Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Monday, March 10, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors' Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, B. J. Dow, Paul Skwiot, Frank Farrish and "Butch" Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Dr. Anthony DePalma, Clem Johnson, Nancy Maier, Dorris Hendrickson, William Bivin, Jim Lindsey, Karl Thiel, Cooper Lee, Don Troop, B.R. Peoples, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the February 24, 1986 meeting were considered. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION OF ROUTE TO HIGHWAY 265 Jacks announced that, although the agenda states a route from the downtown area through to Highway 265 will be discussed this evening, the intent of the Commission was only to set a date for a public hearing on said discussion at this time. He advised that a map depicting the proposed routes is in Room 309 of City Hall and an engineers study is in the Water and Sewer Department. Jacks welcomed the audience to avail themselves to this information. A member of the audience asked where the funds would come from to finance the proposed road and Jacks replied he had no idea. Jacks explained that the Commission is charged with responsibility for the Master Street Plan and has been presented with this proposal as an idea on which to hold a public hearing. He suggested contacting the Street Committee for further information. In reply to a question from the audience, Jacks advised that a recommendation on a route could be decided on at the public hearing or deferred to a future meeting. Dr. DePalma, 220 S. School, explained that the current controversy was initiated in October, 1984 with a petition begun by Sue Madison. He said of the 36 names on the petition, four do not live in the area. DePalma asked how many signatures are necessary for a legal petition. • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 2 Jacks referred many questions from the audience to the City Attorney and/or the City Board. He noted that, thus far, the Commission has been instructed to hold a public hearing. DePalma advised that one of the proposed routes borders his property and added that he has never been notified of any meetings regarding this issue. He requested to be notified of any future meetings. MOTION Nash, seconded by Dow, moved to hold a public hearing on the proposed route from downtown Fayetteville to Highway 265 on April 7, 1986. Citizens inquired into the Boards' obligation to follow the Commission's recommendation to which Jacks advised none exists. Citizens suggested holding the public hearing with the City Board. DePalma requested a review of the procedure followed in making changes to the Master Street Plan. He noted one portion of procedure which is subject to appeal to the City Council and the Quorum Court. He also explained that a TAC Committee exists to review this type issue. • The question was called and the motion passed 9-0-0. The time of the public hearing was set for 6:00 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION R86-3 CLEM JOHNSON - 205 ROCK STREET The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R86-3 to rezone .73 acres located at 205 Rock St. from R-0, Residential Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial submitted by Clem Johnson. Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, said that from a planning standpoint, he could not make a strong case either way, is whether to retain the property as R-0 District or to rezone to R-2. He said if the Commission leans toward C-2, he would suggest considering only the north one-half of the property instead of extending the commercial down Church Street and into the residential district. Wood said, from the standpoint of changing to C-2 district, there is C-3 and C-4 to the north, C-2 to the east and with the fact that the property under application is at the same level as the other commercial activity along Rock St., the dividing point should be on the west side of the property under application. He added that, from the standpoint of retaining R-0 District because there is an office use to the north and the topography drops sharply to the west of this property, Church Ave. should be the dividing line for the commercial to the north and east and the office and residential to the south and west. • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 3 Petitioner Johnson stated, considering the use proposed for the building, C-2 would be very favorable to the downtown area. He said a combination art gallery and book store is proposed. Parrish inquired into the restrictions in R-0 District and Johnson replied that retail sales are not allowed. Planning Director, Carlisle added that custom framing, which is also proposed would not be allowed. Johnson said that retail sales are allowed in R-0 only if an artist was in residence and selling their own work. Nancy Maier, prospective tenant of subject property, said she was advised by Mrs. Carlisle that C-2 District would encompass everything that is proposed by the artists. Dorris Hendrickson, 220 S. Church, advised that Church is a very steep hill with a lot of pedestrian traffic. She said the stated proposal would not make a bad neighbor but she expressed concern that anything allowed in C-2 could go in at a later date. Hendrickson requested if C-2 were recommended that it be restricted to the north half of the property. William Bivin, 227 S. Locust, stated he had no objection to the art gallery or the C-2 zoning but preferred only the north half of the lot be rezoned. A resident of 214 S. Church stated he would like to have the property restricted to the currently proposed use if C-2 is recommended. Jacks replied the Commission was not empowered to do so and the citizen inquired into proposed parking for the business. Johnson stated there is parking for 12 cars just west of the building and added that parking is available across the street in front of the police station as well as in a municipal lot a block away. Johnson said he was in agreement with re -zoning only a portion of the lot. The citizen stated he had no objections to re -zoning in this fashion. Carlisle entered into the record, a phone call taken in the Planning Office from Charles and Helen Cable, 214 S. Locust, who sleep days and did not want noise during the day. Dow said she would look favorably on the particular use but pointed out that C-2 allows other uses that would be objectionable. Johnson said he couldn't see anyone tearing down the present building to build a gas station. Commissioners agreed there was no accounting for taste. Madison asked how many on-site parking spaces would be required for the proposed uses and Carlisle replied one per 150' sq.ft. of floor area or a total of 12 spaces. • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 4 Green inquired as to a desirable point for the re -zoning district to extend so as not to interfere with setbacks and Carlisle replied setbacks would probably not be a problem but approximately 130' along Church Street would be a good division line as it would line up with the commercial zone on the opposite side of Church Street. NOTION Green accepted Carlisle's suggestion as an appropriate compromise and moved the Commission recommend the north 130' of subject property be rezoned to C-2. Hanna seconded followed by discussion reiterating the zones of surrounding properties and Dow advised she would be more open to this petition if there was not as much surrounding residential. Green amended his motion to reflect the rezoning encompass the northern portion of the property that aligns with the commercially zoned parcel on the east side of Church Street. Hanna accepted, the question was called and upon roll call, the motion to recommend approval of re -zoning the northern portion of this property as stated by Green passed 5-4-0, Hanna, Jacks, Robertson, Green and Farrish voting affirmative, Madison Skwiot, Nash and Dow voting "nay". Jacks noted this vote would be presented to the City Board as a recommendation. APPROVAL OF BRADFORD PLACE LSD REVISIONS N. GARLAND - LINDSEY CONSTRDCTION The third item on the agenda was request for approval of revisions to Bradford Place LSD located on N. Garland just south of Agri -Park submitted by Lindsey Construction. Jacks advised that this LSD was approved with one access point for up to 36 units. Requested at this time is permission to build an additional 36 units with an additional half an access point constructed to exit onto an existing alley on the property's south border. (Units would total 66). Jacks explained that the revisions were approved as requested by the Subdivision Committee at their review of March 6, 1986 including approval of delay in constructing a sidewalk along Garland at the north end of the property. MOTION Green moved the proposed temporary units be constructed subject to call, the motion passed 9-0-0. meeting at this point. access be allowed and the additional a one-year time limit. Upon roll Commissioner Nash retired from the • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 5 OAKSHIRE APARTMENTS LSD REVISIONS KANTZ DRIVE AT EAST OAKS The fourth item on the agenda was revisions of Oakshire Apartments located on Kantz Drive at East Oaks submitted by Lindsey & Assoc. Jacks noted the requested revisions were approved by the Subdivision Committee at their meeting March 6th contingent upon the addition of a connection between external and internal sidewalks. APPLEBY APARTMENTS LSD - PRELIMINARY PLAT GREGG STREET AND APPLEBY ROAD - LINDSEY The fifth item on the agenda was the approval of the preliminary plat for Appleby Apartments large scale development located at the southeast corner of Gregg Street and Appleby Road submitted by Lindsey Construction. Jacks advised the Subdivision Committee approved this plat at their meeting of March 6, 1986 contingent upon the Greenspace ordinance being satisfied as well as the off-site improvements. He said discussion ensued regarding off-site improvements applied on a rational nexus basis at which time further discussion by Green and Jacks suggested the City Attorney be present. Carlisle advised that proof of notification of adjoining property owners has been submitted and the Greenspace ordinance is being addressed by the developer with the Parks and Recreation Department. Jacks noted that, according to research by Carlisle, the traffic count at the intersection of Gregg and Appleby was 2400 cars per day before construction began recently on the widening of Gregg Street. Green advised of a discussion at Subdivision Committee concerning whether the developer should be required to widen Gregg with curb and gutter and if so required, whether the work should be done now or when the City widens the street to four lanes. Green said Committee members discussed a bill of assurance from the developer for the street work. He noted the developer has agreed to dedicate 60' of right-of-way which is more than what is required and that he felt this extraordinary amount of r/w constituted meeting their share of contribution of off-site improvements as they were saving the City the expense of acquiring that r/w. He said he felt asking the developer to also pay part of the cost of paving and adding curb and gutter was a burden they should not be asked to bear because of said r/w dedication. Jim Lindsey advised that dedicating the additional right-of-way affected the lay -out of the Appleby plan but he was able to make adjustments. City Attorney, McCord said the Board of Directors is a legislative body which has made a policy for the City dictating this type of issue be delegated and enforced to this body (Planning Commission). • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 6 Green advised he is not philosophically opposed to the ordinance but expressed concern regarding how it should be applied. He said he felt that applying it is strictly a judgement call and in this case, requiring more than the extraordinary right-of-way dedication was an unfair burden placed on this developer. Jacks said he had thought Green's concern was that, in a case like this, in which Gregg Street is carrying much public traffic, it was unfair to ask this developer to improve the entire street frontage. Green said that was an additional argument that could be made and he referred to a court case from another State which says that unless the additional burden on the existing facility were such as to dramaticall accelerate the need for improvements to the street, it would be unfair to place the burden of widening it on the developer. He noted Gregg Street will be a four-laned major connection from North Street to the by-pass. McCord verified Green's statement that there are no Arkansas State Supreme Court cases regarding off-site improvement requirements and that the City's decisions and motives are conflicting on this issue. He said the Board chose to follow a standard approved by the New Jersey State Supreme Court. He presented Commissioners with additional reading material regarding rational nexus. Farrish asked how determination is made that this developer will make such an impact that Gregg Street should be widened to four lanes. Jacks said, according to ordinance, the City must require the developer to execute a bill of assurance to bring the street up to the standard reflected on the Master Street Plan. Green pointed out that this is what has been done historically but was not, in his opinion, what is required by ordinance or is necessarily the right judgement. McCord cited portions of code which are in conflict. Green asked if there is a provision in the code for waiving the requirement and McCord replied there is. Green asked who makes the determination of what off-site improvements are to be required and McCord replied the Commission does. Lindsey noted it is very difficult to obtain right-of-way from the railroad. He said the developer has offered the 60' of r/w because he would have been responsible for one-half of a 31' street brought up to City standards. He added the developer has agreed to pay for curb and gutter with money for all of these improvements put into escrow. He pointed out that if the developer waits until the City is ready to widen and pave to four lane, one-half of the cost of these same improvements may be more costly. Lindsey reiterated that the developer is dedicating more than the usual required r/w and that the proposed curb and gutter is worth less than what the land would cost if condemned for r/w. c> • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 7 Madison expressed concern that the developer was agreeing to build Gregg Street only to local classification standards. Lindsey replied that is what is usually required of developers. In reply to Madison's question, Lindsey said the developer has dedicated the entire r/w along Ernie Jacks Blvd. at the Bradford Place Condos because it could not be obtained from the University Farm. He said he felt the r/w exchange on Gregg would be a fair contribution. Madison asked if this developer could be required to make improvements to Appleby Road to the east of the proposed development if the project would impact that portion of Appleby. McCord replied he could, on a rational nexus basis. Green asked if it were possible to arrive at zero as a fair amount of a developer's contribution and McCord replied it was. He compared the project bordering Ernie Jacks Blvd. to this one bordering Gregg noting that Ernie Jacks Blvd. does not exist at this time and that Bradford Place will use it for access if and when it is constructed while Gregg Street and Appleby are both existing and in use. Green noted the only criteria given for determining rational nexus is acreage but that if the Commission feels the acreage criteria does not apply to a development, they may use whatever basis they do feel does apply. Parrish said he felt that Gregg Street could bear the expected increase in traffic created by the proposed development. Lindsey commented that a bill of assurance on a project of this size is less attractive than it used to be because it will show up in title insurance as a lien. He said he would rather arrive at a specific amount of money or waiver based on the dedication of r/w. He said his interpretation of rational nexus meant reasonable, fair, whatever is right; leaving room for alternatives and variations that may be appropriate for the situation. Madison inquired into a performance bond and Lindsey replied performance bonds must be issued each year and amount to 1% of the cost. He said he preferred to post cash which McCord agreed was a good idea. Madison said she thought an appraisal of the property was necessary as well as an estimate on the cost of construction before the exchange for r/w is accepted. She noted that, if the project were to be built in the middle of nowhere, it would require two local streets for access. Lindsey explained that property "in the middle of nowhere" would cost less to buy because the improvements do not exist as they do on property in the middle of town which cost more initially because the improvements are in existence. He said he thought the ultimate cost of the comparative properties would probably balance out. • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 8 MOTION Green moved approval of the large scale development subject to 1, approval of the Greenspace contribution; 2. proof of notification of adjoining property owners; 3. determination of this developers contribution to off-site improvements on a rational nexus basis consisting of the additional right-of-way over and above what would normally be expected (as shown on the plat) with no additional requirements. Farrish seconded followed by discussion. Madison said she didn't see how that determination could be made until some figures are furnished regarding property worth and street widening. According to Lindsey, the value of the property that would be condemned for right-of-way would be approximately $12,000 and the cost of curb and gutter for about 600' would be approximately $3,500 plus paving. Wade Bishop, adjoining property owner, stated he wished to remind the Commission of a written agreement between the previous property owners (Martin) and himself which states that the purchaser of any of the adjoining Martin property (from the creek west to Gregg Street) will be obligated to provide improvements to Drake Street. Lindsey stated the project under application constitutes 6.1 acres of the total 22 acres west of the creek but does not border Drake Street. He said the south portion of the property (abutting Drake) is that which the Parks Department would like. Lindsey said the Parks Department mentioned at a recent meeting that improvements to Drake Street must be discussed with other City bodies. He said he felt that, if the City accepts the land for parks, it would hard for him to agree to build the street. He concluded that he was well aware of the agreement and would honor Martin's position in the contract. Mike Parker, an area Appleby Road, running would be responsible property owners. resident, asked if this development would cause eastward, to be hard surfaced and if so, who for the cost. Jacks replied it would be the The question was called and the motion to approve as stated by Green, passed 8-0-0. Madison advised of Clayton Powell's comment that sidewalk is currently reflected as being required on the north side of Appleby Road and his recommendation that the Commission consider changing the Master Sidewalk Plan to require sidewalk on the south side instead as development is complete on the north with no chance of sidewalk being constructed. Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee did not consider this a fair recommendation. Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 9 REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING BASSETT LAW FIRM - COLLEGE SOUTH OF DICKSON The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of off-site parking on College Avenue south of Dickson Street submitted by the Bassett Law Firm. Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; Carl Thiel, Heckathorn Construction, stated he has been retained to renovate the existing building on subject property. He said the Bassett Law Firm plans on using the building as their.law office and requests permission to allow a total of 6 off-site parking spaces on the property of adjacent St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Thiel said 16 spaces are required by ordinance and ten can be provided on-site. MOTION Madison moved approval, seconded by Robertson, the motion passed 8-0-0 upon roll mall. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE - PLANT NURSERY THOMAS C. LEE - 2104 MISSIONS BLVD. The seventh item on the agenda was a request for conditional use for a plant nursery at 2104 Mission Blvd. submitted by Thomas C. Lee (Cooper). Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Lee expressed understanding of granting a conditional use in an R-1 District but said he felt the building, a 35 year old gas station, could be used as such in this R-1 District unless the use ceases for a period of six months. He said he felt he would not be infringing into the residential portion of the neighborhood and explained there is a church on the east and a vacant lot on the west with the property in question extending back to the north for some distance. Lee said he will be installing a privacy fence along the rear line. In answer to Jacks' question, Lee replied there is actually very little space on which to sell plants. Jacks said he thought a change in non -conforming use was being requested, rather than a conditional use. Skwiot asked how immediate Lee's plans are and he replied he would like to finalize them as soon as possible as his equipment and office supplies are spread out all over town. Skwiot expressed concern in not having heard from the property owner. Lee said he has talked to the owner who has stated he has no problem with the intended use. MOTION Hanna moved approval of the request for conditional use contingent upon a letter of consent from the property owner being received in the Planning Office. Skwiot seconded followed by discussion. Dow inquired whether this site could revert to a gas station use if • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 10 Lee ceases operation for six consecutive months. Lee said he would ask the property owner to include his understanding of said condition in the letter of consent. Madison said she would like to see all non -conforming uses become conforming and that, by becoming a plant nursery, this property would become conforming She also expressed concern regarding commercial growth in this area. Lee clarified that the gas station may not be used as such if its operation ceases for six months. Jacks said he felt a request for change in non -conforming use was in order if it is determined that a nursery/office/equipment maintenance business is equal to or a less intense use than a gas station. Green noted that a change in non -con- forming use would not automatically exclude Lee from selling plants at this location. Dow and Madison said they thought the only way to grant the use of a plant nursery was through Use Unit 2 which is a conditional use in all districts. Jacks said a change in non -conforming use was also acceptable. Robertson said -he felt a gas station use should be included in the approval as there are existing gas pumps and other equipment that will not be able to be used again at this location. Lee asked to change his request to "change in non -conforming use". Madison said she was not prepared to consider that request as she did not consider it equal to the request for conditional use. The use of the property was discussed and it was determined that the most recent use, Tidy Ride Detail Shop, has not been operable for several months and was never approved by the Planning Commission. Madison noted it has been more than six months since a legitimate non -conforming use existed at this location. Hanna withdrew his motion. MOTION Skwiot moved to approve the request for conditional use subject to a letter from the property owners stating that he does not object. He said he was not in favor of perpetuating the non -conforming use. Hanna noted the gas pumps are still in place. Skwiot withdrew his motion. MOTION Hanna moved to extend the non -conforming use and to include a plant nursery, office space and equipment maintenance. Robertson seconded. Madison asked for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding whether this non -conforming use can be extended as it has been more than six • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 11 months since a legal gas station operated at this location. Hanna contended that Tidy Ride was the same type use as Dominoes Auto Clinic. Upon roll call, the notion passed 7-1-0, Madison voting "nay" The motion was amended and approved to include a letter of consent from the property owner. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR DANCE HALL DON TROOP - 347 N. WEST AVENUE The eighth item on the agenda was a request for a dance hall located at 347 N. West Avenue submitted by Don Troop. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial. Troop stated he was seeking a conditional use or a rezoning to commercial as his property is surrounded by commercial property. He said the site has been a studio for musicians to hold practice and continued by having shows each month with fees collected to help pay the rent. He said that he realized it was time to "go public" and that to do so required approval of the Planning Commission. Madison commented that it was very bad form to borrow University Parking, especially in asking for 41 of 43 spaces to meet dance hall requirements. She said the University will always have first claim to the parking if they need it. Troop said he has talked with Mr. French who has stated he has no problem with the request. He said French has advised that the public is allowed to use the parking lot in question after 5 P.M. Troop said he has attended school for five years in Fayetteville and has seen very few good bands and he is trying to do something about it. Skwiot clarified that the use "dance hall" will include dancing and asked if food will be served. Troop said cokes and packaged food is being considered in the future. Skwiot asked if beer, wine or hard liquor are being considered and Troop said they were not. Hanna asked how many patrons have been attending at one time and Troop replied about 300. Hanna advised he has seen West Avenue congested for many years by both the Fayetteville Ice Company and The Back Forty on the south side of Dickson. He said he has no objection to the dance hall concept in this particular zoning but expressed concern regarding parking. He said there have been many complaints about parking around the Back Forty and he expected it to be worse in this area because the street is not wide enough. Hanna said he felt it was a dangerous location for a dance hall. • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 12 Sergeant Jerry Friend, Fayetteville Police Department, stated objections from that department. He said they have received several complaints regarding loud music and several regarding parking on sidewalks and cluttered in the street. He said the establishment has been the scene of several arrests of people drinking in public and misorderly conduct. Friend said patrons have been carrying alcoholic drinks from cars into the building which is a problem to control. He added when people carry in liquor to a place where a fee is charged, it 1s considered drinking in public which is against City ordinance. Dennis Ledbetter, Fayetteville Fire Department, explained with the help of drawings, the location of the building and the University Annex parking. He said Captain Poage made several recommendations including a fire rated wall between other businesses and the addition of a restroom. Troop said there is one existing restroom with plans for three additional if permission is granted. Ledbetter explained that one restroom is required for men and a separate one for women. Ledbetter noted the main entrance is a sliding glass door which needs to be fixed. He said the other door exits onto the railroad tracks. Ledbetter said with 300 people expected, emergency lighting and exits are required. He advised the main concern is that West Avenue is one of the Fire Department's main thoroughfares to Maple Street/Garland area and that this could cause a congestion problem. He concluded that clubs close at 2 a.m. and a private club can remain open until all hours of the morning. MOTION Madison moved to deny the request on the grounds of inadequate parking and unsafe access. Skwiot seconded and upon roll call, the motion to deny the petitioner's request passed 8-0-0. Troop said, in regard to the "bring your own" rule, a person could not afford to see live music unless they were rich. He said he was trying to provide music for the people legally. He said if he used a commercial zone, the ABC would have no problem with the "brown bag" rule but it will cost him more He asked if the Commission would re -consider if the parking issue were taken care of. Jacks replied that several issues of concern were raised and the Commission would probably want some assurance that those problems would be resolved. Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 13 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS B. R. PEOPLES - SOUTH OF FOX HUNTER ROAD The ninth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations for property located south of Fox Hunter Road outside City limits. The request is for 1st, 2nd and 3rd splits and a recommenda- tion to the City Board for a 4th and 5th split. Peoples stated each of the five resulting lots would consist of 4 acres with a private road to serve them. He said City water has been requested and noted that the residents will maintain the proposed road. He said he needs to sell some lots in order to bear the costs of the improvements. Jacks said he thought the request sounded logical and that he thought there are some problems with the ordinance that was set up to control development without improvements. He said it didn't appear that Peoples was trying to develop in the normal sense. He asked what it would cost to present this as a preliminary plat. Farrish asked about jurisdiction when a development is outside City limits and Jacks replied the County has control over the roads but otherwise it must meet City standards. Madison said she would like the road to be public and advised if this request were approved it would tie up that area from future development. She said the alternative would be a network of streets rather than a hodge podge of culs-de-sac. NOTION Skwiot said he felt this was an attempt to avoid bringing in a subdivision plat. He said he saw no hardship, as required in criteria for lot splits, and he agreed that the road configuration is not appropriate. He moved the request be denied. Seconded by Madison, the motion was followed by discussion. Peoples advised he could obtain three splits administratively which would create the same road situation but he could put in a better road by selling five lots. He said there will be restrictions required of property owners who will be paying taxes on what is now farm land. Madison said there was no way of knowing what a "better road" is without seeing a plan. Peoples said he planned on chip and seal or chat with an entrance gate. Skwiot said lot splits should not be granted for expediency and advised submission of a plat still leaves room for waivers. He said a reason for the ordinance is to address streets and other improvements and not to increase the developer's cost. • • • • Planning Commission March 10, 1986 Page 14 Peoples said the proposed road will be 25' wide and built to the same standard as Joe Fred Starr Road which is inside City limits. Jacks said the Commission has an interest in an orderly growth of the City which includes the area in question. He said he felt the City would be involved in the street maintenance in the future. Green said he was not concerned about a subdivision plat. He said if this were to be a City street, the City would have the right and the obligation to demand certain minimum standards. He said Peoples is asking for only five families to live outside City limits with a privately maintained road serving only those families. Green said he thought this proposal may improve this area of town significantly and he compared it to a concept plat examined recently by Commissioners that contained eight acres with more than 25 lots on it. Madison said another consideration regarding the maintenance of roads is for emergency services and mail. Hanna agreed with Green. Farrish asked for the differences between a subdivision inside City limits and one outside. Carlisle replied that the County will require 60' of right-of-way for a road. Upon roll call, the motion to deny failed to pass 3-5-0, Madison, .Skwiot and Dow voting in favor of and Jacks, Green, Robertson, Hanna and Farrish voting "nay". MOTION Farrish moved to approve three lot splits and to recommend a fourth and fifth split be approved by the Board of Directors. Green seconded, noting the request is for a waiver of lot size. Upon roll call, the motion to approve, as stated, failed to pass 4-4-0, Madison, Dow, Skwiot and Jacks voting "nay" and Green, Hanna, Parrish and Robertson voting in favor of. Jacks advised that this issue may be appealed to the Board of Directors and added he thought a plat should be presented. Farrish asked if Peoples could request waivers from the County road requirements and Jacks said it would be up to the County. Jacks added there is no minimum number of lots required in a subdivision. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.