Loading...
pc_10 08 19911 'I LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 8,1991 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the August 27,1991 The Minutes of the August 27 meeting were presented and a motion was made to approve as received.The motion passed unanimously. III.Members Present:Ramsey Ball Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Fred PerkinsBillPutnam Walter Riddick,III Joe H.Selz Brad Walker Members Absent:John McDaniel Diane Chachere Open Position City Attorney:Stephen Giles —Asst.City Attorney October 8,1991 ITEM NO ~.A NAME:Grace Lutheran Church —Conditional Use Permit (Z-5473) LOCATION:5110 Hillcrest Street OWNER APPLICANT:Grace Lutheran Church/Arnold Berner,Agent PROPOSAL:To convert one lot which is zoned residential into a parking lot to serve as an accessory use for the church. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location This site is located at the southeast corner of North Lookout and Hillcrest Street. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The church is needing more parking in order to make it more convenient for the elderly members of the church.If developed,there is a compatibility problem with the other residential use in the area. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin Access to the lot will be made from an existing seventeen foot alley.The proposed parking lot will provide fifteen new parking spaces. 4.Screenin and Buffers The applicant has indicated that two large white oak trees will be retained.If additional landscaping is needed,the applicant stated that they would adhere to the landscaping ordinance. 5.Cit En ineer Comments The sketch submitted does not constitute a valid survey or site plan.The alley to be used for access is only seventeen feet.The alley is surfaced from Hillcrest Avenue to the proposed lot,but not in the east and west alignment. 1 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued 6.A~1 Whenever a church proposes to expand in an established residential area,a matter must be raised over the possible conflicts that expansion might create.To balance the non-residential and residential uses is often very delicate and damage to the neighborhood might occur.The influence of the non-residential use becomes a predominate force in the area. The City of Little Rock has taken a strong position regarding preservation of the housing stock within the older,established neighborhoods.Therefore,it would not be in the city's hest interest to support the proposed parking lot. There does exist enough parking within the area that the church could lease.In fact,staff was told of a verbal agreement that the church has with Mount St.Mary High School.It is a possibility that the City could erect signs to indicate on-street parking permitted only during the hours of worship services on Sunday.Staff feels there are many other avenues of which the applicant could pursue. 7.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 22,1991) Neither the applicant or a representative was in attendance. Staff gave an overview of what the applicant was requesting. Some discussion took place regarding the loss of another residence for a parking lot.It was then decided that the item should be sent on to the full Commission for action since this issue is more of a land use question rather than design. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 10,1991) The applicant was represented by Larry Behnke.There were several other people present to support the church's request. There were several people present in opposition.Tom Johnson of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association and Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters spoke before the Commission. Mr.Behnke addressed the Commission.He stated that he had been a member of the church for forty years and wanted to present some points in which the Commission should take into account.One 2 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued point made was for the use of the property for a parking lot. The church was built on the site where an old burned icehouse was located about forty years ago.About ten to twelve years ago, the church made a decision to remain at this location because there had been a movement of churches out of the central area and relocating particularly to the west.After the decision was made to remain at this site,the church began to acquire four houses. There were three houses adjoining the church and one separated by one house.The church bought the property with the intention of using it for off-street parking. Mr.Behnke then described a serious traffic problem that exists on Hillcrest Street,and said Hillcrest is a very narrow street when cars are parked on both sides of the street.It would be impossible for a fire truck to access the street on Sundays without having an approaching car back up.The church really needs some off-street parking.The church has been in the location for a number of years and most of the members are in advanced years.Comments have been made that there is some available parking within two blocks of the church.He and his wife recently walked the two blocks and found it was extremely difficult to walk those blocks,even if an agreement could be made with St.Mary's Catholic Church.In order for the church to provide more services to the community,more available parking must be kept where the church is. Within the last year,the church started an early childhood development center and is now holding classes in the basement of the church.As the childhood center grows,more available space will be needed for additional classrooms by using the sites that have been purchased.The parents,who bring their children,have a difficult time finding parking spaces when dropping them off. There are several Lutheran churches west of this site; particularly out on Markham. Again,the church made the decision to remain at this location realizing they could have purchased more acreage out west and provide necessary parking.The congregation is older,and if the off-street parking is granted,it would serve to make it a lot more safer for those older members to arrive at the sanctuary. Also,it is a good possibility that the congregation would increase its size and be lost without adequate parking. Mr.Behnke said it is not known what kind of development would be placed on the site,since the church is thinking of acquiring one more house which faces Hillcrest.Presently,the owner,a lady,is in a nursing home.If it is feasible,there is a good possibility that parking could be provided to the rear of these properties.However,a start cannot be made unless the house, which they want to demolish is done first. 3 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEN NO.:A Continued The old frame house is approximately sixty to sixty-five years old.It has an upstairs apartment and living quarters downstairs.The house is definitely in need of repairs.This is the house that the church wants to demolish and develop fifteen parking spaces in order to coincide with their long range plans. A commissioner wanted to know if Mr.Behnke could describe the topography of the property.Mr.Behnke stated that between North Lookout and Hillcrest it slopes 10 to 12 feet.The rock wall on North Lookout would continue to be approximately 3 1/2 feet high. The wall runs along North Lookout extending to where the house, which will be demolished,is.This location will prevent an entrance or exit from being on North Lookout.The entranceitselfwouldbeoffHillcrestalongthealleybehindthechurch. Tom Johnson,president of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, stated that unfortunately,again they are proposing another parking lot that would take away from the residential character of the neighborhood.When the association was before the Commission about six or nine months ago,a point of discussion was raised over and over again concerning that a trend was being started in the neighborhood to destroy the residences for parkinglots.The association is aware of several other churches anticipating changes.It is always difficult to be in opposition to good neighbors.The Association certainly does not approach any issue lightly or negatively,but reviews it with a lot of thought and study. Mr.Johnson then stated he would comment on this issue in two phases,the church's need and neighborhood issues.It is a knownfactthatthechurchwasbuiltmanyyearsagowithoutaccessto parking,however,it apparently has increased in membership without having additional parking.The thought of this church being on a corner lot in this area without parking has not been a disadvantage for the church because there is ample street parking.Mr.Johnson then passed around photos. Along Kavanaugh and Hillcrest,there are a number of on-street parking spaces.The grade up Hillcrest is steep,but not a dangerous grade.Therefore,the Association does feel there is ample space for the church to meet their parking needs.Also,it was suggested for the members whom are disabled and cannot walk a block that the church should follow suit as Pulaski Baptist Church has done.One of the deacons arrives early and places a sign,which is very simple,out in front of the church indicating parking. In looking at this request for the new parking lot,it appears to be located down in a hole behind the church.Probably the most troubling part of the proposal is a large parking lot within one block,the Mount St.Mary's parking lot.There are anywhere from 4 October 8,1991 'SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued 100 to 150 parking spaces at this location that are not being used on Sundays.There is no apparent reason why both uses cannot reach an agreement to use this space for parking.One point made by the Association was that in order to eliminate some of the demolition,the churches,institutions and commercial people within the area will have to agree on issues as a whole rather than oppose to everyone having a separate issue. One block down from the church is a viable residential neighborhood which is not zoned for commercial uses.With issues of this nature,a point must be raised as to whether a church or any other institution has the right to demolish any property simply because they own the land.Another point always mentioned but not today,has been if this is a deteriorated house,would demolishing the house and developing a landscaped parking lot improve the appearance of the neighborhood?It is known that the church has owned the property for several years now,and if the house is deteriorated to some degree,then it is due to the negligence of the church.At some point in time,the City and the Commission need to let the property owners know that the system being used will no longer be tolerated.The Commission rules at every meeting the way people use their property.The Association does not believe that it is a valid option for churches,institutions or commercial development to come into a neighborhood,acquire property and then tear it down. The City of Little Rock is paying a dear price for neglect of residential property.One major issue before the Board of Directors and the City in general is the deterioration of neighborhoods.The City is having to step in and demolish properties themselves in some instances.There are several groups right now reviewing preservation and rehabilitationpoliciestodecideifsomeoftheresidentialstructures could be salvaged.The City is now in a development phase paying closer attention to the neighborhoods and their needs.The decline of the older neighborhoods is a small step to take,but theHillcrestneighborhoodisnotaneighborhoodofdeclination. Therefore,the Association does feel that it is their responsibility to intervene with any decline or prevention atthispoint. Mr.Johnson stated in closing,the Association asked the Commission to take a broader view of this issue and stop lookingattheseproposalsasisolated,little incidents of fifteen cars, one house or three houses.But look at the perspective of whatisneededtobedoneandjointherestoftheCitystaffand administration in looking for ways and means to enhance neighborhoods as opposed to ways of tearing them down.Thepolicieshavetobereevaluatedknowingthishasledtodramatic decline in the past and then change the policies. 5 October 8,1991 BUBDIVISIDN ITEM NO.:A Continued Now is the time for the Commission to begin thinking and looking at ways to protect the neighborhood.Ultimately,the Commission rules on many of these issues;therefore,creating policies and devising proqrams to preserve housing is fine.However,it is another issue when the Commission is allowed to decide on demolition of a house in a very stable and good neighborhood. An aerial map was then passed around showing the existing parking.Mr.Johnson was asked if he or the church had met at anytime to discuss the issue at hand.He then stated that during the early stages of the project several members of the church met in Jim Lawson's office,the Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,along with his staff for a brief discussion of the preliminary plan. Mr.Johnson was then asked another question.Is the real issue the loss of housing in the area?He stated that the loss was due really to the system.He emphasized that one could say that this one house could not destroy the neighborhood,or maybe the loss of the house could be compared to people moving out the neighborhood,which is a natural cycle for neighborhoods. However,one concern again raised was,at some point in time,the demolition of the houses in the neighborhood must be stopped. Mr.Johnson indicated this would not have a large impact in viewing the overall picture.However,the accumulation of tearing down houses would definitely make a difference.He stated that the association really wanted is to make a change in policy for demolitions before anymore projects of a negative perspective are done in the neighborhood. A question was then asked of how the association felt about a homeowner purchasing a house next door and razing the house in order to expand their yard area.The response was that the Association would probably have the same feeling regarding thisissue.In general,the loss of population in the area is theAssociation's reason for wanting to stop the demolition. Because,if the church indicates that it would not remain and move west,then there would be a loss of population for the area. This brings us to the point of where no neighborhood exists without schools or churches. The staff was then asked why the recommendation for this use isdenial,when several months ago the recommendation for the same use was approval with several stipulations.Staff explained the reason for the other case was because the nearest parking lot to be used was 2 1/2 to 3 blocks away.The church members were in apositionofeitherhavingtoremovethehousesforparkingornot having parking. 6 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued Jim Lawson stated Pulaski Heights Methodist had already used all of the available parking on Woodlawn,Spruce and other streets in the area.Now before the Commission is the church's need to have closer parking because Mount St.Mary's Catholic School is located there.The gate to the parking area may not be an advantaged for the church.Long term plans for the church are to solve their parking problem by removing one or two houses. Before making a recommendation,staff needs to review the kind of parking needed to justify the removal of a house.Therefore,staff does not go as far as Mr.Johnson and hold all the houses 100%because this point is really valid.This issue does not appear to be similar as the previous case before the Commission. Mr.Behnke stated the church does not have an agreement with Mount St.Mary's Catholic School in order to park on their property.Because of an ongoing need for the church,this arrangement would not be practical.One such instance is the functions are scheduled at different times during the week. A considerable amount of discussion continued,at which time the applicant and Mr.Johnson were asked if they would be willing to meet and discuss the possible options in order to work out the problem among themselves. Drexel Jordan then spoke and stated he lives five houses down from the church and attends most Sunday morning services where no parking is available on the street.His primary concern was for the church's future plans and future of the other houses the church had purchased. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters indicated what was happening now is an increase in automobiles from the past.As aresult,the Homeowners Association is concerned about the dynamics of parking in the area. The discussion continued among the Commission,the applicant, opposition and staff.A motion was then made to defer this itemuntilOctober8,1991.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes,1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 8,1991) The applicant was represented by Mr.Arnold Berner,Chairman oftheBoardforthechurch.Also attending was Mr.Paul H.Jilg,the pastor.There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission of the amended recommendation.One commissioner asked,if from the list of conditions given for the 7 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued church to meet,is the wrong message being sent to other churches?Staff stated no because each case is discussed and brought before the Commission on its own merits. Mr.Berner was then asked if there would be any problems in meeting the five conditions outlined .Mr.Berner stated no.He further stated the church had reached an agreement with the Hillcrest Residents Association.Staff said a copy of this agreement was included in their folders. No further discussion took place.A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit per Staff's amended recommendation.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. 8 October 8,1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Continued Adden u to Minutes The Staff and members of the Planning Commission met with the Lutheran Church members along with Tom Johnson,President of the Hillcrest Resident Association on October 7,1991 at 4:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to see if a workable agreement could be reached on the proposed parking lot. The proposal was discussed in detail and a walking tour of the grounds was conducted.The house proposed for demolition was inspected as to its architectural significance and its contribution to the neighborhood. After some discussion,it was concluded by staff that.the house was not significant to the neighborhood and its removal was acceptable based on the following conditions and agreements: 1.The 18 car parking lot is needed for daily and night meetings.(Mount Saint Mary's parking lot is not available for these functions). 2.The elderly population of the church needs parkingclosertothechurch. 3.The proposed site plan is adequate and is enhanced byprohibitingaccessonNorthLookout. 4.The Church will agree in writing to a five year moratorium on any further demolition of their buildings. 5.The house proposed for demolition is in a state of disrepair and its renovation is not feasible or warranted based on the needed parking for the church. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with all stipulations outlined above. 9 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 TITLE:Planning Commission Proposals for Ordinance Amendments 1991 REQUEST:Planning Commission Review,Approval and Recommendation to the City Board of Directors of the Several Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments STAFF REPORT: This package as developed by staff and the Plans Committee followed an entirely new approach for review.The Commission established a list of proposals during 1991 and late 1989 which became the only changes to be reviewed. The Commission accepted staff's proposal to divide the listing into three elements of eight proposals.The purpose being to reduce the mass of paper and shorten the work schedule of the Committee. This was done and worked quite well.The staff has received very few comments on each of the elements and in each instance these have been positive ideas. The first eight amendments were finalized during April.The Committee then worked through the second eight amendments. These were finalized during July. The third and final element has been endorsed by the Plans Committee and is being offered at this meeting for final commission endorsement.There are several of the initial twenty-four proposals that committee and staff removed from review.The items were found to have no public interest, the items needed more work for next year or were tied to unresolved litigation. This staff and committee have,in the interest of time, added to this endorsement hearing the first public hearing on the total amendment package. The committee and staff recommend that the full Commission hear public comment and complete this years amendment work schedule by sending these changes to the City Board. 1 October 8,1991 PLANS H ARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION A I N:(OCTOBER 8,1991) The Chairman called the public hearing to order and requested the Planning staff to present Item Number 1. Richard Wood of the Planning staff offered a brief overview and status report of the 1991 amendments indicating several minor modifications or additions to the ordinance which had developed since the last committee meeting.He further identified the process of preparation for this public hearing as mailing fifty-three copies of the entire package. The mailing included three new contact persons with auto salvage companies not previously involved in the hearing process. The issue was then placed before the Commission for discussion.The first item of discussion was the first item listed on the outline of the ordinance amendment.This item identified the proposed reduction in width for parking spaces in order to allow a percentage of new car spaces to be marked for compact automobiles.However,the car spaces would need to be measured at eight feet and two inches in width. The position of the City Engineer was reported to the Commission.Mr.McChesney felt that nine feet should be maintained as the ordinance is currently written.McChesney reported to staff that national parking management organizations or firms dealing with commercial parking lotsrestrictthenarroworcompactcarparkingtovalet~parking garages or long term relationships.They do not recommend the use of any parking space below eight feet and six inches. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the proposal should somewhat reduce the amount of paving required in a larger parking facility because of the reduced amount of land area required for parking. Staff stated that measurements of stalls and cars had been done which indicated no reduction in the width of an automobile since the narrowing of car bodies.The doors have not been reduced in width.Several commissioners andstaffofferedtheirconcernsonthepropermarkingofstalls and display for compact cars.However,there would be improper parking by others with larger vehicles.Chairman Perkins pointed out this reduction in width would not reduce the land area paved,but would probably generate more parking spaces on the same land area. 2 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. Commissioner Putnam asked a question on whether or notstaff's proposal included changes in the depth of the stall or was it simply the width.The Staff's response was,the ordinance amendment deals only with reducing the side to side dimension of the nine foot stall to eight feet and two inches. A brief discussion then followed involving several commissioners and staff on the appropriate changes in driveways and the depth of stalls.Staff pointed out that in the year past ordinance amendments and the landscape ordinance required the minimum twenty foot depth be fully utilized due to disallowing the hangover of the front part of the vehicle.Previously,the stalls were allowed to be marked at eighteen feet deep with the landscaped area as a wheel stop.The new regulatory structure will require that a wheel stop be placed at two to three feet behind the landscape area in order to prevent the vehicle from encroaching.Practically speaking,this means the twentyfeetwillbereducedtoaboutseventeenandwhichisa reasonable functional depth for a parking stall. Commissioner Putnam pointed out there are commercial parkinglots,especially along alleys and in confined areas where turning is tight that utilizes a shallower parking space in order to properly access the stall and have sufficient backout space.In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam,Chairman Perkins indicated that architects in design of parking facilities'esign as the ordinance calls it. Also,Chairman Perkins pointed out a parking lot with twentyfootstallsoneachsideofatwentyfootdrivewayisabare minimum in order to allow proper maneuvering and turning to access the stalls. Richard Wood of staff suggested that if the Commission had serious reservations concerning this proposed reduction in width,then the proposal might be deferred until the 1992 amendment package. Commissioner Oleson then stated there are people out there who really do not care about this issue one way or the other,and if there are questions,we should perhaps deferthismatterforfurtherstudy.She suggested to the Chairman that this item be placed in the 1992 package. Commissioner Putnam then raised the question on whether or not staff had had conversation directly with the national organizations managing parking areas.Staff responded that they had not,but the traffic engineer and city engineer have this information available to them and have discussedthisissue.As stated earlier,staff pointed out these 3 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. national management firms recommended that less than nine feet not be utilized,except for valet or long term parking areas.No response was gained from Commissioner Oleson's request for the deferral. Commissioner Walker then stated that stanadardization of parking areas could be a disaster when dealing with a large surfaced parking area.He felt that he could support any variations which allow for a variable application of standards.Commissioner Walker felt the reduced width should be retained in this package and forwarded to the Board as an approach to providing flexibility in the parking standards. It was then determined that Commissioner Oleson's statement was a motion rather than a suggestion,but the motion did not received a second. Chairman Perkins then identified Commissioner Walker's statement as a recommendation for change and raised the question on whether or not he was suggesting that the dimension be changed from eight feet and two inches to eightfeetandsixinches.Commissioner Walker stated that ifstaffwishedtochangeitsrecommendationtosixinches, then he certainly would accept it at this time.Richard Wood stated staff could accept the eight foot and six inches for modification of the proposal. A motion was then made by Commissioner Walker to retain this item in the package and make a modification in the staff recommendation to eight foot and six inches.A vote on the motion was unanimous. Commissioner Walker then raised a discussion issue on that item which proposed modification of the utility easement provision within the Subdivision Regulations.The question centered around whether or not the suggested language in the worksheet was the language to be inserted within the ordinance to replace the existing language.Staff's response was yes.Commissioner Walker offered that his concern on this subject was that easements requested by oneutilitycompanywerenotnecessarilyallinclusiveofthe other utility companies.Richard Wood then stated staff had worked both ways,with respect to the utilities requiring easements.He said that staff has placed some utility easements on final plats for record which were specificallyforWaterWorks,AP&L or other individual utilities.Mostfinalplatsgoonrecordwithageneralstatementofutility easement or drainage easement applied.Wood explainedfurtheroneoftheitemsthatgeneratedthismatterwas thepracticeoftheWaterWorksrequestingsignificant 4 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. easements,especially behind street rights-of-way lines for some future use.This practice has been carried on for several years.He further commented on the new language which would provide any easement beyond those required to serve the immediate development would be a matter for the Planning Commission and the utility company would request a transmission easement in order to serve their needs beyond the plat.This would be required to justify for those to the Commission. Commissioner Walker then asked a question as to whether or not the language as currently drafted addressed his concern for single use easements versus multiple use easements. Staff responded,no,but this was a function of the review process in coordinating with the various utility engineers. Commissioner Walker then suggested the ordinance,as now drafted,not require the common easement approach,but allow the easements to be labeled as they are needed by the various utility companies.The response from staff was,we feel that the end product of this amendment is to make the utility companies look a little closer at the design and location of easements.Richard Wood stated that although this language does not do everything,that could possibly be done at this time,it is radical relative to the way we do business currently.He further stated he was somewhat surprised that there was not a representative for the utility companies present at this meeting. Commissioner Walker then directed staff to another subject for discussion,the item concerning subdivision definition modification.The item deals with a change from two lots to one lot in this paragraph,dealing with,at which point does a subdivision plat become required.Staff responded by stating it was something overlooked in the last ordinance review package.Wood stated he felt like the two paragraphs in the ordinance involved in this amendment should say the same thing,with respect to the starting point at one lot. Wood pointed out that staff and the Commission do require from time to time a filing of a one lot plat.Typically,a follow-up to a site plan or some issue where a street dedication or other design standard requires the recording at the courthouse.Commissioner Walker then asked a question on whether or not we would now require plat when someone approach the city for a building permit for one building on that tract.The response from staff was,no, that we would apply this standard only where there was a public need for some recording action to occur.Wood pointed out if a person had a lot of record and there were none of the key elements such as right-of-way involved,then they would proceed to obtain a building permit without filing a plat.He further explained for the Commission's 5 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. benefit that a lot of record can be either an acreage call or a platted lot depending on the individual circumstance,it does not have to be a recorded plat in every instance in order to be a lot of record.Wood explained that within our subdivision regulations a lot,tract,parcel or any division of land is a lot. Commissioner Walker then asked how do you create a lot of record.Staff's response was you plat a lot and record itatthecourthouse.The City in the expansion of itsextraterritorialjurisdiction,encompasses land previously divided beyond our regulatory involvement of lots or tracts which were sold prior to our regulation. The discussion then moved to where the exemption for five acre lot sales is inserted within the ordinance.Wood indicated how it fit in and noted this was the only change being made dealing with requirements of tracts to have access on a public street.Wood referred Commissioner Walker to the draft ordinance which provided for this item as Subsection XX on Page 16,at the bottom of the page. Following a lengthy discussion,several commissioners andstaffdebatedthemeritsofaccesstovarioussizesof property from roads,streets or other defined means ofaccess.The discussion involved the appropriate language used in the current subdivision definition within the ordinance in as much as this definition implies physical improvements by stating "street",instead of right-of-way. Wood pointed out the draft ordinance as presented reflectstheremovalofoneparagraphandtheadditionofanew paragraph dealing with a different subject.Therefore, requiring a person working with this material to review both the work element and the draft ordinance at the same time inordertogainaviewofthetotalpicture.Then,the discussion moved to the page attached to Item 24 which deals with the "current subdivision definition"and the "current application"of the subdivision ordinance. Wood explained that under the current ordinance the sale offiveacresorlargertractsinanynumber,from any sizetractoflandcanbeaccomplishedthroughusingaprivate roadway easement.There is no requirement to dedicate a road or file a plat.Wood explained what staff is attempting to do with this ordinance amendment and thedefinitionaccomplishedlastyearistosaythatthereductionoflandtolotswithinourjurisdictionwithin the growing urban area should provide access to all parcels,regardless of their size in order to avoid landlocking ownership.The attempt is not one which will be required of everyone that divides land into large parcels to build 6 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. public streets.This requirement is that everyone have legal access to their property over a roadway.Wood offered that the current jurisdiction provisions in the subdivision ordinance attempt to define a subdivision,and that is inappropriate language that should be embodied within the definition. Commissioner Putnam then asked whether or not we were inserting a new definition in the ordinance.The response from staff was no,this,was accomplished in 1990,but what we are attempting to accomplish here is to eliminate a potential conflict between the ordinance application provisions and the definition of a subdivision.Prior to 1990,the subdivision regulations did not define a subdivision,that had to be determined by the review of the application provisions.Mr.Putnam then stated that what is being suggested here has significant impact on what is occurring out in the areas beyond the city limits,with respect to persons selling their properties in large tracts, at least greater than five acres.He asked a question as to whether or not this new definition and the proposed change would require a street to be built and dedicated when selling five acres or larger parcels,such as ten acres out of a 100 acre tract.The response from staff was,yes,that is what the current definition of subdivision requires. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question again on whether or not at this time if he sold five acre tracts would each tract be required to have frontage on a public street. Staff responded by saying yes this would be the reading of the ordinance. Richard Wood then restated staff's position as being to avoid landlocked property by the sale of parcels without street access. Commissioner Walker offered a concern for requiring a dedication of a street in order to sell a five acre or larger tract.He indicated that he did want to draw a conclusion on this issue,and bring Jerry Gardner and the Master Street Plan into play when dealing with these types of acreage sales. Richard Wood then suggested to the Commission the need to change the definition currently within the ordinance. Commissioner Walker stated it was not of his concern for the lots cannot not be required to front on a street,but that they not have to build street improvements and such as that or additional right-of-way when selling these lots.Wood 7 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. said that a dedicated county road with a gravel surface would still qualify as a public street,therefore affording the public access and not requiring a plat for large lot sales greater than five acres. Commissioner Putnam then stated that this ordinance as now written and the proposed change has heavy implications for a person proposing to develop 100 acres or more and sell off large lots.Commissioner Putnam then asked the city attorney for his opinion as to whether the sale of a pieceofpropertycouldlandlockanotherparcel.The response from the city attorney was that he believes state law would disallow it.Commissioner Putnam was satisfied with the response that a parcel could not be landlocked,but someaccess,physical and/or legal would have to be provided. Continued lengthy discussion of this item resulted in removing the proposed amendment dealing with Paragraph 2 under the ordinance application and placed this item within the 1992 ordinance amendment package.The purpose is to further develop the need for change as well as review the language that is currently within the subdivisiondefinition.Staff accepted this direction and will includethiselementwithinthe1992ordinanceproposals.Staff then suggested that the total subdivision language change cannot be eliminated because of a need to retain the language in the last paragraph.Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered comments to this effect and stated he would like to see this amendment proceed to the Board for adoption.This change is critical due to its effect upon numerous projects the City is engaged in dealing with floodway and street improvement.Staff pointed out this amendment of the ordinance could relieve many property owners of the responsibility and costs of replatting their property.Also,this would avoid creating many nonconforming or illegal land transfers. The Commission discussed the retention of the easementprovision.It was determined that the only change to be made within Item C of the subdivision ordinance amendments would be the retention of the language in the current Paragraph Two dealing with the five acre lot size.A motion was then made to accept the modifications in the staff and committee work.The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ramsey Ball then asked a question concerning Item L under the zoning ordinance amendments which deals with political campaign signs and their location.Thespecificquestionwaswhy15feetwasappropriateasthespaceforlocation. 8 October 8,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Cont. Richard Wood stated this number was derived from the traffic engineer and city engineer's office.Their position was that fifteen feet would protect all types of streets. Fifteen feet would protect the normal right-of-way behind the curb on residential,collector or arterial standardstreets.Wood also pointed out that the initial draft of this proposal suggested ten feet as the dimension to be used. Chairman Perkins asked Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department if he would comment on this subject.Mr.Gardner made brief comments concerning right-of-way location and the appropriate establishment of a definite dimension.However, he could not offer a specific comment on McChesney's position of 15 feet.A lengthy discussion followed.It then became apparent that some number less than fifteen would be appropriate.Several numbers were discussed withstaffsuggestingeightfeetasthemedian.Commissioner Ball and other commissioners determined eight feet would be a good number,noting in most instances this would keep the signs behind the sidewalk,and on private property.A motion was made to amend the ordinance amendment package to change the fifteen foot dimension within Item L to eightfeet.The motion passed by a unanimous vote. This discussion closed the general discussion and public hearing on the specific ordinance proposals as presented.Staff stated the only remaining action needed was a motion by the Commission to recommend to the City Board ofDirectorstheadoptionoftheordinancesasdrafted.A motion to this affect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays,4 absent and 1 open position. 9 W 1 f ERIRRKHiRIRIILIIIIRRSRSLRRSRRRRWSESRSLSRSRESSSLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSLSQRRSRSRLERSPLREQSQRLLROSRRE WW&ESRRKRRRRRRSE2RREQlRRRW~RISI&&ISISSSIERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRLERQSSSRLERSSESLRERQRQRRRRSLRRRRRRRRRHRRHRRHR LRRRRRRQRRRRURWRRRRSSLELRRLHLQRRRRELLRRSRESLSRERRELRRSQRRQLQRRQRRRRWRRRHEiLQRaaaaaaaaaaamama .. —..-..:RRSESSQEQRRKILSS " RRRRRRRRRRR59%lQRHKRaaHww~ÃR~~ww~aERRRRRRRRRRRIRIrRRRQRRRRRRRRRRRR++++~~~++~~gg+grg~ ~~~~.r ~ October 8,1991 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Date:(I-lR-1l hairman et