Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-14 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Apnl 14, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. RECOGNITION OF JERRY ALLRED, Mayor Hanna presented a plaque to Commissioner Allred in appreciation for all his years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee Ward was welcomed to the Commission. Ms Hoffman and Ms. Johnson were reappointed to the Commission for another term. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Nominating Committee was chaired by Mr. Forney with Mr. Reynolds and Ms Johnson serving as committee members. Mr. Fomey announced the nominations were: Chair: Conrad Odom Vice Chair: John Forney Secretary: Lorel Hoffman There were no other nominations. MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approve the nominations by accumulation. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. �5 • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA AD97-4.00• ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION. PP96-7.20: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEERFIELD PLACE GORDON WILKINS - N. OF HWY 16 E & W OF MALLY WAGNON RD. At Mr. Tuckers request, Mr Odom removed AD97-4.00 from the consent agenda. i/ PP96-7 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEERFIELD PLACE. GORDON WILKINS- N. OF HWY 16E AND W. OF MALLY WAGNON RD. The preliminary Plat for Deerfield Place was submitted by Dave Jorgensen from Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located north of Highway 16 East and west of Mally Wagnon Road. The property is zoned R -O and R-1 with 33 lots proposed. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the item. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote 8-0-0. �1 Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 3 AD 97-4.00• ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS (PUBLIC WORKS DIVISIONS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE The variance request was submitted by Beth Sandeen, Landscape Administrator, for property located north of Moore Lane and west of Shiloh Drive. The request is for a variance from the signage requirement of the Design Overlay District. Ms. Sandeen stated the request was for a City of Fayetteville entry sign along the Hwy 71 Bypass south of the Hwy 112 intersection. The location selected was owned by the City, however it was within the Overlay District. The sign exceeded the square footage allowed within the Overlay District. The sign had been adopted in 1992, before the Overlay District restrictions were in place. She had spoken with Legal, they did not discuss if the sign would be grand fathered, what they had discussed was that they, staff, would feel more comfortable receiving a variance and following the same requirements they expected of other people. She added if the Commission would not grant the variance the sign would not be located at that site. Ms. Hoffman asked if they could reduce size of the sign. Ms. Sandeen stated they could, but it would take some time. There had been no construction plans for the original sign. She and Sid Norbash had to create grading plans for each site and the dimensions and specifications for each sign. They would have to go back to the drawing board and scale it down. She added a smaller sign could not be seen at a 50 mph or more speed. Mr. Odom stated if the City was requiring individuals and commercial uses of Fayetteville to adhere to a sign requirement, then the City should do the same. Ms. Sandeendefended the sign could only be viewed from the bypass. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Sandeen to explain the placement of the sign and how it would be unique in placement from any other sign along the Overlay District. Ms. Sandeen stated the sign was not located along a node. Most of the interway signs were located at a node, where two roads intersected. The sign would be located along the bypass and would be against Hwy right-of-way property. The sign would also be located on a hill. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Ms Sandeen stated the highest point on the sign was 9 feet. The maximum height of a sign in the Overlay District was 6 feet. The maximum square footage was 75 feet, the proposed sign was 130 square feet. Mr. Odom asked the Planning Commission had approved a sign the design prior to the adoption • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 4 of the Overlay District and had there been any waivers granted. Ms. Little stated they had not been faced with this situation before the Commission had granted waivers for pole signs in the Overlay District before but, it had been for commercial businesses. They had not been asked to grant a waiver for a monument sign. Ms. Johnson asked what the staff's reaction would be if business had come before them with a request for a variance of this size. Ms. Little stated they would look at each request individually adding most buildings and businesses recieved better visibility by placing a sign on the building. Ms. Hoffman questioned the design of the sign. Ms. Sandeen stated she did not have anything to do with the design of the sign. Mr. Harbison asked if the City intended to place a similar sign at every entrance. Ms. Sandeen presented a map illustrating the other location, one on Razorback Road, the other near the airport. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Sandeen stated the sign would not replace existing signs. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney did not believe the request was a direct contradiction of the Overlay District intentions. They were trying to avoid having a lot of signs along the bypass. These signs were unique to create entryways for the entire City and he would support the request. Ms. Hoffman stated she would be voting against the sign because it was twice the size of the current standards adding Government should set the example. Mr. Harbison questioned why the sign could not be scaled down. Ms. Sandeen stated it had taken a long time to get to this point. She did not feel that scaling the sign down would allow it to be the visible sign they would like it to be. The lettering met the highway criteria for size to be seen at a high speed. It would take approximately six months to change the size. There were going to have two other signs constructed soon. There were only two staff members working of the project along with their other responsibility. She did not feel a smaller sign would work. Mr. Sugg asked if there would be buildings built along the highway along the property or would • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 5 be sign be on an out lot. Ms. Sandeen stated she had seen some conceptual plans. She was under the impression the sign location would be set aside from the park and exclusive to the park. She and Susan Farrell would be working on the landscaping around the sign. It would be considered a beautification sight. Mr. Tucker asked how far the sign would be from the City limits. Ms. Sandeen thought it was approximately three to four miles. Mr. Tucker thought this was the entry into Fayetteville. This sign was different. He feared every time someone requested a variance they would bring this sign up. MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to deny the request for a variance. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-3-0. Odom, Ward, and Forney voting nay. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 6 PP96 6.40: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLESTON PLACE MTM OF EL DORADO- N. OF MISSION BLVD. & E. OF OLD WIRE RD. The preliminary plat was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of MTM of El dorado, L.L.C., for property located north of Mission Blvd. And east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 51 lots proposed. Staff recommended consideration of the requested PUD preliminary plat. If the preliminary plat is approved then staff request that the approval be conditioned upon the following: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Payment of Parks fees of $15,300.00 at the time of final plat approval. 2. Planning Commission approval of the 12.5 feet front setback. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements and subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection shall meet the requirements of the Fire Chief. Minimum easements widths (or combination of right-of-way and easement) shall be 20'. Wider easements shall be required for sewer lines over 10' in depth and must also allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. 4. Cypress Lane will be 20 feet from back-to-back of curb and will be one-way from the west to the east as shown. Cypress Lane will be a public street, publicly maintained and will allow parking on one side of the street only. The right-of-way requirements for Cypress Lane will be 35 feet as shown on the plat. 5. All underground drainage including the inlets and head walls and all drainage within street right-of-way will be publicly maintained. All open channel drainage, all swales and all detention ponds shall be privately maintained by the Developer, the POA or another private entity in accordance with the Stormwater Management (Drainage) Ordinance. �0 • • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 7 6. The 10 feet trail shall be used as an access to the sanitary sewer and privately maintained by the POA. The surface may be gravel as shown or any other surface desired by the developer which also allows the City to traverse the trail with trucks and equipment. All other trails shall also be privately maintained. 7. The covenants shall provide for the private maintenance of the detention ponds, open channel (swales), trails and island and must name the City as the a third party to theses covenants. The covenants must be approved by Planning, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. 8. The conversion of the existing cul-de-sac on Amber to standard streetwidth and replacing the northern and southern segments of the cul-de-sac with lawns shall be the developer's responsibility and the design included with the overall street design. 9. The extension of the new water line to the west along Amber and to the east alone Hackberry as necessary to connect tot he existing water lines shall be the developers responsibility. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with the current standards to include a 4 foot sidewalk and 4 foot greenspace along one side of Cypress and 4 foot sidewalks with 6 foot greenspaces along both sides of Amber. 11. The street names are subject to final staff approval. 12. The island and sign at the east entrance will be private and privately maintained. 13. Plat review and Subdivision committee comments which are not superseded by the above conditions. These comments include the written plat comments mailed to the applicant and comments from the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, OZARKS, TCA, SWBELL). Mr. Odom noted the only condition that required Planning Commission action was the variance for the 12.5 feet front setback. Ms. Johnson questioned the construction of the barrier fence. Mr. House stated they were required to place a barrier fence for the tree preservation during construction. After the construction was complete, the fence would be removed. Ms. Hoffman asked if the tagged trees would be removed or preserved. Mr. Tom Hinley, Jorgensen & Associate, explained the trees had been flagged for the surveyors purpose to note which tree, had been shot. The trees marked on the plat as being preserved and having the barrier fence around them would remain. 41' Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 8 Mr. House stated he intended to keep every tree possible althought then, were three or four right in the right-of-way. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Mr. House stated since they were responsible for the maintenance of the ponds they were going to leave the trees as long as they could agree with the City's Engineering Department that they were not displacing to much water He was going to try and preserve them. Mr. House explained they had planned to have a traditional neighborhood feel. The way they had tried to accomplish this feeling was by bring the homes closer to the street. He believed the 12.5 feet setback in combination with the road right-of-way the homes would be 25-30 feet back from the curb. This would help create a traditional feel in combination with porches. This would also create more of a buffer in the back to screen the neighbors to the north. He added all parking would be placed in the back of the homes. There might be some curved driveways, possibly on a comer lot. His intention was to have all additional structures in the rear and all driveways to provide off street parking in the rear. Mr. Sugg asked if Mr. House was requiring the builders to build to the 12.5 setback. Mr. House stated he had not placed that requirement in the covenant. They had not intended it to be for every lot. Some lots were to narrow in the front or had easements across the front where the home would have to be moved back some. But by enlarge they wanted the homes to be close to the front. Mr. Odom stated he would hear public comment on the variance request, before discussion on the preliminary plat. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE 12.5 FEET SETBACK Mr. Reed Greenwood, 1601 Elmwood, commented he did not know where the 12 '1 feet front setback was traditional in Fayetteville. He believed they were in large cities. There was no other public comment. Mr. Forney stated he would support the 12'1 setback, because the project was attempting to preserve more greenspace by having smaller lots. Adding smaller lots would need to be more compact. Ms. Little asked Mr. House if there would be any garages facing the street or would all the parking and garages be located in the rear. Mr. House stated a garage door may face the street, but it would be in the back of the house. • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 9 Ms Johnson noted there would not be any driveways were there would be traditional 20' driveway. Ms. Little noted there would be shared driveways to the rear. Mr. House stated they intended to keep the driveways narrow. Ms. Johnson asked how many lots would be serviced by one driveway. Mr. House did not believe more than 25% of the driveways would be shared. There had been some support for shared driveways as well as contention. Some people were concerned with sharing a driveway. Ms. Hoffman expressed concerns about a pull off in front of the house with a 12'/2 foot setback. Mr. House replied some of the homes might be set back further where a circular drive could be used effectively and tastefully. He believed it would give some variety to the development. • Mr. Sugg asked if the covenants would prohibit someone from building one house on two lots. • Mr. House thought it might be an attractive option. He added the covenants were strict concerning the types of finish, the amount of landscaping and brick, to help control the size of the homes. Ms. Johnson questioned the number of lots the shared driveways would service. Mr. House responded he was planning one driveway per two homes, some of the wider lots would probably have a single drive. Ms. Johnson asked him to justify his request for the 121/2 front setback when the lots were so deep. Mr. House stated there were two reasons: to maintain the traditional feel, by pulling the homes closer to the street. Secondly, by pulling the homes closer they were allowing more green space to the rear for the neighbors. Mr. Odom like the idea of having the parking in the rear. Mr. Ward questioned the price range of the homes in the development. Mr. House replied the cost would be around $100,000 to $150,000. They were wanting them to -S� Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 10 be high end, but smaller homes. There were not many developers targeting that market in town. They could use quality materials with less square footage. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the variance for the setback requirement to 12.5 feet for the front. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimously by a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 11 PUBLIC COMMENT ON PRELIMINARY PLAT Mr. Reed Greenwood, an area resident, believed people moved to this area because it was not like the other large cities. Fayetteville did not have to build homes close together. He did not believe this development met the intent of the PUD ordinance. He did not believe the land set aside as open space could be more useable than if it was in the lots. He did not believe the preservation of the natural features would be maintained. He added the development was out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He did not believe the development provide for the needs of families and children. He noted some of the lots had 1755 square feet. He felt approval of this item would be setting a president of Fayetteville as favoring high density developments in an area where such developments were not needed or in keeping with established building practices. Mr. Terry Terpin, 1423 Amber Drive, presented copies to the commissioners, Section 10 article 8, buffer strips and screening, stated article 812 required a buffer strip with landscaping and a fence or wall. He thought the project was about profit. The main reason Houses Inc. Wanted to do a PUD was because it was the only way to have 51 lots onto 12 acres. He felt they could be a maximum of 36 lots on the property. He did not believe there was housing shortage in Fayetteville. He did not believe that fill would discourage urban sprawl. He felt the ordinance was for the developer to make more profit, without consideration of the surrounding citizens. Mr. Mike Limons, 1645 Boston Place, asked how long the bamer fence would be left up? He expressed concern about the traffic noise inside the new homes He added this would effect the property values of the surrounding properties. Jane Treat, 1633 Boston Place, stated there had been reported cases of kidnaping in the area. She did not believe people would let their children play a block or two away. She added in the first 6 month of 1997 there had only been 50 homes sold in Fayetteville in the $90,000 to $100,000 price range. She added she had a large porch, but they had only had a few people stop to visit. People buying these homes would be too busy to stop and visit their neighbors. There were no other public comments. Mr. House stated more homes on less land was a more efficient use of land. It removed less trees and provided more green space. It also was a more efficient use of public facilities. Infill developments by their nature were more efficient use of public facilities because the City did not have to build more road, sewer systems or infrastructure to service the development. He add there were a variety of people buying homes that did not have families. He had conducted studies and analysis and felt there was a demand for this type of development. Mr. Greenwood had misquoted the square footage on the plats. The lots he quoted were the smallest lots in the area. The square footage he quoted was the buildable area. It did not take into consideration the • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 12 setbacks on both the front and rear or the easements. Some people liked the idea of having a large open space rather than having to mainain a large lot. They were trying to meet a market. He added the homes would be a minimum of 24 feet from the street because of the street right- of-way plus the set back area. Mr. Sugg questioned how this compared with other developments such as Harbor Meadows. Mr. House stated most of Harbor Meadows lots that were designed in this character were only 35 feet wide with only 3,000 square feet. His average lot was 40 or more feet and larger than 4,000 square feet. Mr. Forney questioned if buffering and screening would be required. Ms. Little stated when a PUD had a common boundary with an R-1 district any use of land within the R-1 PUD other than a single family detached dwelling was required to be set back at least 250 feet from the common premeter This PUD did have a common boundary with a R-1 boundary, but all the uses were single family homes so that condition would not apply. Two family dwellings would be a conditional use, but it had not been requested and was not a consideration. She added under Planned Unit Development certain findings needed to be made and one of those was screen and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character. If the Commission found there was a need for screening a buffering then they had the ability to require it. Mr. Odom suggested going though the specific findings one by one. 1. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures there on with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or catastrophe. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated the Fire Chief had signed off on the development. Ms. Hoffman asked if there had been further discussion on the stop sign on Hackberry. Ms. Little stated the street would be named Amber to the intersection with Overcrest a stop sign would be required prior to the incation of construction. The street would be roughed in and the stop sign would be installed. • Mr. Harbison expressed concerns about Cypress being one way. He asked if Mr. House had given any thought to making the street two-way. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Beavers stated they could go to a 24 feet two way street. Mr. House stated they had widened the street to 20 feet to allow for on street parking. He added all the City departments had looked at the street and had not had any problems with the width. He added there were a lot of one way streets in the downtown area. He added if they could keep the narrow one way street would keep the speeding traffic to minimum and provide the closer and tighter feel they were trying to obtain. Mr. Odom noted there were walking trails and sidewalks for the pedestrians. The commissioners agreed the development met the condition. 2. Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the item in subsection 1 above and the economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the special exception on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; Mr. Odom though this condition would apply more in a commercial setting than in a residential. He noted the City required the one-way street be wider than was originally requested. The commissioners agreed the item met the condition. 3. Refuse and service ares, with particular reference to the items in subsection 1 and 2 above; In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. House stated they would be picking the trash along the front. 4. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; Mr. Odom noted most of the sewer and utilities were located in the back yards. Ms. Hoffman asked what type of surface the 10 access road would have. Mr. House stated he would like to use wood chips. Ms Hoffman stated she would not be in favor of paved easement. Mr. Odom noted the easements would have to be privately maintained. 5. Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; Mr. Odom did not believe this condition was applicable, since the property was adjoining R-1. 11 • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 14 6. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district; Mr. Odom believed most of these referred to commercial uses, but he noted Mr. House would be placing a sign in the median. Mr. House replied he would be placing a sign in the median if it was permitted. He added he would conform to ordinances. He believed he was required to place a sign for the PUD. Ms. Little stated the median would have to be privately owned and could not be part of the right- of-way. 7. Required yards and other open spaces. Ms. Little stated the required open space was 30%. There was a chart on the plat showing 4.13 acres, if the access to Old Wire is included and 3.47 acres if the access to Old Wire Road was not included. She added neither of the acreage included utility easements or ponds. Ms. Hoffman noted the plats indicated 50% of the ponds had been subtracted out. Ms. Warrick stated the ponds had not been calculated in the green space. The commissioner agreed the item met the conditions. Mr. Forney thought the project met the goals of the Planned Unit Development: more efficient use of land, public facility, more open space, and the preservation of natural features. He thought the project had a lot of merits. Adding the development would not ba a good if it were under the Subdivision Regulations. The City would have more roads and wider roads to maintain with fewer taxpayers to help maintain the facilities. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the item. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 15 / CU97-5 CONDITIONAL USE FOR NEW HOPE -GIRLS HOME HOWARD DAVIS- 4041 WEDINGTON DRIVE The conditional use was submitted by Howard Davis on behalf of Sue C. Lee for property located at 4041 Wedington Drive is a conditional use request for a Residential live-in facility for approximately nine adolescent homeless girls (Use Unit 4). The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Compliance with Section 160.195 Conditions governing application of conditional uses; procedures. 2. The conditional use shall apply only to the existing two story residential structure. No exterior modifications, except for repair and maintenance, shall be made to the existing structure and yard areas shall be maintained as they currently exist in order to maintain the residential appearance of the property. No changes to the conditional use (type of residential use) may be made without notifying the Planning Office. 3. The existing drive way and parking area shall be paved and a paved turnaround area be provided to avoid backing out onto WEDINGTON Road (Hwy 16W). 4. Compliance with inspection reports by Fire Marshall and Building inspector. 5. Construction of a 6' sidewalk along Wedington Road. Ms. Mickey Harrington, applicants representative, stated this was ment to be a residence for nine adolescent girls. There would be no sign. She asked the Commission to reconsider the requirements for the paving. The girls that would be at the location would not have cars. The only cars would belong to the house parents. There would only be two cars, with occasional visitors. She added the home was not funded by any source other tahn a private family. They were prepared to put in a gravel turn around. There was a sidewalk next door that Lead no where. She asked if they could waive the sidewalk for the purpose of the charitable purpose. There was a strong need in the committee for this type of home. Youth bridge currently only had a temporary facility, up to 45 days. There were only two facilities in the area that would serve teenagers. One of them was in Goshen, which was church related. This would be the only non - secular facility of this type in the area. She believed it was important for the girls who had no place to go to have a place to live. Most of the girls that would be in the program could not go home because of family disfunction or certain behaviors that needed to have more structure than they were getting at home. They did not expect to be a lock down or violent offenders place. It was a female population only. A majority of the girls would be sexually abused girls or pregnant girls. The commented on the lack of neighborhood. There was nothing around it, with the • exception of the Catfish Hole and duplexes behind the building. They would like to build a privacy fence so it would not be seen from the rear. Their would be an extensive licencing procedure they would be required to go through at the state level. The division of human • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 16 services will be handling all the licencing requirements and they would be expected to comply with all of them. She added this facility had been previously used as an elderly facility and was set up for this type of use. Mr. Tucker asked if the girls would be from the community. Ms. Harrington thought the majonty would be from the community and northwest Arkansas. There was not any goals to find girls from other areas. Mr. Hoffman asked if there would be a heavy turn over or would this be long term care. Ms. Harrington replied it would be more long term. Youth bridge was serving the short term. Girls would be able to stay until they reached the age to be on their own or able return home. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Butch Robertson, 2980 Zion Road, the owner of the adjacent property, questioned the age of the girls. Where would the girls come from and what caused them to be homeless. He expressed concerns about drugs or criminal activities. He asked why adolescent girls would cause less trouble than adolescent boys. Ms. Harrington stated the ages would be from 13 to 18. The criteria for the placement of the girls would be developed later in the process with the HDS They were not looking at doing the care at Ozark Guidance Center did for the emotionally disturbed and psychotic behavior. Most of the girls would receive placement from Division of Human Services. The girls that would normally be received into foster care or runaways. A large portion would be incest victims. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Dan Curtis, Fayetteville Police Officer, stated adolescent boys were more of a problem than the girls. Most of the problems with juveniles were from lack of supervision He added a service like this was greatly needed in Fayetteville, there were not enough shelter like this in the area. He thought these kids would be more supervised than most kids, because of working parents. Ms. Dawn Curtis, Foster Care Case worker with Department of Human Services, stated there was a great need for this type of service in the area. There were only three homes in the area that would take teenage girls. She had not see the proposed facility, but the license personnel from Little Rock would come and inspect the facility. She added 75% of the girls were there not because of something they had done, but was due to the disfunction in the home. • Mr. Odom asked if the DHS would conduct a back ground check on the applicant. • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 17 Ms. Curtis stated the inspectors would do back ground checks as well as the facilities. Mr. Bill Jowers, 452 N. 46th Street, questioned the applicants occupation, and who would be managing the facility and how many people would be at the facility at all times. Would the building be enlarged and what would the girls do for recreation. He thought the home was in bad condition and need repair. Mr. Odom stated the building would be inspected by DHS for safety, before they would allow them to open. Ms. Little stated the Inspection Department and Fire Department had inspected the building. There was a list of things that would have to be done to bring the building into bring it into code. Ms Harrington stated Mr. Davis was a certified public accountant in Springdale. He would be hiring and providing training for house parents. There would be at least two people on premises at all times, with an alternate as a back up. They would have to comply with the State Licences regulations. The Child Care Facility Review Board, would be reviewing the center to make sure it met the criteria. The applicant had not operated any other facilities of this type. Mr. Howard Davis, applicant, stated he was tring to make a difference in someone's life. He was not going to operate the facility, but he could find the right people to put this program together. Ms. Harrington added Mr. Davis had two daughters that were social workers, so he had an understanding for the type of need in the community. Ms Johnson asked if there had been any complaints with the other facilities. Ms. Little stated the Planning Office had not received any complaints. Mr. Sugg asked if they could postpone the sidewalk until the adjacent property developed. Ms. Little thought they could make that a condition. Ms. Johnson asked which was more important to the City and public as to paving the drive vs. Constructing the sidewalk now. Ms. Little thought the sidewalk would be more important than a drive. She added it would be more important to have a turnaround than the paved driveway. • Ms. Harrington agreed the turnaround was very important. • • • Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Odom stated since this was a conditional use, and if they did require a paved runaround if the use was to change they would be setting the residence up as a business. He thought it would be easier to remove a gravel circle way if the use was to change. It would be more in keeping with the area. Ms. Johnson asked if a gravel turnaround would contribute to off site drainage problems. Ms Little did not believe it would contribute to off-site drainage problems. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the item subject to the staff requirements, with one amendment: #3 the driveway and parking area shall be graveled with a graveled turnaround. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked if they would be required to construct the sidewalk. Ms. Johnson stated the only change from the staff recommendation would be that the drive and tum around could be graveled She added the Conditional use be granted for one year period. If there were any complaints within that one year period the Planning Commission would review it again. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 8-0-0. L1k Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page 19 APPOINTMENT TO SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Mr. Odom appointed: Bob Reynolds John Forney Phyllis Johnson Alternates: Lorel Hoffman Lee Ward Mr. Reynolds was appointed Chair. The meeting adjoumed at 7:50 p.m.