Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-23 Minutes• A meeting of the in the Board of Mountain Street, MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETPEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 23,1988 Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Fayetteville, Arkansas. Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff, and Fred Hanna Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow and J.E. Springborn Don Bunn, Larry Wood, Richard Wooten, Clarance McMillan, Kim Fugitt, John Mahaffey, Bill Brooks, Claud Pruitt, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others 4111 APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ROLLING HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH - 1400 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE. • The first item of consideration on the agenda was a Large Scale Development Plan of Rolling Hills Baptist Church submitted by Layne_Smith and represented by Fugitt & Associates Property located at 1400 Rolling Hills Drive and zoned R-1. Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee didn't find anything wrong with the plat so they had moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review Comments, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Richard Wooten of 3015 Elizabeth (across the street from this church) stated that he had objected to the rezoning petition that had been submitted earlier but he had no objection to them building onto the church. He asked if the term "Large Scale Development" meant that they were changing to the P-1 zoning or are they just building parts onto the church. Chairman Jacks explained that this had nothing to do with zoning. The Large Scale Development ordinance requires that anything over an acre comes before the Planning Commission when it is developed. • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Wooten stated that he is all for the addition onto the church but he is against the rezoning. Clarance McMillan of 1437 Eaton Street stated that he was concerned about noise. He asked if there would be any large scale air conditioning development or anything like that would be outside the church. Kim Fugitt of Fugitt & Associates stated that they would have additional air conditioning. There will be two air-conditioning condensing units on the ground located at the back of the north side of the building and there are five units on the south side of the building. Chairman Jacks asked if they were shown on the site plan. Mr. Fugitt answered, No. Commissioner Seiff asked if they were maximum five ton split units. Mr. Fugitt answered, Yes. Mr. McMillan asked what type of lighting they were planning to have in the back of the building (the north side). Mr. Fugitt stated that they have planned some security lighting there. He noted that there is a free-standing pole with a large light on it. There is a new parking lot on the west side of the existing building that will have three large poles lit at night. Mr. McMillan stated that he is just suggesting lighting, not objecting to it. Mr. McMillan was also concerned about drainage. He said that it appears that there is a rock ledge in this area and water does accumulate quite a bit and stands for sometime before it drains off. There isn't good absorbtion. He also asked about aesthetics. He asked if they were planning to have the building in the back and will they be putting in shrubs, etc. Mr. Fugitt answered that they were planning to build on to the north end of the existing building. As far as landscaping, they haven't gotten into any extensive planning for additional landscaping. Chairman Jacks asked if they were making a courtyard on the north and south end of the existing building. Mr. Fugitt stated that on the south there would be a courtyard. Mr. McMillan asked if the two parking lots are tied together. Mr. Fugitt stated that they tie together by the existing drive in the front only. The motion to approve the Large Scale Development Plan passed 6-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF QUAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION GERALD TOMLINSON & BILL BROOKS - WEST SIDE OF PORTER ROAD The second item on the agenda was consideration of a preliminary plat of Quail Ridge Subdivision submitted by Gerald Tomlinson & Bill Brooks and represented by Mahaffey & Associates. Property located on the west side of Porter Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 3 Commissioner Nash advised that this preliminary plat was a little complicated. However, the Subdivision Committee did approve it subject to complete notification of the adjoining property owners, Plat Review comments, a waiver of the length requirement of the temporary cul-de-sac ( because the length of the cul-de-sac was almost twice what the City ordinance will allow), as well as the dedication of right-of-way on lots 15 & 16 to be able to tie into a future frontage road to the west of the property. Commissioner Nash advised that the developer had offered a Bill of Assurance on right-of-way dedication on lots 15 & 16 to be able to connect to the proposed frontage road (parallel to the bypass) when it is completed. At that time, this cul-de-sac would be opened through to the frontage road which makes this a temporary cul-de-sac. Therefore because of the Bill of Assurance offered, they did waive the length of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Nash added that at the Subdivision Committee meeting, Don Bunn had mentioned the rational nexus approach to off-site improvements in this situation because of the narrow frontage on the east side of the subdivision along Porter Road and the long length of the subdivision. She stated that Mr. Bunn had suggested that the developer should improve both sides of Porter Road where this subdivision abuts Porter Road. Commissioner Nash stated that they had discussed this and were unable to determine if they could impose something like that so they didn't comment on this. Chairman Jacks stated that the Planning Commission according to ordinance is called upon to determine what a rational nexus requirement would be. This is a good illustration where you have two areas with the same acreage ( one with a narrow frontage and one with a wide frontage) that are called upon to provide quite different amounts of off-site improvements. Chairman Jacks asked what the developer's reaction was to Don Bunn's suggestion. John Mahaffey stated that they have completed all notification of the property owners and he gave proof of this to the Planning Secretary. Mr. Mahaffey stated that they have no objection to extending that cul-de-sac on through. He suggested that they bring it in at a 90 degree angle to the frontage road for safety reasons and that way they could rearrange those lots there. He thought it would be advantageous in the future if it were ever opened up. He further stated that the property owners were not expecting and didn't include in the cost the paving of both sides of Porter and they would not like to do that. Bill Brooks added that this had not been required anywhere else in town and they feel that they should just have to do their side and let the other property owner on the other side do theirs. Mr. Brooks stated, regarding the water line, he felt that as long as they were • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 4 going to have to dig a ditch if the City wanted to supply a 12" pipe they would lay it. Chairman Jacks stated that would be an arrangement that the City Engineer, Don Bunn, would have to make with you. Mr. Brooks added that they also thought they could get three (3) lots at the end of the cul-de-sac where the right-of-way would be dedicated if there wasn't any objection. Chairman Jacks noted that the site -improvements, the water line, and the changing the lots are three things to be discussed. Commissioner Seiff stated that he has problems with this plat. He noted that one of the reasons they are here is to determine whether or not some of the developments are appropriate in our community. He said that he was concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac and he understands that they have offered a Bill of Assurance to alleviate the situation, but this is with 30 lots and much too long and a danger for the residents in that development to have only one ingress/egress. He stated that he appreciated that they offered to split these two lots and perhaps put in a third one in order to get the continuation to frontage road down at a right angle. But he is concerned because they don't know when frontage road is going to be put in. You may have this development built long before it does and he can see problems with emergencies and the ingress and egress. He advised that he could not approve it right now under these circumstances even with the Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the flood plane issue was ever resolved as to the legality of development in that area. Don Bunn advised that the ordinance states that if it is developed and the presence of a sewer line already there fits the criteria. If the facilities are there for development then it is legal to go ahead and develop it. The ordinance that he is referring to is one that was a condition imposed upon us by the EPA. That is they could not treat sewage that was developed in the flood plane unless it had certain conditions. One of those conditions was if there was facilities already there, then they could serve it. In this case, the sewer facilities are there and therefore it would fall under that condition. He stated that the City ordinances that govern development in a flood plane would apply. They would have to build those lots up to where they were out of the flood plane before they could develop them. They would have to get the floor slab of the house out of the flood plane. Commissioner Nash stated that right now as she understands this from Mr. McCord and different newspaper accounts, these gentlemen have met our subdivision ordinance and until policy is changed, we are not allowed to use discretion on how we think something looks. Commissioner Seiff stated that he doesn't know where the Planning Co.u'uission fits. Chairman Jacks stated that he had put together a discussion item called "Planning • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 5 Commission Approval Constraints". He stated that he thinks this is a matter of interpretation of the Subdivision Regulations. They say that 500' for a cul-de- sac length is a maximum. The Planning Commission is called upon to establish the amount of off-site improvements under rational nexus basis. He stated that he felt that the question about the length of the cul-de-sac is a valid question. Commissioner Klingaman stated that his concern with the length of the cul-de-sac is at 8:00 a.m. on Monday morning with thirty (30) people trying to get out of the subdivision, it could be a real problem. Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't see a lot of difference between that and some other areas that have sixty (60) lots with two exits. He noted that he did understand the concerns about getting a piece of property landlocked where you can never have another entrance or exit. However, he can't see telling someone that they can only develop half of that lot in order to meet that cul-de-sac requirement. He stated that he felt personally that cul-de-sacs are nice, that they are the planning feature that has been developed in lieu of laying everything out in square blocks. He further stated that if the final plat of this goes to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee and the fire chief tells them that this is a clear and present danger for the fire trucks it should be considered. However, he said that he felt with the way this is presented it should be approved. Commissioner Seiff wanted to clarify that his objection is not with 30 cars going in or out at the same time. His objection is one of safety concerns such as a fire occurring at the end toward the cul-de-sac or anything occurring that could possibly block the cul-de-sac and the people can't get out and fire equipment can't get in. He stated that he doesn't have to have the fire chief telling him that there is a danger, he can see it. Commissioner Hanna advised that under that theory they wouldn't ever build any thirty (30) story buildings ( with the problem of getting past the 1st floor of a multi -story building). Chairman Jacks asked if anyone on the Planning Commission had any comments about the off-site improvements. Commissioner Nash suggested that they do what they had been doing and just not refer to it and when it gets to the Board they can handle it because the Planning Commission has no clear cut recommendation. Commissioner Seiff recommended that they should table this until after the discussion to take place later in this meeting until the next meeting perhaps they would get a better clear-cut direction on this. He asked Mr. Brooks how much it would affect him if this was tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Brooks stated that it would just cost them a little interest, but if that is what it takes he had no objection. Mr. Brooks stated that in order to get the setback from Porter Road they will have to reduce the width of the lots from 75' to 73.33', would that be all right. • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 6 Mr. Mahaffey stated that they think probably on the final plat they would like to make all the lots the same width except those on Porter Road. They would normally be wider (85'). The others then could be 73.33' wide. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to table this until the next meeting, seconded by Allred and followed by a question from a member of the audience. Mrs. Johnson, speaking for her mother (Mrs. Opal Hart) who has property adjoining this, stated that there seemed to be a discrepancy in where their property line is and her mother is concerned about having to move the fence there. Chairman Jacks stated that this would be something that the Planning Commission has nothing to do with. Mrs. Johnson asked about a sewer easement from the back of her mother's property. Chairman Jacks noted that there is an easement required there already so there is one available. John Mahaffey stated that they are leaving easements along the back lot lines. Chairman Jacks stated they would need to work these things out among themselves. The motion to table passed 6-0-0. Bill Brooks asked if this could be done as expeditiously as possible so they can get started. Chairman Jacks stated that it would be on the next meeting's agenda. He advised that they still have the questions of the length of the cul- de-sac and the off-site improvements to determine. Commissioner Nash asked if it would have to go through Subdivision Committee again. Chairman Jacks answered, No. John Mahaffey asked if they would like to have the plat revised with the changes they have talked about. Chairman Jacks answered, Yes, that would be helpful. Chairman Seiff suggested that the developers find out from the City before they come back through what their expectation is on the development of the frontage road as far as timing is concerned. Chairman Hanna advised that they show the way they intend to put the access to the frontage road through those two end lots. Chairman Jacks asked Don Bunn if he had any information about the timing on this project and if it is a state project. Don Bunn answered that it was a city project but he didn't have any information on it with him. CONDITIONAL USE (TANDEM LOT) - CLAUD PRUITT 1295 JOE FRED STAR ROAD The third item of consideration on the agenda was a Conditional Use for a Tandem Lot submitted by Claud Pruitt and located at 1295 Joe Fred Star Road. Chairman Jacks stated that the question has come up as to why this is not a Lot Split also. Claud Pruitt stated that it is a lot split but on a tandem lot a conditional use is required. He noted that the split could have been handled • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 7 administratively but they needed the Planning Commission's approval on the conditional use for a tandem lot. He advised that he is representing Lindsey & Associates. Mr. Pruitt stated that there is another home back behind this. Chairman Jacks asked how this home was accessed. Mr. Pruitt answered that it accessing on an easement through the driveway that exists there. He stated that there is a little stub that could be extended off of Lover's Lane at some time and they would have access back there. He stated that this home owner is in agreement with this. He noted that essentially, what has happened is that they are trying to get a couple of nice lots off the back of the property. Chairman Jacks advised that the tandem lot ordinance was brought into existence to handle properties which really are so deep they can't be developed by ordinary means, or there are problems with the terrain, etc. Mr. Pruitt noted that this is a hillside, but there is a good existing drive there which is going to be improved and it would fall under the tandem lot ordinance. He stated that the east line of this lot is on the city limits line. Commissioner Seiff asked if the other side of that city limit line is on the future plan for expansion of the city limits. Don Bunn stated that there isn't a plan at this time. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion to grant the conditional use passed 6-0-0. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL CONSTRAINTS Chairman Jacks referred to the decision on the part of the Supreme Court that spells out that the Planning Commission has to follow its own regulations and ,etc. He said he didn't think this was news to anyone, although there has been other cities with instances where Planning Commissioners were indeed suggesting placing restrictions or refusing a thing for certain reasons which really were not there in the ordinance. The ruling of the Supreme Court is simply saying that they need to watch those things. Chairman Jacks referred to the sheets attached to the agenda which list the requirements, in terms of the Planning Commission's approval, for "Conditional Uses", "Large Scale Developments", and "Planned Unit Developments (P.U.D.)" and "Subdivision Regulations". (See attachments at the back of the minutes.) He noted that on Conditional Uses the Planning Commission is required to make certain findings to determine that it is working well from a variety of standpoints including ingress/egress, parking & loading if it is downtown, and also general compatibility. This is on Conditional Uses which are uses on appeal to the Planning Commission. He stated that they have to find that satisfactory provisions have been made for these things. • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 8 He referred to the "Large Scale Development" list which states certain reasons for which they may refuse approval. He stated that number 4 on this list is one thing they look for in a Large Scale Development because traffic is always a particular problem Chairman Jacks noted that the Planning Commission tends to forget sometimes because they don't have very many P.U.D.s, but by virtue of its definition the "Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)" is essentially not a compatible use. The ideal is to take a incompatible use (for instance commercial properties in a residential area) and restrict it to a certain area, you are not really hurting anybody by and large unless traffic turns out to be a consideration. Also, multi -family projects in single-family areas is another example. That is why the concept is there Otherwise, if this wasn't considered incompatible, they could do it without asking anybody. It does achieve, as mentioned in this list, a more efficient use of land, open space and public facilities. Chairman Jacks noted that the sentence (The intention is to spell out requirements in detail, leaving room only for "interpretations" of the ordinance.) at the beginning of the "Subdivision Regulations" list is the basis for the whole thing. He stated that this is the only one of these ordinances that does spell out requirements in detail. Regarding "interpretations", first interpretations are made by the Planning Office (Planning Administrator). If the people involved don't agree with that interpretation, then they can come to the Planning Commission and certainly appeal it on to the City Board. As you go through the Subdivision Regulations, you do find certain places where certain specifics things are approved by various people; intersections by the Street Superintendent and storm drainage by the City Engineer. The storm drainage approval may change under the new ordinance because they never really had standards in this ordinance (the existing Subdivision Regulations). The new one does have rather detailed standards in it and this approval process may change once the new ordinance is in place. Dedications for land for Park Space will be approved by the Planning Commission after consultation with the Parks Board. He noted that they had generally been going along with what the Parks Board wanted. Off-site improvements are to be determined by the Planning Commission on a rational nexus basis. Chairman Jacks advised that it is the Planning Commission's duty, according to the ordinance, to make those decisions which are difficult. He stated that he didn't think that they have a good ordinance along that line. He noted, also, that variances in design standards are to be granted by the Planning Commission. The cul-de-sac issue would be a good case in point here. The Planning Commission may refuse development on steep grades, unstable soil and flood plains. Chairman Jacks noted that the flood plain has changed a little •' • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 9 since the ordinance was initially drafted, but this is still in the ordinance. The Planning Commission may require larger easements for certain things if they think it is needed. Chairman Jacks stated that he provided these lists because he thought the Planning Commission might want to have a little more concise listing of these things to refer to as they go through them. Commissioner Nash stated that what she is looking for in this basically is something that allows the Planning Commission to use their discretion in denying something. It seems like the Planning Commission has done this up until the past few years and they can't do it anymore. She referred to the third item from the bottom of the page on the Subdivision Regulations list which states that "variances from design standards in the Subdivision Regulations granted by the Planning Commission". She asked what was meant by "design standards". Chairman Jacks explained that in the Subdivision ordinance there is a real laundry list of requirements in terms of right-of-ways, street widths, maximum length of cul-de-sac, and various things. What this is saying is that the Planning Commission has the power of varying or waiving certain requirements. Co ',issioner Nash asked if it was referring to the layout of the subdivision. Chairman Jacks answered, No,he didn't think it was referring to the layout. He noted that the design standard doesn't .describe any particular layout. Don Bunn stated that the design standard would be things like right-of-way width or maybe even the width of paved street or something of that nature. Commissioner Nash asked if where it indicated that the Planning Commission may refuse development in a flood plain was it saying they may refuse development strictly because it is in a flood plain with no other reason necessary. Don Bunn answered, Yes, that is the way he interprets it. Chairman Jacks advised that the federal restrictions on flood plains changed at some point after the 1970 writing of this ordinance. Don Bunn stated that the level of a 100 year flood could not be changed and sometimes that is difficult to show one way or another. Chairman Jacks stated that it seems to him that originally development was prohibited altogether in a flood plain, they simply couldn't build anything there. That has been altered in the meantime to allow building up of property and that sort of thing. Don Bunn advised that the idea is that you can't change the level of a 100 year flood by development. Commissioner Nash stated that she was confused about the comments Don Bunn had made at the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Bunn explained that the City has had a general flood plain ordinance for a long time, but he hasn't been working with it so he is not totally familiar with that ordinance. The new ordinance, however, is one of the conditions of our grant to build a treatment plant and it is separate from that flood plain ordinance. It says that you can not develop within the flood plain and the sole reason for that is to preserve the environment of the flood plain. It doesn't have anything to do with the • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 10 possibility of flooding. However if it is already developed substantially, for instance a piece of property that has been developed on one side and on the other with an area in between, you could develop that flood plain property in between. He noted that there is a gray area as to when you can enforce this ordinance and when you can't or when you should enforce it and when you shouldn't. Since there is already sewer contained within the flood plain in this case, then his interpretation would be that it is already developed, the facilities are there, and it could be developed legally. If a decision was made against development, then the developer could only appeal to the EPA. Chairman Jacks noted that this is an ecological issue. Don Bunn advised that it has to do with preserving the environment within the flood plain. Commissioner Nash stated that most clear -cutting takes place in order to clear the land for some sort of development. How can clear -cutting in a flood plain be legal if development in a flood plain is illegal. Don Bunn stated that it depends on the surrounding uses whether it is already developed or not. Commissioner Nash asked if, for instance, they had a piece of land in the flood plain and both sides are developed, does this piece of land have to be limited to a certain size or could be a thousand acres between an acre on each side. Don Bunn advised that would be an interpretation they would have to make because it doesn't spell it our to that degree. Generally if it is in town, the interpretation would have to be that the development could take place. If it is out in the outskirts of town, then they might make a different interpretation. One of the problems with it is once you have a sewer in a flood plain, then you might consider that the facilities are already there. This may be something in the ordinance that would need to be cleared up. Commissioner Nash asked if the EPA had jurisdiction over that sort of thing. Don Bunn stated that the City makes the decision and if it is decided that it can not be developed under this ordinance, then the EPA would have the authority to overrule that. Then it becomes a burden on the developer to show that otherwise. In fact, it is almost a case of them having to do a small scale impact statement to prove that it should be developed. Chairman Jacks advised that he prepared these lists for convenience sake, but it is wise to keep in mind that the Planning Commission is restricted and they simply can't go beyond the ordinances in their power to require things. If the requirements are vague enough then it becomes an interpreted sort of thing. Commissioner Seiff thanked Chairman Jacks for preparing these lists because this has cleared up some of the questions that he has had in trying to make a decision. He noted that this doesn't leave open, however, that ambiguity of words like "compatibility". Then, of course, there are newspaper articles that appears from time to time like one that appeared this last week in which the Board of Directors publicly mentioned as to what the Planning Commission should and shouldn't do. He noted that the Planning Commission is appointed by an elected body, but are we clerks or are we commissioners. He stated that he would like to publicly make a suggestion that the time has come for them to meet again with the Board of Directors and put it in a resolution form if they can. He • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 11 advised that the Planning Commission had a meeting with the Board of Directors several months ago and was promised that they would have more of these meetings and that they would be able to iron these things out among ourselves without airing it. He noted that he would like to suggest that they have a meeting with the Board of Directors and go over these items category by category. He stated that he wanted the Board to tell them what they should or shouldn't be doing before the public hears about it. At least we would hear about it before the newspaper is published the next day. He referred to statements that had been made in the newspaper by some of the directors that are hard for him to understand. Director Jeremy Hess had stated in an article by Phyllis Rice that he thought it "logical" that the Board and not the Planning Commission have final say on preliminary plats. Commissioner Seiff quoted from the article which states "That is one of the reasons we are here," Director Hess said, " to say how the City should grow." "The Planning Commission should serve only in an advisory capacity." Commissioner Seiff stated that he didn't know what Director Hess meant by an "advisory capacity". Commissioner Seiff went on to quote Jim Pennington, City Manager, who told directors he considered it "technically improper" for the Planning Commission to consider the preliminary plat for a subdivision while it was also considering a rezoning for the same parcel. "That", he said, "smacked of contract rezoning which is specifically forbidden by state law " Commissioner Seiff noted that the Planning Commission did not consider the subdivision plat,.and the rezoning at the same time. He said Chairman Jacks clearly stated that the consideration of the preliminary plat after the consideration of the zoning. The zoning issue came up first and it was discussed and voted on and then the subdivision plat was discussed afterwards. He further stated that the City, not the Planning Commission, presents the agenda. They got the agenda from the City which had both those items on the same agenda even though they were separate. So if there is a problem from the City and from the City Director, he feels that it is the City Director's responsibility to see to it that the agenda the Planning Commission gets is appropriate. These are specifics in a general situation which he feels once and for all they need their direction and they are only going to get direction at a long joint meeting where all these items are spelled out category by category. He stated that he would hope that either their Chairman or all of the Planning Commission would agree that we need to meet with the Board and see what problems they have with the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission is a body that is going to be here forever even though all of the members won't be. He stated that they have a new twenty (20) year plan to come and it would be nice to be able to interpret everything in a way that they know what is expected of them. Commissioner Hanna stated that he would like to add one thing to Commissioner's Seiff's statements. Sometime ago they spent quite a bit of time on an update committee trying to update some of the things that are being discussed now. One of the problems that was presented to them at the time was a complaint that it was too hard to go through the bureaucracy to get something done such as development in Fayetteville. The update committee considered the problem and someone from the Chamber of Commerce, the City Manager and a number of others met • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 12 with developers to try to figure out how they could speed up the process of getting building permits and getting things done. He stated that he understood that Director Hess has asked Jim McCord to draft an ordinance vesting final preliminary plat approval with the Board. He further stated that he supposed that it is not his place to object to that particularly, but that is going exactly the opposite from what they were trying to do previously and had spend a lot of time on. That is going to add more time to the process of getting something done and it probably caused what happened tonight, this preliminary plat to be tabled. He noted to him, a preliminary plat is just that, if the Board is going to have to pass on the preliminary plat, then he would also suggest that they sit in on the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee when it comes back as a final plat and also do the job of the Planning Commission of approving the subdivisions in general. In this case, he doesn't even see why they should come to the Planning Commission. As far as advising them on it, it seems like they advise something and a few people show up and object to the Planning Commission following the ordinances they tend to get political rather than try to follow the law. Chairman Jacks advised that the enabling legislation does say that their duty is to advise and council the City government which places them in a recommendation role. The Board in its wisdom in the past has vested certain final authority in the Planning Commission in terms of Large Scale Developments and plats, etc., but the power is with them. Commissioner Hanna stated that a preliminary plat is just that and there are so many stages to go through it just seems that it would be rather time consuming and almost redundant to have that have to go to the City Board before it can even come back through. Chairman Jacks clarified then that what Commissioner Hanna is doing is challenging the wisdom of the decision. Commissioner Hanna said he thought it was an unwise idea and they would just be going backwards again. They had this power at one time and it was too cumbersome and they gave it to the Planning Commission and now they want to take it back. Chairman Jacks stated that the Planning Commission initially did signs back when they did the sign ordinance which was written by Planning Commission and the Board took it over. He stated that it looks like there is quite a change, they seem to be reversed by the City Board a lot more than they used to be. Commissioner Allred stated that it seems to him that if the City Board wants to look at all these preliminary plats, then why do they need the Planning Commission. The Board could take care it and probably reduce some of the City staff and get the budget back in line. Larry Wood stated that he would like to point out that on this issue, the state enabling legislature sets up these general rules that the Planning Commission is operating on and that enabling legislation specifically places in the hands of the Planning Commission the approval or disapproval process of a subdivision. He Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 13 noted that this action on the part of the City Board, he supposes, is certainly within the law. The zoning, however, because of the ordinance change is a recommendation to the City Board because they are the only ones that can change the ordinance. Chairman Jacks clarified that he said that this enabling legislation actually vests the power of approval in the Planning Commission without going to the Board. Larry Wood stated, Yes, as far as the approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The only action according to the statute that the City Board would be in on would be relating to the dedication of streets. Commissioner Nash asked Larry Wood for Rock Planning Commission suit that Mr. said basically what is being discussed a Planning Commission if they can take comply; The Planning Department can do his comment on the Richardson vs Little McCord sent to them a week or so ago that here tonight. She asked why do they need a page of ordinances and check off if they that. Larry Wood stated that it depends on the situation. If you had a case of a subdivision where it meets all the requirements of the ordinance but you deny it on some whim, then he doesn't think it would stand up in court. If, however, it meets everything in the ordinance but there are some problems that the ordinance addresses like a soil problem and the subdivision meets all the requirements of the ordinance but you are fearful of some future problems because it was denied on that basis, then you have a much stronger case. It depends on the action of the Planning Commission in terms of how they are denying something.. Hestated that he would have to disagree with the basic ruling of this case and agree with the opinion. Chairman Jacks advised that there are a lot of very business about compatibility and all these kinds interpretations involved that can get you in trouble. gray areas in the planning of things and there are Commissioner Nash noted that she has a list of "modified zoning requirements" which lists eleven reasons why they could not rezone property. She stated that this gives a lot of flexibility. Chairman Jacks stated that he thinks they have more latitude in zoning because that is interpretation of the land use plan. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks stated that he wanted to remind the Planning Commissioners of the seminar notice that was sent in the mail which will be in Little Rock on Friday on Impact Fees. This is an approach sweeping the country which speaks to our off-site improvements problems. The reason that this impact fee issue is really going, is a recognition of the problems we have had here because it is difficult to find an equitable way to assess off-site improvements. Chairman Jacks stated that they have a report from the Planner. This is an initial preliminary report of various things including review and analysis of the• zoning and subdivision regulations ordinances. Copies of this have been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. He stated that there is not a lot of • • • Planning Commission May 23, 1988 Page 14 new things in there. The thing of most impact that he saw in this is that they are suggesting that it might be a good idea to rather vigorously expand the residential zones from R-1, 2 & 3 which we currently have on to quite a number of others including the possibility of requiring some really low density residential zones. Chairman Jacks asked the Planning Commissioners to go through it and if they need to discuss it again at the next meeting, they could do that. He stated that this is a preliminary thing and there would be more coming to them from time to time. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 1988 were approved as mailed. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT p.942 Developer must: * dedicate R.O.W. required by Master Street Plan * comply with Subdivision Regulations re streets, utilities, park dedication(rnultifamily only), sidewalks * provide off-site improvements required Planning Commission may refuse approval if: 1. Development plan is insufficient �. Development would violate any city ordinance Developer refuses to dedicate R.O.W.s/easements 4. Development would create or compound a dangerous traf- fic condition 5. Water or sewer not readily available 6. Developer refuses to provide required on- or off-site improvements. 4-2 • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.$) p.872 "comprehensively planned residential, commercial, office or industrial projects in which standard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations may be varied to permit flexibility: building clustering, grouping of open spaces, increased density, etc." A F.U.D. must achieve: 1. more efficient use of land 2. more efficient use of public facilities more usable open space 4. preservation of natural features. The Planning Commission must find that satisfactory provi- sion has been made for: 1. Ingress/egress: automotive, pedestrian, emergency _. Parking/loading: noise, glare, odor - 7. Refuse/services 4. Utilities 5. Screening/buffering 6. Signs/lighting: glare, traffic safety, compatibility 7. Setbacks/open space 4-3 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The intention is to spell out requirements in detail, leav- ing room only for "interpretations" of the ordinance. p.946.4 An interpretation by the Planning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission, on to City Board p.9=0 "The Planning Commission shall consider the preliminary plat along with reports and comments by utility companies and others . . . the Planning Commission shall indicate its approval, disapproval or approval with conditions." p.941 Intersections are approved by the Street Superintendent p.936.01Storrn drainage, water and sewer connections are approved by the City Engineer (new Subdivision Regulations. include storm drainage standards) p.936.04Dedications of land (or cash in lieu) for park space are approved by the Planning Commission (after consultation with the Parks Board) p.9=6.4 Requirements for off-site improvements determined by the Planning Comrnission p.938 Variances from design standards in the Subdivision Regu- lations granted by the Planning Commission p.938.3 Planning Commission may refuse development on steep grades, unstable sail and flood plains p.941 Planning Commission may require larger easements for major utility lines, unusual terrain or drainage problems 4-4