Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 12, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, B.J. Dow and Paul Skwiot Julie Nash Steve Miller, Keith Robbins, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the April 28, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES Commissioner Hanna entered the following corrections. Page 3, paragraph 3, Farrish made statement. Commissioner Madison made the following corrections: Page 3, motion ...development and that property is utilized as single family residential page 5, paragraph 4, should be "Madison referred to the Conditional Use granted some time ago to a former property owner now being used by Jehovah's Witness Church and questioned whether conditional uses should expire after a specified time if not exercised". With these corrections, the minutes stood approved. VALLEY ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT BUD TOMLINSON - OLD WIRE ROAD The second item of business was consideration of the preliminary plat of Valley Addition submitted by Bud Tomlinson. The 8.75 acre tract is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and is located on Old Wire Road. Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plat subject to plat review comments and the off-site improvement requirement being held pending action by the City Board. He continued, noting that the maximum requirement will be one-half of the street frontage improvement as per Powell's plat review recommendation. MOTION Farrish moved approval of this plat seconded by Hanna. Upon roll call, the motion passed 9-0-0. Pc Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 2 REQUEST TO VACATE ALLEY ROSEHILL ADDITION - STEVE HILLER The third item on the agenda was a request to vacate an alley adjoining lots 1 through 12 Block 16 in the Rosehill Addition submitted by Steve Miller on behalf of Asgard Investments. This item was tabled on March 24, 1986 until proof of notification of adjoining property owners was submitted. Jacks asked if requested proof has been submitted and Carlisle replied that it had. The petitioner said he had nothing further to add. MOTION Hanna moved the request be granted, seconded by Robertson. Upon roll nail, the motion passed 9-0-0. REQUEST TO WAIVE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GERALD BOWMAN - WYMAN RD , EAST OF HWY. 265 The fourth item of consideration was a request submitted by Gerald Bowman to waive the subdivision regulations resulting in lot splits number 1, 2 & 3 with request for recommendation of approval to the City Board for split number 4. The property is located on Wyman Road one mile east of Highway 265 and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Jacks noted this item was tabled at the meetings of April 14 and April 28, 1986 because the petitioner was not present and Commissioners felt they needed additional information. MOTION Madison made a motion to remove this item from the table for discussion. Skwiot seconded and upon roll tall, the motion passed 7-0-1, Robertson abstaining. MOTION Madison moved the request for waiver be denied because it would be more appropriate to submit a subdivision plat. Skwiot seconded, followed by discussion. Green inquired into whether Bowman was personally contacted regarding this meeting. Hanna said he had spoken to Bowman during a break in the April 14th meeting where Bowman explained that although he knew he was on the agenda, he didn't know the time. Hanna said Bowman told him he was splitting the lots into 3+ acre parcels and would use the strip through the middle to access the remainder of his property which he will subdivide when there is a demand. Hanna said he didn't see any problem with the request. • • • Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 3 Farrish asked if Bowman had explained why he was requesting lot splits rather than submit a subdivision plat. Hanna said Bowman told him he didn't think the back portion of his property was ready to develop. Jacks said the lot split ordinance keeps people from subdividing but keeps the City from getting off-site improvements. He said he agreed with Parrish that a subdivision plat was desired. Skwiot said, although drainage is not severe on the rear portion, he thought it was important to consider the whole property rather than only the front part. He expressed concern over the possibility of a mistake being made in serving the rear portion if the front parcels are not considered at the same time. Green asked what opportunity a subdivision plat would give Commissioners to address that they do not have currently, other than off-site improve- ments. Madison listed drainage, driveways, streetlights, right-of-way and total number of lots. Green said he could understand Bowman not wanting to spend the funds to address the rear portion of the land. He added he felt the only thing to examine on a subdivision plat, if submitted, would be off-site improvements and he didn't see any need for same being created on Wyman Road from the four proposed lots. Madison said she felt the Commission positions is to oversee development and plan for it to happen while this request is a piece -meal subdivision by -lot split. She said there is nothing unusual about the property that should permit Bowman to create these splits. Hanna said Bowman would obviously have to go through subdivision process for the rear portion of his land unless he builds one house on it. He said he didn't see Wyman Road is a situation to be concerned about regarding driveways exiting onto it. Jacks said he agreed that the main advantage of a subdivision plat was off-site improvements but advised that a subdivision also alerts utility companies to the fact of imminent development in an area. Green said he agreed to some extent but didn't feel the scale of this development was great enough to require a subdivision plat. Skwiot said he felt the ordinance requires a subdivision plat unless there is a hardship or other valid reason to consider a lot split. Jacks explained that the four lots would be a subdivision with no further subdividing possible and no chance for the improvements which the ordinance calls for. 9� Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 4 Farrish asked if the petitioner had any recourse if he were turned down this evening. Carlisle replied he could re -petition without any waiting period. Farrish said he would feel more comfortable not taking any action because Bowman was not present. Green inquired again if the petitioner was properly notified and Planning Clerk, Franzmeier, explained several personal contacts with Bowman as well as mailed paperwork. Hanna asked if a bill of assurance could be attached to the lot split requiring the street improvements when or if the remainder of the property is developed. Green said he thought, according to the ordinance, that Wyman Road improvements could be addressed when the rear portion of the property is developed regardless of whether that property abuts that street. Madison said she felt there are quite a few subdividers who "go by the book" and added that the City Board is on record as supporting this as normal process. She said she didn't see any reason to give special consideration to this petitioner or his property. Green said he felt hardship was a relevant term and he could understand Bowman's need for developing the front part of the property in order to develop the back. Dow said she didn't see that as a hardship. Skwiot said the ordinance specifically says a lot split is not for the convenience or economics of the property owner. Madison cited a portion of code from page 938.1 of the City Code of Ordinances: "The Planning Commission may hear requests for variances from the size requirements prescribed above in instances where strict enforcement of said requirements would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration..." She pointed out the ordinance does mention hardship to the owner's pocketbook. MOTION Robertson suggested tabling this item until the petitioner is present. Following this suggestion, Farrish moved the request be tabled. Green seconded followed by discussion. Skwiot said he felt it unreasonable to have someone not show up for three meetings and to continue to waste the commissioner's and staff's time. Upon roll tall, the motion to table, which supersedes the original motion, failed to pass 4-4-0, Hanna, Robertson, Farrish and Green voting in favor of and Madison, Jacks, Dow and Skwiot voting against. The question on the original motion was called and, upon roll hall, the motion to deny the request passed 5-3-0, Madison, Jacks, Farrish, Dow and Skwiot voting in favor of; Hanna, Robertson and Green voting against. • • • • Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 5 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS KEITH ROBBINS — 510 STONEBRIDGE ROAD The fifth item of business was consideration of a request for waiver of Subdivision Regulations submitted by Keith Robbins for property located at 510 Stonebridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and the request is for the first and second split. The agenda reflects a request for second and third splits in error. Robbins was to present to represent this request. He stated the property is a five acre tract with a house existing there for 20-30 years with the ownership since before 1970. He said this is the first request for lot splits and that the existing house will remain on one acre. Carlisle said she was advised by City Attorney McCord, that any lot platted in a subdivision had already been split one time. She said this parcel is Lot 17 W. E. Anderson Farm and request is being made for the second and third split. (It was later determined that a lot platted in a subdivision becomes a lot of record and, depending on specifications, may qualify for three lot splits). In answer to Farrish's question, Robbins replied he will build a house on the remaining large lot. Farrish clarified that this parcel was part of a subdivision process. Madison stated she was opposed to this request for the same reasons as_she applied to a request previously reviewed for petitioner Gerald Bowman. Farrish said he felt the circumstances were different because this parcel has been through subdivision process, including improvements such as traffic and utilities. He compared this parcel to a lot in town which has also gone through subdivision process and petitioned for a lot split. Carlisle noted this land was subdivided before it was annexed into the City limits and Madison pointed out that it probably does not meet current City requirements for that reason. Dow said this parcel of land does not seem to qualify for hardship conditions as specified in the ordinance. Farrish said he didn't think that should apply in this ease and compared this to that of a split recently approved. Skwiot said he was in favor of approving that particular lot split because the lot was already improved. Farrish said he felt the lot under petition was already improved also and Skwiot replied that the only improvement on the land was a house. Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 6 Robbins said he was not asking to subdivide and added that the lot meets building requirements and has utilities in place. Jacks said he had no objection to the split as opposed to a subdivision plat but he felt the ordinance mandates a bill of assurance be executed for off-site improvements which is why the ordinance was written. MOTION Dow moved to deny the request. Skwiot seconded and upon roll &all, the motion failed to pass, 3-5-0, Madison, Dow and Skwiot voting in favor of; Hanna, Robertson, Jaeks, Farrish and Green voting against. MOTION Hanna moved approval of the lot split as requested. Robertson seconded followed by discussion regarding the pros and cons of requesting off-site improvements. Madison stated she did not see anything unique about this property that warrants a waiver of the regulations. Farrish advised that dedicating 5' additional right-of-way would reduce the lot to below the minimum square footage required for a single family dwelling. Robbins reported he would dedicate the right-of-way and adjust the property lines of the split to conform with the ordinance. Farrish asked that the motion to approve note the dedication of additional r/w beginning from the centerline of Stonebridge. Hanna and Robertson accepted this amendment to the motion. Upon roll tall, the motion failed to pass, by a tie vote: Hanna, Robertson, Farrish and Green voting in favor of; Madison, Jaeks, Dow and Skwiot voting against. MOTION Robertson moved to approve the request subject to additional dedication of r/w and a bill of assurance at the call of the City, to pay for cost of widening the pavement on the west side of Stonebridge and adding curb for a distance of 170'. Robbins agreed, Hanna seconded and upon roll Ball, the motion passed 6-2-0, Madison and Skwiot voting "nay". MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 7, 1986 The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of the minutes taken at a public hearing on April 7, 1986 regarding a proposed route from Highway 265 to the downtown area. Corrections were as follows: Commissioner Madison: pg.2, Cyrus Sutherland; pg.5 line 7, Rodgers Drive; pg.7 paragraph 4, ...charged the commission...; pg.9 paragraph 3, ...along residential streets such as Winwood and Overerest...; • • • • • • Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 7 pg.9 paragraph 3 ...to plan major streets. Commissione paragraph 3, ...no ulterior motive...; pg.1 paragraph 3, she would abstain from voting whether or not there would but if this issue passed, would not abstain in deciding would be most appropriate. OTHER BUSINESS r Dow, pg.1 She stated be a route, which route Special Meeting of Street Committee and Subdivision Committee: Jacks reported that Marion Orton of the Street Committee attended this meeting as did Mayor Noland, Clayton Powell, Jim McCord and members of the Subdivision Committee. Jacks said he advised those present that he personally did not see a fair way to apply off-site improvement requirements. He said he made the suggestion that there was a better chance of being fair and equitable if collectors and arterials were eliminated from the ordinance requirement and application made only to local streets. He said the suggestion was accepted readily. Jacks said other items discussed were 1. that rational nexus application be speeifieally and uniquely contributable; 2. banking, as in bills of assurance; 3. imposing only contemplated immediate improvements; 4. ascertaining improvements are easier in subdivisions than for large scale developments; 5. deleting the rational nexus standard and require all developers to construct all streets to City standards (paying one-half the cost). Jacks said he requested the Street Committee to investigate what these suggestions will mean in terms of (host to the City. Green noted that all of the suggestions listed by McCord were not necessarily issues that would work, but things that were talked about. Dow asked if Jacks thought it was clear to Deryl Burch, Public Works Director, what the Commission wanted from him. Jacks reported that Burch did not attend the meeting and Dow advised she was mainly concerned with the dollars and cents aspect. Green said he didn't think the input should be limited to dollars and sense and expressed a desire to hear what the expert on designing streets has to say, including what trade-offs are seen in the process. Madison said she didn't feel McCord's letter to Burch was specific enough. Green said he felt the letter was broad, asking for comments in general. Jacks said methods such as acreage, street frontage and traffic eounts were all discussed as possibilities in determining contribution. • Planning Commission May 12, 1986 Page 8 Scope of Work Committee: Green reported that Larry Wood was absent from the last meeting and the Committee will meet again May 19th. Jacks said he felt the entire process may take some time and that he may find it necessary to revive the Update Committee for stop -gap solutions to certain recurring problem situations needing attention. Landscape Committee: Carlisle advised that the Landscape Committee will meet at 9:30 A.M. May 14th, to discuss a proposed tree ordinance with a report to the Commission on May 27th. Carlisle advised that, due to Memorial Day, the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 27, 1986. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. • • •