HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-24 - Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning
Commission was held on Friday, August 24, 1984 at 2:00 P.N. in Room
111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara Crook, Sue Madison, Melanie Stockdell
and Stan Green
None
Ernie Jacks, David Jorgensen, Ervan Wimberley
and Johnny Quinn
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Crook at 2:00.
MIPO'PBS
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the
August 10, 1984 meeting. There were two corrections:
1. Ms. Crook corrected the fourth paragraph on Page 3: "Crook asked
if a record existed as to how often these churches are...", the word
"these" being omitted from the original minutes.
2. Stockdell corrected the motion on Page 4, last paragraph: the words
"has been resolved" should be omitted so that it reads "...it be resolved
to recommend...".
With these two corrections, the minutes stood approved.
DISCUSSION OF CITY REGULATORY
POWERS ON INTERNAL STREETS IN LSDs
The agenda order was rearranged to present this discussion, Item 3,
before Item 2.
This discussion has been requested by the Chairman of the Planning
Commission because so many developments have been presented recently
as LSDs instead of PVDs and much concern has been expressed as to
how to handle street maintenance in an LSD.
Crook wished to draw attention to the fact that the PUD Ordinance
was amended by the City Board (Page 871 & 872) to read "streets within
a residential PUD may be either public or private" at the same time
that a determination was made that a PUD could also be "Industrial"
or "Commercial". She said she thought it would be possible to use
similar wording in determining regulations for LSD streets.
67
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
August 24, 1984
Page 2
Ernie Jacks, Planning Commissioner, clarified that there were existing
standards for streets in Industrial and Commercial PVDs. Jacks explained,
at Stockdell's request, the origin of the PUD street requirements.
He said Commissioners saw the need for any street connecting to a
City street to be constructed to City street standards (including
a street which connects to itself). Jacks said that private streets
in PUDs can only be cul-de-sacs (serving maximum 40 units) or loops
(serving maximum of 80 units).
Jacks went on to say that the private street ordinance requires streets
to be built to City standards with the exception of curbs and gutters,
and allowing a lesser width. He said that City Attorney, Jim McCord,
had attempted to alleviate the LSD street situation with an amendment
allowing the Planning Commission to waive or vary the standards under
certain conditions: 1. due to practical difficulties caused by terrain
or other physical features, or 2. in the case of parking lot access
involving minor street work, where the proposal by the developer will
not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian safety.
Concern was expressed regarding the use of the same regulations for
small parking lots and developments as those applicable to larger
parking lots with many units.
Crook said her major concern was directed to access possibilities
for emergency vehicles.
Jorgensen asked for clarification on the future maintenance of streets
and Jacks explained that public streets are maintained by the City
whereas the developer or Property Owners Association is responsible
for maintenance of private streets.
Madison said her concern was that, in one LSD in particular, no street-
lights were required because of the "private street" classification.
She also said she felt the price of the condominiums in said development
did not compensate for the residents having to, someday, maintain
the streets in front of their homes.
Jacks commented that parking lot specifications and City street standards
were quite different. Wimberley pointed out that one difference between
a public and a private street was that vehicles could not back out
into public streets but that this was allowed on private drives.
He said, too, that when a developer is required to use City street
standards in a development, the cost is passed on to the buyer and
he added that he thought most developers do have long-lasting quality
in mind when building streets.
Crook advised that certain types of developments may end up with separate
ownerships regardless of how they began. Green inquired what the
ramifications would be within apartment complexes and others expressed
their concern with this type of development as well. Crook pointed
6R
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
August 24, 1984
Page 3
out that most residential LSDs are rental units without the benefit
of a POA. She suggested that a parking lot could be defined "to serve
40 units or less" and that anything over that would have to be built
to City standards.
Green said, as a homeowner, he would not like to pay to bring a street
up to City standards and then pay again (through POA) for maintenance.
Crook said it would not be quite as expensive to build a private street
as it would a public one because of the omission of curbs and gutters.
In answer to Madison's question, Wimberley said he preferred no further
involvement from the City regarding private streets.
Jacks said that, under the existing LSD Ordinance, the parking can
be built to the standards of a parking lot which are much lower than
that of a street. Wimberley said he thought buyers would have to
consider this aspect themselves when purchasing property.
Jacks clarified for Jorgensen that a Property Owners Association was
required only in a PUD at this time.
Stockdell agreed with Wimberley that a new LSD street regulation may
penalize a developer who builds quality roads so that it may regulate
those who do not.
Wimberley said that, when a street deteriorates to the point that
it badly needs repair, the City could condemn the property and Stockdell
replied that it was possible that the condemnation would likely occur
after a serious fire (or other tragedy)with possible loss of life.
Wimberley said he thought that would be an extreme situation and wondered
if the City needed to be responsible for each extreme possibility
that could occur in Fayetteville.
Green said his preference was to require builders to construct the
streets within a LSD to whatever standard they desired and then form
a POA with collected assessments and use the City to regulate the
repairs. Crook replied that this stipulation already applied to PVDs.
Green said he thought most developers will build to standards that
are adequate without intervention and he added that young people buying
a first home need low cost housing which will not be available if
the cost of housing is raised because of higher street standards.
Jacks explained that construction of a private street uses the same
section material as a public street. He asked Green if he would like
to see the provision for streets being built to City standards in
PUDs removed from the ordinance and Green said that he would.
Wimberley said perhaps the City could force owners of apartment complexes
to repair deteriorated parking lots and Stockdell said she didn't
think there was a provision for this action in the Fayetteville code.
69
Subdivision Committee
August 24, 1984
Page 4
Jacks brought up an example of POA dues not being paid some years
into the future with the result that the association declares bankruptcy
and Green said he thought the City would impose a lien against the
PUD, including all homeowners.
Johnny Quinn replied that this situation could happen where there
wasn't any POA to begin with and Wimberley said he thought this was
really a discussion of apartments versus condominiums. Madison reminded
him that any apartment can be sold as a condominium.
Wimberley said he, too, was concerned about having a minimum standard
for street construction. He said that he was more concerned about
the ramifications of the proposed amendment, one of which would be
the difference in the number of units that would be allowed. He added
that another problem would be that of the small (perhaps 10 unit)
complexes that may not have the financial backing to build a small
stretch of street to City standards.
Crook said that some caution must be used in writing the amendment
so that small developments will not be burdened with having their
parking lots defined as streets.
Jacks said he would like to see the definition of streets and parking
lots separated and require private streets in LSDs to be built to
City standards if they serve a certain number of units (as is stated
in the PUD regulations).
Wimberley explained that another problem is the time element involved
within which the inspections take place and that time that it takes
to bring a development before the Planning Commission for approval.
Crook said she thought it was possible to define the amendment so
that Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, would not have to make
the judgement as to whether or not an area was a parking lot or a
street. She said it could be clear to the developer from the beginning
and Wimberley said he thought something more needed to be defined
regarding setbacks in this situation as well.
Crook said it appeared that final wording to present to the City attorney
would not be found today but she anticipated that, in two weeks, at
the next Planning Commission meeting, an agreement may have been reached.
Crook asked if anyone had a suggestion for handling the desire to
have two points of ingress/egress in LSDs and the quality or standard
of the parking area in-between such access points.
Jacks said he felt that after a development reached a certain scale,
a minimum street standard was definitely necessary. Green said he
felt any improvement will be paid for by someone and there needs to
be a definite stopping point for City regulations.
70
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
August 24, 1984
Page 5
Crook suggested that, perhaps a LSD should be limited to 80 units
and beyond that it would be developed as a PUD or that the number
of residential units allowable in ani LSD should be limited regardless
of the size of the parcel.
FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK WEST
PUMP STATION RD BETWEEN CITY LABS & ARMSTRONG
The next item for discussion was the approval of the preliminary plat
for Fayetteville Industrial Park West located north and south of Pump
Station Rd. between City Lake Rd. and Armstrong Rd. and represented
by Johnny Quinn of McClelland Consultant Engineers, Fayetteville.
Stockdell asked if some parcels within this development needed to
be rezoned and Quinn replied that action has already begun.
Quinn explained that the lots have been re -numbered since the Plat
Review meeting because a parcel adjacent to the northern most piece
of property had not been shown at that time. The subject lot is now
"Lot 2" and the previous Lots 2 through 19 have been issued numbers
3 through 20. Quinn said that Lot 2 of the revised plat is in the
flood plain and will be donated as green space and an additional change
has been made in that Combs Cemetery had initially showed up as part
of the preliminary plat and has been eliminated.
Quinn agreed that access to Andrew Towers, Inc. adjacent on the south,
may need to be gained by requiring a large building setback along
the south line of Lots 18 through 20 for an eventual roadway.
Quinn advised Crook that the pavement in the cul-de-sac has been aligned,
as requested by Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator.
Stockdell asked if the parcel being donated as "green space" has been
officially accepted by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Quinn
replied that it has not but Green advised that Parks fee applied only
to residential developments. Crook advised that, if this parcel is
not accepted as a donation of green space, it will be considered a
lot within this subdivision and access will need to be provided.
It was determined that utility and drainage easements have been kept
separate and that streetlights have been shown at requested locations.
Quinn reported that he has shown sidewalk along the east side of City
Lake Road and along the north side of Pump Station Road as requested.
Stockdell advised Quinn that, because Pump Station is a collector
street, he will need to request a waiver (in writing) from the City
Board for the deletion of sidewalk on the south side. Quinn requested
that the Subdivision Committee recommend this action.
hl
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
August 24, 1984
Page 6
Madison asked if a landing place has been provided between the sidewalks
proposed on each of the cul-de-sacs and Quinn said sidewalk is proposed
on the north side of Pump Station between culs to serve this purpose.
Stockdell asked if adjoining property owners have been notified and
Quinn replied that they had and he is still awaiting receipts from
some of these. Crook said the Planning Office must receive these by
the time of the Planning Commission meeting on Monday August 27.
Quinn indicated that Pump Station Road will be brought up to City
standards, as per Powell's request at the Plat Review meeting.
Madison stated that she did not
as many lots as shown because
as a business with a lot of
a movie theatre). Quinn said
been provided for each parcel
Industrial Park would not be as
like the idea of the cul-de-sacs serving
of the possibility of a lot being used
traffic (such as an amusement park or
approximately 50 parking spaces have
and he said he felt the traffic in the
dense as in many residential areas.
Stockdell asked if a performance bond was required insuring improvements
on Pump Station Road and Quinn said that he was not aware of the existence
of the existing but it was the developers intention to improve„ Pump
Station Road up to City Lake Road at the same time the other required
street improvements are made. Green advised that no lots can be sold
until the improvements are completed or a performance bond recorded.
MOTION
Stockdell made a motion to recommend approval of this plat subject
to the following: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. Appropriate rezonings;
3. the showing of a 50 ft. easement being provided from the south
to the adjoining landlocked property or a Bill of Assurance signed
by the developer that a proper street right-of-way will be dedicated
and a street built beginning at Armstrong Road to the landlocked property;
4. providing access to Lot 112, if necessary; 5. Pump Station Road
being improved to the standards that are in effect at the time the
improvements are made; and 6. Showing sidewalk on the south side of
Pump Station Road or a waiver for same granted by the City Board of
Directors. Green seconded; motion passed 3-1 with Madison voting "nay".
RECOMMENDATION
Stockdell moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Board that, because the major portion of this development is in an
Industrial Park, sidewalks are necessary on only one side of Pump
Station Road, a collector street. Green seconded the motion and it
passed 3-1; Madison voted "nay" because she said she felt it would
be difficult to cross the street.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
7.Q