Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday September 8, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Admin- istration building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Buteh Robertson, Frank Farrish, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash Sue Madison Larry Wood, Don Grimes, Red Dixon, Bryan Wimberly, Claude Prewitt, Jerry Bird, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others The meeting was Balled to order by Chairman Jaeks. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CHARTER VISTA HOSPITAL ADDITION 4253 CROSSOVER ROAD - GARY CARNAHAN The first item on the agenda was a Large Seale Development Plan submitted by Charter Vista Hospital for an office addition, loeated at 4253 Crossover Road. This property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commereial. Jaeks advised the LSD was approved by the Subdivision Committee this afternoon contingent upon proof of notification of adjoining property owner Jim Lindsey. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - FOR A TEMPORARY BUILDING 1285 MILLSAP - CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER The second item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a temporary storage and Scout Hut building, located at 1285 Millsap. This was represented by Red Dixon for the Christian Life Center, the property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Dixon explained the Boy Seouts had been meeting in an open wooded area during the summer months and they needed a temporary building to keep the boys out of the weather during the winter months. Mr. Dixon said they would meet on Wednesday night of every week. Jaeks stated the original approval for the Christian Life Center stip- ulated if any further development took place they would have to improve the off-site improvements. Jaeks then said what they were proposing was a temporary building. Dow stated she looked at this property and felt it was not an unreasonable request. • • • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 2 MOTION Hanna moved to grant the conditional use request for a temporary building, seconded by Dow. The motion to approved passed 7-0-0. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE The third item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed subdivision ordinance. Jacks stated this was a discussion item at this point. At this point Jaeks said there were 15 items of substantial change. Jaaks said before there were a number of people who approved things such as Street Superintendent, City Engineer, Water & Sewer Superintendent, eta., now it would be changed to Public Works Director for all those approvals. Carlisle said they also might suggest or his designee and Jacks said they had talked about that and it could be written in also. Jacks stated the first item of change is under general provisions, section 1, item A; Change street definitions, pavement widths, ROWs, specify design by "Structural Number". second item of change was under section 2, item C & D; Delete insuranee requirements, he said this was a requirement for liability insurance on the part of the developer. They saw no reason for the City to be protected in that manner. Change the requirement for performance bond to performance and payment bond; change bond from minimum of 100% to 120% or 150% of estimated aost. The idea being that in some eases the City could get left with one of those things and the legal administrative Bost would be more than 100%. Jacks stated that seemed to be the pattern around Springdale and Rogers. Green referring bank to item number 1, said they had discussed side- walks at the property line rather than up against the aurb he said he could think of one instanae where there was 60' of ROW for a 31' street which he thought was a collector street, if they followed that on through with the sidewalks against the property line there Gould be at least 10' between the sidewalk and the curb, because of the 60' of ROW. Green said he thought that would look a little strange and it also would encourage people not to use those sidewalks because they would be so far away. Larry Wood explained the reason behind the 60' ROW was if they needed turning lanes at intersections. Green said maybe one alternative would be keep an extra ROW at the inter- sections only. Jacks said the third item of change under section 2; change fee structure to reflect actual advertising and administrative costs. Jacks said Deryl Burch is working on this and would have some kind of an answer Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 3 by October. Jacks stated change item 4, section 2, encompassed everything from "H" to "L", having to do with drainage plans, signature blocks, eta. Jacks stated they had made a number of changes in the Plat submittals, as to omitting engineering detail and simplifying approval process. Section 3, item a; Jacks explained Large Seale Developments exclusions: omit square footage and parking exclusions, leaving only single family residences and additions were ingress and egress are unchanged (less than one acre exclusion should be removed from Zoning Ordinance. Jacks said anything that did not affect traffic the Planning Commission really did not need to see. Green asked if they did not add a new entry or exit on the property they would not have to come before the Planning Commission. Jacks said if they had not changed the ingress, egress they would not be required to come before the Planning Commission. Green said they could potentially build an addition to a plant and add more employees without changing the ingress, egress. Jaeks stated maybe they could add some type of limitation on the number of additional parking spaces they would need. Ervan Wimberly said the LSD for Elkhart products was a good example of a wasted motion. Wimberly stated they added an addition to the plant that qualified in every way for an LSD. He said they only added 2 employees for 18,000 sqare foot addition. Section 4, item d; change requirement for connection to City water system when within 500' rather than a "reasonable distance". Section 4, item e; allow pavement Buts only "in extreme and unusual eiraumstanaes" Wimberly stated in a new subdivision the problem would not exist because they put the utilities in first. The only time the question (tomes up for open eut or bore was on an existing street. Jacks stated they would leave up to the Planning Commission to grant exceptions. Section 4, item f; require connection to City sanitary sewer system when within 300'. Section 4, item g; change street light spacing to intervals that average no more than 300' throughout subdivisions. Section 4, item i; incorporate requirement for off-site street improvements with all development, except single family, regardless of size. Jacks explained the Board of Directors had added Section J, whish meant anyone who developed property, even though it's not a LSD would be required to participate in off-site street improvements. Section 5, item a; require all lot split requests to be heard by the Planning Commission. • • • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 4 Appendix A, e; require development proposals for street grades in excess of 12% to be heard by the Planning Commission. Jacks explained they had changed that from 15% and grades in excess of 12% would not be permitted except by special permission from the Planning commission. Green asked where did the final figure of 12% some from and Jacks explained Marion Orton had requested a lower figure. Green said he could see a lot of arguments for doing that but it bothered him because he had not seen any tremendous problems caused by those streets. He said there were certain days of the year they were not assessable but it seemed to him that it might have the poteneial to make property that was now valuable, worthless. Jacks explained it was not aimed at collectors or arterials but really local streets in his view. He said there were certain streets that were at a point of abandonment. Dow stated she thought there was some concern about the fire trucks not being able to go up streets with a certain grade. Hanna stated one of the reasons for limiting the lower grade was because of the maintenance problems caused from the steepness. After further discussion Jacks stated it would not be that much of a burden to have the Planning Commission look at this. He said they were pushed to some degree for something less than 15% by Director Orton. Jacks noted what they would do was put this on the next agenda for discussion of the material discussed at this meeting. Farrish asked after they discuss this at the next meeting would the City Attorney draft a proposed ordinance. Jacks stated after they had settled on all items of discussion they would propose it to the Board of Directors before a public hearing. Farrish stated he thought it needed to be drafted in ordinance form and Jacks stated he did not see any since in burdening the City Attorney with a draft until they had discussed and made decisions on all items of change. Green said there needs to be some type of document for developers to review the proposed changes. Jacks said he would like get all the points of interest between the Planning Commission and Board of Directors ironed out before they went through the process of drafts. Appendix A, item i; allow street jogs as close as 100' for minor local and local street carrying residential traffic instead of the 150'. Appendix A, item j; allow rolled curbs only by special approval of Public Works Director. Jacks explained they had talked about rolled curbs versus requirements for curb and gutters and finally decided there might be some eases where rolled curbs would be acceptable in certain circumstances. Wimberly explained the advantage of a rolled curb was they would not have to cut out curbs to do driveways, the disadvantage was, it did not Garry the volume of water. He said right now rolled curbs were • • • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 5 not allowed at all but, there are definitely some eases where it would not hurt to use a rolled aurb. Jacks asked what cases were better and Wimberly said Summerhill addition, in the cul -de -saes rolled curbs would not hurt anything because it was relatively flat. Wimberly stated the small subdivisions in R-1.5, 60' wide lots he said after you cut out 25' driveway and go another 35' and cut another 25' driveway instead put in rolled curbs. Section 8, item a; incorporate new requirements on storm drainage. Jacks explained there had never been any real standards for storm drainage. Jacks said the question was do they want to aequire retention. Wimberly stated Springdale requires retention for eommereial and industr- ial, Bentonville and Rogers also require retention. They are required to retain all excess flow ereated by the developer. Jacks asked if from a praatieal stand point would it be a matter of providing earth and dam in a few places with a bulldozer and Wimberly stated in some cases yes. Section 9, inspection and testing requirement. Wimberly stated basically that section sets up a system how the City would require testing, inspection and rejection to be done. If a eontraetor was supposed to put down 3" of asphalt gets the job done and it looked good, the City when out and cut cores to see if he put 3" and found he uninten- tially got some thin spots. The eontraetor could either rebate the City or overlay. Wimberly stated it would set "Quality Control" guide lines. Dow stated there were know actual guidelines for maximum number of units per point of ingress egress. She felt it would be helpful if there were some type of guidelines. Jacks said to make a note and think on this for discussion at the next meeting. Jaaks asked what about the matter of the location of a sidewalk, did they want to take that up in the subdivision ordinance as to if it were located on the ROW or against the street curb. Farrish stated that part had been changed to place the sidewalk as close to the property line as possible. Jacks asked the commissioners to study and review this and it would be on the agenda as a discussion meeting for the 1st meeting in October. MINUTES The following correction was entered by Commissi ner Green: Page 8, paragraph 3, Green stated it was his impression the street committee members agreed that mechanical application of the ordinance, in terms by requiring street widening, curb and gutter every where a piece of property being developed abuts a street improved to less than full standard, would probably not be appropriate. The amount of off-site 1 • • • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 6 improvements required as a judgement Ball would be up to the Planning Commission to make.; Page 11, paragraph 5; the Planning Commission to draft a landseape or tree ordinance not hold a public hearing. MOTION A motion was made by Dow to amend the by-laws to do the minutes following other business, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Request for a Waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for property located 1403 Oldwire Road and Birwin street. Claude Prewitt stated Birwin street is based with SB -2, Jerry Byrd is the owner of the property and were leaving for New York in a few days that was why they asked the Commission to hear this under other business. Prewitt stated this property was purchased in 1947 by Jerry Byrds father and he dedicated part of this land for Birwin street. The house was located at 1403 Oldwire Road and there was some 600' or so that goes up to the presbyterian ehureh. The Byrds wish to split this property into 3 pieces which would be 150' lot at the top and 2 125' lots below. The remaining house would be left with 8/10ths of an acres. Jacks asked if a Bill of Assurance for street improvements would be a problem and Prewitt said no. Prewitt stated he was unable to notify one of the property owners. Prewitt stated most of the traffic was on Sunday from the Presbeteryian church. He also said Birwin was paved part of the way up. Dow asked what the urgency was on this because she liked to look at the property first. Prewitt stated the Byrds were going to be out of town and actually there was not a mad rush. Robertson then stated Farrish stated the map street extended to the asked the lot then to and Byrd answered yes. NOTION there was really no urgency in this at all. showed lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and asked if Knox South and Mr. Byrd said it did not. Farrish the west was all presbyterian ehureh property Robertson moved to table this request to the next meeting so they may have a ehanee to look at the property, seconded by Hanna. The motion to table passed 7-0-0. a • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 7 AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN Proposed Amendment to the Master Street Plan to drop the Happy Hollow jog from Highway 265 from the Master Street Plan. Don Grimes stated what they needed to do as he understood the process was to initiate a Master Street Plan ehange at Planning Commission level. Mr. Grimes stated the jog had been on the Plan for a long time and things had ehanged in that area. Jaeks stated the Happy Hollow jog was on the Master Street Plan and one day it was going to tie in with the so ealled highway 16 by-pass. He said nobody was satisfied with that solution at the time because it was not a good solution to make that situation work without extending highway 16 by-pass on over to the intersection at 265 and that did not seem to possible with all of the drainage, streams and bridges required. Jaeks then stated Mr. Grimes was proposing to send this on to the Regional Planning Commission for their TAC Committee then baek to the Planning Commission. • Grimes said he only wanted the Planning Commission to submit a recom- mendation the first time around. • Hanna stated they had looked at this before and discussed it and wanted to know if anyone had ever been in favor of keeping as planned. Jaeks answered know one had ever been satisfied with either plan. Hanna asked since the improvements were being made at the intersection of Highway 16 and 265 does that not help the situation somewhat. Jaeks answered it probably helped some. Grimes said Highway 265 was on the new TIP for 4 laving of Highway 265 from Highway 16 to Highway 45 within the next 2 years. NOTION Hanna moved to reeommend the proposed route be dropped from the Master Street in favor of the existing road, seeonded by Dow. Followed by further discussion. Farrish stated as he understood they were to submitt to the Regional Planning Office some proposed solution to the problem. Jaeks said the proposed solution in the motion was to abandon the loop by the TAC committee. Jacks stated the Commission would be sending them a favorable recommendation to change the Master Street Plan. Farrish added he was somewhat familiar with that area and was not comfortable with voting for that solution tonight. Grimes stated there was know big hurry for a decision tonight, he said they had sent field crews out for a study and they came bank /5 • • • Planning Commission September 8, 1986 Page 8 and said it would be too expensive for anything to be done. Farrish then asked Grimes if the best solution would be for Highway 265 to dead end into Highway 16 East and Grimes answered yes. Jenks then repeated the motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Northwest Regional Arkansas Planning Commission to abandon the loop and the arterial to eontinue down Highway 265. NOTION Green moved to table this item until further diseussion, seeonded by Nash. The motion to table passed 5-2-0, Nash, Green, Jaeks, Robertson and Dow voting in favor of and Parrish and Hanna voting "nay". /�j