Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:30 P. M., Minday, June 20, 1977, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Keith Newhouse, Donald Nickell, John Maguire, Jack Ray, Bill Kisor. Peg Anderson Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, City Attorney Jim McCord, David McWethy, Scott Van Laningham, Jim Lindsey, Ken Riley, Mel Milholland, Marion Orton, Gary Carnahan, Brenda Blagg, Bob White. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order and reminded the Commissioners that this was a special meeting and there would be a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 27. There being no corrections to the minutes of the Planning Commission MINUTES meeting of June 13, they were approved as mailed. The first item for consideration was a DIAMOND A. GARTON request from Robert R. White, the attorney Request for Rezoning Re -Petition for Kenneth C. and Diamond A. Garton for a determination by the Planning Commission as to whether the Planning Commission will consider a new petition to rezone the Garton property located at 938 Rogers Drive from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District within 12 months from denial of the earlier petition. Thisis not a public hearing --if the request is approved, the public hearing will be held July 11, 1977. Robert R. White was present to represent. Chairman Power questioned if the City was upheld when this was taken to a Court of Law City Attorney Jim McCord said there was litigation twice and both times the Chancery Court upheld the City's denial. He stated that the Ordinance says they cannot come back within one year with the same rezoning request. Chairman John Power read a letter dated June 3 he had received from Bob White. Bob White said he had written another letter in clarification on June 15. He read this letter which states that the Gartons would prepare a "Bill of Assurance" for the City of Fayetteville. He said it would say the property would not be used for any other R-2 use other than a beauty shop. He said this Bill of Assurances would run with the land. He stated that there are no changes in circumstances or characteristics except for a couple of slight changes --a water tower has been constructed there and there is some rental property in the area He said there isn't any great degree of difference. He said the Gartons have been litigated twice and the only way they can maintain the operation as it now stands is to present to the City that if the property is rezoned it would be used only for a beauty shop which it has been used as for the past five or six years. He said it is their hope that with submission of a Bill of Assurances the Board of Directors and Planning Commission would feel it won't change the characteristic of the neighborhood. He stated that this is their only alternative to allow Mrs. Garton to maintain the operation and keep in compliance with the Ordinance requirements. He said the Bill of Assurances would eliminate any other R-2 uses on the land. Chairman John Power acknowledged a phone call: received from Mrs. Dawn Dunnuck who stated that: She she She the is opposed to any rezoning or allowances for Diamond Garton. She said feels the majority of people don't want any commercialism in the area. said she has talked with a number of people in the area and they feel same as they did when Mrs. Garton first came in two years ago. She • • Planning Commission Meeting . June 20, 1977 -2- mentioned that the 5 families who are in favor of the beauty shop are 4 people from one family, 3 sisters and 1 daughter, and the other woman operates an illegal day care center. She stated that the sewer conditions, with 4 people already living in the house, cannot accommodate the beauty shop. Chairman Power questioned if Mrs. Garton sold the property would it maintain the R-2 zoning. Jim McCord said the Bill of Assurances would run with the land. He said the property would'be subject to the covenants and Bill of Assurances. John Maguire asked Bobbie Jones when the property was'originally.zoned R-1. Bobbie Johes ,said it has been zoned R-1 since 1970 and she believed that it was R-1 before that time Ernest Jacks said he thought all the objections before were because of it being a beauty shop. He questioned what the Bill of Assurances would accomplish. • Keith Newhouse asked if this was supposed to be closed out with the Court order. Bob White said they have been served with a summons to close down the beauty shop. He said the record will reflect the basic objection that was brought before the Planning Commission and Board of Directors was that they didn't want the property rezoned R-2 for fear of devaluation of their property. He said there are a number of people who don't object to her operating the beauty shop but do object to the rezoning.. Keith Newhouse made a motion to deny the reheating. Rita Davis'seconded the motion which passed 5-3, with Davis, Newhouse, Nickell, Power, and Jacks voting "Aye" and Maguire, Ray, and Kisor voting "Nay". Next was the public hearing to amend the subdivision URBAN AND SUBURBAN regulations to clarify the improvements which are SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS required to be installed by a subdivider. .This matter was continued from June 13, 1977. Chairman John Power acknowledged the following letter from Commissioner Peg Anderson, who was not present at the meeting. 1599 HALSELL ROAD Dear. Planning Commission members: • PEG ANDERSON • FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 June 14, 1977 Since 1 will not be present next Monday, I thought I'd put in.`writing a couple of my thoughts on the Subdivision Regulations ordinance. First, S stand by the basic agreement we have with the county. I do think its would be wise to clarify that nothing is retroactive ---I agree with Bruce Kendall that we never did talk with that in mind. I also think that it would be wise to add under III A (3) (page 4 in our memo) statements after (a), (b), and (c) something to the effect that, where city standards are not required, county standards shall apply ---Jim McCord has a proposed wording for this. Also, for ease of reading the ordind%ce, I suggested that he make the order of requirements of urban and suburban regulations similar---e.g., put curbs and gutters as (e) in both--- then storm drainage, etc. • Planning Commission Meeting Juen Iicireld69a to reasons for our recomnie3rtdations, I think we should be honest in regard to our septic tank recommendation ---it is being used as a method of con- trolling growth. I understood the directive from the City Board as specifically requesting that we do something to encourage growth where city services now exist -- and try to discourage growth where city services do not exist. I interpret it as their concern that the city should be serving first those who live within the city limits and in the city's service area ---and then, when money is available, or when developers are willing to provide it at their own expense, to those in new areas and the designated growth area. If we had county planning which would identify areas that should not be developed (for environmental or other reasons) and would identify growth areas (including commercial areas, roads, streets, etc)that would be a better way to solve the problem. However, we do not have land use planning (or zoning, if we dare use such a word!) in the county, so we are suggesting use of septic tank regulations as a stop -gap technique to discourage growth and to help keep our water supply as unpolluted as possible. The sub -committee was quite aware of the fact that there is nothing magical about the 12 acres ---and were aware that sometimes a septic tank will work bet{;er on a lot of 10,000 square feet than on a lot of 3, 5, or even 7.0 acres. However, there is no question but that a little bit of seepage from a thousand septic tanks is guaranteed to pollute our ground water faster than a little bit of seepage from a hundred septic tanks. And the testimony from Tontitown was very influential in our determinations. Incidentally, the 1* acres isn't quite as arbitrary as was stated. The pre- sent State Health and the county regulation "arbitrarily" state that "if an in- dividual water well supply and septic tank system are proposed, the lot size must be 11 acres....and if a public water supply is proposed and an individual septic tank absorption field system is to be used for sewage disposal, the lot size must be at least z acre.." Our recommendation was a uniform 14 acres even though we knew that public water would be available in most cases in question. Furthermore, it should be noted that an official of the State Health Department has stated that when a household goes from well water to city water, the water usage of that house- hold doubles ---and therefore, the lot acreage should be larger with public water than with well water! A possible compromise solution was proposed to the committee, but not in- cluded in our recommendations, that in a subdivision using septic tanks, the average lot size be i2 acres ---this could help address the problem with different soil and perk abilities of adjacent lots. As mentioned above, I view this ordinance as a temporary solution. For a more lasting solution, the city aid county need to address the whole question of growth, land use planning, expansion of the sewer lines and sewage system. The request from the Pollution Control Committee that was on our agenda yesterday is very reletant---and our directive to Larry to develop an informational paper on the growth of Fayetteville, with particular emphasis on the sewer system, is in line with this concern. I sincerely hope we will not drop the problem after we get these subdivision recommendations developed because, as a lannin body, I feel that we must be looking at the bigger (and more complicated issue. Have fun Monday! f • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -4- City Attorney McCord said Peg Anderson suggested adding a subsection or additional paragraph that "where City standards do not apply, county standards will apply". City Attorney Jim McCord read a paragraph he had prepared for this purpose. Ernest Jacks said that he thought the County wanted no regulations having to do with water supply. Chairman Power said Bruce Kendall wasn't upset by this. Ernest Jacks asked if it would be possible to have a Bill of Assurances which would run with the land in which people would agree to participate in an improvement district when they are annexed into the City. Jim McCord said he doesn't feel this would be legal. He said the problem should be recognized; but he isn't sure the proper place to address this would be in the Subdivision Ordinance. He said for the City Board of Directors to establish by resolution a policy not approving any annexation for the development to be annexed not having improvements to City standards would, in effect, require the property owners to perform the improve- ments if they want to be annexed. Chairman Jacks stated that this would be a problem because of the high cost of streets, sidewalks, and especially curb and gutter. Bill Kisor stated that he feels they are asking for too much in the lot size. He said it would be difficult for people to afford to buy and build on this size of lot. Keith Newhouse questioned if there is any way they can add that if they can prove that the septic system won't leak, the lot could be less than 11 acres. Bill Kisor said the County said they would be able to inspect the septic systems. Chairman Power said the County had recognized that it would take more men to make the inspections, but they said they would be willing to take that on. Ernest .Jacks said he would be willing to tie the septic tank requirements with the new law which is coming up, if the City could be assured that the septic tanks would be inspected in every instance. Bill Kisor said you have to have a permit from the County Sanitarian to install a septic tank anyway. He said if someone went out and installed a septic tank on his own, then there is no way the county would know about it. Jim Lindsey said there is a part of the new septic tank law which states that no one can install a septic tank without a license. He said the City is asking the people close to town to abide by the same standards as those in town yet go from 11 acre lots right across the street to 11/2 acre lots on the other side of the street with the same requirements. He stated that if a person has sewer available and is willing to use it, they should immediately revert to the City density. He said if this is not economically feasible right at the edge of town people will leap -frog and go to the area that is not next to the edge of town. He said people who own land that adjoins the Fayetteville City Limits need some kind of amendment to allow them to have the same density as if they were in the City if they are willing to meet the requirements. Jim Lindsey stated that it would not be feasible to put curb and gutter and streets on lots that are an acre and a half. He said it costs nearly $10,000 an acre to do this. He said if they make a person right outside the city meet the same requirements as inside the City except for sewer, the person will go farther out so he can use a seal coat road or less. He felt they should give that person the opportunity to annex into the City or allow him the opportunity to use the same density that he could have if he were inside the City. Ernest Jacks agreed that if sewer is available, he should be able to tie onto sewer or annex into the City and use the same density as inside the City. John Maguire said if he ties onto sewer, he can build on the same density except he would have to meet the square footage requirements for the county which is 10,000 square feet instead of the 8,000 square feet which is required inside the City. Chairman Power said the Planning Commission should come up with some standards and a statement which would affect the tie-in. Chairman Power said he is uncomfortable with the 1i acre lots and would be much more comfortable with 1 acre or less. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -5- Ken Riley asked if it would be possible to put a regulatory measure into the building permit for a fee based on a square footage basis, to go into a fund for the City to use for improvements at a later date. Jim McCord said the fee for a building permit cannot be in excess of what is legally necessary to administer the permit. He said he doesn't feel this would hold up in court. Ken Riley said that now you cannot develop a 100 x 150 foot lot for less than $7,500 or $8,000. He said all of the $30-$40,000 homes will go to Springdale. He said the outlying area would not be developed. Ken Riley suggested that on large parcels, provisions can be made for sewer coming into the area; for example, a large holding -.tank that is emptied on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in a subdivision. Mr. Riley said he thinks the Planning Commission and the City would have a problem in changing the density requirement to anything other than what the State requires. He said this will stop the growth in the growth area. He said the City is not annexing any area on Highway 16 West so the growth area is confined to Highway 45, Highway 265, and towards the lake. He said you cannot develop the land on 112 acre lots with curb and gutter and streets, etc. Wilbur Watson said if you get the septic tanks installed right and get the inspections, there will be no problem. Gary Carnahan said that a septic tank properly installed will work. He stated that there are two basic ways to look at the problem of septic tanks not being installed properly 1) you can build safety factors into the requirements by making the area required for the lines larger and the lot sizes larger or 2) enforce the installation and make them be installed properly. He mentioned that the State Health Department has been working with this since 1953 and now they have changed their emphasis to see that septic systems are installed properly instead of requiring larger square footage requirements. Marion Orton said they have not reduced the amount of land that a septic tank must be built on. She said they have reduced the footage in the field. Mrs. Orton said the requirement is 11 acres if you have a private water supply system but if you have City water it is reduced because then it won't pollute a well. She said the reason for keeping the land area large is that single-family houses use twice as much water once they are on city water as they use on a well. She said the water usage will double and that means the septic tank usage will double She said Mr. Kellogg, who is head of the State Department of Health, pointed this out to her. She said he is concerned about reducing the size of the lot when there is city water. Jim Lindsey said the legislature passed an Ordinance and the Health Department assisted in construction of the regulations. He questioned why Mr. Kellogg would not have more input into this at that level. He said the more the City requires, the less land he should have to use. He said if someone is on sewer, he should use the requirements of the City; if he is not on sewer and has to go with curb and gutter and streets and 1h acre lots he would not be able to develop his land until sewer is available and he is annexed or until he is leap -frogged. Chairman Power stated that this almost creates a buffer zone in itself. Bobbie Jones said the Ordinance says if they have public water and sewer, the lot size would drop to 10,000 square feet. Jim Lindsey said if someone adjoining the City has to go to curb and gutter and streets, it would cost approximately $40 a running foot. He said the person would have between 250 and 300 feet of frontage on the road and this would cost him $10,000-$11;000 in the.street,alone. Ken Riley said they are driving people away from the City by not annexing them into the City and letting them build on smaller lots. He stated that money was offered to the City to bring sewer out into the growth area and they didn't take them up on it. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -6- City Attorney McCord talked about the authority of the municipality to prescribe a minimum lot size for septic tanks within or without the City limits. He said the new septic tank act states the provisions of any law or regulations of any municipality establishing standards affording greater protection to . the public health or safety shall prevail within the jurisdiction of such municipality over the provisions of this act and regulations adopted hereunder. Jim McCord said that in order for any standard adopted by the City of Fayetteville to be upheld by the courts, the City will have to make a finding and support that finding with evidence, that that standard will afford greater protection to the public health than the standards adopted by the State Board of Health. Mr. McCord said the new regulations are not even published yet. He said that in order for any more stringent standards to be upheld there will need to be a finding upheld by evidence that it is of greater public safety, moreso than that adopted by the State Department of Health. Keith Newhouse said he feels they should adopt what the state requires, which is 1 acre with city water. He said water use does increase tremendously when they know they have an unlimited supply. Keith Newhouse said there would be no way to substantiate the requirements they are proposing. Jim Lindsey suggested they increase the acreage as they lower the requirements for improvements. He said he would feel more comfortable with 31 an acre right against the City. Marion Orton said she is concerned about the septic systems on small acreages where there is a large density of septic systems. She said reducing the amount of land because of the lot having City water is wrong. She said it should be reduced if they have sewer and not for any other reason. She said if they are going to let up on what is required it should be on what is required for streets. She stated that there is plenty of evidence on soil conditions and she feels they can get enough justification for having more stringent requirements than the State. Rita Davis stated that she is concerned with the street problems. She stated that you can't build curb and gutter and streets on lots of 111 acres. John Maguire questioned if they could use cold mix streets and Jim McCord said if the property is adjoining to the City limits it would have to have curb and gutter and city street standards. John Maguire said if they are 1 a mile outside the City limits all they are required to do is have cold mix streets. He said they are trying to control development by not allowing very small lots right next to the city. John Maguire said he hasn't had any evidence that the Health Department will be able to require people to put in septic tanks properly. He questioned what is meant by "reasonably accessible". Jim McCord said each case would have to be decided upon its own factors. John Maguire said suburban lot sizes should be the same as urban. He recommended the Planning Commission dropping the lot width from 70 feet to 60 feet and the depth from 115 feet to 110 feet and go on sewer with 6600 square feet lots inside and outside the city. He said you could cut the street cost about 1S% by cutting down the frontage on the street. Ken Riley said you wouldn't have to have curb and gutter and streets if you don't have the density. John Maguire said the Subcommittee met with the County and worked within the framework of what is acceptable to the County. He said if the County would let the city engineers go out and inspect septic tanks, then he would be willing to look at a lesser lot size. He said the County won't let the City inspect in the County's area. Jim McCord said it is his understanding from Larry Wood that the County Sanitarian is going to enforce the State law and if the City does adopt more stringent standards than the State, the City will have to enforce those standards themselves. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -7- Bill Kisor stated that if they are on city water the City is already inspecting the septic tanks. Jim McCord said the County Sanitarian would be inspecting to see if it is in agreement with septic tank regulations. Mr. McCord said that under the new law only licensed installers may put in septic tanks. He also stated that the 10,000 square feet minimum lot size is what the County requires. Donald Nickell said he has no objections to the 115 acre lot size. Wilbur Watson said the County says either 11 acres or what the state requires. Keith Newhouse explained that that is the County's leeway for areas other than Fayetteville. He said that in Fayetteville it will be 11 acres. Donald Nickell said the land size doesn't matter to him but the streets are important. He said he wants to see the streets built to City standards. He said if you allow the roads to be substandard you are giving the minority a break and taxing the majority. Ernest Jacks said the County said they won't require curb and gutter except in property adjacent to the City. Bobbie Jones said she has talked to Bud Allen and he said their ordinance has been amended to specify 75 feet of frontage She noted that he didn't say where the frontage has to be. Donald Nickell made a motion to recommend this proposed ordinance to the Board of Directors with the provisions that the amendments discussed be incorporated. 1) Under exceptions to required improvements on Page 4 add wording similar to "where City standards and specifications are not required, County standards and specifications will be required!'. 2) Change minimum lot width for suburban lots to 75 feet. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Jim McCord questioned if they want to require frontage on an improved public street. He also asked about provisions for tandem lot developments. He said if the Commission wants to recommend to the Board of Directors those type of provisions he would suggest an additional paragraph on page 5 under minimum standards which would say that "each suburban lot shall have a minimum frontage on an improved public street of feet unless the lot is developed as a tandem lot under the provisions of Article 7, Section 21, Appendix A of this code which provisions are hereby incorporated and made a part thereof". Jim McCord explained that there is a problem with lot splits. He said many people don't come in and ask for permission to split a lot and Bobbie Jones needs to know if they should add that "the exception should only apply to parcels of 3 acres unless..the parcel has been previously split without approval of the Planning Administrator as required by this chapter". She questioned if she could still approve a split after the fact even though the lot failed to meet the new minimum•requirements. She said the City regulations require approval for any split outside or inside the City. John Maguire said he doesn't feel it is right to penalize someone who doesn't realize the lot split regulations. Discussion followed on lot splits both inside and outside the City. Chairman .Power agreed with Jim Lindsey that if Bobbie Jones didn't want to approve the lot split she could send it back to the Planning Commission for their approval. Donald Nickell and Ernest Jacks amended their motion to include a provision whereby a tandem lot could be approved., The motion to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision regulations passed 6-2 with Power, Jacks, Maguire, Nickell, Newhouse and Davis voting "Aye" and Kisor and Ray voting "Nay". Bill Kisor left at 6:45 P. M. The fourth item for discussion was the decision OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS on the extent of off-site improvements to be borne Millers Addition • by the developers of subdivisions abutting an existing City s Colt__Square street which does not meet the present City street standards. (a) Millers Addition abutting Willoughby Road (State Highway 156) and (b) Colt Square abutting Township Road (State Highway 180). Larry Wood met with the Arkansas Highway Department on June 15, 1977. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -8- In answer to Chairman Power's question Bobbie Jones said the agenda item is only referring to these two particular subdivisions at this time and not to all subdivisions abutting a state highway. Jim McCord said Larry Wood and City Manager Don Grimes had consulted with representatives of the State Highway Department and the Highway Department is in agreement with what the City is proposing. He said Mr. Grimes is proposing that the City require cash for one-half the cost of bringing the road up to minimum City standards. He said this half may or may not be the proper figure. He said the developer would be required to pay "that portion of the cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development". He said the basic legal issue is does the City of Fayetteville have the authority to require the developer to contribute to the cost of improving a designated State Highway. Jim McCord said that under the Home Rule Act the City is granted broad powers in addition to the previous grants of authority made by specific statutes. He said the Home Rule Act says the City may legislate on matters pertaining to City affairs. He said the construction and maintenance of State highways is a state affair. He said the act does provide that the City may legislate on state affairs so long as this is not in conflict with state laws. He said he has reviewed in part the State Highway statutes and has not yet found a conflict but he would like more time to do some legal research. Hugh Kincaid, representing Arthur Miller, said he is concerned about the degree of improvements. He said Mr. Miller has 16 lots and it is about 11 mile of street, which would be expensive to improve. He said he has doubts as to the legality of requiring him to improve a state road. He stated that Mr. Miller and two neighbors originally paid for having the road built and then turned it over to the City and County and then later the State took it over. He said the cost already for Mr. Miller is substantial. He said he would like to have further research on the questions raised by Jim McCord. Chairman Power said this would be the first item on the agenda for June 27. Chairman Power suggested the developer or the representatives and City Attorney sit down with City Manager Don Grimes and form some sort of compromise. City Attorney McCord said he had pointed out to Mr. Grimes that sometimes half is more or less than what is fair. He said Mr. Grimes pointed out that all the lots have access directly onto Willoughby Road. Jim Lindsey stated that he doesn't think it is fair for a developer COLT SQUARE to pay to build a state,highway. John Power asked that Mr. Lindsey get Mr. Bassett's thoughts on this and be able to represent him at the Planning Commission Meeting on June 27. Jim Lindsey questioned if Johnie Bassett could process three lot splits on this. City Attorney McCord said that if the lot splits will be more than 1 acre, Mr. Bassett would still be required to process a large scale development plan and off-site improvements are required for large scale developments also. Mr. McCord said the basic issue is does the City have the authority to require off-site improvements on State Highways. Gary Carnahan pointed out that if the developer did pay for paving the highway, since it is a state highway, the City wouldn't have to maintain it. City Attorney McCord said Larry Wood had talked with the State Highway Department and they have no plans to do anything to either of these roads for six years. Chairman Power instructed Bobbie Jones to put this as the first item on the agenda for the June 27 meeting in order to give the city attorney time to do additional research. Next was the discussion of the zoning ordinance restrictions of fences, FENCES screening, and parking setbacks. The study was done by Ernest Jacks and Larry Wood. This item was tabled at the May 23 and June 13 meetings. Ernest Jacks explained the details of the suggested revisions to Article 7 and Article 8 regarding fences. Keith Newhouse made a motion to instruct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance and schedule a public hearing on amending Articles 7 and 8. John Maguire seconded the motion. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1977 -9- Ernest Jacks said the restrictions would run with the land and City Attorney McCord agreed. The vote was unanimous to have the City Attorney draft an ordinance and schedule a public hearing. John Maguire made a motion to ask Larry Wood to study the lot sizes in R-1 and R-2 zones and bring the findings back to the Planning Commission. STUDY OF LOT SIZES IN R-1 $ R-2 Commissioner Rita Davis had requested a DUPLEX CONDITIONAL USE discussion of the existing provisions of the IN R-1 ZONE zoning ordinance allowing duplexes in the R-1, Low Density Residential District on appeal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission tabled this item until the June 27 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P. M.