Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-27 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Monday, June 27, 1977, in the Board of Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Commission was held at 5:00 P. M., Directors Room, City Administration MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Ernest Bill Kisor, Peg Anderson. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jacks, Rita Davis, Keith Newhouse, Donald Nickell, Jack Ray, John Maguire. Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, City Attorney Jim McCord, David McWethy, Hugh Kincaid, Jim Lindsey, Johnie Bassett, Gary Carnahan, Scott Van Laningham, John Andre, Lynn Wade, Larry Wood, David Randall, and other unidentified persons. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. Rita Davis arrived late. The first item for discussion was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on June 20. Keith Newhouse made a motion to approve the minutes as mailed. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chairman Power acknowledged a letter dated June 27 from Mr. Shipley requesting to table the approval MINUTES SHIPLEY BAKING COMPANY Off-site Parking of off-site parking for property located west of Locust Street and South of Dickson until July 11. Peg Anderson made a motion to table this request Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Rita Davis arrived. The second item for discussion was the decision OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS on the extent of off-site improvements to be Miller's Addition borne by the developers of the subdivisions Colt Square abutting an existing City 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). City Manager Don Grimes has conferred with the Arkansas State Highway Department and Mr. Grimes' comments were mailed with the agenda. This item was tabled on June 20 so that City Attorney Jim McCord could render an opinion. Jim McCord said he had done research and was asked to render an opinion on whether it made any difference if the street was a state highway. He said it is.hiscopinion that the City does still retain jurisdiction of state highways on the ability to require or perform improvements prior to the time, if and when, the State Highway Department would undertake those improvements. Hugh Kincaid was present representing Mr. Miller. Mr. Kincaid mentioned a statute dealing with powers and duties of the State -Highway Commission. Mr. Kincaid said the Home Rule Section 19-403 is a section which excludes certain kinds of activities from municipal affairs. He said these are state affairs, not municipal affairs. He said it mentions traffic and construction on State Highways. He said the municipalities don't have the authority under the Home Rule Act. He said the statute goes on to say that the municipality may exercise any function or legislative power upon the foregoing state affairs one which is traffic and construction on state highways, if not in conflict with the state affairs. He noted a case where Fort Smith vs. the Housing Authority and Fort Smith attempted to operate the Housing Authority under the Home Rule Act. He said the Supreme Court said they didn't have the authority and they would be in conflict to operate there. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1977 -2- Mr. Kincaid said there is not a case dealing with this situation. He said in 76-501 it states that it is the policy of the state to take over, construct, maintain, and control all of the roads which are state highways. He said the State Highway Commission should have the powers and the duties to let all contracts for construction,.impiovements, and maintenance of the roads comprising the state highway. He said he believes the roads give them a similar case to that of the Housing Authority. Peg Anderson questioned if there is any difference in the road situation and the Fort Smith situation. She said in this case the State Highway Department hasn't done anything to the road. Chairman Power said he sees a moral issue here as to whether or not the Planning Commission wants to use the guise of the State Highway Department and force the subdivider to pay for the improvements since the.State won't improve the road. Hugh Kincaid also pointed out that they have only 16 lots but there would be . mile of road improvements. He said there is substantial doubt that'the cost bears any kind of reasonable nexus to the benefits derived. Mr. Kincaid said there is also a problem of how much they can justify. He said Mr. Miller has already committed himself to 40 feet of right-of-way. He said Mr. Miller and one neighbor actually built the road originally, then the County took it over, then the City, and eventually the State. City Attorney McCord said, based on the cases he cited, the City probably does have the authority to require improvements even though it is a state highway. He said the critical issue is what percent of the cost bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development. Peg Anderson stated that there is a difference between 16 private homes and a commercial district. Jim Lindsey questioned why, all of a sudden, this has become a real consideration. He said Joe Fred Starr Road is the only precedent of anyone agreeing to improve a road He said it was his understanding that the subdivision (Sequoyah Woods) could not have been stopped if Joe Fred Starr hadn't made the improvements. He stated that a developer would need to know in advance what "rational nexus" is. Mr. Lindsey said he is concerned about the City trying ' to discourage growth outside the City and requiring development standards inside the City which force them to go outside the City because of the cost of the improvements. He said the City might be putting people into improving half a mile of Highway 45. He said then it might be more advantageous to go outside the City. He questioned who would decide what portion "rational nexus" would be. Mr. Lindsey asked if it would be a negotiated issue, a statement from the City manager's office, or decided by the Planning Commission. He said this would make it difficult on the developer. He noted that there have been many large scale developments all over Fayetteville that did not have the same require- ments. He mentioned that people may start using the subdivision waiver as a means of not using the front portion of their property. Jim Lindsey asked if the City would have the money to bring the balance of the street up to standards or would they have a curb without a blacktop street or complete drainage. Jim McCord said rational nexus has been defined as a reasonable relationship. He stated that each case is going to have to be decided on an individual basis. He said the Planning Commission would have to determine how much of the need is being generated by the subdivision. He said the developer needs to know and he can find out in the preliminary plat stage. He said the City would construct as much as possible at that time and would complete the project whenever funds become available Mr. Lindsey said the developer in Colt Square would be building a road for the State Highway Department. He said this would not be rational nexus, and he doesn't see this as fair. He said if the City has requirements, they should be met within the subdivision. He questioned the justification for doing this. Peg Anderson said the justification is that they are trying to avoid having the people of the City of Fayetteville pay for improvements in a certain area which will be to the benefit of a certain developer. Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1977 -3- Mr. Kincaid said the municipality has no responsibility to improve the state highways. He mentioned that if the State Highway Commission sees a developer improving part of • the street, this may give them an excuse for not doing the improvementsin the hope that someone else will do it. Rita Davis said she cannot look at Township as a state road.and doesn't see the State improving it. She said she doesn't see one developer on the corner being required to pay for the improvements and no one else having to help improve it. Bill Kisor said he doesn't feel the people on Township Road will pay to have the street widened. He said the developer shouldn't pay for the improvements on a state highway. John Power said it is difficult to tell a man he has to give half of his property for a street and then he has to pay to have the property developed. Chairman Power questioned if the Planning Commission would just not take any action on this what would happen, and City Attorney McCord said he feels they need to take a vote. He said the developer needs to know if he will be required to pay for the off-site improvements. Peg Anderson said she feels a developer should have to pay to develop a city street or all the citizens will have to pay for it through tax money. She said she feels a state highway is different. Ernest Jacks said he doesn't see that much difference between a city street and a road designated as a state highway which the state doesn't do any improvements on. He questioned if they could require this in one instance but not in another. Chairman Power questioned if they are setting a precedent and Jim McCord said they would not be setting a precedent --each case would have to be decided individually. Keith Newhouse made a motion that Millers Addition not be subject to off-site improve- ments in view of the hisotry of how it became a street and then a State Highway. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed 5-1, with Power, Newhouse, Davis, Kisor, and Anderson voting "Aye" and Jacks voting "Nay". Peg Anderson stated that Colt Square would generate more traffic COLT SQUARE • on Township Road than the 16 lots would generate on Willoughby. After some discussion, Bill Kisor made a motion to not require off-site improvements on Township Road for Colt Square. Rita Davis seconded the motion. Keith Newhouse said he feels Township Road is a problem. Rita Davis said she is not voting against it because it is a state highway but because the whole city uses the road. Keith Newhouse questioned where the road (State Highway 180) would go if the City put it through further east and west. Larry Wood said Township Road is supposed to go to Highway 265 to the East and it is supposed to be a collector road from Old Wire Road to Highway 265 and a minor arterial from Old Wire Road to Gregg or Johnson Road. Larry Wood said it is not on the state system except from Highway 71B to Johnson Road (Gregg). Ernest Jacks said he is not comfortable to require developers to improve city streets and not state highways. He questioned if it whould be collector street vs. minor arterial. • The vote was 4-2 not to require any off-site improvements on Township Road, with Power, Davis, Anderson and Kisor voting "Aye" and Jacks and Newhouse voting "Nay". Next was the approval of the Final Plat of Amrita AMRITA ACRES Acres located West of the intersection of Old Final Plat Wire Road and Highway 45 East; John Andre, Old Wire Road & Highway 45 East developer. Ernest Jacks made a motion to approve the final plat of Amrita Acres contingent upon: 1) the 10 feet additional right-of-way be provided all along the east side of the subdivision; 2) a 4 -foot sidewalk be provided for the entire distance along Old Wire Road; 3) the setbacks dimensioned from the new right-of-way; 4) set an iron pin at the intersection of the two curve radii; 5) the certificate be changed to have the plat signed by the secretary of the Planning Commission and 6) waive the scale to allow a scale of 1 inch equals 50 feet. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed 6-0. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1977 -4- Next was the conditional use request for FIRE STATION a fire station submitted by the City of Conditional Use Request Fayetteville for property located West W of Crossover $ S of Manor Drive of Crossover Road and south of Manor Drive, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ernest Jacks made a motion to approve the conditional use for a fire station. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. Lynn Wade was present representing Mr. $ Mrs. David Randall. Mr Wade said the Randalls own the property to the north of the fire station lot. He said this is part of a residential subdivision (Eastwood Subdivision) and it does have restrictive covenants which this would violate. She said this would be an infringement to a platted subdivision. He suggested that there are some alternative sites to the south which are not within the platted residential subdivision. He said the terrain of the Randalls' lot is such that they would be building right next to the fire station. He said it is not the appearance which would be offensive but the use in conjunction with the fire station. Mr. Randall was also present and he said he had owned the lot for 7 or 8 years. David McWethy, Administrative Assistant, was present representing the City. He presented an amendment to the protective covenants which was signed by a majority of the property owners. He said the fire station would be built in a manner to resemble most of the houses in the subdivision. He said the garage doors would be a little higher and this would be a distinguishing factor, but these would be on the end of the house away from the Randalls lot. He said the Commission would have to decide if a fire station siren is an annoyance or a reassurance that protection is nearby. He said the closest station to that area is the Central Fire Station located on Center Street and that would make it outside the four minute response time. He said the City doesn't have money to build two stations and they chose this site based on the recommendation of the Fire Chief and the City Manager. He said that, except for the Baldwin area, they can more adequately serve Highway 45 and Highway 16 East from this point. Chairman Power questioned why they picked this particular piece of property. David McWethy said they purchased this site from University Baptist Church and they don't own the property to the south. He said in this area there is a curve and a downhill drop off. In response to Mr. Power, David McWethy said he felt the Fire Chief and City Manager had checked the area to the south. Chairman Power said in his opinion, it would make a difference if the man had a home on the property and couldn't affect the placement of a future home. He said if he were forced to build right next to the fire station he would see the issue differently. He noted that it appears from the plat that there is a large lot there. Mr. Wade said this is correct but it would be desirable to build off of Highway 265 because there is a drop off. David Randall said they had purchased this property with the intent of building in that area. He said there is an easement in front of his property for water, sewer, and other utilities and because of this it is necessary to set a house back from the highway a considerable distance. He said if you build a house on that lot you would be looking at the north side of the fire station. He noted that there is only a one - mile distance from this lot to Wyman Road or Highway 45. He said that, as a taxpayer, he felt there could be a better use for the money. Chairman Power said he felt it would be different if Mr. Randall had started a home on the lot. He said he felt the Commission, representing the City, has a position to uphold them. Bill Kisor questioned the travel time from Highway 45 to this proposed location. David McWethy said he felt it would be approximately one minute. He noted that the fire station would not be distinguishable from a house at the north end. Mr. Wade said it is not the appearance which bothers him but the activities and noise which will not be in conjunction with residential uses. Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1977 -5- Peg Anderson said if this is for the benefit and safety of the city she will vote for it. Bill Kisor said he wouldn't want a fire station next door to his home. The motion made by Mr. Jacks and seconded by Mr. Newhouse to approve this conditional use for a fire station passed 5-1, with Davis, Anderson, Jacks, Newhouse, and Power voting "Aye" and Kisor voting "Nay". Next was the proposed educational building SHEEP EDUCATIONAL BUILDING for the Washington County Fairgrounds. WASHINGTON COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS Bob Perry, Washington County extension agent and Russell Walker, Chairman of the Building Committee, were present to represent. He said they propose to build a 140 feet by 32 feet building on the fairgrounds and would like a waiver to come within 22 feet of their property line on one corner. Bobbie Jones said this is before the Planning Commission because the City has an Ordinance which requires the Planning Commission to approve any development plan parallel to the bypass. She said the past policy has been that the County is not bound by the City regulations unless they choose to be bound by them. She also said the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the setback requirements. Ernest Jacks questioned if there is a service road planned in that area and Larry Wood said the service road is proposed to come to the south and east of this. Bob Perry said they have to spend their money by the end of June. He said they can't go further back because this building parallels an existing chain: link fence with an entry road which comes in at the rear of the building. Chairman Power asked if they need to vote that they have looked at and approved this development plan and Bobbie Jones said yes. Ernest Jacks made a motion to approve the development plan for a sheep educational building on the Washington County Fairgrounds. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed 6-0. Next was the study of the Downtown area STUDY OF DOWNTOWN AREA by Larry Wood to see if other properties should be rezoned to C-4 and to review the parking requirements. This item was tabled April 25, May 9,and June 13. Planning Consultant Larry Wood presented his study to the Commission. After some discussion, Ernest Jacks made a motion to hold a public hearing to rezone to C-4 the properties bounded by College, Meadow, Church and Rock. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Next was a discussion on the parking PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN C-4 requirements in C-4. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said the requirements (for the number of spaces) are no problem. He said they are the same as C-2 and C-3, and are consistent with the use. He said the problem is the $500 per parking space. He questioned if this should be a one-time cost and represent the actual cost of the space if you would build a parking space. He said the $500 will not cover the cost of one off-site parking space and the developer would still need to participate in a parking improvement district. Chairman Power spoke to this issue. No decision was reached. Chairman Power asked that the request by the City Board of Directors for the Planning Commission to review an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow multi- family dwellings in the R-0 zoning district on appeal to the Planning Commission only and the discussion of the existing provisions of the zoning ordinance allowing duplexes in the R-1, Low Density Residential District on appeal to the Planning Commission be tabled for a special meeting to be held July 18 at 5:30 P. M. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P. M.