Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-12 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting'of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 12, 1979, at 5:25 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Beth Crocker, Keith New- house, Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey and Bill Kisor. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Peg Anderson and Windell Cullers. Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Larry Wood, Scott VanLaningham, Rick Briggs, Jim McCord, Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, Bob Crafton, Ron Sherwood, Steve Anderson, Lamar Pettus, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. The Chairman questioned whether there were any corrections, additions or deletions to be made to the minutes of the previous meeting of February 26, 1979. Newton Hailey noted that on page 5 of said minutes, he had voted "nay" upon the Salsbury request, making the recorded vote to approve the waiver as 7-1 instead of unanimous. With that correction, the minutes of said meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES Chairman Jacks noted that next wouldbe a DISCUSSION - general discussion with the City Attorney and POLICY TO INSURE CONSTRUCTION City Manager concerning a policy the Planning OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Commission could use in requiring contracts or some other type of performance bond to insure off-site improvements being con- structed on subdivisions and large scale developments. Chairman Jacks explained that the City has an ordinance which states that subdividers may be required to install off-site 'improvements where the need for such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed subdivision. He stated that these off-site improvements are to be constructed to city stand- ards and that the subdivider is to bear that portion of the costs which bear a "rational nexus" to the needs created by the subdivision --generally these im- provements being such things as sidewalks, street lights, paving, curbing and guttering. He explained that there have been cases where the improvements were needed immediately, cases where the improvements might be needed in the future, and cases where there was a likelihood that the State or County might construct the improvements in the future. Mr. Jacks asked for comments and suggestions with regard to whether other persons present felt, as he did, that the City might require either a contract or performance bond which would call for the improve- ments to be built upon the call of the City. He stated that the City presently uses that arrangement for requiring construction of access roads. Jim McCord, City Attorney, stated that he had discussed the situation with City Manager Don Grimes (Mr. Grimes was unable to be present at the meeting) and learned that Mr. Grimes supports the requiring of off-site improvements Planning Commission Meeting • March 12, 1979 Page 2 • • where the subdivision creates part of the need for such improvements. He stated that Mr. Grimes felt that in order to assure that a subdivider will pay for his fair share of such improvements that the subdivider should be required to deposit cash in a special account which could be set-up for such improvements. In requir- ing the cash instead of a contract, Mr. McCord stated, you do not create a need to go back to the subdivider in four or five years in order to.sue on a contract or a performance bond in order to make sure the subdivider contributes to the costs of the improvements. Mr. McCord stated that he realized that this course of action will necessitate the Planning Commission to make some judgment decisions as to the amount of money it feels will be required to construct the improvements at the estimated future time that it feels the improvements will be needed. Chairman Jacks questioned Mr. McCord as to who should make the determina- tion as to what a subdivider's fair share of the costs of the improvements should be. Mr. McCord stated that he felt it was plain that the Planning Commission is delegated with that responsibility using the rational nexus (logical relationship) between the costs of the improvements to the percentage of the need for the improvements which the subdivision creates. Chairman Jacks also questioned Mr. McCord whether he felt there should be a distinction made between the types of streets (local, collector, arterial, etc.) as to the amount of improvements which should be required. Mr. McCord responded negatively stating "nothing other than whether it can legally be required." A discussion ensued concerning whether any monies deposited in such a spe- cial improvement account should or could be refunded to the subdivider within a certain period of time if the. money is not used to construct the improvements. Mort Gitelman agreed with Mr. McCord and Mr. Grimes' position, however he stated that he felt a provision would be needed to handle the disposition of the money after a certain period of time if it wasn't used to construct the improvements -- it might not need to be refunded, or it might not even be refundable. Mr. Gitelman also commented that the Planning Commission first needed to decide what type of off-site improvements it will require, i.e. storm drainage, curbs and gutters, etc. He stated that a definite policy stating exactly what types of improvements could be required and the circumstances under which the improvements could be required is definitely needed since the nonexistence of such a standard policy is unfair to subdividers. He stated that subdividers should have "something definite" to go by before investing their money in a project. Mr. Gitelman stated that he had heard of a town in California that once required a subdivider to provide a fully -equipped patrol car for the police department as an off-site improvement. Chairman Jacks asked how the Commission could decide whether to require a developer to upgrade an existing city street which might not meet the city standards at the time of development of the subdivision. Jim McCord replied that he felt they should require the upgrading of such a street "if the develop- ment of that subdivision is going to increase the traffic on the street." Jim Lindsey stated that he felt a distinction should be made between federal highways, state highways, county roads and city streets. He stated that a sub- division which is developed abutting a state highway, for example, should not be required to upgrade that highway since people from the entire State of Arkansas use and contribute to the wear and tear of the road. He stated that he felt that developers would begin constructing subdivisions back off a main street or • • • Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 1979 Page 3 road if they felt they were going to be required to improve something other than a substandard city street. Mr. Lindsey suggested that perhaps some criteria other than whether the subdivision abutts a street should be used to decide whether the developer should contribute to such improvements. He suggested that a better criteria might be to decide how much additional traffic will be added to the area by the subdivision and then charge the developer with a pro- portional share of the improvements according to the proportion of additional traffic created by his subdivision to the usual amount of traffic on the street. Further discussion ensued concerning possible ways to create a fair ordi- nance which could be enforced uniformly. It was suggested by Mr. Gitelman that perhaps the ordinance should be tied into the Master Street Plan. Mr. McCord offered to put his and Mr. Grimes' suggestions into writing and also put together some general guidelines for creating such an ordinance and submit these suggestions to Chairman Jacks for his and the Commission's review. Chairman Jacks accepted the offer and stated that upon receipt of Mr. McCord's suggestions that the Planning Commission would again review the possibilities of creating an ordinance to enforce needed off-site improvements created by a subdivision or large scale development. The next item for discussion was the EAST OAKS preliminary plat of East Oaks Subdivision, Preliminary Plat property located West of Crossover Road, W. of Crossover Road South of Brookside East Subdivision and East of Jerry D. Sweetser Subdivision; Northwest Financial Services, Inc., owner and develo- per. Mr. Bob Crafton was present to represent. Keith Newhouse, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, moved to approve the plat subject to the following contingencies which were recommended by the Subdivision Committee: (1) No requirement to be made that the developers must contribute monetarily for construction of the Township Road extension (developers have already dedi- cated the required 30' right-of-way); (2) Gas easements and setbacks being given as requested by Arkansas Western Gas at the Plat Review meeting of march 8, 1979; (3) East Oaks Drive will not be required to be built as a collector street (platted right-of-way may therefore be reduced from 60' to 50'); (4) Street lights as platted will be approved; (5) Sidewalks will be the only improvement required along Crossover Road (street lights are already platted); (6) Off -sets will be interpreted as being from centerline to centerline; (7) Bois de Arc street will not be opened up and connected to this subdi- vision until after Township Road extension is complete. Bill Kisor seconded the motion to approve. Morton Gitelman stated that he would like the City made beneficiary of any protective covenants which are drawn for the subdivision. He stated that the covenants should also contain the provisions that no driveways can be cut onto Township Road or Crossover Road • • • Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 1979 Page 4 Bob Crafton commented that the existing Bois de Arc Lane is not built clear to the property line in Sweetser's Addition, and therefore, even if the street is constructed clear to the East property line of East Oaks that it will not be a "through" street unless opened up by the City Board. Bill Kisor called for the question. A vote was taken on the motion to approve the subdivision, subject to the above contingencies, and said motion passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the RON SHERWOOD request for approval of off-site parking sub- Off -Site Parking Request mitted by Ron Sherwood for an office building 107 E. Spring located at 107 E. Spring; property (office building) zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. Mr. Sherwood was present to represent. Chairman Jacks explained that Mr. Sherwood proposed to add onto his present office building and would therefore need additional parking spaces which are not available on the office building lot. Mr. Sherwood therefore proposed to construct a parking lot across the street from the office building. Considerable discussion ensued concerning how the two lots are zoned. It was ultimately agreed that the office building zoning is C-3 and the proposed parking lot zoning is C-2. Mrs. Jones pointed out that the site map showing the location of the proposed parking lot was in error and that said lot actually lay approximately 70 feet closer to College Avenue than shown. Steve Anderson, residing at 415 E. Spring Street, was present in opposition to the request. Mr. Anderson contended that the proposed parking lot was located very near the proposed Big Springs Historical District and that he felt a parking lot would be an eyesore and really wouldn't improve the neighborhood in any manner. Mr. Anderson stated that he had only been informed of the proposed re- quest that afternoon, although Mr. Sherwood had stated earlier that all adjoining property owners had been informed of the proposal.. Mr. Anderson contended that more of the neighbors would have been present in opposition to the parking lot if they had understood Mr. Sherwood's intentions.. Mr. Anderson stated that he would "plead that you deny the request and look to rezoning of the property in- stead." Further discussion ensued. Mr. Newhouse moved to approve the request and Mr. Kisor seconded the motion. The recorded vote was - Ayes: Crocker, Newhouse, Hailey and Kisor. Nays: Gitelman, Davis and Jacks. The Chairman announced that the motion to approve had failed for a lack of five affirmative votes. Mrs. Jones stated that Mr. Sherwood could appeal the decision to a Court of law The last item for consideration was the request for approval of a Conditional Use and a request for off-site parking approval, both submitted by the World Plan Executive Council for the Transcendental Meditation Center at TRANSCENDENTAL MED. CENTER Conditional Use Request Off -Site Parking Request 321 W. Center Street Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 1979 Page 5 321 W. Center Street; property zoned R-0, Residential -Office District. Mr. Lamar Pettus,attorney, was present to represent. Mr. Pettus stated that he represented the World Plan Executive Council, the sponsoring organization for the center. Mr. Pettus stated that the WPEC has executed an offer and acceptance to purchase the property, conditioned upon ob- taining approval for the Conditional Use and off-site parking. Mr. Pettus also stated that he had been informed that there would never be more than 10-15 people at the proposed center at one time and that during the day hours there would probably be no more than a receptionist at the center. He stated that the off-site parking requested would be located on the parking lot of Bogey's Restau- rant and that the restaurant parking would be available after 8:00 p.m. each evening (the time the TM center is scheduled to open for meetings). Mrs. Jones noted that if the Conditional Use and/or off-site parking re- quests were approved that if the use was ever changed for the property that a new application for a Conditional Use and/or off-site parking would have to be made. She emphasized that such approval would be for only the particular use requested. Mrs. Davis commented that the people who would be going to the center would "probably walk alot" and did not feel that there would be a parking problem. After a short discussion, Mort Gitelman moved to approve the request for the Conditional Use only, without setting a time limit for renewal of the use. Rita Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. After another short discussion, Keith Newhouse moved to approve the off-site parking for a one year period. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Newton Hailey remarked that he did not feel approval should be given of off-site parking for a commercial establishment. After the vote was taken, the motion to approve the off-site parking for a one year period passed 6-1 with Newton Hailey casting the "nay" vote. OTHER BUSINES: Chairman Jacks informed the Commission that the Committee which is involved in studying the Planned Unit Development regulations has sent a proposal con- cerning "green space" to the City Parks Board. There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 6:45 o'clock P.M.