road. MOTION Commissioner Green moved to approve the Large Scale Development plan as submitted, seconded by Robertson and followed by discussion. Commissioner Madison asked Carlisle if the graveled area on the plat had been taken care of and Carlisle replied "yes" it had. Commissioner Madison stated her problem with approving an anonymous Large Scale Development. Apparently the property according to court house records was still owned by the Fayetteville Development Corporation. She noted Mickey Jackson the Fire Chief had expressed some concern about what would be manufactured there, whether anything hazardous would be involved in the manufacturing process or whether anything hazardous would be stored. She also noted the City Engineer had problems with whether some of the discharge might perhaps cause a problem to the sanitary sewer system and in answer to all their questions and concerns they were asked to go on faith. Madison said she had to question whether the Planning Commission had a problem with doing things in a public arena that were cloaked in secrecy and she for one could not be apart of that. Commissioner Nash agreed with most of Commissioner Madisons' comments and was sure this particular industry made something harmless. Commissioner Nash said the Planning Commission did not need to be in a position of voting for something and two months later finding out what it was here for and who it was. She also said she would have to vote against the project, not because of the facts that she had because she had none, but because her conscience would not allow her to vote yes on something her name would be on without knowing what it was. Commissioner Green said there were some conflicting opinions about exactly the right thing to do and the motion did pass unanimously at the Subdivision Committee. Green said his conclusion was there were two concerns raised by City Staff; 1) would hazardous materials be stored at that location and; 2) what were they going to put in the sanitary sewer system. Green said the Planning Commission was called to examine the propriety of the development plan on certain criteria that the ordinance set out. He said nothing in the ordinance tells the Planning Commission that they have to determine whether hazardous materials were going to be store and said that was for the fire department to find out. Green added it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was not called to address what got dumped into the sanitary sewer system and that there were separate ordinances with which the developer would have to comply. Green felt those two issues would be properly regulated by the appropriate City people. 24, • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 11 Carlisle announced this was a clean industry and would bring jobs to Fayetteville. Farrish thought the secrecy of an industry was appropriate and thought sometimes some business plans not be conducted in the public arena if it had no affect on the public. Commissioner Seiff commented that the economic benefit to Fayetteville would out weight the concern. Commissioner Madison said she resented that sort of attitude and felt like this put the Planning Commission in a position of almost being blackmailed "give us what we want and we don't have to tell you what we are going to do, you need the jobs". Commissioner Madison said she did not want to be put in that sort of position and she felt the public had the right to know what happens in Fayetteville and also thought the Planning Commission had a duty to know. The question was called and the motion to approve the Large Scale Development plan as submitted passed 6-2-0, Madison and Nash voting "nay". Mr. Derwin assured the Planning Commission that the plant would be non polutant and he had already contacted Joanne Diffin of the Polution Control Plant and the packet she gave him was already being filled out. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT - BROOKROLLOW SUBDIVISION CRAFTON, TULL, SPANN & YOE - S OF ZION & W OF OLD MISSOURI The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of a final plat submitted by Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe and represented by Everett Balk. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Subdivision Contains 16.3 acres and a total of 64 proposed lots. Everett Balk said he had nothing to add, but would be glad to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Commissioner Madison asked if any changes had been made from the preliminary plat and Mr. Balk replied "no". MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve the final plat of Brookhollow Subdivision, seconded by Commissioner Madison. The motion to approve the final plat as submitted passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION FROM THE ELDERLY COMMITTEE Commissioner Hanna, Chairman of the Elderly Committee advised that the committee had narrowed their concerns down to four items for input from the Planning Commission and public. Hanna also advised Melanie Stockdell was at the meeting • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 12 tonight with information from previous work that had been done by Barbara Crook. Hanna said the first category was "individual care for relatives" which consisted of structures being added to single family homes for relatives. The second category was "institutional care" meaning nursing homes, geriactric centers and perhaps Butterfield Trail. The third category was "intermediate care in homes or residential care" which was regulated by the State when more than 3 people in a private home and not eligible for medicare or medicade. The fourth category was "day care for the elderly". Chairman Jacks asked Commissioner Hanna if new ordinance provisions should be worked up or would this be a matter to be discussed with the Planners who were present tonight. Hanna said as he understood before anything was done concrete a public hearing was to be held. Hanna noted over the years the codes had been interpreted where remodeling could not be done to install another kitchen to care for an elderly relative. Hanna said Sandra Carlisle had spoke with the City Attorney and he felt under the code and as long as they were blood relatives that additional kitchens or space could be provided and would meet the present code as existed. Bob McKinny stated he was at this meeting to share some observations he had had in his business which may be of some assistance. Mr. McKinny said he had took care of a parent for 15 years who lived in her own home and he did not have the problem that the Planning Commission was talking about because some provisions had been made before that. He said later on his parent had to go into a geriactric center so he saw really both sides. Mr. -McKinney said a National Program had been established a number of years ago for "residential home care" which was something the Planning Commission was starting. He said there were a lot of people who can stay in their homes, but were not well enough to look after themselves, but not ill enough to go into a nursing home. Mr. McKinny said there were people who were trained to take care of those people, but were not medically trained and they were called "home health care aids". He said they might sit with someone 3 hours a day or 24 hours a day. He said there was also a residence home care where anywhere from 4 to 10 people living in the home that were not ill enough to be in a nursing home, but well enough to come in the home under their own power. Mr. Mckinny said there were several of those homes in Northwest Arkansas, but not a lot of them and he had visited most of them. He said from the outside the homes look like a another residence, but the inside was very different. He said the State certifies a residential home care aswell as the health aids with certain specifications that have to be met and the requirement to carry liability insurance. He said the homes have to be inspected periodically for fire and health hazards. Mr. McKinney felt the Commission was being very far sighted in looking into this because everything he saw from this organization was telling him that there would be an increasing grade in America in the next 25-30 years. He felt sure zoning would have a little bit to do with this, but he assured the Planning Commission that people could stay in the residential home care facilities for half the cost of a geriactric center. Commissioner Madison asked how Mr. McKinny would feel about a home with 6 elderly people living next door to him. Mr. McKinny felt that would be a problem for sure and most of the elderly people would not be inclined to being outside much, but felt there would be some zoning discussions about such a use. He said the 2�� • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 13 homes that he had visited were not unattractive and all but one were in very attractive houses. Commissioner Hanna said the article that was in the Northwest Arkansas Times was published by Phyllis Rice and he appreciated that article very much. Commissioner Madison said on the issue of a single family residence that would like to convert a private apartment within that residence for an elderly relative to live. She said up until now that was not permitted because of an interpretation that the structure would automatically become a duplex. She advised in looking at the ordinances the only thing that defined a single family residence was that it would be occupied by a single family and a family was people who were related by blood or marriage. She said the Committee had asked that perhaps a different policy occur in the Planning Office when people want to provide a place for a relative. She said if that policy change took place she wanted to make sure the rest of the Planning Commission wanted that to happen. Commissioner Farrish said he was always under the impression that could be done. Commissioner Madison said the one particular case that had always been brought up was the Bert Rakes case. She said he wanted to put an apartment in his garage for his mother and handicapped sister and was required to apply for a conditional use for a duplex in an R-1 District and had to offer a Bill -of Assurance for the duplex to revert to not being a duplex when his mother and sister no longer were able to live there. Commissioner Madison said suppose there was an elderly person in their home, a widow all alone, who would like to put an apartment in her basement and rent it to two college students or just two people, just so she had someone to semi - monitor her. She said that also has been disallowed and her feeling was the definition had now been changed as a family. Madison said the definition for family is "people related by blood or marriage and made provisions for domestics servants to be included that household or no more than three unrelated people. So instead of being able to convert her basement into an apartment she sold it and a landlord bought it then he could rent that house to 3 students, unrelated and it would still be a single family use of that home. Madison then asked why could the widow not become a new type of family and have 3 unrelated people living in the dwelling. Chairman Jacks said what the City would run into was they would find there were a lot of people in this town that never realized that a landlord could rent it to 3 college students. Commissioner Hanna said Commissioner Madisons' point was real well taken and he thought the key to that was "renting". Commissioner Hanna said the Committee was going to proceed to put in the form of an ordinance or existing ordinance the provisions for a day care center for the elderly and intermediate care or residential care as Bob McKinny was talking 9- • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 14 about. MINUTES The minutes of the October 26, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW PLANNING FIRM Mr. Al Raby and Eric Kelly, of Hart -Freeland -Roberts, the firm selected for updating Fayetteville's General Plan was in attendance for a brief discussion. Mr. Raby started by introducing Mr. Eric Kelly, President of his own firm out of Colorado and Mr. Jim Duncan of Austin Texas. Mr. Raby said the 3 of them work together as a team. Mr. Raby advised that Mr. Kelly was an Attorney and that was where his real specialty lies, to make certain the plan was put on a good sound legal basis. Mr. Raby said his specialty was the area of the actual land use policy and development plan itself as well as economics and working with the citizen participation process. Mr. Raby said the third associate Mr. Jim Duncans' specialty was in the financial end of things and he would be working with them in terms of seeing how they could provide some alternatives for the financing structure to the development plan as it executed in the future. Also included in their philosophy was the element of citizen participation and he could not stress that strongly enough at this opening stage. Mr. Raby said what they proposed in the original presentation to Mr. Jacks and Ms. Carlisle was they propose to do a combination of things; 1) input from the Planning Commissioners; 2) go to the City Board and receive their inputs; and 3) go to the community at large to address the residences of the community. Mr. Raby said he had never seen any democracy at work any better or any greater than he had seen in Planning Commissions. Mr. Raby said his firm had a target date of trying to get somethings out hopefully by late June or early July. Mr. Raby noted one of the basic elements in the proposed plan would be an analysis of all of the regulatory development of controls and administrative procedures and how they might make some recommendations to the Commission. Chairman Jacks noted Mr. Raby had the goals and policies that the Planning Commission had reviewed, changed or updated. Mr. Kelly said there were really two elements; 1) look at the goals and policies to see if they were being adequately implemented through all the tools that the Planning Commission had; and 2) to review a Planning Commission and watch the agenda go through the process. Mr. Kelly said the Planning Commission had trouble dealing with a couple of items on the agenda and a number of the Commissioners were not comfortable with how they had to deal with the agenda items because may be they did not have the adequate tools. Mr. Kelly felt and Industrial Zoning Control might be needed for anonymous Large Scale Developments for control over what happens at the Industrial Park. He said a Grading Permit should be required as well because of control of the land and the fragile a • • • Planning Commission November 9, 1987 Page 15 topography in Fayetteville. Chairman Jacks asked about the process of the new General Plan and added that he was the only one on the Commission that had ever gone through one of those processes of developing a General Plan. Jacks asked what the next step would be after the firm had reviewed their goals and policies. Mr. Raby said the process would be divided up into several different phases. He said that would be more meaningful rather than trying to grapple with everything on a broad spectrum. Mr. Raby said the first thing they would propose to do was deal with the issues and opportunities confronting the community at the present time. Mr. Raby said a preliminary report would be coming in at a early stage, possibly 2-3 months, followed by a further refinement and then to the third stage of the project and final document. Mr. Raby said during the 3 phase process they would be weaving the Planning Commissions comments, the citizens comments and the City Boards comments into the final document. He said they would further try to identify what the opportunities were to guide, direct or stimulate the kinds of things that happen to the Commission with respect to the economy and growth. Commissioner Madison asked if the firm would have a permanent office or staff in Fayetteville. Mr. Raby said he and the other two gentlemen would be spending a good bit of time in Fayetteville and there would not be a permanent office in Fayetteville. Chairman Jacks felt the series of meetings should be scheduled for a time other than the regular Planning Commission meetings, perhaps the off Mondays of the regular Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at about 7:40 p.m.