Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on April 10, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, J. David Ozment, J.E. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, Elvie Heiney, Jim Lindsey and C & F Surveyors Representative Chairman Jacks advised that Commissioner Jerry Allred's wife had been in an serious accident which is probably the reason he is absent and they send best wishes to them. MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 8th and the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 1989 were approved as distributed. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS (2 FIRST SPLITS) ELVIE HEINEY - WEST OF UNIVERSITY AVE (NATIONAL CEMETERY ASSOCIATION) The second item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Splits (2 First Splits) submitted by Elvie Heiney on behalf of the National Cemetery Association for property located west of University Avenue. One split involves a .73 acres parent tract with the lot split off being .38 acres and the remaining tract being .35 acres. The other lot split involves a parent tract of .80 acres with the lot split off being .60 acres and the remaining tract being .20 acres. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and before this property can be used as a part of the cemetery, they will have to be rezoned to A-1, Agricultural. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this could have been done administratively through a property line adjustment since there are no new lots being created. However, he felt it should be brought before the Planning Commission for their approval. He advised that the staff reco ends that these lot splits be approved. 38 • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Heiney stated that the National Cemetery is running short of lots. One added that one of the requirements by the Veteran's Administration before they will accept land is that it must be contiguous to an existing cemetery. He advised that they have purchased Tract 10 and Tract 1-A and they have an option on Tract 11 which are all shown on the map that has been submitted. The only properties that they are interested in purchasing that would require a lot split would be these two lots. He advised that they do plan to purchase Tract 2 and 2-A and they have two-year options on Tracts 3, 4, 5 and 6. Chairman Jacks asked if once they accomplish all of this, they would be asking for part of University Avenue to be closed so that it would become a part of the National Cemetery. Mr. Heiney answered, yes, they had a meeting in 1984 with the mayor and the city administrator and there were certain promises made which included closing University Avenue and deeded it to the cemetery after the association had acquired all the lots on the west side of University Avenue. He added that as far as he can determine, Tract 2 has a sewer and water easement that comes all the way over from Hill Street and Tract 6 has an easement that comes up off Tract 7 for their sewer so there must not be any utilities down University Avenue. The owner of tract 8 is not interested in selling at this time. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against this petition. There being no response, it was opened to. the Planning Commission for discussion. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot splits as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - RE -SUBMITTAL OF LAKFSHORE APARTMENTS JIM LINDSEY - N SIDE OF JOYCE ST, W OF OLD MISSOURI ROAD Chairman Jacks advised that this was tabled at the last meeting to give the Staff and Mr. Lindsey a chance to discuss this for clarification on the entrances into the project. He added that they had been informed that it was resolved. John Merrell stated that staff had negotiated with Jim Lindsey on this issue and it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to have two paved entrances going into the apartment development. He advised that Mr. Lindsey conceded. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the west entrance is to be a City street and the east entrance will be a private drive. • PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION 089-11 NORMAN GABBARD - VELDA COURT, E OF ONE MILE ROAD 39 • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 3 The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition 1189-11 submitted by Norman Gabbard and represented by C & F Surveyors for property located on Velda Court, east of One Mile Road containing 1.85 acres more or less. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. There are eight single-family houses on this property but it has never been subdivided and is still in one ownership. A subdivision preliminary plat (Melanda West) for this property is the next item to be considered on the agenda. John Merrell stated that this property was annexed into the City in the late 1960's and never was rezoned from A-1 to R-1. Of the eight lots proposed, four exceed the 8,000 square feet minimum required in R-1 zoning and four don't quite make it. The two on the corner of One Mile Road and the two at the end of the cul-de-sac meet the requirements. The four interior lots are in the range of 7,400 square feet approximately. He added that technically those lots would be non -conforming under the R-1 regulations, but that is the lesser of two evils in terms of allowing these lots to continue as A-1 given the fact that a number of things are allowed in A-1 that aren't allowed in R-1 such as animal husbandry. He advised that the staff recommends the rezoning be approved. Commissioner Hanna stated that when he drove out there and looked at these lots, they didn't look like 81' wide lots as shown because the houses are so close together. Mr. Bunn stated that he did not measure this but it was drawn up by a surveyor. Shirley of C & F Surveyors stated that Jim Cramer had drawn up this plat and it is to scale. They had divided the room between houses up equally so if they were required to move the lot lines to comply, all the houses wouldn't meet the side setbacks. Commissioner Seiff asked if this is approved with these lot sizes is there any type of waiver required since the ordinance says 8,000 square feet and the staff has recommended that it doesn't have to be 8,000 square feet because of the concessions mentioned by John Merrell. Chairman Jacks stated that would be something to be discussed with the subdivision plat and not with the rezoning petition. John Merrell stated in answer to Commissioner Seiff's question that it is always possible somewhere down the road someone might want to add on to one of the houses. In that case there would be no problem as long as they didn't encroach into the setbacks. Even then they could use the option of going to the Board of Adjustment to ask for a variance. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone was here to represent this. Shirley from C & F Surveyors stated that Mr. Gabbard was unable to attend the meeting and Mr. Cramer, the surveyor, had a conflicting meeting so she is the only one here. Chairman Jacks asked if any of the commissioners had questions of the representative or if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition. There being no response, public hearing was closed. MOTION • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 4 Commissioner Seiff moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MELANDA WEST SUBDIVISION NORMAN GABBARD - VELDA COURT, E OF ONE NILE ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was approval of the preliminary plat of Melanda West Subdivision submitted by Norman Gabbard and represented by C & F Surveyors for property located on Velda Court on the east side of One Mile Road containing 1.85 acres and zoned A-1, Agricultural with eight proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that as Mr. Merrell had pointed out, four of the proposed eight lots do not quite meet the 8,000 square foot minimum for R-1. However, they do meet the frontage requirements and the side setback requirements. Two of the lots are about 7,500 square feet and two are about 7,750 square feet. There were no special problems as far as the utilities are concerned when it went through Plat Review. There is one off-site improvement required which is the construction of a fire hydrant at the corner of Velda Court and One Mile Road. The owners have agreed to put this in. The existing street is curbed & guttered but is only 24' wide which does not meet the City standards of 31' and the right-of-way is only 40' which does not.meet the 50' standard. However, it is the recommendation of the staff that the preliminary plat be approved with these variances. Staff doesn't feel that it would be in the best interest to require another 10' right-of-way easement because it would make some of the existing houses be non -conforming. Chairman Jacks asked if they have staff approval of waivers having to do with these substandard lots in terms of size, the street and the right-of-way. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, as far as the size of the lots, the staff felt that this is somewhat the same situation as when the staff requires additional right-of-way with a lot split which creates a non -conforming structure (the structure encroaches into the building setback) which has generally been done without any special approval from the Board of Adjustment. This is a situation where there is a non -conformity being created by the action of the Planning Commission. The only thing this does is perhaps cloud the future improvements that might be made on these houses but again they could appeal to the Board of Adjustment for those variances. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the likelihood is that Velda Court will be extending as more development takes place. Mr. Bunn stated that there is practically no likelihood of that because that was discussed at some length when some rezoning was brought through just east of this. He added that there is a big grade difference between the grade on Velda Court cul-de-sac and to the East so the chances of that being extended are very remote. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that he didn't know if the City had paved Velda Court on a Block Grant Loan. Shirley, C & F Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 5 Surveyors Representative, stated that it was put in by a private contractor and it then it was accepted as a City Street. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thought when the rezoning petition was before them for the property to the East, they were told that Velda Court had been improved with a Block Grant money. He advised that if it was he has a problem with this because they would be letting Mr. Gabbard split that into lots and profit off of what was done for him with Block Grant money. Commissioner Nash asked if Block Grant money would be used outside of the City limits. She noted that it was her understanding that this whole thing was developed before the land was annexed. Commissioner Hanna stated that it was developed before it was annexed, but the road was still gravel. Commissioner Nash stated that at the Subdivision Committee they were advised by several staff members and other Plat Review people that since this was an existing subdivision, many of the subdivision regulations did not apply to it. She added that she had found a sentence in the Subdivision Regulations that said a subdivision on record after September 1960 and before January 1981 would not fall under the articles of Section A which is "Urban Subdivision". She stated that the staff has asked Jim McCord, City Attorney, for his opinion on that. She asked the City Planning Secretary, Elaine Cattaneo, if she had any response from Mr. McCord on that. She answered, no. Commissioner Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee approved the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review comments only. She advised that their vote to approve this means that they felt it agrees with Subdivision Regulations and is not necessarily an endorsement to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hanna asked how this could be considered an existing "subdivision" when it was never subdivided because they built eight rental houses on one lot. Commissioner Nash stated that it has been referred to in all the information she has as an existing "subdivision". Chairman Jacks asked Commissioner Hanna if he sees this as a multi -family development. He answered that he sees this as rental units; if it had been built as four duplexes, it would be the same difference to him. Com issioner Springborn stated that he appreciates Commissioner Nash's comment that her vote at the Subdivision Committee is concerned is independent of the action by the Planning Commission. Secondly, he would like to have verification as to whether the request to Mr. McCord for a legal opinion regarding the handling of this subdivision. Elaine Cattaneo, City Planning Secretary, stated that she hadn't had the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney about the clarification of Article III, Sec. A(1)(k)(6) of the Subdivision Regulations discussed at the Subdivision Committee. She added that she did ask Mr. McCord for verification on whether the greenspace ordinance would apply to this subdivision and on whether the applicant would be required to notify the property owners with land that adjoins this piece of property and he agreed that neither of these would apply since there have been existing houses there for so many Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 6 years. NOTION Commissioner opinion from Commissioner whether this Springborn moved to table the preliminary plat until they get an the City Attorney, seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Nash stated that they could also ask him for clarification on is a multi -family development. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thought someone should look into who paid for improving that street. Otherwise, they would be allowing someone to profit by splitting substandard lots. Chairman Jacks advised that this is probably an issue that wouldn't be before the Planning Commission. He added that he felt the bigger issue would be bringing in a subdivision with substandard improvements. The motion to table passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks asked that the staff make sure that the City Attorney get the message. Commissioner Nash stated that they would like something in writing from Mr. McCord. Commissioner Ozment asked who would be the one to establish who built the street. Don Bunn stated that he would check on the status of the,street. If it was done by Community Development, it will be in the files. He advised that if it was built by Block Grant money, the City would have a record of it. APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHERWOOD FOREST ESTATES, PHASE II JIM LINDSEY - EAST OF LOVERS LANE AND CANTERBURY ROAD The sixth item on the agenda was approval of a preliminary plat for Sherwood Forest Estates, Phase II submitted by Jim Lindsey for Joe Fred Starr for property located east of Lovers Lane and Canterbury Road which is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing 20.09 acres with 6 proposed lots. Don Bunn stated that this development is located east of the existing Sherwood Forest Estates. The utilities were generally available to the site. Water will be extended off an existing line on Canterbury and sewer is available to all but the south two lots. Those two lots will have septic tanks provided the ground will pert in order to allow septic tanks. These lots are of a size that are allowable by the City for septic systems. He added that if they don't perc, then pumps will be provided to get it back to the sanitary sewer that is available further to the North. Mr. Bunn advised that discussion about access developer was to get agreement about access. the two south lots will be on to the East at the with the property owners They were concerned about tandem lots and there was some Subdivision Committee. The to the East and come to some this subdivision cutting off access to their property even though both the properties involved had access over • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 7 to Starr Drive. He noted the staff recommends that this preliminary plat be approved subject to working out the access problem. Mr. Bunn advised that there was also some discussion about the slopes involved and the recommendation of the Planning Consultant in regard to development on slopes. Commissioner Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee approved this plat subject to Plat Review comments and the Bill of Assurance that was offered that the City Engineer would get final approval of the sewers and that the parks fees would be paid. She added that the long driveway does create two tandem lots. However, tandem lots do not come under subdivision regulations. She noted that by their approval they simply said that this plat is in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations. She added that they had revised this to show the location of the houses on the properties around this and had submitted a copy of the Subdivision Covenants. The wooded areas are probably not shown because it is basically all wooded right now. Commissioner Nash stated that there were several issues that the Subdivision Committee felt should be covered at the Planning Commission. She commented that one issue was what 20 acres of vegetation be removed from the top of the mountain would do to the drainage down below. They were also concerned about the tandem lots because of all the discussion about that lately. Also, in the report from Al Raby, Planning Consultant, there is a "Slope Analysis" map which shows this location as being in one of the areas where the slopes are particularly steep and it was stated in this report that these areas are wise to avoid when planning future development. Mr. Raby asked at the meeting in March that they at least postpone future development until the new ordinances were finished. Commissioner Seiff asked where the length of a cul-de-sac would come in. He added that Lover's Lane itself is actually a hugh cul-de-sac. Chairman Jacks stated that looking at it in retrospect, he agrees that is a big issue. Commissioner Seiff stated that with the tandem lot driveway they have an 870' extension to Canterbury which in itself is probably close to 300' long. Commissioner Hanna stated that the cul-de-sac would only apply to streets, this would be a private drive. Commissioner Nash advised that they did discuss that and agreed that it was considered a driveway rather than a street. Jim Lindsey stated that he is representing Joe Fred Starr. He stated that this subdivision had been platted as part of the Sherwood Forest Addition, Phase I without sewer and with 13 lots. Also, based on the previously approved plat, the thirteen acres that are included in proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 could have as many as 26 lots where the sewer is available. The terrain does slope mainly to the East and they felt that to protect the terrain, it made a lot of sense to deal with four lots rather than 26 to minimize the amount of damage done. As far as going on the East with some kind of road, that would terribly defeat the purpose because of the amount of trees that would have to be taken out to put a right-of- way there. They didn't feel that it was a positive thing to this particular area. In short, they are talking about 6 lots on 20 acres and there probably isn't any way you could more conserve development, the land, the terrain and the • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 8 woods & trees. To go into an intensive development in there would be very damaging to the environment. He added in his opinion, from a positive point of view, this method that they have come up is by far the best way to open this up and make it available. Commissioner Nash stated that she appreciates the fact that they have cut the density a great bit, but the density isn't the question here. The concerns they have are should there be development at all and when. Mr. Lindsey asked under what provision or ordinance could this be denied. Commissioner Nash answered that it could be tabled under they can get some input from the Planning Consultant, Al Raby. She added that it is her understanding that the Planning Commission has the right to even go as far as ask for a moratorium from the Board if they choose to. She advised that this was discussed last August when they had the first meeting with the Planning Consultant. She commented that she thinks if they felt like it was in the best interest of planning for Fayetteville, they could at least table it until they get an opinion from the Consultant. Mr. Lindsey stated that the point he would like to make on what Commissioner Nash is saying is that he can't perceive a method by which this land could ever be developed in a better way than what they have shown. He added that there are areas all over Fayetteville that there are much steeper slopes. On this property they are looking at 10% cross slope through there which leaves some real nice area to build on. He stated that with just 6 lots proposed for this, he can't imagine this being tabled and not being dealt with in a:positive fashion. Commissioner Springborn stated that Mr. Lindsey had mentioned that this was part of the Lover's Lane development subdivision. How was it a part of it? Mr. Lindsey stated that the preliminary plat was on it was approved and then it was never finalized. Commissioner Springborn stated that they do appreciate this low density that he is proposing but there are two things that bother him from a technical standpoint. One is if they plan a gravel driveway on that kind of slope to the tandem lots, it seems that there would be a big maintenance problem with it. Mr. Lindsey stated that they would be going with the contour lines with there drive and it will be a compacted base, not loose gravel. He added that if it needed to be asphalt at that time, they would do that also. Commissioner Springborn stated that with the kind of drainage that could occur there, if it was paved it could be done in such a manner that they have some semblance of a little guard edge to take care of indirect runoff rather than a gravel drive that would result in east/west drainage down the slope which would adversely affect the properties below this. Mr. Lindsey stated that he agrees that they would definitely have to underdrain it anywhere there is a crossing. He stated that this is something that they would need to research. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is concerned even with this kind of density development could easily result in swells washing through. Mr. Lindsey stated that they would commit to having underdrainage if they have gravel. Commissioner Ozment asked how this compares with the Foster Addition that is being developed at the end of Rockwood Trail as far as the slope. Chairman Jacks stated that it is steep. Commissioner Ozment stated that he is for controlling • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 9 the development of the entire town, but as far as the Consultant's recommendation of not developing the mountains around Fayetteville, there is a certain group of people who want to live there. He added that he thinks they should try to control the development of the mountains, but there is going to be some development and he hopes they can develop standards that can protect the land as well. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he thinks what Commissioner Nash is saying is they should see what the Consultant's recommendations were as far as guidelines for building on that area. Commissioner Nash stated that the slope analysis didn't just say don't build on all mountains, it picked out the part that the slope and the soil combined to make it particularly undesirable for development. She stated further that since the City has spent all this money on the consultants and are this far along with developing this, she thinks they would at least take what they have to say to heart and find out what they mean by it. Mr. Lindsey stated that the size of these lots and the way it has been done has been very attractive so four of the six lots are already spoken for. He added that he can't imagine a slope analysis telling them that they can't do something with the piece of property. He commented that if he was the owner of this property he would feel like he wasn't treated fairly if he was not able to do this project. Commissioner Nash stated that there are going to be_feelings like thatanytime they redo ordinances because people are used to the old way. A lot of people are going to get caught in the middle and she has a lot of sympathy for developers who, because of the way things are now, can do all sorts of site preparation and spend lots of money on plats before they ever come here and maybe get told they have to wait. The viewpoint of the City is that they need to at least find out what the Consultant's have planned for this in the future. Mr. Lindsey asked if they had made a formal commitment and issued a statement saying that they would not review or accept anything if it had any infringement on this study. Commissioner Nash answered, no, what she was saying is that she thinks this Commission could take a vote asking to Board to declare a moratorium. She added that she is saying that she would like to table anything that is "iffy" until they find out from Mr. Raby what his exact recommendation would be in this case. Commissioner Seiff stated that the City has been dealing with Mr. Raby for quite a while now and perhaps Mr. Merrell could give them an idea how long it would take to get an opinion from Mr. Raby on this. Mr. Merrell stated that the various projects that Mr. Raby and his staff are working on include the new zoning ordinance, recommendations on tree protection, landscaping and possible amendments to the subdivision regulations. The Plan is that the City staff itself will contribute to developing ordinances as far as developing on slopes. He advised that Mike Batie, Public Works Director, who was going to lead this has recently resigned and the City Manager is out of town until next week. He stated that he and Mr. Bunn need to talk with the City Manager and find out if they feel like they have enough resources among the staff to continue with this or if they need to ask Mr. Raby to have his people contribute to the slope analysis. He advised that they do expect a draft of overall unified • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 10 development ordinance sometime around the early to mid summer with the contract stipulating that it be provided no later than August. Commissioner Seiff clarified that if they just wanted to question Mr. Raby about this particular proposal rather than a moratorium, how soon could they get an opinion. Mr. Merrell stated that they could raise that issue with Mr. Raby but it is little bit outside of his contract and he has a feeling that the ultimate opinion will be more in the realm of the City staff. Mr. Raby has been very cooperative and would probably agree to looking at this. Commissioner Seiff stated that Mr. Merrell himself has stated that it would be a good idea for the staff to review this when Mr. Pennington gets back so it might not be a bad idea to table this. Mr. Merrell stated that he is saying that they should table this. He feels that they can stand on the staff's recommendation which is to recommend approval but if the Planning Commission would like them to discuss this specification with Mr. Raby they would be more than happy to do so. Commissioner Hanna stated that he is not in favor of asking Mr. Raby to either approve or disapprove of any of the actions they take as a Planning Commission in Fayetteville. He added that he agrees with Commissioner Nash's statement about Mr. Raby's slope analysis recommendations, but he doesn't think Mr. Raby was talking about a piece of property sitting in the middle of a developed in Fayetteville that doesn't have any more slope than this. He commented that he is in favor of voting on it tonight. He advised that .when Mr. Raby comes in a recommendation about slopes and the size of lots and the zoning applicable of certain slopes in certain areas of town, then they should take it into consideration. Commissioner Nash stated that she thinks they need clarification on this because this is the sort of thing he does address in the two pages of the slope analysis. She added that she thinks they need a statement from him but they won't be sending him a plat of this particular subdivision and asking what he thinks. Commissioner Hanna stated that even if he makes a statement, the Planning Commission is going to have to make the decision. Commissioner Klingaman stated that sometimes developers get caught in the middle and sometimes the Planning Commissions get caught in the middle, but they shouldn't necessarily delay development on the pretext that this is coming and will be available. Chairman Jacks stated that they aren't talking about a tight subdivision but some good size lots and that makes all the difference. Commissioner Springborn stated that part of the issue here seems to be the slope and the soil. He asked Mr. Lindsey if he knows what kind of soil they are dealing with. Mr. Lindsey stated that they aren't sure what kind of soil it is, but what they have said and are willing to commit to is that only two lots will be affected and if they do not perc in an adequate fashion, they will then place on record a Bill of Assurance with their final plat that commits those two lots to what is called a grinder pump which pumps back to the sewer line. There has been percolation problems along Lover's Lane and in those areas and they will abide by the State Health Department Standards. If these lots don't perc, they • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 11 will commit that Lot 2 & 3 will have a grinder pump back to Canterbury Circle. Commissioner Springborn stated that he doesn't think that Mr. Raby had taken soil borings in these areas when he put that plat together. He added that he had hoped that the developers had so that it would put some clear direction to it. Mr. Lindsey asked what purpose would the soil borings would serve. Commissioner Springborn stated that they might show the risk of serious wash. Mr. Lindsey stated that he didn't think they would have a problem with serious wash, they will have more of a problem with whether or not that soil will percolate for septic. He added that they are going to weave this road down this 50' easement back to this back point and have a turnaround down there for emergency vehicles and it will lay with the land. Commissioner Springborn stated that he started out with the same reservations and apprehension that Commissioner Nash voiced tonight, but in view of the previous plat that was in existence and the lack of technical background at the present time for the Raby study with respect to drainage and wash, he is being persuaded away from that. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he agrees with Commissioners Nash & Hanna in that probably they do need to get some kind of input from Mr. Raby but by the same token this is the idea alternative to what it used to be. They probably • need to go on with this and discuss this under "Other Business" tonight. MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved to approve the preliminary plat, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is not concerned about the development on a slope because that has been done successfully in Fayetteville. What concerns him is the two in -lots and putting in a septic tank which would be very inappropriate there because of the development that will go on below the hill. He stated that he doesn't believe he can vote for this with the assumption that a septic tank would go in there even if percs were available because it would move down the hill to the people below. Commissioner Seiff stated that he reinforces what Commissioner Klingaman said. Mr. Lindsey stated that if the Planning Commission wants to they would agree to use grinder pumps to get back to the sewer on those two lots and they would offer a Bill of Assurance. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this. There was no response. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION • Commissioner Ozment amended his motion to approve this subject to the Bill of Assurance that they will use grinder pumps on those two lots, seconded by • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 12 Commissioner Hanna. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Nash voting "no". OTHER BUSINESS SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Commissioner Nash stated that in talking to other subdivision members, it seems to be a consensus that when Subdivision Committee approves an LSD or a subdivision, what they are saying by there approval is that it meets the Subdivision Regulations and that they are not endorsing Planning approval because there are other planning issues that are not covered by Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Jacks clarified that the Subdivision Committee no longer has the power to approve a Large Scale Development although it used to have that authority. Commissioner Cleghorn referred to the discussion earlier about development in certain areas and Mr. Raby's recommendations. He stated that there will probably be other things come up before they get the final document He stated that there are things such as rules or construction regulations that the City should have depending on soil analysis or slopes,etc and the City doesn't have that now. He added that there are no regulations concerning drainage either. Chairman Jacks stated that with drainage problems there is legal recourse but no City ordinance. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that if some of these things are coming then maybe they need to rethink there thinking on what they do in the meantime. Chairman Jacks stated that his view is that they are waiting for and are looking forward to those things, a moratorium is a big deal. He added that it is getting to a judgment call about the intensity of that development and what they know it would do to the environment. However, if they get a subdivision of a minimum sort of nature and get into one of these environmentally sensitive areas, then they may very well want to table it period. Commissioner Seiff stated that what Commissioner Nash had pointed out is that this subdivision is right in the area with one of the worst slopes according to that slope analysis map in Mr. Raby's report. He added that he thinks they will have others in the same area that will probably decide if they are going to build they better build now. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't think a Planner such as Mr. Raby and his staff can really declare a hardcore line in terms of slope and size where development will be o.k. on one side and not o.k. on the other. It is invariably going to be a judgment call on the part of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that she thought Mr. Raby was just giving some generalities and basically she doesn't see the difference in building one house or thirty on twenty acres if you are clearly the whole 20 acres. Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't think they could ever come back with a recommendation that will show any less intrusive development in R-1 inside the City Limits than what is planned for this particular subdivision. He advised Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 13 that they are not going to be able to tell someone they can't develop their property when they have 20 acres with development all around it. Commissioner Springborn stated that the reason he was raises some technical questions was because of the Raby Report, but also after talking with Al Raby, he doesn't think he has the benefit of any soil borings anyplace. He stated that he has what the status of the report is because he thought it would have a bearing on these judgment calls. He added that he would like to suggest to John Merrell with his background in planning to give some further thought to the possibility of looking to some point in time (a possible date) for looking at a moratorium Commissioner Nash stated that if it comes to the point that this is in the best interest of the City and it passes and they put it into effect, then they can tell people what they can do and what they can build. If there is a development that they feel is unwise for the City, they can say "no". Chairman Jacks stated that absent of any kind of a legal effort on their part (ordinances, etc.), he thinks they have a tougher time tabling development requests than they do zoning requests. The subdivision regulations are written with the idea that they are going to be so detailed that if the developer follows those that is it. Commissioner Seiff stated that he thinks they should consider a "moratorium" on development. Commissioners Springborn & Nash agreed. Chairman Jacks stated that they would have to be very specific about it. Commissioner Hanna stated that a "moratorium" is something that causes wars in town. Chairman Jacks stated that they might be well advised to get some indication from the Planner of what they will propose about development in these kinds of areas. Commissioner Ozment stated that he thinks the recommendations the Consultants make and what they end up with will be a step in the right direction, but if they get "too bold and too wild" they won't see anything come to pass. There will be a war and the whole thing will go out the window leaving them back where they were. They need to take it a bite at a time and ultimately end up with a good plan. He added that he would like to see the Planning staff independent of Mr. Raby do some research to see what the latest trends are in developing these rocky terrain areas and not depend solely upon the ideas of one paid consultant. He advised that he has seen nothing in that report so far that he couldn't compile on his own in this town. Commissioner Springborn stated that he had some of the same feeling some time back but after the City committed to getting the study, he felt it was in the best interest of the City to get behind the report. Commissioner Ozment stated that he didn't want to try to duplicate the report, but he would like the City's professionals to look at current methods that are being utilized in developing a mountainous terrain. He advised that "development" is going to come with or without them. Surely there have been enough developments like that across the United States that there has been enough test cases for them to learn something and development a game plan that is reasonable to develop those areas. Chairman Jacks stated that they have had very little planned development of • • • Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 14 mountainsides in Fayetteville except for maybe Hyland Park. Looking back on Hyland Park, he sees lots of mistakes that they made when that development came through such as the five or six mile cul-de-sac. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he thinks they have a history of doing a relatively good job on hilltops around here with a lot higher density than is being used on Lover's Lane. Commissioner Nash stated that she thinks they should give some thought to what they should do before the report comes out and she doesn't have any solutions other than tabling. She advised that they have been asked not to spot commercial zone around the bypass also. Commissioner Hanna stated there are a lot of people involved with developments that come in such as the developer, real estate agent and people wanting to buy the lots. They have hired an engineer and did a survey and when you ask them to wait while you table it until something comes in this summer, you are costing them money. Chairman Jacks stated that there is one other solution; they could deny them if they don't agree with them. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.