Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held Monday, March 9, 1981, at 5:00, P.M., in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernest Jacks, Martin Redfern, Beth Crocker, Joe Wilson, Newton Hailey, Don Hunnicutt, Mort Gitelman, David Williams. Windell Cullers. Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Paul Mattke, Harry Gray, 0. E. Lutrell, Neal Albright, Raymond Logue, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the February 23, 1981 MINUTES meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one correction, page 9, paragraph 8, should be corrected to read "The motion passed (7-1), with Martin Redfern voting "Nay". The vote was taken before Mr. Redfern had all of his questions answered. He subsequently indicated his approval of the motion." The next item of business was the approval of the preliminary plat of Camelot Addition, located East of Highway 71 By-pass, South of Highway 16 West, and West of Porter Road; Paul Marinoni and Sons, Owner and Developer. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Paul Marinoni, Jr. and Paul Mattke were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt moved that the preliminary plat of Camelot Addition be approved with the following conditions: PRELIMINARY PLAT CAMELOT ADDITION PAUL MARINONI F, SONS 1. Keep existing roll-over curb and gutter. 2. The Developers suggestion for flaring the existing 30 ft. of pavement to widen it to the required 31 ft. of pavement will be accepted. 3. Recommending denial of the waiver of the base requirement of SB -2, unless approved by Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent. 4. Agree to waive the requirement that curb, gutter and sidewalk be installed in temporary culs-de-sac with the Developer entering into an agreement with the City assuring that if the temporary cul-de-sac is not extended within a five year period, the cul-de-sac will be brought up to City Standards at the. Developer's expense. 5. Recommend denial of the requested waiver of street light requirements. A. Approve requested waiver of street light spacing, as shown on preliminary plat. H1 A Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 Page 2 6. Recommend denial of the requested waiver of the sidewalk requirements. 7. Work easements out with Don Bunn. 8. Cleveland will be constructed when Camelot Avenue is constructed in the fourth phase, and will connect East with Aberdeen Avenue and Lancelot Avenue, to form a loop. The easements shown to the East and West will be maintained as dedicated street rights-of-way. 9. All other Plat Review Committee Comments will apply. Newton Hailey seconded. Gitelman asked for a clarification of Item 4 of the motion to approve. He wondered if the culs-de-sac on the preliminary plat were temporary. Paul Marinoni, Jr. explained that the developers plan to phase this subdivision and that a temporary cul-de-sac will be installed at the end of each phase, which will be torn out when the street is extended for the next phase. The culs-de-sac on the preliminary plat will be the final product, and will be to City Standards. Ernest Jacks asked for a clarification of Item 8 of the motion. Hunnicutt explained that when all four phases of the Subdivision are complete, Cleveland will be constructed as a loop to tie into Camelot, Lancelot and Aberdeen. Both ends of Cleveland will be retained as dedicated street rights-of-way. Gitelman thought something should be in the motion as to who would construct the ends of Cleveland. Paul Mattke stated that Mr. Marinoni owns the property to the South and West of this Subdivision. The question in the Developers' minds is whether Cleveland will ever be constructed East of this Subdivision. Gitelman asked the Planning Consultant how Cleveland fits into the Master Street Plan. Larry Wood stated that it terminates at Sang. Gitelman stated it could not be required to be constructed if it does not appear on the Master Street Plan. He asked about the West side of the Subdivision. Mattke stated that there is 280 ft. undedicated, and that it is open back to Berry. Gitelman felt that the City would be partially protected by retaining the easements at the East and West ends of the Subdivision. Gitelman wondered if the Master Street Plan should be amended. Bobbie Jones stated that at the time this street was reviewed for the Master Street Plan, there had been so much opposition, that the Planning Commission had delayed a decision on the street and had felt it would be handled as development occurred. Beth Crocker stated that the City is not a third party to the covenants. Also, in the covenants, it states that the building contractor will be required to install the sidewalks. She wanted it clarified that the City will hold the Developers responsible for the sidewalks. Don Hunnicutt's motion to approve passed (8-0). Mort Gitelman stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission update the Master Street Plan. Planning Commission Meeting • March 9, 1981 Page 3 • • The next item for consideration PRELIMINARY PLAT was the approval of the preliminary plat 0. E. LUTRELL for 0. E. Lutrell, located inside the INSIDE GROWTH AREA Growth Area, West of Highway 71 By -Pass, South of Highway 16 West, and East of County Road #650, 0. E. Lutrell, Owner and Developer. Harry Gray and 0. E. Lutrell were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman, stated that the Subdivision Committee had recommended this subdivision for approval subject to Plat Review Committee comments. Hunnicutt said that the question had come up of whether or not this Developer should run City Water to this subdivision, or whether it should be served by existing wells. The Subdivision Committee had felt that this question should be addressed by the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks asked what the ordinance says about this type of situation. Bobbie Jones stated that there must be an adequate supply of water to each lot in the Subdivision, and that where City water is not extended, the water supply must be approved by both the County Sanitarian and the City Engineer. Water must be installed where reasonably accessable to a Subdivision. Newton Hailey stated that Don Bunn had asked, at Plat Review, that the Developers work up a cost estimate to run City water to this subdivision. Also, the Subdivision Committee had requested the Developer to check into the feasibility of forming an Improvement District.to get City Water to the area. Hailey felt this was a good time to formulate a pattern for areas in the Growth Area that are being developed. Harry Gray stated that the owner, Mr. Lutrell, had checked with property owners in the area, and that they had all indicated that they have good wells, that they had no objection to someone else running a water line in, but they were not interested in paying for it. Gray said that in order to get water to this subdivision, 580 ft. of off-site work would have to be performed, and that Highway 16 West would have to be bored under in order to get water across to this subdivision. Further, Mr. Lutrell has existing wells on Lots 2, 3, F, 4. To serve the remaining lots with wells would cost approximately $2400.00 and to run water to the subdivision would run approximately $13,000.00. Morton Gitelman felt that as a matter of policy, the Planning Commission should require subdivisions in the Planned Growth Area to provide water, as the Planned Growth Area is based on the future water growth area. Beth Crocker stated she was of the same philosophy as Mort Gitelman. She stated she was aware of the high cost of running water to this subdivision, but her feelings are that if the water is not provided, the tract should not be developed. Also, she stated the proposed cul-de-sac at the South end of the subdivision, serving Lot 5, is not totally on this property. She wondered how the cul-de-sac would be provided. Gray stated that an easement would be obtained for that part of the cul-de-sac not on this property and it would be reflected on the Final Plat. 0. E. Lutrell stated that John McDonnell owns the property to the South and that there is an existing 25 ft. easement directly South of this subdivision for a total of 50 ft. of access. Mort Gitelman asked if the easement is in existence. Lutrell replied that the ingress/egress exists, but the cul-de-sac has not yet been constructed. N3 Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 Page 4 Harry Gray stated that on the question of water; in town, where City water is provided, there are about three lots per acre. In this subdivision, the lots are at least 1-1/2 acres. He said most development would be prohibitive if the off-site improvements exceed the on-site improvements. Mort Gitelman stated that the cost of running the water could be off -set by the fact that the Developers do not have to construct streets to City standards. Redfern asked if the Developers had obtained a satisfactory perc test. Gray stated that the perc test had not yet been performed. Don Hunnicutt stated he would hesitate to require this Developer to provide water which includes boring under the Highways to serve two lots, when the remainder of the lots are currently being served by wells. Newton Hailey stated he felt some guidelines should be formed. Hunnicutt agreed. He said that inside the City, there is a guideline of 300 ft. for the mandatory hook-up of sewer. Beth Crocker said that she was not sure everyone has the right to develop their property. She stated that if development can occur in the manner that has been set forth, fine, but if the Developer thinks that the requirements are too expensive, she did not necessarily agree that person should be allowed to develop his property. Harry Gray did not think that the Planning Commission had the right to tell someone whether or not they can develop their property. He stated it could ruin the small developer. Mort Gitelman stated the City has an obligation to future home buyers to see that they have adequate improvements to their lot or house He said that the only way to insure this is to require subdividers to provide them. Joe Wilson stated he did not see where the City had a firm plan for the extension of facilities for areas to be developed. Gitelman felt it should be the developer's responsibility to provide facilities. Newton Hailey stated that he would feel more strongly about forcing a Developer to extend water, if they were allowed to install fire hydrants.and receive fire protection, but outside the City this does not occur Redfern stated that if this developer is allowed to install wells, and other areas are developed with well water, that ultimately, the purity of the water will require City Water to be extended and an Improvement District would have to be formed. Don Hunnicutt moved the approval of the preliminary plat for 0. E. Lutrell subject to Plat Review Comments and without requiring the Subdivider to provide City Water due to insufficient guidelines. Newton Hailey seconded. Williams figured that about 1/4 of the cost of running the water would be this developer's proportionate share of the expense. He wondered if the Developer could be required to deposit this money in an escrow account until such time as it is feasible for City water to be run to this subdivision. Redfern stated he was going to vote for the wells. Beth Crocker stated that the Planning Commission had required other developers to provide City Water as a condition of approval of their development. Hunnicutt stated that the majority of the lots in the Subdivision are already served by wells. Gitelman stated he felt that water should be provided in this area at this time. Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 Page 5 Wilson stated that the developer should pay his fair share of the expense of running water, but should not be required to bear the whole cost. Lutrell stated he is not a subdivider or developer. He stated that he had performed the maximum number of lots splits and that he had been informed that in order to split his property again, he would have to subdivide. Harry Gray stated that is correct, that it had been his recommendation that Mr. Lutrell divide the property into as many one and one-half acre tracts as possible. Wilson stated that some guide lines need to be set as far as extending water in the growth area. Hailey agreed, but he felt that the question needed to be addressed by the Board of Directors, as they set the policy on hook-ups Redfern moved to table this item so that the Board of Directors could look into the regulations that pertain to this type of development. He stated this should be put on the Agenda for the next meeting. (A motion to table overrides a motion already on the floor.) Harry Gray felt running a 2'.' line would be sufficient for this area, versus the required 6" line.which is required for fire protection. In reality, the 6" line is not needed as fire protection is not provided outside the City Limits, and the cost of the 2" line would be about half that of the 6" line. Wilson seconded Redfern's motion to table. Don Hunnicutt stated that a study needs to be done and guidelines set, but for this particular piece of property he felt that it was not necessary. He stated that these two lots will fill in an already developed area served by wells. Beth Crocker cited Huntington Subdivision which at the time of development was outside the City Limits. She stated that a 4" water line was required, the City went in and oversized the line to 8" and bore some of the cost. She felt that this, in itself, was a precedent, and that the City's policy is to require water to subdivisions outside the City Limits. Martin Redfern withdrew his motion and moved that the approval of the preliminary plat for 0. E. Lutrell be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting following the Board of Directors meeting March 24, 1981. Joe Wilson seconded. The motion passed (6-2) with Mort Gitelman, Beth Crocker, David Williams, Ernest Jacks, Joe Wilson and Martin Redfern voting "Aye" and Don Hunnicutt and Newton Hailey voting "Nay". Gitelman stated the Planning Commission should ask the Board of Directors for guidelines as far as requiring Developers in the Growth Area to extend water lines to subdivisions if a substantial amount of off-site work must be done in the extension. McWethy asked that at least one member of the Planning Commission be present at the March 23, meeting of the Board of Directors. Beth Crocker said she would attend. The next item for consideration FINAL PLAT was the approval of the Final Plat of WEST WIND, PHASE III West Wind, Phase III, a Planned PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Unit Development, located North of Township Road, East of College Avenue, and South of Rolling Hills Drive, Jim Younkin and Johnnie Bassett - Owner and Developer. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Harry Gray was present to represent. i/5 Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 • Page 6 • • The Chairman asked for the Subdivision Committee's report. Don Hunnicutt stated that this is the third and final phase of a Planned Unit Development. The preliminary plat was filed in 1977. He stated that in the course of development, some of the lots had been rearranged, but that the number of lots had not been increased. Hunnicutt stated that the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval based on Plat Review Committee Comments. The Subdivision Committee recommends waiver of the minimum street width within this PUD from 22 ft. to 20 ft. Waiver of the following requirements will be based on an opinion from Jim McCord: 1. Sidewalks 2. Street lights 3. Park requirements. Bobbie Jones stated that she had received an opinion from Jim McCord stating the Final Plat should be approved under current regulations. However, the Planning Commission has the power to grant a variance of requirements within a PUD and that variance is valid unless overruled by the Board of Directors (Art. 8, Section 11, subsection 2.16). All variances granted must be indicated on the Final Plat, or recorded with the plat. The sidewalk and street light requirements could be waived in this manner. McCord felt that the parks requirement should not apply in this case as the preliminary plat had already been filed. Don Hunnicutt moved that the Final Plat of West Wind, Phase III, a Planned Unit Development be approved and that the following waivers shall be granted: 1. Waive the minimum street width from 22 ft. to 20 ft. 2. Waive the street light requirement. 3. Waive the sidewalk requirement. Newton Hailey seconded. Beth Crocker stated she was in agreement as the first two phases contain none of the above improvements. Hailey agreed, he stated it was not fair to change rules in the middle of the development. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was PRELIMINARY PLAT the approval of the preliminary plat CATO SPRINGS ESTATES of Cato Springs Estates located outside INSIDE GROWTH AREA the City Limits, South of County Road #200, and West of State Highway 265; Jim Hatfield - Owner and Developer. Tabled February 23, 1981, to allow the County Planning Board time to review the proposed subdivision. Neal Albright was present to represent. 416, Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 Page 7 Don Hunnicutt stated that General Bruce Kendall of the County Planning Board had no problem with this subdivision as long as easements as requested are dedicated. Hunnicutt moved to approve the preliminary plat for Cato Springs Estates subject to Plat Review Committee comments. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion to approve passed (8-0). The sixth item of business was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-32, The Gardener Company, Inc. to rezone property located South of Highway 16 East, East of Ray Avenue, and North of Lee Street from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Tabled at the January 12, 1981 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the petitioner. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Mr. Wood stated that he would like the Planning Commission to consider a change to C-2 for three reasons: REZONING PETITION NO. R80-32 GARDENER COMPANY, INC. WATSON ADDITION 1. The property is already zoned C-1 District, and the additional uses allowed in C-2 District would not substantially change the character of this area. 2. A building already exists on the property suitable for the use intended. 3. There remains sufficient land East of this location to establish a transition pattern at some future date. Wood said that originally, the request to rezone was submitted so that a veterinary hospital could be located on the tract which is not allowed in the present C-1 zoning. There being no one present in favor of the request, the Chairman entertained comments from the audience in opposition to the rezoning. Raymond Logue, 1967 Huntsville Road addressed the Commission. He stated he is in opposition to the request because of the uses that the property could be put to if it were C-2, he stated a night club or beer joint could be placed on the property, and he did not want either next door to him. He stated that the present C-1 zoning had been implicated without notification of property owners around it. He further stated that the neighbors all around are very much against the proposed rezoning. He felt that C-1 was a sufficient intensity. Logue presented the Chairman with a letter from the Ridgeview Baptist Church which is directly across the street from this tract stating opposition to the proposed rezoning by the Pastor. Ernest Jacks stated that notification could have been in the paper, rather than individually. Newton Hailey asked the Planning Consultant why he was recommending C-2, when the future land use is projected as R-0. Wood replied that the R-0 does not apply since the property is already C-1. Jacks asked when the property was zoned C-1. Bobbie Jones replied it was zoned C-1 prior to 1970. Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981. Page 8 Ernest Jacks stated that there is already C-2 (the shopping center) adjacent to R-1 in this area, and he did not want to make the situation any worse. Newton Hailey stated he was concerned about opening this area up to further C-2 development and moved to deny the request. Morton Gitelman seconded. Don Hunnicutt felt that perhaps a Conditional Use request would be more in line. The motion passed (7-0-1) with Beth Crocker abstaining as Dr. Gardener is a personal friend of hers. Ernest Jacks stated that Carl DISCUSSION OF GROUP Robertson had intended to be present to HOUSING CONCEPT speak but had been unable to attend the meeting. Jacks stated he would entertain a motion to table. Newton Hailey moved that this item be tabled until the next meeting. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Ernest Jacks gave the report. REPORT ON PLANNED UNIT Jacks stated that an amendment to the PUD DEVELOPMENT REVISIONS Ordinance had been drafted and that it is going to the • Board. The revisions will be added to the present ordinance. It states that the Planning Commission shall not approve a PUD unless the following conditions are met: 1. Adequate ingress/egress. 2. Adequate parking, 3. Off-streetgparking and loading papreas, where required, withppeeparticular attention adljoining proppettnless a?ldF.prop�rtless dgenerallys infttteP district. on 4. Adequate refuse and service areas. 5. Adequate utilities are provided. 6. Screening and buffering are adequate. 7. Sufficient yards and open spaces are provided, McCord had informed Mr. Jacks that there was an eighth consideration, that being that impact on the neighborhood should be considered. Also, a restriction was added; when a PUD has a common perimeter with an R-1 District, any other use of land other than single family shall be set back 250 ft. from the perimeter. Duplexes shall be a conditional use within that 250 ft. setback upon appeal to the Planning Commission. Beth Crocker asked how large an area would be needed to effectively develop the property and still meet the setbacks. Newton Hailey stated 7 to 8 acres would provide a piece of land 160 ft. x 160 ft. (provided the property is square) that could be developed other than single family. He stated this amendment would effectively eliminate the small area PUD. tif Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1981 Page 9 Newton Hailey gave the report for the REPORT FROM PLANNED Committee consisting of himself and Mort GROWTH AREA COMMITTEE Gitelman. Hailey stated that the committee had met with representatives from Springdale, Fayetteville, and the County regarding the zoning of areas in the County not presently controlled. They were asked by the subcommittees to come back to the City Board of Directors and ask that a resolution be drafted authorizing the City Attorney to work with the County Prosecuting Attorney to begin formulation of an agreement by which the Inter -Local Cooperative Act could take place. Hailey said that prior to the Board Meeting, his committee had met with the County Planning Board and they will ask the Quorum Court for the same basic resolution that the City Board subsequently passed at its meeting. It was decided that Fayetteville should go ahead and proceed with the Planning of the Ordinances and mapping of areas. A preliminary study of the area had been done by Larry Wood and was presented to the Commission, it showed areas of land use as they are existing and would perhaps be used for a base. The next logical step would be to look at these areas as far as their capabilities. Then a Master Plan could be formulated for rezoning applications. This preliminary plan shows three basic zonings: A - Agricultural, R - Residential, and C - Commercial. Larry Wood stated that the preliminary study identifies the developing areas, properties that have already been subdivided or that have preliminary plats filed on them, or that are concentrations of houses currently existing that might be zoned residential. Existing commercial is identified with three potential commercial areas noted, all other areas are noted as Agricultural. Ernest Jacks asked if the map was current as far as Farmington's and Johnson's Growth Areas. Wood stated it is. Beth Crocker stated that there are some existing platted subdivisions that have been used as agricultural and wondered if they could be kept that way. Newton felt that should be understood. Ernest Jacks asked if anything had been formulated as far as land use or zoning. Larry Wood stated that nothing had been proposed so far. Hailey said that is correct, that would be the next step, the rough draft of the ordinances and the development of a map. He said the City Board had expressed an interest in seeing how the land use would be done. Hailey stated he would like to proceed with the outline and asked to be taken from the Subdivision Committee while he is so entangled in the Planned Growth Area committee. After some discussion, it was decided that David Williams would take Newton Hailey's place on the Subdivision Committee until such time as he is free again. It was agreed that the Subdivision Committee would meet at 1:00, P.M., Friday, March 19. The Planning Commission was in favor of Mort Gitelman and Newton Hailey proceeding with their outline for zoning in the Planned Growth Area. yq Planning Commission Meeting • March 9, 1981 Page 10 • The Chairman asked what had come OTHER BUSINESS from the Board of Directors discussion on Commercial PUDs and Subdivisions. Bobbie Jones stated that the Board would like to have some requirements for Commercial Subdivisions and PUDs. Ernest Jacks stated that a committee should be formed to study this. He said this had come up with a proposal by Neal Albright, whereby people would own space individually and a Property Owner's Association would be formed for maintenance, and parking spaces would be in common. Bobbie Jones stated that when this item is discussed, that the Planning Commission should also address improvements in commercial and industrial developments. A question of the adequacy of streets within the Industrial Park had come up at Plat Review. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40, P.M. 50