Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-30 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 30, 1982 at 5:05 P.M. in the City Manager's Office, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERSPRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell, Morton Gitelman Julie Nash, Windell Cullers, Newton Hailey, Jr. Jim Vizzier, Jim Hill, David McWethy, Sandra Carlisle, Jim McCord, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy and a member of the press The only item on the agenda for this meeting was to review access requirements and requirements for off-site improvements to Finger Road on Washington Mountain Estates, in light of a pending purchase of park land by the City of Fayetteville which would adjoin this subdivision. Chairman Ernest Jacks said that, beginning with a Plat Review meeting in 1980, the need for three access points into the Subdivision was identified and required, these being Finger. Road, Farmers Avenue and Root Avenue, now a Bypass service road. He said that the question of access had gone through several meetings of Plat Review Committee, Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission, and it was finally determined that the developer would have to bring Finger Road up to City standards, unless he was able to assess the property and form an improvement district to help bear the cost of improvements to Finger Road. Jim McCord, City Attorney, stated that future contributions cannot be required of other property owners besides the developer in the case of a road -which is built to City standards. He said, in his opinion, this kind of assessment would not stand up in court. He said he would suggest the better approach would be to require the first developer to pave Finger Road only, without curbs and gutters and that perhaps the subsequent developers might be asked to install the additional improvements, such as curb and gutter. Ernest Jacks asked David McWethy, Assistant City Manager, if the Finger Road access question was connected to the potential parks land situation. David McWethy said the City is interested in acquiring land, under the Community Development Program, for a parks site. One portion of the land they are looking at is owned by Walter Grimes (not related to City Manager Grimes) and another portion is owned by the Washington Mountain Properties. He said each had been appraised and in each case the amount is something less than what the owners think the land is worth. He said the City could pay much more than the appraised value with condemnation. He said the City was exploring some inducements that could be offered to these property owners to avoid litigation and they talked in terms of how a City constructed ACCESS ROADS. AND OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN ESTATES PUD JAMES VIZZIER 126 • • 1 Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1982 Page Two road into the park might be located so that each property owner might have convenient access. He said the City already had planned, if the park were acquired, to have a road from East Farmers Avenue into the parks land. But the property owners response was that this depends on whether they are required to get access. In regard to Finger Road, McWethy said they talked to the property owners about them paying for material and the City Street Department doing the work, but the property owners didn't know how good an offer that was until they knew whether or not they would have to improve Finger Road. McWethy stated that in his mind, the Planning Commission's earlier actions of requiring access and requiring paving of Finger Road were clear, but he is not sure the Subdivision owners perceived it that way. Jim Vizzier stated his interpretation of earlier minutes of meetings was that he was asked to obtain appraisals on two commercial properties, which he did, and that the Planning Commission had asked for at least three access points, but had approved Phase I with only one access required. He said, if the City is willing to put in access from the north for the park it would meet the requirement for access from East Farmers Avenue. He said they already have access from a 20' road which has never been dedicated. Ernest Jacks read from the February 23, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes where it was moved the developer get the road assessed but bear the cost of paving the road. Jim Vizzier asked if they were required to pave all the way to the highway. Ernest Jacks stated yes, they were, and that it was left that the developer was to pave the road unless they could work out an improvement district. He asked if Farmers Avenue was not needed to get to the entire property. Jim Vizzier stated that to go from east to west is a terrible grade and he is not sure they can meet the grade standards. Ernest Jacks said he was not willing to reconsider the prior decisions made by the Planning Commission. Jim Hill said, in their minds, they need to have the requirements on Finger Road clarified and, now that the structure of the property has changed, they need to know what the requirements will be on access points. Jim McCord stated it would be inappropriate for him to construe the earlier Minutes, and that he had not been present at the meeting in question. He said that he thought there might be some ambiguity, however, in the use of the word "paving" as a requirement, since this could mean paving only or could be construed to mean paving along with curb and gutter. Jim Vizzier stated it was Clayton Powell who asked for access from East Farmers Avenue. and it is the developers' feeling that the potential park eliminates the need for that requirement. Bobbie Jones stated it was Clayton Powell's concern that in a develop- ment of that size there needs to be more than one way out. Jim Vizzier said the City does not like the idea of giving the developer a right-of-way across the park which would be an easier grade David McWethy said the reason for this is that that lower area of the park will be divided into traditional park activity areas, including a pedestrian hiking trail and they do not wish to have vehicular traffic crossing the area of the hiking trails 127 • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1982 Page Three Ernest Jacks asked if there had been any communication with the Parks Board on this question of access. Jim Vizzier said there had not been any communication with the Parks Board, but that he had talked with other property owners about access. David McWethy said the Planning Commission is not asked to make planning decisions based on economics, but is being asked to decide on the merits for planning considerations only. Jim Hill stated another factor involved is there is a FAA tower on the mountain and the Federal Government has said they will wipe out 60 some acres, which has removed 40% of the density. Jim Vizzier said when the Federal Government condemns land for lease purposes, as in this case, they condemned the 60 acres on the basis of a 1,000 foot circle in which there can be no building. He said if they can get them to back up to a 500' circle, it would only condemn 20 acres. David McWethy said the Planning Commission needs to tell the developer with some certainty what they will require of them in regard to access. Barbara Crook asked is the existence of the park a given in the Planning Commission's decision-making. David McWethy said yes. Bobbie Jones asked if the developer could use the acreage taken by the FAA as open space. Jim Vizzier said that they could, and that the FAA is also buying the air rights for above nine. feet. It was determined that these issues were before the Planning Commission: 1) Will three access points be required? 2) If so, where? 3) How much paving will be required on Finger Road? 4) Are paving and curb and gutter separate issues? Morton Gitelman said, if the City does acquire the Park, he is not concerned about access from Farmers Avenue. He would still adhere to the requirement to pave Finger Road and maybe waive the curb and gutter, in light of the fewer number of lots. Ernest Jacks asked Jim Vizzier if he was proposing less of a requirement for Finger Road and to use Root Avenue as one of the access points. Jim Vizzier agreed that this was his proposal. Jim Vizzier said there have been instances where the Planning Commission has required an off-site improvement which the developer is not able to provide, and he is afraid this may be an instance such as that. Jim McCord said an agreement might be made where the City can condemn the right of way back to the service road and the developer pay a majority of the costs. Ernest Jacks said he thinks the Planning Commission had agreed it was a shame to impose the requirement to improve the road but that, because of the timing and because they were creating the need before the others were ready to develop, it had to be that way. He said if we do come to some agreement, we should make it contingent on a deal being struck for the parks property. Barbara Crook said she thought there was no question but that we want at least two access points. Ernest Jacks said he still wanted three access points. • • • $(401tIgaii Gf 6Smg G800VgA0 Oca©Mia 61 WEAN CrianirEAR Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1982 Page Four Jim Vizzier, wanted to point out that in the old Minutes, when Clayton Powell was talking about Finger Road, it was not always clear that he was also talking about another road that was running parallel to Finger Road. He said that a neighbor, Harold Johnson, has access to his farm from the Bypass service road and Mr. Vizzier thought perhaps Washington Mountain could get approval to cross Mr. Johnson's property to get access to their Southeast corner. Ernest Jacks said he personally would not be willing to vote for anything less than two access points. Don Hunnicutt said, as far as the terrain goes, later on another access point is not going to lead back toward town but would at least lead off to the west. Jim Vizzier said they had made an agreement with adjoining property owner Ted Williams that he can have access to the "button hook" at the Southwest corner in return for giving the subdivision owners access to a water line. He said Harold Johnson, the other adjoining property owner, knows about this and has not expressed any objections. Barbara Crook asked if the park road and parking lot would be put in because of the needed access. David McWethy said no, the City needs to have a road into the park. Ernest Jacks asked if people who will own the lots in the subdivision will park in the park's parking lot. David McWethy said no; for purposes of the park, the road doesn't need to go into the park very far, but since they don't want to file a condemnation, they are considering the concept of bringing the road a little further in if they can to enhance the negotiations with the other property owners. Mr. Grimes would retain some property to which he needs access. Ernest Jacks asked if one could get to the subdivision from the potential park road. Jim Vizzier said they could not, but David McWethy explained that he thinks it will be easier to eventually get a street from the parks road, and one that would not be as steep. David Williams said he did not understand why some of the Planning Commission members were willing to reduce the number of access points to two and didn't understand the adamance of others to keeping the three, if the size of the development has been reduced by 40%,—thus reducing the flow of traffic. Ernest Jacks stated his reasons for not being willing to settle for two access roads were 1) it wasn't certain that the FAA was going to take a piece of land and 2) if the FAA did take a big portion of the land, the developer would probably re -subdivide and the density would still be enough for three access roads. He stated he thought the number of access roads could be reduced to two now if the development has been reduced by 40%. There was further discussion as to how the 40% reduction could possibly change in the future. There was discussion as to how to word a motion regarding the access question to cover all contingencies. Ernest Jacks was very concerned that the new motion should include some reference to the three access points required at an earlier meeting. Barbara Crook moved that, if the City acquires the potential park land, the Planning Commission would accept one additional access to the PUD from the north MOTION in addition to Finger Road as satisfying two of the previously required three access points. 199 • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1982 Page Five The motion was seconded by Morton Gitelman. Melanie Stockdell asked if the original motion made at the earlier meeting regarding access points still stands Ernest Jacks said yes. The motion passed, 6-0. Ernest Jacks read from page 8 of the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1981: "Beth Crocker moved that the Developer get the road assessed and try to form an improvement district, otherwise, since this developer is creating the need, he will bear the cost of paving the road Also ask McCord to look into the possibility of assessing cost against future developers." Ernest Jacks stated he understood the motion to mean Jim Vizzier could attempt to form an improvement district if he wished, but that the Planning Commission required him to pave the road. Jim;Vizzier::stated he does not understand things to have happened that way. David McWethy said the Planning Commission must regard to the Finger Road question. Don Hunnicutt pointed out they had extended the year for the purpose of giving the developer time to owners. Jim McCord stated the Minutes are ambiguous in that the requirement does not make it clear if the word "paving" means just paving or includes curb and gutter. He suggested the Planning Commission at least clarify that part. Bobbie Jones asked if sidewalks were meant to be included as part of the requirement. After discussion, it was generally agreed that the question of sidewalks was not to enter into the question at all on the off-site portion of Finger Lane. There was further discussion regarding the intent of the motion to pave the road. Don Hunnicutt stated it was never really said, in the Subdivision Committee meeting, whether the road would be paved to City standards. Jim McCord asked Jim Vizzier if he had made any determination about getting signatures from property owners regarding formation of an improve- ment district. Jim Vizzier said he had not; he said most residential owners might be interested but he thinks the commercial owners would not be interested. Morton Gitelman suggested, if Washington Mountain is required to improve Finger Road to Highway 62 with curb and gutter and then two commercial properties in the neighborhood decide to develop, they could be charged for cutting into the curb enough to recover the costs. Jim McCord stated he did not know of any cases where a requirement of that sort has been upheld, and he would be more comfortable with a requirement whereby the first developer do the paving and the second developer continue the further improvements. He said he thinks the developers are asking for this.today. Morton Gitelman brought up David McWethy's suggestion where the City might possibly do the work. state what they want in Plat approval for one involve other property 130 13LA • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1982 Page Six Jim McCord stated, be one built up to City Don Hunnicutt said to one developer. under McWethy's proposal, the road would probably standards. - he did not think it fair to charge the entire costs Jim Vizzier pointed out the road will be for general purposes, and not to benefit only the subdivision. Morton Gitelman moved that, since the subdivision will increase traffic, the developer be required to MOTION pave Finger Road to the standard width of 31' less the width of the curb and gutter, and since curb and gutter are drainage problems, let the developers having abutting property on the other side install the curb and gutter when they develop. Barbara Crook seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.