Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-23 Minutes• • A meeting of the 23, 1984 in Room Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 107 of the Continuing Education Center. Barbara Crook, Stanley Green, Newton Hailey, Jr., Fred Hanna, Melanie Stockdell, Sue Madison and Ernest Jacks. Morton Gitelman and David Williams. Larry Wood, Jim and Cindy Turner, George Faucette, Jr., Jim Hill, Mel Milholland, Wade Bishop, Don Dyer, Conlee Bodishbaugh, Mr. Wilson, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler members of the press and others. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey. The first item of business on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the meeting of January MINUTES 9, 1984. Chairman Hailey stated he had one correction, that being the Ernst Conditional Use Petition. Hailey stated that reference was made to the public hearing being opened stating that this was never really a "public hearing". There being no further additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The second item of business on the AMENDMENT agenda was a public hearing on the PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN proposed amendment to the Parks CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and Recreation Plan for the City of Fayetteville. This is necessitated by the State Supreme Court action in the case of IBI, Inc. vs. City of Fayetteville. Hailey made note of the information which was contained in the Agenda packets which had been prepared by City Attorney McCord. Hailey stated that he was under the impression that this was overturned due to its vagueness. Hailey stated that additional information which has been submitted, necessitating that the Commission either have another Public Hearing or continue this hearing. Hailey asked Larry Wood if he was able to add anything to this Plan. Larry Wood stated he was unable to add anything beyond what has already been presented by City Attorney McCord. Wood stated, however, that he would be happy to explain the changes which have been proposed to be cede in the original plan. Hailey questioned if perhaps the Commission would prefer to address this entire packet at one time after the additional ordinance has been advertised. Crook stated that some members were not on the Planning Commission when the original ordinance was passed, and that trying to understand the insertion materials is almost impossible without seeing the rest of the ordinance. Stockdell advised she would also like to see a copy of the original ordinance. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE TWO January 23, 1984 Public hearing was opened. Chairman Hailey asked if there was anyone present to speak with regard to this matter. There being no one present, the public hearing was closed. Ernie Jacks advised that he would like Mr. Wood to give a short explanation of the map changes. Hailey stated that there were a number of Commissioners who did not know what had been changed, and this would be appropriate if the matter was going to be handled at this meeting. Hailey stated he thought that the Commission members would like to see what it was before in order that it could be compared to what has currently been presented. George Faucette, Jr. asked that before the public hearing be closed, would it be possible to hear what the Parks Plan was before and what it is proposed to be. Hailey returned the matter to Larry Wood. Wood explained that in the previous plan, there were interior sectors and exterior sectors which were part of the Park Plan. Planning standards and acreage requirements were calculated for the interior sectors. Those were the sectors that did not touch any of the outer City Limits. There were no park deficits shown for the exterior sectors, and The Plan indicated that this was due to the fact that there were no density standards established yet for those outer sectors which were, to a great extent, outside the City Limits. Stockdell asked what was being referred to with regard to Sectors, (that being portions of the neighborhoods which are indicated on the map). Wood advised this was correct and that there were six neighborhoods and twelve sectors which remained in quadrants as far as the ordinance is concerned. Wood advised that on Page 17, the only Amendment is to relate that Park Deficits have been calculated now for the exterior sectors by referring to sectors 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12. Wood stated that it explains in the text how the deficit was calculated, that being by applying the Park Standard in the report for each type of park in the exterior sector (5 acres/1000 of population). For every neighborhood park that appeared in the exterior sector, then the 5 acres was shown as a need in the future for that area. Wood advised this was all totalled up for the neighborhoods and for the sectors. Jacks stated that the ordinance was based on the park study which was performed by Wood many years ago which divided the City into 12 districts. Because it was impossible to pinpoint a park location, this study was quadranted with these being divided into park districts. Jacks stated that the ordinance 13 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE THREE January 23, 1984 was set up so that money coming in, in lieu of land for any of those districts, was put into an escrow fund which could be spent anywhere in the district. Jacks stated this was too vague. Jacks stated that the new map pinpoints this specifically. Wood stated this was correct, and that on the previous map, not all property in the Planning area had a neighborhood park. Wood stated this was changed on the map, and the map has been included as part of the plan which was not the case in the past. Hailey asked if the members of the Planning Commission felt that the Parks Plan was sufficiently defined as submitted by the City Attorney? Wood stated he did not know, but the City Attorney did feel this was sufficiently defined. Stockdell asked if there was some reason a committee couldn't be formed for the review of this plan, requesting to know if there was some reason for expediency. Jacks advised that perhaps this was correct and the Commission did need a period of time to absorb all this information with a certain amount of explanation from Mr. Wood. Stockdell moved that a committee MOTION be formed consisting of Jacks, Stockdell and Green to meet with Larry Wood, The City Attorney, Bobbie Jones, Newton Hailey and any other interested parties, to review this matter and write a recommendation back to the Planning Commission over whether this should be recommended to the Board. Motion seconded by Stanley Green. Motion passed 7-0. Crook then moved to continue the MOTION Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to the Parks Plan to a time which will be determined by the above formed committee. Crook also added that those who were present to speak with regard to this matter be allowed to speak at this public hearing. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 7-0. There was no one present to speak either for or against the recommendation on the Parks Plan. The third item on the agenda was PRELIMINARY PLAT the Request for Extension of the WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN ESTATES preliminary plat approval for PUD Washington Mountain Estates, a Planned Unit Development, to be located south of Highway 62 West and west of Highway 71 By-pass. Chairman Hailey stated that due to the fact that he has a 10% interest in this development, he wished to defer the item to Vice Chairman Stockdell. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE FOUR January 23, 1984 Stockdell stated that from what she understood, the request is fairly simple and is for a year long extension under all the existing rules which have governed recommendations in the past. Crook advised that there was a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee with regard to this matter, and asked if Vice Chairman Stockdell was ready for this recommendation. Stockdell advised that she was ready for this recommen- dation, however, wished to ask Mr. Hill if he had anything he wished to add beforehand. Hill advised that they were requesting a year's extension because of the fact that they were in court over the FAA tower site. Hill advised they did now have a court date with FAA. Hill advised he did know they would have to replat, but could not do this until after the court's decision. Crook advised that it was the MOTION recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and wished to move in conjunction with same that an extension of the Preliminary Plat of Washington Mountain Estates be granted for one year. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Newton Hailey abstaining from vote. The fourth item on the agenda PRELIMINARY PLAT was the approval of the YORKTOWN SQUARE SUBDIVISION preliminary plat of Yorktown WADE BISHOP Square Subdivision to be located north of Stubblefield Road and east of Summerhill Drive, containing 26.09 acres, more or less. Owners and developers --Wade and Peggy Bishop. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Chairman Hailey stated this was heard January 20, 1984 at the Subdivision Committee Meeting. Hailey requested to know if Mr. Bishop had made contact with all adjacent property owners, advising that without that, The Commission would not be able to take action on this request. Jones advised that some of the certified letter return receipts had been returned, but not all of them. George Faucette, Jr. requested to speak and advised that one was hand delivered to Mr. John Wilson and they had obtained a letter to that effect this afternoon. Mr. David Wilson is present at this hearing. Jones stated that the list indicates there were four (4) that were not returned, but she was not sure which ones they were because three (3) of the ones which were returned do not say who they were mailed to. Jones stated there were seven (7) names on the list that were not accounted for. Hailey asked if the Planning Administrator was satisfied that all interested parties had been notified. Jones reiterated that there were seven (7) names which could not be accounted for. Stockdell stated she did not feel it was appropriate to continue with this matter until all of the return receipts have been received. Stockdell added that the people present at this meeting should be heard, 15 • • PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE FIVE January 23, 1984 however, if they wished to come at the time the hearing was continued, they may do that also. Hailey reiterated that no action could be taken until the next meeting, i.e., to allow time for the return receipts to be received. Mel Milholland requested that the Commission go ahead and hear the matter, approving this matter subject to the return receipts Hailey turned the comments over to the Chair of the Subdivision Committee. Crook stated she would address these matters individually and then act on the Subdivision recommendations as a whole as there were many things which the Subdivision Committee felt should be discussed with the Planning Commission. 1) Crook addressed the Waiver of the Street Light spacing advising it was the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the waiver be granted with the addition of a street light at the east end of Manchester Drive, to be installed at such time as Manchester Drive would be constructed. Crook advised that this has been worked out with David McWethy, Assistant City Manager, and Bishop and Milholland have complied with the City Manager's Office on placement of the street lights with the additional one on Manchester being recommended by The Subdivision Committee. 2) Referring to Request for Waiver of the minimum block length, Crook stated it was the Subdivision Committee's interpretation of the City Code that this was not necessary; that the blocks currently meet the requirements of the City Codes. 3) Referring to the Request for Waiver of the jog distance between Loxley and the proposed entrance along Stubblefield, Crook advised that Bishop was asking for a waiver from 150' to 90', centerline to centerline; the 150' being required by the Subdivision Regulations. Crook stated this is a traffic control matter primarily. Crook advised it was the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that this waiver be denied. Conlee Bodishbaugh requested to speak with regard to this matter and stated he had the property immediately east of the proposed subdivision. He stated he would like to reinforce the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee as there is a very hazardous situation currently existing in this area. Bodishbaugh stated that the traffic situation on Stubble- field is extremely dangerous. Bodishbaugh stated there are many children using Stubblefield to go to school on a daily basis. Crook requested to know if there was anyone else who would like to speak either in favor of or against this waiver. Stockdell stated that she wished to reinforce the Subdivision Committee's recommendation stating she 1L PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE SIX January 23, 1984 and Mr. Hanna had visited the site before the meeting and that the situation would be extremely dangerous, and there is a specific reason for the 150' requirement being implemented. Milholland advised there was only one intersection on which a waiver of the jog requirement was being asked, that being on Loxley. Milholland advised there would be an approximate 50' plus the flares. Between curbs on the two streets is about 48'-50'. Milholland advised that they knew this was less than what was required, but due to the lay of the land, etc., it was his feeling that this was still the most practical location as there has to be an entrance somewhere, stating that Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent informed them that the furthest to the east they could go, the better it would be. Jim Turner, adjacent property owner, advised that the problem is that a funnel is being created with the construction as proposed with a 50' street letting out onto a 15' street (Stubblefield Road), regardless of the jog. Turner advised he wished to reinforce Mr. Bodishbaugh's position in this matter. Crook advised that this developer will be required to widen the north half of Stubblefield Road to meet City Standards, that being for their portion of the improvements. Milholland advised that the north side of Stubblefield Road will be brought up to City Standards with curb and gutter, storm drainage, etc. along the Subdivision with the additional width required for these improvements. Fred Hanna requested to know if there was anyone present who would know the future plans on Stubblefield Road with regard to improvements to this road. Crook advised that in many cases, streets are widened as subdivisions go in; that the City just does not have the money or ability to go in and widen streets. Jones advised there is a street improvement priority list; however, she did not think that Stubblefield was on this priority list. Crook requested to know the classification of Stubblefield with Jones advising this is a minor local street. Stockdell asked what the final width of this minor street would be if it were to be fully developed. Jones advised it would be 31' back -of -curb to back -of -curb. Chairman Hailey asked Mr. Larry Wood if he was aware of any plans to upgrade this minor street. Mr. Wood advised that he was not aware of any plans to this effect, and is shown as a local street. Crook then made a motion that the MOTION requested Waiver of jog distance from 150' feet to 90' be denied with passage being predicated on the receipt of the return receipts. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 6-1 with Fred Hanna voting "nay". 4) Crook advised that a waiver for the minimum lot frontage would now not be necessary as the developer had agreed to adjust some of the lot lines to meet the requirements. Crook stated, however, that 17 4 18 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE SEVEN January 23, 1984 Part B of this request has to do with the request for a tandem lot in Block 3, Lot 16, and it is the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the request for the Conditional Use which is necessary for a tandem lot be denied with one of the reasons being that the Code requirement for permitting a tandem lot has not been met Jones cited Article 7, Section 21 and stated that she had talked to City Attorney McCord who had advised that this tandem lot could be approved in spite of this Ordinance as it is part of a subdivision and not a single lot. Crook reiterated the Ordinance and stated that she felt that before any conditional use for a tandem lot development shall be granted, The Planning Commission must find that the topography made the tandem lot necessary and that; (A) The development will not significantly reduce property values; (B) The terrain of the area in which the tandem lot is proposed is such that subdivision in said area into a standard lot in accordance with the City Subdivision Regulations is not feasible. Crook interpreted that to mean a block without an interior lot. Crook then made a motion that the conditional use as a tandem lot not be for permitting a tandem lot has Melanie Stockdell. MOTION granted because the Code requirement not been met. Motion seconded by Hailey asked input from Ernie Jacks who he thought, would be the only member that would remember the intent of the Ordinance at the time it was passed. Jacks advised that terrain was the reason the ordinance was developed, to take advantage of property on hillside where the contemporary subdivision could not be brought in, but this could be done as a tandem lot; that the Ordinance was not really intended for flat property. Jones advised that she had spoken to City Attorney McCord as per Crook's request, and there were three points which he advised her of. a) The parks requirements, b) The question on the street specifications, c) The tandem lot question. McCord said that in the case of creating a single new lot on a single piece of property, that he felt the topography should be held to, but when working within a subdivision, with one lot like this, he felt that the topography requirement could be ignored. Motion passed 6-1 with Fred Hanna voting "nay". Crook advised that a motion was needed MOTION on the granting of the Waiver of the Street light requirement, and so moved that the Waiver of the Street Light Spacing be granted as shown with the addition of a street light at the end of Manchester. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 7-0. Crook stated that it was in the agenda material, since Mr. Bishop had submitted a letter with regard to the Street Construction Standards; advising that the City Street Superintendent having requested r • • • 1. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE EIGHT January 23, 1983 the streets be put into the standards which will be in effect at some point in the future. Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee did not wish to address this matter because they felt that the streets should meet the standards which are in effect at the time the Subdivision is approved. Stockdell added that they felt it was impossible for the developer to anticipate laws which might be passed in the future, and to even address that as a concern would possibly be setting a precedent. Jones advised that she had spoken to McCord about this and McCord advised that the developer should have to meet the current standards as there is no definite change proposed. However, with regard to the Parks Ordinance, there was something definite which was currently being amended, and McCord felt the developer would be subject to the Parks Ordinance, but not to the changes which would come in effect at a later time on the streets. Milholland asked if the Parks Ordinance was in effect. Jacks advised that the Supreme Court only spoke for IBI, Inc.; that the ordinance had not been stricken. Milholland asked if the ordinance had been applied since the lower Court's ruling. Hailey asked if it was Attorney McCord's direction that the ordinance not be applied. Jones said McCord did direct that this not be applied, but he has stated that it should be applied now since we do have an ordinance and a definite proposed amendment. Barbara Crook then made a motion MOTION to approve the Yorktown Square Subdivision Plat with the changes which have already been discussed, subject to Plat Review Comments; 1) Specifically, that the drainage structures in the drainage easement which is shown near the northwest corner, be worked out to the satisfaction of the Street Superintendent; 2) That the Phase I boundary be shown as following the southwest lot line of Lot 2, Block 4 to its intersection with Manchester Drive, thence east along the north side of Manchester Drive which would mean that all of Manchester Drive would be included and dedicated in Phase I, but not to be constructed until Phase II of the planned construction; 3) That the lot frontages be adjusted to meet Code Requirements. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. An area property owner requested knowledge if there would be a minimum square footage of house which could be built in this subdivision. Jones advised that per the covenants, the homes would have to be at least 1000 square feet of heated area, not including carports, garages or storage space. Stockdell asked if there was a stipulation for this in the City Ordinances, with Jones advising that the City Ordinance requirement was very low. Crook then advised that on any lot, buildings 19 J • • • PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE NINE January 23, 1984 shall not exceed 40% of the total area of the lot in an R-1 District. Turner advised that he was not made aware of this subdivision, stating that the only way he received any information was from a neighbor. He stated what he had received really did not have any details, just a type of plat which was attached and had been reduced down to 8-1/2 x 11 which was extremely difficult to read. Mr. Turner stated that the proposed lots were very small lots in relation to the lots which are across the street and to the east and west, and he could not understand what size house could be built on .37 of an acre and use only 40% of the lot. Turner stated that he would also be concerned as to the amount of people this amount of lots would place into the neighborhood with approximately 100 cars being added to the neighborhood. Crook added that the lots did meet the requirements for the R-1 zoning district. Hailey added that the developer had the right to use his property as he wished, as long as it met the requirements as presented by the City Codes. Cindy Turner stated that they did not necessarily object to Mr. Bishop developing this land, but the concern was great over the street with this being totally inadequate. Crook advised that if the entire neighborhood became extremely concerned over the street problem, they could form an improvement and have Stubblefield improved. Stockdell advised that Susan Meadows of Lot 17, Summerhill Subdivision called her today with two concerns. 1) The resulting over -crowding at Butterfield School stating they have a capacity of 570 students. As of this school year, they were at 498 and anticipating next fall, an increase of 22 to 25 students. She said her best guestimate would be that this subdivision would generate another 80 children attending the school if the law of one child per household can be applied. This would automatically throw Butterfield over its capacity. Stockdell stated that part of the Planning Commission decision includes looking at population trends, growth patterns, etc. and that her comments would be put into the record. 2) Mrs. Meadows' other concern was over the traffic stating that children use Stubblefield to play on and even though people are driving at 40 miles an hour on this street, it is still a neighborhood street to children. Sue Madison stated that Mrs. Meadows had also called her with the same concerns. Madison stated it was her understanding that children who live in this neighborhood all have to walk to get to Butterfield School. There is no bus service. Children from Summerhill and children from this proposed subdivision will walk along Stubblefield as well. Madison stated she wondered if it would be a good idea to require sidewalks on both sides of Stubblefield due to the volume of young 20 • PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE TEN January 23, 1984 walking children, with the sidewalk on the north side being put in as development occurs. It was noted that this would require an amendment to the Master Sidewalk Plan by the Board of Directors. Crook then requested to read from the code regarding the developer's responsibility for off-site improvements which is what the street would come under. "In determining that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which the subdivider shall be required to bear, the Planning Commission shall consider the acreage within the proposed subdivision and the percentage of all the acreage which, when fully developed, will benefit from the off-site improvements, provided the Planning Commission may use a different method of measurement if it determines that use of the acreage standard will not result in the subdivider bearing that portion of the cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the subdivision."(Appendix C Art. III Sec. A (4)(A)). Hailey requested to know if Crook would like to take this back to the Subdivision Committee for determination of the rational nexus of this matter. Crook stated that she would like to leave the recommendation as made by the Subdivision Committee as it is, that the developer would improve that portion of Stubblefield which bounds his property from east to west and that portion which lies 15-1/2 feet on the north side of the centerline. • Stockdell then made a motion to MOTION table this until the next meeting, allowing time to receive the required return receipts. Madison seconded the motion. Milholland advised that an honest attempt had been made to contact the adjacent property owners, and he did not feel that the subdivision should be tabled just because someone may not be at home Stockdell advised she did not doubt the fact that the data was mailed, only that there is a reason for the return receipts, that being to allow the interested parties to be given the opportunity to speak on it. Stockdell stated that she felt the people had not been given that opportunity if all the receipts had not been received. Motion passed 5-1-1 with Fred Hanna voting "nay" and Ernie Jacks abstaining from vote. Bodishbaugh asked if a copy of the revised plat would automatically be supplied to the surrounding property owners. Jones advised that a copy of the revised plat would be on file with the Planning Office and the property owners could check with the Planning Office. An additional item on the agenda was the Large Scale Development of Lenwyn Edens located at Sycamore and Chestnut. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LENWYN EDENS SYCAMORE AND CHESTNUT 91 J r • • • PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE ELEVEN January 23, 1984 Crook advised that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Large Scale Development of Lenwyn Edens was approved at the corner of Sycamore and Chestnut with a stipulation that he provide a drainage easement along the north boundary of his property, with the dimensions to be worked out with City Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell. Upon meeting with Mr. Powell, Powell did not want an easement that the City might be responsible for maintaining; that if there was an easement, Powell wanted it paved or wanted drainage tiles so that the City would not incur an obligation to maintain an unimproved drainage easement. Therefore, the Subdivision Committee would like to propose an amendment to the approval of this Large Scale Development which would retain the drainage easement, but stipulate that it would be maintained by the owner, with the City incurring no obligation to maintain the said drainage easement. Crook asked if this would be acceptable with Mr. Edens. Edens advised that the only problem he would see would be if the drainage area were to be improved, in obtaining 12-1/2 foot easements from all parties, his easement would not match with anyone elses drainage improvement. Crook stated she did not think this would be a problem due to the type of drainage improvement which would be proposed. Crook then made a motion to amend MOTION the approval of the Large Scale Development of Mr. Edens to stipulate that the required drainage easement be maintained by the property owner, and that its width be worked out to the satisfaction of the Street Superintendent, with the width not to exceed 25'. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 7-0. The final item was a referral from OTHER BUSINESS the Board of Directors of a proposed Ordinance to amend Art. 7, Sec. 12(B) of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to authorize the use of a mobile home as a temporary construction office on property for which a building permit has been issued. Hailey requested any comments from the Planning Commission. Jones advised that the City Board is now asking if there is any reason to pass this ordinance? Hailey advised that in checking with the Code, he did not think that anything was needed and there should be no action taken by the Planning Commission. Crook added that the Code already provided for this type of a situation. Melanie Stockdell made a motion MOTION that the passage of an Ordinance at this time is unnecessary due to the fact that the Code already provides for such circumstances. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjoyirned at 6:25 p.m. VR