Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 24, 1983, in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, East Avenue and Center Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Melanie Stockdell, Windell Cullers, David Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr., Julie Nash John Walker, Roy Clinton, F. H. Martin, Don Carlon Bassett, Betty Lighton, Thelma Manske, Rick Stoner, Rex Smith, Ron Troutman, Danny Proffitt, David Greer, A. D. McAllister, Mrs. Behl, Jan Parker, Gordon Houston, Lloyd Boling, Gene Billingslea, Lamar Pettus, Harry Gray, John Quinn, Larry Wood, Robert White, Russell Jack, Millard Goff, George Faucette, Jr., Bryce Davis, Jim Cramer, Wayne Bailey, Bobbie Jones, Jim McCord, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press, and others The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman, Melanie Stockdell, at 5:00 P.M., with six commissioners present. With no corrections or additions, the Minutes of the October 10 meeting were approved as mailed. The second item a variance from applicable to a less than three Walker for 2.14 Road, zoned R-1, had been tabled Administrator. of business was a request for the lot size requirement lot split, for property of acres, submitted by John acres at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Low Density Residential District. Stockdell stated this request at the October 10 meeting for clarification from the Planning Mr. Walker was present. MINUTES VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR A LOT SPLIT 1657 SUNRISE MOUNTAIN ROAD JOHN M. WALKER Morton Gitelman made a motion to remove this item from the table. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers and passed, 6-0, with Nash, Hailey and Williams absent. Stockdell referred to a letter written on October 19, 1983, by City Attorney Jim McCord and distributed to the Planning Commissioners. .McCord was present and synopsised his letter, stating the property in question was originally part of a larger tract under one ownership and was sold, and the deed recorded, without securing lot split approval or a variance from the lot size requirements prior to the sale. McCord said there is evidence the owner had conveyed other parcels without complying with subdivision regulations, that the City Manager intends to recommend to the Board of Directors the City Attorney file action to enjoin future conveyances without compliance with subdivision regulations, that the Board has taken similar actions in the past. McCord said in this case there is no evidence this purchaser ever intended to circumvent subdivision regulations, that in a similar case, the Court held that the failure of a grantor to comply with statutes 132 • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Two and ordinances did not form the basis under which a municipality can refuse to issue a building permit to a bona fide grantee. (Commissioner Williams arrived at this point.) McCord said it is his opinion the City could not legally refuse to issue a permit to this applicant, unless there was evidence that he personally attempted :to circumvent the regulations. McCord said approval of this request by the Planning Commission, in his opinion, would not serve as any prece- dent which would be damaging to any litigation. McCord said if the Planning Commission refuses to approve the waiver, if the decision is appealed to the Board of Directors and they refuse approval, the applicant will still be entitled to a building permit. Ernest Jacks stated his belief in these cases is that the purpose of the lot split ordinance is to keep from subdividing without providing proper improvements but, in this case, the seller was intent on circumventing the ordinance. Barbara Crook said she reads the ordinance to say no lot splits can be granted that would create a lot on an unimproved street, and asked Bobbie Jones for a definition of an improved street. Jones said if the street is serving the public and carrying traffic to other structures, in this case it qualifies as a substandard public street. Melanie Stockdell pointed out that Article V, Section D in Appendix C of the Subdivision regulations states that "...No building permit shall be issued for construction of any building, no person, firm or corporation shall sell or offer for sale any lot, no water, sewer, gas or electric service shall be extended to serve any structure on any lot, nor shall any land be accepted for dedication by the County recorder unless:...(3) A waiver or variance has been granted under the provisions of Article IV, Section A of this ordinance." Stockdell asked McCord if he thought this ordinance needed to be changed in order to come into closer compliance with litigation results. McCord said he thought not, because State statutes provide that deeds should not be recorded without approval by the Planning Commission, that this has been a problem only because it has not been enforced effectively by the Circuit Clerk's Office. Ernest Jacks moved to deny the request for variance, on the basis that proper improvements are not being provided to property which has been subdivided. The motion was seconded by Barbara Crook. Windell Cullers asked McCord, if the Board of Directors concurs with Planning Commission actions, will it simply be overturned by the Circuit Court. McCord agreed it would, stating he thought the City could not prevail because there has been a substantial financial investment by the owner of the lot. Cullers suggested approval by the Planning Commission, and recommending the Board of Directors make a resolution to pursue this matter further. Ernest Jacks said, because of the subdivision ordinance, he didn't see how the Commission can, in good conscience, go on record as approving the subdivision, even though the owner might still be able to obtain a building permit. Hunnicutt stated he didn't think the Planning Commission "had the right ammunition" for turning down the request. Cullers and Hunnicutt both stated they thought there was nothing to be gained by forcing the applicant to go to Circuit Court in order to get his building permit, but Jacks said he did not wish to set')a precedent by granting this variance from the subdivision ordinance. McCord said he did not think this 133 Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Three • C' 0 would set a precedent, that if Jacks' motion carried, the applicant would have to appeal to the Board of Directors and possibly to the Circuit Court. Barbara Crook said she did not wish to treat this request differently from others, even though a series of errors may have been made. Jacks asked, would the Planning Commission be expected to approve subsequent requests, just because it was understood there would be litigation if the request were denied. Jacks thought, since there has not been any effective enforcement in the Circuit Clerk's Office, the only control left is through the Ordinance itself. Roy Clinton, speaking for John Walker, said he felt there has been a burden placed on the applicant, as he thought the Planning Commission has in the past granted variances based on size, lack of sewer or lack of curbed and guttered roads. Jim McCord said there was a previous case where the Board of Directors granted approval for a lot split but took legal action against the seller, where the evidence was that the grantee did not purposely attempt to circumvent the ordinance. Bobbie Jones said in that case the Planning Commission did not recommend approval. After further discussion the motion to deny was voted on and failed, 4-3, with Barbara Crook, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell and Ernest Jacks voting "aye" and Morton Gitelman, Windell Cullers and Don Hunnicutt voting "nay". Melanie Stockdell stated five affirmative votes are needed to grant a variance. Ernest Jacks then made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers and failed, 3-4, with Mort Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt and Windell Cullers voting "aye" and David Williams, Barbara Crook, Ernest Jacks and Melanie Stockdell voting "nay". Melanie Stockdell declared the Planning Commission had taken no action on the request. McCord said, if the owner wishes to appeal this decision to the Board of Directors, notice should be given to the City Manager's Office by noon of 10/26/83. Next on the agenda was public hearing on REZONING PETITION R83-15 Rezoning Petition R83-15, Don Carlon REBECCA AND WASHINGTON Bassett, to rezone property located south DON CARLON BASSETT of Rebecca Street, east of North College Avenue and west of N. Willow Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District. Attorney F H Martin was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Martin said they wish to add to their proposed Bill of Assurance that there would be no entrance or exit onto Rebecca Street. A drawing was displayed which denoted that portion of the property under petition, and that portion of the property where greenery would be maintained. Martin said they have tried to get along with the surrounding property owners, and they know the historical district is in close proximity. He said the parking is much needed for safety purposes. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated he recommended the R-0 District for the • following reasons: 13'4 • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Four 1. The applicant has offered assurances as a part of the application that restricts the use of the property to parking and preserves the natural features surrounding the parking area; 2. With the assurances the rezoning to R-0 District is not considered an intrusion into the residential area or a departure from the General Plan since no structure can be constructed without prior approval of the Planning Commission, and 3. With the flood problem in the area the use of the property for parking seems to be a reasonable short term use. Don Hunnicutt asked if the owners plan to put a better surface on the parking lot. Bassett said they never completed the parking lot because legal problems were not yet resolved, but they do plan to "make it nicer and kind of pack it down" but they don't intend to pave it. Hunnicutt said the City requires parking lots to be durable and dustless and spaces marked out. F. H. Martin said they had thought water problems would be increased by paving the lot, but they intend to meet the requirements. The public hearing was opened and Melanie Stockdell asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Betty Lighton, 603 N. Willow, presented a petition signed by 76 persons, asking the Planning Commission to deny the request. She said, although they appreciate the Bill of Assurance and the parking problem, they feel the rezoning would "nibble away" at the residential area. She said the same assurances were verbally promised the last time the owner petitioned for rezoning and she feels strongly the Planning Commission should do as they have in the past, which is protect the integrity of well-established residential areas. Thelma Manske, 1204 E. Elm Street, President of the Washington -Willow Historic District Commission, presented a letter to the Commission which she read. The letter expressed formal opposition to the application and was signed by four members of the District Commission. She said the rezoning would erode the integrity of the District, and sets a precedent. She said the letters of support with the application were either from commercial interests or absentee landlords, and asked what assurances there were that there would not be future requests for similar rezonings in the area. She said the applicant had shown disrespect in the past for planning in general by creating a parking lot in defiance of the zoning ordinance and then asking for a variance to permit what had already been done. She said the Historic District is one of the City's precious possessions. She asked about the wording "reasonable short term use" and asked Larry Wood what the long term use would be. Wood said the General Plan indicates low density residential as the long term use, but doubts this use can be seriously considered, unless the flood problem in encased. Rex Smith, Board member of the Washington County Historic Society, said he thought the denials of a year ago were made to protect the Historic District and the need to protect it exists no less now; he said he thought the only reason "The Blue and the Grey" could be filmed on Washington Avenue was because past Commissions had the wisdom to preserve the District. He said if the petition is denied and a mistake is made, it can be rectified, but if the 135 • • Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Five petition is approved and this is a mistake, it cannot be rectified. Ron Troutman, 248 E. Prospect, said he thought the establishment which needs the parking has grown too large for the area, that at 2:00 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays, there seem to be hundreds of cars driving through the neighborhood and he would like to see things stopped before the problem becomes worse. Dr. Danny Proffitt said he felt the noise pollution level has already become astronomical from four-wheel drive vehicles and additional parking will increase this problem. A. D.McAllister,.330 E. North, said he is trustee for two houses in the area and pointed out nothing had been said about traffic onto Davidson Avenue. He said he could not find in the Ordinance where a parking lot is permitted in the R-0 District. He said Bobbie Jones told him a past case had set a precedent, where an auto parking garage was construed to be a parking lot.McAllister. said he thinks there is a difference between controlled parking (an auto parking garage) and an uncontrolled parking lot. The public hearing was closed. Barbara Crook moved to deny the request because 1) it is an unwarranted intrusion into the Historic District and 2) a parking lot in any residential area which is used primarily at night would be an unsatisfactory intrusion because of noise and lights. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Melanie Stockdell said she thought this was an unorthodox extension of the buffer zone. Morton Gitelman said he feels this will be appealed to the Board of Directors and his personal opinion is the Bill of Assurance is not valid as it does not run in favor of anyone and no method of enforcement is included in its wording; that he thought the language is improper where it states the document is only valid if the rezoning is adopted. Ernest Jacks wondered how guarantees could be made to save trees, that he thinks it is not possible to park close to trees and save them without making very expensive provisions to do so. David Williams questioned which came first, the parking problem or the business ("Y'all Come Back Saloon"). He said the property owner has not demonstrated any public responsibility for creating the problem. The motion to deny was passed, 7-0, with Nash and Hailey absent. The fourth item on the agenda was REZONING PETITION R83-17 Rezoning Petition R83-17, Gordon DEANE STREET $ PORTER ROAD Houston, to rezone property located south GORDON HOUSTON • of Deane Street and east of Porter Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Gordon Houston was present. 136 • • • Planning Commission Ocotber 24, 1983 Page Six Larry Wood made the following recommendation: He said the property under application has previously been denied a change to R-2 District on four occasions. Following the 1978 rezoning request the Planning Commission approved duplexes as a conditional use for the property. The planning reports for the 1977 and '78 applications recommended denial. The planning report for the 1981 application recommended approval, citing the changes that had taken place in the area since the previous'applications. Among the changes was a special land use study requested by the Planning Commission which recommended multi -family use of the property. This study was not adopted by the Planning Commission. A check of building permits issued for the last 31 years indicates that no permit has been issued for a single-family house or a duplex in the area bounded by Highway 16, Highway 71 Bypass and the Burlington Northern tracks. He recommends the R-2 District for the following reasons: 1. Public facilities and services are available to serve the property; 2. The relationship of the property to the By-pass and the interchange at Mt. Comfort; 3. The mixed nature of residential land use which exists in the area; and 4. The inability to construct and market single-family houses in the lower cost range because of the current economic situation. The public hearing was opened and Melanie Stockdell asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Mrs. Aaron Behl addressed the Commission, stating she owns ten acres to the south. She said she is not in opposition but would like to make sure the petitioners are required to drain their property. She said she has inquired and found no one who is willing to take the responsibility for requiring drainage repairs. Bobbie Jones said restrictions are only for 100 -year flood plain areas, not for the 500 -year flood plain, called Zone B. Houston said he has spent money to have the area engineered and there will not be structures in that particular area, that drainage will be improved. He said the church has actually turned more water in his direction. He said also his property drains to a bridge which has been improved on Porter Road. Jim Cramer, resident ori Valley Drive, stated he usually gets about 12 feet of water in his back yard when it rains and he "does not want anything that adds one more drop of water". Jan Parker, 1650 Porter Road, stated her property adjoins, and this is the fifth time she has attended a Planning Commission meeting to oppose this rezoning. She said when it rains the water "stands" in the area, that this is definitely flood plain. She said four of the eight single-family homes in the area have retired people dwelling there. She said there is no ingress or egress which is not covered with water when it rains. She offered to show photos of the area, but Planning Commissioners had already seen them. (31 Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Seven Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Houston about his access and he said he had two accesses, through Lot 9 and between Lots 12 and 13 there is a 50 foot dedicated easement which has been there for years. The public hearing was closed. David Williams said the "inability to construct and market single-family houses in the lower cost range" in his opinion, is a reason not to rezone rather than a reason:to support rezoning. He said, given the fact that there have been no permits issued for the last 31/2 years and given the fact that the area is close to losing its original land use character, it's marginal for more density than was originally planned. Wood said the original land use was for single family but the public facilities and services apparently are capable of handling more density than was originally planned, he said rezoning would violate the General Plan as it was adopted, but single family construction has come to a halt in that area. Cullers stated, if Bird Haven Terrace were considered part of the area, there has been new construction there. Barbara Crook said Lot 16 would have to come through Subdivision Committee as a Large Scale Development, at which time drainage should be addressed and required as part of approval. Windell Cullers asked for what reasons a rezoning can be denied. Excerpts from the By-laws listing considerations to be made were distributed to the commissioners. Cullers stated he has been opposed to the rezoning for several years. He said the process which allows Mr. Houston to continue to apply for rezoning every year; also requires neighbors to continually attend meetings to express opposition. He said he disagreed with the Planning Report. Cullers moved to deny the request because of lack of proper ingress and egress, that the street pattern is not consistent with good planning, that the drainage is a problem and it is an invasion of an R-1 neighborhood. The motion was seconded by David Williams. Morton Gitelman said he was in favor of this last time but will now vote for denial because, when the Planning Commission reviewed the special study (which recommended increased density) it refused to adopt it. He said he believed in the changes to the Plan but, because they were not adopted, he feels bound to vote against the request. Cullers amended his motion to add that the rezoning petition does not conform to the General Plan. David Williams seconded the amended motion. Crook stated she would vote against the motion because she thinks the drainage problem should be addressed and Subdivision Committee attempts to do this, that she believes in using the General Plan for guidance, and varying from it when the variance makes sense. Hunnicutt said he would vote against because he feels the Large Scale Development approach is best for this particular property which doesn't abut a street. The motion passed, 5-2, with Barbara Crook and Don Hunnicutt voting "nay". 138 Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Eight The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use to operate St. John's Lutheran Church in an A-1, Agricultural District, submitted by Eddie Sutton for of State Highway 45 East. F. CONDITIONAL USE ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH HIGHWAY 265, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 45 EDDIE SUTTON property located west H. Martin was present of State Highway 265 and north to represent Eddie Sutton. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt. Lloyd Boling, resident of the area, addressed the Commission. He said he was not opposing a church, but asked what would be the egress and ingress for the church, in light of the future extension of Township Road. He said he thought the highway was dangerous, with the church land being lower than the highway. He asked what "related functions" the church planned on having. He said he would be opposed to a school as it would change the whole context of a residential neighborhood. David Williams said there is a letter from the church, dated October 18, in which they specifically state they will have a normal place of worship, with no intentions for a school or day care center. Boling said he wanted assurances the church would not come back at a later date with plans for a school. Williams said the church would have to present a large scale development in order to have a school, at which time things like ingress and egress would be considered. Bobbie Jones said the only reason a large scale development can be turned down is if it does not conform to Codes, the owner is not extending water or sewer, or refuses to give dedications for streets and utilities. Ernest Jacks said he thought if a request came in for a school, past Planning Commission minutes would show the church had stated they had no intention of opening a school. F. H. Martin said he had no authority to promise the church would not come before the Commission with a request for a school. Gene Billingslea, a member of the church and President of the congregation, stated the church has been in operation at the corner of Arkansas Avenue and Dickson Street for 35 years, with no school. He said a year ago they polled the congregation and there is no interest in a school. He said the congregation numbers about 200. Martin said the reason the letter was written was to explain the "related purpose" in their application. Murphy Taylor, resident of the area, stated the same objections as those of Mr. Boling. Jacks said he thought the zoning ordinance was structured to allow a Sunday School, but not a parochial school, under "related activities". Bobbie Jones concurred that child care, nursery school or parochial school would not be permitted. Jacks amended his motion to say approval would be with the proviso that the Commission is not approving any private, parochial school. Hunnicutt seconded the amended motion. The motion passed, 6-0, with two commissioners absent and Morton Gitelman having left the meeting. 1301 • • • Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Nine Sixth on the agenda was a request VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE for a variance from the lot size FOR A LOT SPLIT requirement applicable to a lot 460 SKELTON STREET split, for property of less than JOHNNIE WRIGHT three acres, submitted by Johnnie Wright for property at 460 Skelton Street, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Lamar Pettus was present to represent Johnnie Wright. Bobbie Jones said the map in the agenda should actually show only about 1/3 of the lot, not half of the lot. She said the zoning ordinance requires any lot created to have frontage on an improved public street, unless waived by the Planning commission, or it can be a tandem lot with a 25 foot wide access either under the same ownership or by a perpetual easement to a public street. The subdivision ordinance requires a right-of-way dedication of five feet for the purpose of widening Skelton Street in the future aid, if either parcel does not have access to public sewer, or is less than 11 acres, it must be approved by the Board of Directors. Mr. Pettus pointed out the Wrights own the property to the east of the new lot, so that there would be no problem with easements, that they do not plan to sell off the property in the back, but plan to keep all the property together. He said the applicant also understands Cherry Street would have to be developed before any building could take place on the north end of the lot. He said two houses exist on the lot now. Ernest Jacks said this does not appear to be an attempt to create a subdivision without making improvements, and he moved to approve the request, including granting a waiver of the street frontage requirement. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers, and passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. Seventh item was a request submitted by J. B. Hays to amend the preliminary plat of Cambridge Place, in order to make the following changes for Phase II of the project: narrow Cambridge Road without a median, re -name the streets, re -name the subdivision, re -size lots and add more lots for Phase II. Stockdell said this subdivision was originally called "Village East", Phases I through IV and a final plat was filed on Phase I only as Cambridge Place, Phase I. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Harry Gray was present to represent J. B. Hays. Gray said they did not plan for any more than two additional lots for Phase II. He said Phase I was built with a median, and they would like to taper the median down to a standard 50 foot right-of-way with standard 31 feet of pavement. AMENDMENT TO PRELIMINARY PLAT CAMBRIDGE PLACE (FORMERLY VILLAGE EAST) J. B. HAYS Melanie Stockdell asked if there was an agreement to build sidewalks on both sides of Cambridge in exchange for not building sidewalks on the cul de sacs. Bobbie Jones said the Board of Directors did grant this waiver, and also prohibited parking on Cambridge. She said it is possible the Board may also have to approve a change on the median. • • Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Ten Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission allowed two 18 -foot wide driving lanes with a median in lieu of one 31 -foot wide street (if there would be no parking on the streets and no driveways), that Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission recommended no parking, and there was a waiver granted on streetlight spacing. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Don Hunnicutt. Cullers asked Gray if they still intend to build sidewalks on both sides of Cambridge. Gray said that was their intent but, since they will now be narrowing the street, Bobbie Jones may require them to go before the Board of Directors on sidewalks, though Gray said they still feel the sidewalks will be of more benefit on a main thoroughfare than on cul de sac streets. Barbara Crook said there was some past concern on names of streets; should this be a condition of approval. Bobbie Jones said the only reason there was concern was that streets originally came in designated "A, B, C, etc." and Subdivision Committee asked that names be used The motion passed, 6-0, with three commissioners absent. Eighth on the agenda PUBLIC HEARING was public hearing on SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE STUDY the Sewerage and Drainage HIGHWAY 16 WEST study along Highway 16 West prepared by McClelland Engineers. Melanie Stockdell said a recommendation to the Board of Directors will be made by the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting. John Quinn and Robert White were present to represent McClelland Engineers. The public hearing was opened. Wayne Bailey, Route 2, Box 403A, resident of the area, said he wished more infor- mation were available on a timetable for when some of the improvements will be made. He said he would like to see all the recommendations for'improvements to be made, but thinks it would be costly if the residents have to form an improvement district. Quinn said their report recommends certain immediate improvements (in three definable areas) for storm drainage, which should significantly reduce drainage problems but not necessarily completely alleviate them and which they felt would fall upon the City to fund_ He said they recommend waiting until financial help is available for some other improvements. James Cramer, speaking for property owner Johnnie Bassett (who wishes to develop 12 acres along Highway 16 West) said Mr. Bassett wants to know whether the City will allow any development or not. Ore resident asked if sewer improvements could be covered by part of the 1% sales tax. It was explained this tax was meant for the treatment plant, not for sewer improvements along Highway 16 West. INj Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page Eleven One resident asked for what reason the area was annexed. Don Hunnicutt said possibly because there were so many requests for development. Millard Goff, Route 2, resident in the area, said he thought the engineers did a good job, he said he agrees that, before you develop, you must look at certain things; he thinks the study was a first step and was not supposed to be a cure-all. Melanie Stockdell asked for input on a suggested timetable. One resident stated he was present primarily to hear information. Jim Cramer said, even though he had approval from the State Board of Health for a subdivision on a septic system, he notes the engineer's report does not allow this. He said he didn't think developers should put any further expense into development in that area, if they will not be allowed to develop. George Faucette, Jr., local realtor, stated he would be in favor of all recommended immediate improvements, but thinks the engineers have assumed knowledge of the City's financial position, when those decisions must be made by the Board of Directors. He said he thinks it is wrong to allow annexation of the area and then, because of funding problems, restrict any development. Faucette suggested the City form a property owner -Planning Commission task force for ideas for funding. David Williams brought up the recommendation that a joint storm water drainage and sanitary sewer improvement district be formed with local residents, with funding participation by the City for major components, in accordance with previously established municipal policies, and asked George Faucette if he agreed with this recommendation; Faucette said he did, with the more City participation, the better. Crook said it appeared to her some options in the report were not spelled out completely, such as sewering one portion of the area with the least expense. She said she did not have enough information to know which area should be chosen to be sewered, and she asked the public for input on this question. Bryce 16 in Creek least it is trunk Davis said a sewer line is already existing 3/4 of a mile north of Highway the Hamestring Creek area, that there is a completely different set-up (Owl drainage) on the south side of the highway, which he thinks would be the expensive area to sewer. Davis said government help should be sought, if available. Davis said, to develop his property, he would have to build a line which would cost him $40,000.00. Millard Goff said, at the time the Bypass was built, and Maple Terrace Apartments were built, the sewer crossing under the Bypass was deep enough to sewer most of the area; a permit was issued to bring it above ground for the apartments, and "that killed it right there". He said the sewer is plenty deep under the Bypass, for most of the Betty Jo Drive area. Bryce Davis said, after it crossed the highway, the outlet was lifted about ten feet. Goff said, if the sewer had been kept deeper, it would be possible to sewer the Bassett property. Mr. White said that section of line would serve the Ozarks Electric area and the area across the highway from there, but this was not the area the engineers studied. Goff said Planning Commission October 24, 1983 Page 12 his opinion is, if it was done at minimum grade, it is possible the Bassett property could be looped to that line. Cullers said if capacity is available that is deep enough under the Bypass to drain a bigger area than just Maple Terrace, why wouldn't this alternative be considered. Cullers said he thought this alternative should be further explored. David Williams asked for input on the recommendation that planning be done on the basis of 25% partial development. John Quinn said this recommendation is for 25% of what the engineers project as the maximum density of development, according to the City's land use plan. He said anything more than 25% looked to be an unreasonable number as far as quantity of sewage that would be generated within that limited parcel of land. He thought probably 25% develop- ment would not occur any sooner than 20 years. Larry Wood said Fayetteville's zoning area (not including Highway 16 West) is 22% developed, because of the agricultural land. Williams asked, should we plan for 25%, for less or for more. He thought 10% development would cost less. Barbara Crook said, in terms of the force main, she did not think 10% would cost that much less than 25%. Millard Goff said the bridge on Double Springs Road (which would be the proximity for the sewer main collector) is closer to Farmington than it would be to Hamestring Creek and by careful engineering it might be that it could gravity into Farmington sewer. He said at the point where Owl Creek leaves the City Limits, it is much closer to the Farmington Sewer than it is to the Fayetteville sewer, so instead of building a force main all the way back to town, with one existing at Hamestring Creek, it might make sense to use the Farmington sewer. John Quinn said, when you start pumping into an existing "small" pump station, it then must be upgraded to accept additional flow from the area and that in turn may cause the pump station it pumps to to be upgraded, and so on. In addition, you have existing force mains which are too small, so costs over twenty years could be more than initial capital costs to build a larger force main. Mr. White said the pump station in Farmington would be closer, but they felt the capacity it had was not designed to serve the new area. David Williams said the difference between 10% and 25% development is the difference between $430,000 and $770,000. Quinn did not think this was a fair statement. He said their presentation best suits overall development of the area. He asked if a plan should be made_to keep people in line if they begin development a little at a time, such as mandatory line sizes. Williams suggested there may be interest in limited development. Russell Jack said he thought Faucette had the right idea about making total improvements, instead of piece -meal. He said he owns land in the area, will probably never develop it, but would certainly support a City/property owner marriage.with 25% total development. Williams asked if anyone recommended 50% development. Russell Jack said if Johnnie Bassett developed all the acreage he owned, there would be more than 25% develop- ment, as he owns almost 1/3 of all the land. • Planning Commission Ocotber 24, 1983 Page 13 Mr. Bailey said he was not interested in participating in funding for develop- ment, that he did not intend to develop in the area. The public hearing was closed. Melanie Stockdell introduced the REVIEW OF ZONING NON -CONFORMITIES last item on the agenda, a review RECOMMENDATION FROM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of Zoning Non -Conformities, and she asked someone from the Update Committee to speak to this item. Windell Cullers moved to adjourn. The motion died for lack of a second. Ernest Jacks recommended this item be taken up at another meeting. Bobbie Jones said the recommendations from the Board of Adjustment are the same ones which had been given to the Planning Commission in the past.(about two years ago). David Williams said this will be on the list of things to consider by the Update Committee, whose next meeting will be at 3:30 P.M. on November 14. Bobbie Jones noted, under Other Business, OTHER BUSINESS the letter written by Clayton Powell regarding pathway improvements made by Jim Lindsey for Hyland Park. • David Williams asked that the record show Mr. Lindsey more than kept his agreement to build pathways in Hyland Park, and this is acknowledged with appreciation. The meeting adjourned at about 7:45 P.M. WI/