Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-28 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING The Subdivision Committee of the City Planning Commission met at 4:15 P. M., Monday, March 28, 1977, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Larry Wood, Jack Ray. MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Newhouse. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Ervan. Wimberly, Elizabeth Magee Crocker, Lee M. Kirby, W. A. Vaughn. Bill Kisor made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1977 MINUTES meeting as mailed. Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was passed 3-0. The first item for discussion was the large scale development plan for property owned by Dr. J. B. Hays lying between the 71 Drive -In Theatre and the former Circle C Motel. Develop- ment plan includes sites for "Power Bowl Building", "King Pizza", and "Beacon Drive -In". Ervan Wimberly, Robert Bigby, and Don Swaty were present to represent. Ernest Jacks mentioned that there are some building code problems which they will have to work out. The floor of King Pizza will have to be elevated two feet above the 100 -year flood plain. There should be an easement for gas service between the Bowling alley and King Pizza. Chairman Jacks questioned the amount of parking on King Pizza and Beacon Drive -In, and Bobbie Jones referred to Article 7, Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance which says that 80% of the area not occupied by the building must be for parking. Bobbie Jones said that for many drive-in facilities they need that much parking area to function. Bobbie Jones said she thought they may be short in their parking spaces for the Bowl building but thought they could get the extra spaces across the front of the building. Chairman Jacks acknowledged the following comments: POWER BOWL Large Scale Development Between 71 Drive -In & former Circle C Motel Roy Hawkins, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company said they will require a minimum of 2" PVC Schedule 40 conduit to each building and a place to terminate inside the building to wire for telephones. This needs to go to the Highway 71 right-of-way. Also, they have existing on the Highway 71 right-of-way a main conduit feeder route plus a buried cable so be very careful digging or grading in that area. Call them and they will locate them for them. (Call maintenance repair to locate lines) Clyde Terry, Warner Cable, said if either King Pizza or Beacon wants TV cable, and if they do not want overhead service, we would ask them to furnish us a 2" PVC conduit. On the Bowling Alley, we will go overhead if they have poles, but if they desire to go underground, we will request them to furnish us a 2" PVC conduit to their equipment room. From there we would like conduit up to the individual outlets and to be installed at the cost of the developer before the inside finishing of the building is done. We must have a separate cable for each outlet all the way back to the line splitter source. Bill Kisor asked if they have the water worked out and Ervan Wimberly said water is there. They think there is an 8 -inch main all the way on that side of the road but Scott Martin, Acting City Engineer is going to check to be sure. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 28, 1977 -2- Bill Kisor made a motion to approve the large scale development plan for "Power Bowl Building", "King Pizza" and "Beacon Drive=In" with three contingencies: (1) the building floor level for King Pizza be placed two feet above the 100 -year flood plain; (2) the parking spaces meet the Ordinance requirements; and (3) the easement for gas service be provided. Jack Ray seconded the motion which was passed 3-0. The second item for discussion was the letter from PETITION FOR Dr. Thermon R. Crocker, Elizabeth Magee Crocker, and REHEARING ON REQUEST OF Col. Lee M. Kirby petitioning the Planning Commission BOB HUTSON for a rehearing on the request of Bob Hutson for 4th, Sth, 6th, and 7th waiver of Subdivision Regulations for property on Joe Fred Starr Road. Elizabeth Magee Crocker, Dr. Thermon R. Crocker, Col. Lee M. Kirby, and Mr. and Mrs. W. A Vaughn were present to represent. Chairman Jacks asked Mrs. Crocker if they were concerned in that they saw this as a subdivision without meeting the requirements for a subdivision and Mrs. Crocker said "yes". Chairman Jacks mentioned that:they have been a little more liberal outside the city limits. Bobbie Jones pointed out Article 4, Section A of the Subdivision Ordinance which says: Whenever the proposed subdivision creates only one new lot from an existing parcel, or platted lot or block, the planning administrator shall determine whether said division interferes with the future subdivision of the original parcel and/or the future subdivision of the surrounding land. In making said determination, the planning administrator shall determine whether the proposed division conforms to the official plans, and regulations that make up the com- prehensive plan, including the land use plan, the street plan, access control, set -back regulations, the community facilities plan and the zoning ordinance. If the planning administrator determines that the proposed division will not interfere with the future subdivision of the original and/or the future subdivision of the surrounding land, he may waive the preliminary and final plat requirements of this ordinance. The planning administrator may waive the preliminary and final plat requirements for a second or third division of any part of the original parcel if the planning administrator determines as aforesaid that the proposed second or third division will not interfere with the future subdivision of the original parcel and/or the future subdivision of the surrounding land. If the provisions of these standards are shown by the subdivider to cause undue hardship as they apply to his proposed subdivision, the city planning commission may grant a variance to the subdivider from such provisions, so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of this ordinance. Elizabeth Crocker pointed out the last paragraph which says that "In the case of a first or second waiver said notice shall further state that future subdivision of said parcel may require conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. In the case of a third waiver said notice shall further state that future subdivision of said parcel will require conformity with the provision of this ordinance." Bobbie Jones noted that City Attorney Jim McCord's letter to Dr. Crocker did give two avenues of recourse: (1) ask the Planning Commission to rehear the matter, or (2) ask for an interpretation. The Planning Commission is the one who makes the interpretation. Chairman Jacks said the Planning Commission would lean on the City Attorney's advice. Subdivision Committee Meeting March 28, 1977 Elizabeth Magee Crocker stated that she felt the Ordinance doesn't leave that much discretion with the Planning Commission. She said she does understand that they do have leeway with what they require him to put in since it is a subdivision. She said they should take into consideration that it is immediately adjacent to the City Limits and is directly across from the second phase of Sequoyah Woods. Col. Lee Kirby stated that a few years ago when everyone went to the State and said they would like a law extending the authority of the City, the basic purpose of that was to gain control over developments of the rural areas which would be immediately adjacent when the City expanded. He said it looks like the action taken by the Planning Commission subversed the intent of that state law in this case and it appears that whatever rules they apply to developments within the planning area of the City should be concerned. Chairman Jacks said there are differences made between urban and suburban and when the Commission sees 5 acre sites, they tend to see the possibilities of nice drives, etc. Mr. Kirby stated that they don't know what will go on in these 5 acre tracts. He stated that they may have 35 acres of an uncontrolled nature. Ernest Jacks said that if he chose to subdivide the 5 acre tracts into smaller pieces, Mr. Hutson would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Ernest Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if we don't commonly notify adjacent property owners on lot splits and Bobbie Jones said that we don't. She said one thing that City Attorney Jim McCord pointed out is that we have not been approving lot splits in the Planning Office where there is no street frontage for all parcels. City Attorney McCord said they may have to approve some without street frontage since that is in the zoning ordinance and those subdivisions outside the city limits do not have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, only the subdivision regulations. Chairman Jacks asked if they would object if the property were developed with one house on each 5 acre tract. Mrs. Crocker said she would object as she feels it is a bad policy for them not to realize that they do have the power to control develop- ments outside the City. It is their function to administer this as it is written in the Ordinance. W. A. Vaughn stated that he is afraid this will start a dangerous and unusual precedent. He said he lives on the quarter section to the south and he is afraid the quarter section to the north will be done the same way. If this is approved, he thinks this will set a precedence. He said that at some point in time you will have to draw a line and the City Ordinance says you should draw this line after three lot splits Mr. Kirby said the value of the land is such that very few people want to put that much:..money into it to build one house on 5 acres. In the future the person who buys the property may want to divide it further. Ernest Jacks said they should take this on to the Planning Commission and the other members agreed. The last item for discussion was the letter from SEQUOYAH WOODS, PHASE 2 Walter B. Cox, Attorney, concerning the change in Letter from Walter B. Cox the Preliminary Plat of Sequoyah Woods for Phase II construction. Chairman Jacks mentioned that the problem here is that the green space shown in Phase 1 is being eliminated in Phase 2 and some of the property owners of Phase 1 are concerned. He acknowledged a phone call received by Bobbie Jones on March 28, 1977, in which Mr. Cox said he had received a phone call from Tom Hodges in Little Rock and Mr. Hodges told him there was no dispute on the matter and that they are in the process of revising the plat to show green space. Bill Kisor asked how much of a problem it would be to see Phase 1 of a plat when Phase 2 is being developed. Bobbie Jones said it wouldn't be a problem and she asked if they would want to see the preliminary. Chairman Jacks said they would want to see the final plat. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P. M.