Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING An adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 20, 1979, at 5:00 P.M. o'clock in the Board of Directors Room, City Ad- ministration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Elizabeth Crocker, Bill Kisor, Windell Cullers, Keith Newhouse, and Newton Hailey MEMBERS ABSENT: Peg Anderson and Morton Gitelman OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Larry Wood, and Jim McCord This meeting was held to complete the adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission on August 13, 1979, to discuss items 17, 18, and 19 on the agenda. With that understanding, Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. Chairman Jacks opened the discussion OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS on the draft of a proposed ordinance regulating Off-site Improvements in Subdivisions and Large Scale Developments. Mr. Newhouse asked Bobbie Jones if she approved of the last part of this pro- posed ordinance (to amend Art. IV, Sec. A of Appendix C) dealing with lot splits. Mrs. Jones said if she can get it setup for the Circuit Clerk to require a notarized statement to accompany each deed for recording of property having a metes and bounds description or of partial lots to attest to the fact that the property had not been divided since June 29, 1970 the way the Committee was talking about doing it. She said that off-site improvements required on lot splits would mean that the Planning Commission would be seeing more of these lot splits than they have in the past Chairman Jacks asked if off-site improvements are defined in some other area in the Subdivision Ordinance. He also questioned the provision for a waiver of off-site improvements (proposed amendment to Article III, Section A (4) (C) (3) (d)) and also what the cement sidewalk requirements are. Mrs. Jones stated that the sub- division regulations require that a sidewalk will be built on one side of a minor street and on both side of a collector street. She said Clayton Powell, Street Sup- erintendent, has said that sidewalks are required on both sides of a commercial street, but she doesn't know what regulations he got this from. Mr. Newhouse said the only reason he saw for waiving sidewalks and the one most frequently used was because of the topography. Some Commissioners. asked why the ordinance must contain a reason whereby a waiver can be granted. Mr. McCord stated that anytime the Commission is vested with dis- cretion, the ordinance has to set standards for the exercise of that discretion or else it is a denial of due process. He then asked why in some cases the Commission could not handle this in the Delayed Improvement Section rather than granting a waiver. Mr. Kisor told the Commission that they need to start now on requiring the off- site improvements so we won't end up having one lot unpaved with improvements on both sides of it. Mrs. Jones asked if they could refuse to waive it where the density is altered or increased. Chairman Jacks asked if there was a way that they could keep the waiver provision from being arbitary. Mrs. Crocker thought something should be added to do with the density. Mr. Newhouse moved that the proposed Article III, Section A (4)(c)(3)(d)(2) be deleted. Mrs. Crocker seconded it, which passed 7-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 1979 Page 2 Mrs. Jones then read the description of an Off-site Improvement from the present Subdivision Ordinance. She said on lot splits they presently do not require a survey to be made. If pins and monuments are to be set, a survey would have to be made. Mr. McCord said he would not regard pins and monuments as off-site improvements. Mrs. Crocker asked if this proposed ordinance should include a section to require the notarized statement the City will ask the Circuit Clerk to obtain before recording a metes and bounds deed. Mr. McCord did not think it necessary. He said he will prepare another page to be put in all abstracts and notify the people who do title searches. Mrs. Jones stated that under this section she can not approve a lot split in certain areas of the City where the streets are substandard or where sewer is not available. It would require that each of those lot splits come to the Planning Com- mission. After a discussion, City Attorney McCord was asked to amend Section 2 of the proposed ordinance to allow the Planning Administrator, with the help of the City Engineer and Street Superintendent inside the City and with the help of the City Engineer and County Planning Office outside the City, to figure the cost of off- site improvements on lot splits. If the developer disagreed or if he requested a waiver, he could then appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hailey said if somebody splits the lots and sells them without making im- provements, he can sell it under capital gains; but if he splits and sells the lots and makes improvements, it is taxed as common income. He feels that the person who buys the property should have the same amount of time (as long as he has a con- tract) to make a cash contributation just the same as the person has to make improve- ments under a contract. Mr. Larry Wood said subdividers contracts are for on-site improvements. Mr. Cullers said that since inflation would go up the City would make more moneyif the contributation could be delayed. Mr. McCord suggested that it should be adopted the way it is written and if it is later found that the City is losing money we can change it. Mr. Newhouse added that administratively it is simpler the way it is written. Mr. Newhouse moved that the changes discussed be made in the proposal and that it be advertised for public hearing. Mrs. Davis seconded it. Passed 7-0. The next item for discussion was the DRAFT TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT draft of a proposed ordinance to amend the DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Planned Unit Development Regulations. Chairman Jacks asked if the ordinance will require a Property Owners Association be formed. Mr. Wood stated that this is part of the information required to be sub- mitted with the request for preliminary and final approval of the PUD (Subsection 3.11 and 3.12). He suggested it might also be listed as Item 11 under information to be submitted with a concept plan (Subsection 3.10). He added if there are no POA, the covenants are to give the City the right, but not the obligation, to maintain the open space and charge it back against the property owners or the developer if he retained ownership. He also stated that no developer would let himself get into this position. Mr. McCord told the Commission that the covenants will be in the abstract. Chairman Jacks said that this was really different from what is in the Sign Ord- inance. Mr. Hailey said that Subsection 4.21 dealing with fire protection didn't belong in a PUD (zoning) Ordinance. Mr. Jacks added that they may need to revise the Building Code. Mrs. Jones read an ordinance passed in March 1973 setting the maximum height of a building in a PUD in the R-1 District at 2 stories plus basement. Mrs. Jones stated that the R-1 District does not have a height restriction except in a PUD at this time. The Commission did not wish to have a height restriction in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Newhouse moved that they eliminate all but the last sentence in Subsection 4.19 "Height", eliminate all of Subsection 4.21 "Fire Protection", eliminate the first sentence in Subsection 4.22 "Signs", and transfer some of the old ordinance to the new one. Mr. Hailey then stated that the Commission needs to spell out what • Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 1979 Page 3 the PUD is for. He said they could use smaller lots with the minimum space. Mrs. Jones said she would like for someone to tell her how Subsection 2.12 is going to work. Chairman Jacks told her that with a larger percentage of open space the den- sity could be increased. In Subsection 2.13 the next to the last sentence was moved down to become the last sentence,after Bobbie Jones stated that it was clearer to her that way. Mr. Newhouse moved that this be advertised for public hearing. Mr. Kisor seconded it, which passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. The final item for discussion was Committee Reports on Planning Area Land Use and Subdivision Approval Process. Planning Land Use Control COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Hailey said a tour of the West half of the "problem area" had taken place on August 6, then the tour bus had broken down. Mr. Hailey said Bill Bonner, with the County Planning Board, is to prepare a memo on the matter. Subdivision Approval Process Mr. McCord said he wasn't under the impression he had to get it in ordinance form yet. He added that he will get it out soon. • The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 P.M. •