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