Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-16 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 16, 1993 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, and Kenneth Pummill Alett Little, Tim Conklin, John Redfern, Mel Milholland, Kurtis Jones, and Bill Rudasill FINAL PLAT - CMN PROPERTIES NANCHAR, INC. - N & S SIDE OF MILLSAP, W OF COLLEGE The first item on the agenda was a final plat for CMN Properties presented by Mel Miholland, Milholland Engineering, on behalf of Nanchar, Inc., for property located on the north and south side of Millsap, west of North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 33.82 acres with 19 proposed lots. Mr. Conklin stated the developers had complied with all the requests made at the Plat Review Meeting, Thursday 9, 1993. Ms. Little pointed out to Mr. Milholland the need for extensive landscapmg along the bypass. Mr. Milholland responded subdivision convenants required two fronts. Ms. Little reminded Mr. Milholland the plat was subject to Large Scale Development. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee • September 16, 1993 Page 2 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ELKS LODGE BENEVOLENT BUILDING CORPORATION - SE CORNER OF ZION & CROSSOVER The first item was a large scale development for the Elks Lodge presented by Kurtis Jones on behalf of the Benevolent Building Corporation for property located at the southeast corner of Zion Road and Crossover Road. The property contains 9 acres and is zoned A-1, Agricultural, with an approved conditional use for the lodge. Kurtis Jones asked if it was possible for the development to go before the Planning Commission as both a one lot subdivision and a large scale development. Ms. Little stated it was recommended. Mr. Bunn explained that the development was being treated as a subdivision because, otherwise, a fourth lot split would have to occur and the developers wanted to reserve a portion of the property for future development as a subdivision. Mr. Allred questioned whether the item would be placed on the consent agenda because it • was a lot split. • Ms. Little explained it was a subdivision, not a lot split, and therefore could not go on the consent agenda. She further stated the development needed to be a concurrent plat, but would be subject to the public comment period because it was a subdivision. Mr. Bunn asked the name of the subdivision. Mr. Jones responded the "Elks" subdivision. Ms. Little asked Mr. Jones if the driveway would align with Zion Road, and would therefore serve as the main entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Jones answered the dnveway did not align with Zion Road. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained the zoning district was A-1, Agricultural, and the developers would have no problem meeting setback requirements. She further stated that the City was receiving an additional 10 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Little explamed she had a question for the developer of the property to the north regarding the Sterling Estates/Hillside Terrace subdivision and the possibility of creating an intersection by extending Hillside Terrace to the east. Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 4 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - GREGG PLAZA KENNETH & MARY LOU EVANS - NE CORNER OF TOWNSHIP AND GREGG The next item was a large scale development for Gregg Plaza presented by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Kenneth and Mary Lou Evans for property located at the northeast corner of Township and Gregg. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Bill Rudasill stated the Highway Department required that several dnves be relocated and a triangular piece of paving on the main parking lot entrance be removed because it was in the right-of-way. He further stated a driveway existed off of Township 130 feet from the intersection, and development could occur no closer than the driveway. Mr. Bunn asked if there would be only one entrance on Township. Ms. Little confirmed for Mr. Rudasill that city ordinances required fourty feet between curb cuts. She stated one drive was preferable. Mr. Rudasill explained the developer would be able to place trees but not grass along the drive. Ms. Little suggested the developers could request a variance or reduce the total building size. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Rudasill explained State Highway Department regulations stipulated a maximum of two drives on each frontage and the developer had been denied the allowances for a second drive on Township. He stated that without a second drive on Township, cars entering from Township unable to find parking would present a problem. Mr. Conklin asked how much space would be devoted to offices. Mr. Rudasill stated half of the development would be office space. Ms. Little acknowledged the developer was struggling with the amount of space available and confirmed that Mr. Rudasill planned to construct one story buildings. She asked if the developer had considered constructing two-story buildings, with office space going on the second floor for the purpose of solving his parking dilemma. In answer to a question from Mr. Bunn, Ms Little stated part of the development would be retail stores. Mr. Rudasill explained retail requirements stipulated one stall per 200 square feet and he was unable to provide enough parking for a building containing retail stores only. He stated he felt it was possible to meet landscape requirements by placing a strip of trees and shrubs along the edge of the drive. Mr. Rudasill further explained there would be no parking m Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 5 front of the landscaped area. Mr. Conklin confirmed a 25 foot setback was required and stated no parking was allowed in the landscaped area. Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee could approve the plat subject to State Highway Department requirements. Mr. Rudasill stated he planned to widen the service entrance, limit access to the back of the building with an "enter only" sign, and allow two-way traffic at the mouth of the Township entrance. Ms. Little suggested a three lane dnve off Township, and stated the Highway Department would allow a drive more than 25 feet in width. Mr. Allred stated traffice problems would be lessened if the drive were moved to the east and made three lanes wide. Mr. Rudasill stated he intended to create a three lane drive and an access drive along the side • of the building. • Mr. Bunn confirmed the access lane would be a smgle lane 20 feet in length. Mr. Rudsaill explained he would put a row of trees to the right of the access lane. Ms. Little encouraged Mr. Rudasill to be consistent with landscaping and stated she did not feel this would be difficult to accomplish. Mr. Conklin requested the developer note on the plat the setback from the main property line, stating he was concerned it might not be 50 feet Mr. Allred asked if the Subdivision Committee had the authority to move the drive. Mr. Rudasill stated he would not move the drive but would widen it to three lanes. Mr. Bunn explained normal procedure for state roads was to defer to the State Highway Department for approval. He explained the staff had expressed concerns about the intersection. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little confirmed that the members of the Planning Commission would receive modified copies of the plat. She also asked Mr. Rudasill if he had submitted a grading plan. Subdivision Committee • September 16, 1993 Page 6 • • Mr. Rudasill stated the grading plan would be turned in to the Engineering Division today. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments and subject to State Highway Department regulations. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HAMM ESTATES DOYNE & GELENE HAMM - W. SIDE OF HUNT LANE, S. OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item was a prelimmary plat for Hamm Estates for property located on the west side of Hunt Lane and south of Huntsville Road. The property is outside the city and contains 100.78 acres with 55 lots. Mr. Melholland stated the plat had been approved by the County and added that one individual had pushed for the developers to install sewer lines. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Milholland stated the subdivision would not be on city sewer because several property owners were unwilling to cooperate. Mr. Pummill asked if the pond would be drained. Mr. Milholland explained the lot containing the pond was intended for a horse, and added that a horse barn existed on the lot. He stated the subdivision was intended to be ranchette in layout. • In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Milholland stated placing a county road behind the lot was unfeasible. • Mr. Allred expressed concern that in the future a property owner would request two lots splits. Mr. Milholland stated there would be no county road with which to access the lots and it would be necessary for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver in order to split the lots. Mr. Pummill asked how wide the property was on lot 44 at its narrowest point. Mr. Milholland answered 100 feet. Ms. Little stated that if a lot split occurred, creating lots 43 and 44, any additional lot splits would have frontage. Mr. Pummill stated the lot was rather large to be only 200 feet in length. Mr. Milholland responded that no construction would occur on the two lots because they were reserved for horses Ms. Little suggested creatmg a cul-de-sac. • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Allred restated the belief that someone would want to split the lots. Mr. Milholland stated it would be necessary to make the lot 120 feet in width for a lot split. Ms. Little pointed out 140 feet in width would be necessary if the city were to annex the property Mr. Milholland stated if he were to do so one of the lots would be too large. He further expressed the desire to see the a house and barn built on the lot in question, adding that his original proposal to the owners was to provide frontage along the hillside, in the way of a county road, to several of the lots and utilize the larger lots as an open meadow. Mr. Milholland stated the hill was too steep for septic tanks. Mr. Allred asked if the subdivision would have curb and guttering. Mr. Milholland responded no, it would not. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission had discussed the enforcement of suburban subdivision regulations in the growth area. Mr. Milholland remarked the road was Class III, with 24 feet of asphalt and 10 foot shoulders. He added that he personally disliked 10 foot shoulders because they encouraged people to park along them. Mr. Allred stated that, as a result of the number of subdivisions going in the growth area, the Planning Commission was m the process of determining whether or not any subdivisions developed in the growth area should be required to meet suburban subdivision regulations, alluding to Crystal Springs. In response to the remark from Mr. Milholland that his subdivision was different from Crystal Springs, Mr. Allred explained the issue the Planning Commission was addressing was annexation, which would result m substandard roads inside the city. Mr. Milholland remarked the quality of roads constructed to county standards was better than those constructed to city standards. He added county roads were superior for erosion control and handling the effects of a large impact of water. Mr. Milholland explained the road utilized an 8 foot wide ditch to provide less impact than curb and guttering. Mr. Pummill remarked he had no problem with county standard roads, but warned Mr. Milholland that the Planning Commission might disapprove of streets without curb and guttering. • Mr. Milholland expressed the desire to see lots over 110 feet wide designated estate -type lots. • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Allred explained the Commission was trying to develop a forward-looking concept of the City of Fayetteville with the existing ordmances. Ms. Little stated the issue was the rapid acceleration of growth. She further explained the concern of the Planning Commission and staff was that infrastructure in the growth area was equal to infrastructure already existing in the City, anticipating future annexation. Mr. Milholland remarked the density on growth area subdivisions like his was less than those inside the city and the quality of road construction in the county was equal or better than city roads. He stated the only difference was the absence of curb and guttering. Mr. Allred stated citizens perceived differences in the requirements imposed on different developers. He added the Commission wanted consistency in the enforcement of the city ordinances. Mr. Bunn stated he felt the solution was in drafting the regulations. Mr. Milholland stated he felt it was necessary to consider what people wanted in a subdivision, alluding to Ridgemont Estates as an example. Mr. Pummill requested clarification on what the Commission had the to power to enforce in the growth area. Mr. Bunn stated the City had the option to enforce suburban subdivision regulations in the growth area. Mr. Allred expressed concern that White Oaks subdivision would be required to have curb and guttering by the Planning Commission and Hamm Estates would not. Ms. Little stated she did not feel enforcement was optional and read from the Code of Ordinances: "Before the Planning Commission may grant final approval for a suburban subdivision located within the City's designated planning area the subdividers shall have installed or shall have made a guarantee of , in lieu of installation, either at his expense or in accordance with the existmg policy of the City, the following improvements." Ms. Little, addressing Mr. Milholland, explained that existing policy pertained to the guarantee from the subdivider, satisfied by means of an Escrow account, in lieu of installation at the time of development. She added the ordinance required curb and gutter and storm drainage. Ms. Little further explained at his (the developer's) expense addressed how off-site improvements were installed and paid for. She pointed out the ordinance did not contain "may install" or "shall have the option of installing" or "the Planning Commission has the option of requiring.". Ms. Little stressed the importance of the phrase shall have installed in the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Ms. Little listed the improvements contained in the ordinance: monuments, lot stakes, streets, curbs and gutters, storm drainage Subdivision Comnuttee September 16, 1993 Page 10 system. Ms. Little further stressed that the ordinance required either installation or a guarantee of installation in accordance with existing policy. Mr. Milholland asked if Ms. Little was indicating that he was required to install curb and gutter and storm drainage. Ms. Little stated the staff interpreted the ordinance to read that the Planning Commission could require the enforcement of suburban subdivision regulations in the growth area. Mr. Bunn stated the City had not been enforcing the suburban subdivision requirements except in those subdivisions adjacent to the City. He added that when a subdivision was farther out in the growth area, the City was less inclined to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Bunn stated the Planning Commission could waive subdivision requirements. He explained that each time the Planning Commission approved a development which did not meet suburban subdivision regulations it was by means of the implicit waiver process. Mr. Allred expressed a desire to see the Planning Commission draft a policy statement to the effect that either the suburban sudivision regulations would be uniformly enforced or the Commission would review developments on a case by case basis. He stated the current situation left the developer uncertain of the regulations he was required to meet. Mr. Bunn reminded the Committee that the road was not to city standards and that upon annexation, the question of the financial obligation of the City remained undetermined. He added the City was unlikely to install improvements in a subdivision once the property was annexed. Mr. Milholland stated curb and guttering was unnecessary because a storm system already existed. Mr. Bunn remarked most people were concerned about curb and gutters and sidewalks and restated the City would most likely not install the improvements following annexation. Mr Allred expressed the need for a policy statement. Mr. Bunn stated the solution was to provide a specific clause m the ordinance which allowed for this type of subdivision. Ms. Little stated if the suburban subdivision regulations were completely enforced in the growth area lots sizes would go down. She added this was contrary to the desire of potential property owners. Mr. Allred suggested requiring the improvements and granting case -specific variances. • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 11 Ms. Little stated it had not been clear in the past that the Commission was granting waivers. Mr. Allred stated the number of waivers had increased. Ms. Little communicated to the Committee that several City Council members felt developers were possibly not paying sufficient impact fees, therefore any waivers granted would be closely scrutinized by the Council. She added growth area development had become a City Council issue as well as a Planning Commission issue. Mr. Pummill asked for clanfication as to whether the issue was commercial development or green space fees. Ms. Little stated the Council issue was off-site improvements - specifically roads. Mr. Pummill remarked developers had built ninety percent of the roads in Fayetteville. Ms. Little expressed the feeling that the only impact fee necessary was a bridge impact fee to prevent adjacent developers from creating cul-de-sacs rather than connecting the roads with a bridge. Mr. Allred remarked that, in addition to roads, the developer improved the City's infrastructure. He further stated the City had little to do with creating new infrastructure. Ms. Little stated the City had controlled development to the extent that it had not been necessary to create or redo any infrastructure. Mr. Pummill stated there was a point at which it was the responsibility of the City to bring more service in. Mr Milholland compared the impact of a residential subdivision, on streets as well as water and sewer, to the impact of a commercial subdivision and stated the impact of the commercial use on traffic across the city would be ten times that of a residential subdivision. He added that an increase in unpact fees would most likely be passed along to the property owner. Mr. Pummill expressed the need for affordable housing, but remarked that impact fees prevented housing from being affordable. Mr. Allred stated that by increasing property value, taxes increased and the City benefited m revenues. He added the purpose of the Planning Commission was not to dictate business growth or the viability of a particular subdivision, but to oversee compliance with the ordinances. He added it was necessary to impose the same standards to "nonaffordable" and "affordable" subdivisions. Subdivision Committee • September 16, 1993 Page 12 • • Mr. Pummill asked if the Committee, in forwarding the plat to the Planning Commission, would meet suburban subdivision regulations. Mr. Bunn answered it would, provided a waiver was granted. Mr. Allred stated the need to clarify policy. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission was experiencing a policy shift. Mr. Pummill asked if the proper way to forward the plat was with the recommendation that curb and gutter be waived. Mr. Allred remarked he felt that such a recommendation indicate a policy change and would make clear a waiver was being granted. Mr. Bunn indicated it would be necessary to waive the storm drainage in terms of installing catch basins and pipes. Ms. Little asked about the necessity of waiving sidewalks. Mr. Pummill pointed out the suburban subdivision regulations did not require sidewalks. Mr. Bunn added the Committee would not waive the culverts and bridges requirements or the need for some method of storm drainage. He added it would be necessary to waive the street width requirement. Ms. Little expressed the need for a statement pertaining to off-site improvements. Mr Allred stated it was the determination of the Committee that no off-site improvements were required. Ms. Little asked Mr. Bunn about the status of the water line. Mr. Bunn replied the suburban subdivision regulations did not require fire protection. Mr. Allred stated that had the Commission been requiring fire protection it would already exist to serve other growth area subdivisions. He hypothesized that, following annexation, homeowners within the subdivision would demand, by right, fire protection. Mr. Bunn stated in the past the City had dealt with fire protection needs by means of a special improvement district measure or a cost -share measure. He explained that following the annexation of Wheeler the City installed miles of suburban growth area water lines Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 13 intended for domestic water supply, not fire protection. He added the City did not, at that time, intend to provide fire protection outside the city limits. Mr. Bunn explained that because Wheeler residents wanted fire hydrants, an explicit policy change occurred, allowing but not requiring fire hydrants outside the city - making growth area fire protection an option. He explained that, as a result, developers could install lines to provide domestic service without fire hydrants or install lines to meet fire hydrant requirements. Mr. Allred expressed the concern that if the Commission approved the plat without requiring fire hydrants and the subdivision was later annexed, the City would be responsible for providing fire protection just as it does to citizens inside the city limits. Mr. Milholland remarked that homeowners inside the city hurts paid for fire protection at the time they purchased their homes. Mr. Allred replied homeowners in the growth area would pay for fire protection if hydrants were installed. Mr. Bunn stated the Committee could require the size water line needed to provide fire protection regardless of the line the developers were tying on to - pointing out a 3 inch line existed at the site. He explained a larger line would later have to be installed funded by means of a pro- rated share paid by developers tying onto the lure. Mr. Bunn further explained the City could cost -share the expense of installation of a fire protection line - suggesting the City may not have sufficient funds He stated it would still be necessary for the property owners to arrange for fire protection with the Fire Department. Mr. Allred remarked under those circumstances the second homeowner might be unaware that a contractual agreement with the Fire Department for fire protection is necessary. Ms. Little stated new property owners were made aware of the need to obtain fire protection by the signs posted on neighboring houses. Mr. Bunn asked if the Homeowner's Association had the right to furnish fire protection contracts. Ms Little confirmed the Homeowner's Association could furnish the contracts. Mr. Pummill asked what size water line the developer intended to put in. Mr. Milholland responded originally the developer intended to put in a 3 inch water line, but stated he understood a 6 inch Ime may be necessary. Mr. Allred stated it was important to scrutinize development in the growth area due to the • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 14 likelihood of future annexation. Mr. Milholland responded he would be willing to cost -share the installation of a larger water line during development of the subdivision for future fire protection. Mr. Allred stated the staff and the Commission needed to clarify policy. Ms. Little remarked that this was a policy change on the part of the staff and Commission was not aimed at any one developer Mr. Allred asserted the responsibility of the Commission to inform the public of the policy changes under consideration. Mr. Pummill asked Mr. Bunn if the Subdivision Committee, in forwarding the plat, needed to specifically waive off-site improvements. In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Milholland explained that the road had been built to County standards. • Mr. Allred asked if the Subdivision Committee, in forwarding the plat, needed to specify the installation of a 6 inch water line for fire protection. • Mr. Pummill asked if the specification of the 6 inch water line should be included in staff comments. Mr. Allred responded it should be included in staff comments. Mr. Bunn stated he felt if the Subdivision Committee was making an issue of fire protection outside the city it should be done so more specifically. Mr. Pummill suggested including it in the motion. Mr. Allred pointed out the danger of applymg one set of standards to a growth area subdivision today, and a second set of standards to a different growth area subdivision tommorrow. Mr. Bunn stated the need for consistency. Mr. Pummill remarked that the Committee was requiring developers of the Hamm Estates subdivision to install a 6 inch water line but was requinng developers of White Oaks subdivision to install fire hydrants. • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 15 Ms Little asked Mr. Bunn if, by installing a 6 inch line to a 3 inch line, did Hamm Estates subdivision in fact have adequate linage for fire protection. Mr. Bunn responded they did not. He stated the installation of the 6 inch line to the 3 inch lute gave the subdivision the capability for fire protection without having to redo the subdivision. Mr. Bunn remarked that when the City had the necessary funds, it would be feasible to require developers to install a half mile's worth, or more, of the size line necessary for fire protection. He added installation costs would be shared with the City on a pro -rated basis. Ms. Little suggested there would be a lot of criticism of a policy obligating the City to share the installation costs of such a water line. Mr. Allred stated he perceived as unfair the inconsistent application of standards to different subdivisions. Mr. Pummill stated he felt that subdivisions in the growth area should be required to develop under the pretenses that at some point in the future a line for fire protection will be necessary. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Pummill stated the City should assume some responsibility for the costs of providing fire protection to growth area subdivisions. Mr. Bunn stated that in the past subdividers had been required to improve streets adjacent to the subdivision they were developing - he asked, hypothetically, if developers should be made to also improve water lines to meet City standards. Mr. Conklin suggested one possible standard for requirmg improvements was to look at who benefitted from the improvements. Mr. Allred remarked that adjacent developers would have the opportunity to subdivide in the future and tie on to the fire protection -quality line already installed by the developers of the Hamm Estates subdivision. Ms. Little stated the multitude of court cases had, m the past, made the application of impact fees problematic. She explained that normally in such a situation adjacent subdividers would pay impact fees which would into an improvement districtfund but not specifically go to tie-in fees to the water line Ms. Little stated the courts required that impact fees be directly proportional to the amount of impact created by the development. Mr. Bunn explained rational nexus - the analysis of the need created - suggested that the need for fire protection in the area was totally created by the development of the subdivision. He added that whatever measures the developer had to take to obtain adequate fire protection is • • • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 16 the developers fair share. Ms. Little suggested the impact fees could go to the city-wide Fire Division, and the money used by the City to fund the Fire Division could go to the installation of water lines. Mr. Milholland stated he had no problem recommending to his client installation of an adequate sized water line, but felt the installation of larger lines for fire protection be optional - adding some property owners in the growth area didn't desire fire protection. He explained he felt that requiring the means to provide fire protection in the growth area would prevent future infrastructure problems. Mr. Milholland stated if the developer wanted fire protection at the time of development he should pay for it. Mr. Pummill stated the reality of the situation was that the City would never have the money to share the expense of water line installation. Mr. Bunn remarked he felt in terms of water and sewer lines the City would have the money. He stated that in the past, although developers were frequently uncooperative, the City had required the developer to install the lines and then specified by ordinance, before installation, the connection fees developers and individuals would pay. Mr. Bunn added the developer had paid the entire cost of installation - as other people tie on the money would be rebated to the developer on a pro -rated basis. He suggested an alternative was to require the developer to pay an estimated pro -rated share and, as other people tie on, theoretically the total cost would be recovered. Ms. Little stated she was in notfavor of installation by means of a pro -rated share. She stated it was too complex for the City to track and recover funds. Mr. Milholland suggested if the developer installed the line individuals wanting to tie onto the line could pay a fee similar to a greenspace fee. Mr. Allred remarked one disadvantage of Mr. Milholland's suggestion was that individuals in the growth area had the option of fire protection, whereas city residents did not. He added that once annexed, citizens should be under the same critenon. Mr. Pummill stated the City benefitted financially from annexation in the growth area and therefore a liability to newly annexed subdivisions existed. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Bunn explained it was standard procedure to provide services within a certain time frame to a growth area subdivision following annexation. He stated this was the liability the City had to the growth area. Mr. Bunn remarked that often the City failed to provide services. • • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 17 Ms. Little stated that over tune property taxes from annexed growth area subdivisions generated monies for the City but this did not occur for quite some time following annexation. Mr. Bunn remarked that, in terms of water and sewer, revenue was not generated if no water or sewer existed Ms. Little asked Mr. Bunn if Fayetteville was unique in that water and sewer funds were treated like regular business funds. Mr. Bunn responded Fayetteville did not treat water and sewer funds like regular business funds, but water and sewer funds were used to subsidize different functions. He added the reverse was almost never the case. Mr. Allred stated revenues generated following annexation would subsidize police protection. Mr. Bunn added the revenues should help subsidize street construction. Mr. Allred stated in the near future a new policy statement should be drafted. Ms. Little remarked a new policy statement could be drafted by January 1, 1993. She further stated the Committee would have to recommend a waiver concerning the length of the cul-de- sac. Mr. Milholland stated he had designed the Class III street to connect to a county road - the cul-de-sac was a temporary measure. Mr. Conklin asked Mr. Milholland about access to the north. Mr. Milholland responded that property to the north had access from three improved streets. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments and the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the developer install a 6 inch water line. The Committee further recommends the Planning Commission grant a waiver on curb and gutter, storm drainage, and the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bunn responded it was not necessary to waive storm drainage because it was provided by open ditch. • Mr. Pununill struck the waiver of storm drainage from his motion. • • • • • Subdivision Committee September 16, 1993 Page 18 Ms. Little asked if the Committee would recommend fire hydrants. Mr. Pummill responded the developer could put those in at a later date. Ms. Little stated she was in favor of not installing fire hydrants prior to development because it gave the perception of fire protection - which with a 3 inch line - did not in fact exist. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Milholland stated the developer would place one at the end of each line. Mr. Bunn informed Mr. Milholland the City was available to discuss the possibility of cost- sharing the installation of an 8 inch line. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee • September 16, 1993 Page 19 • • PRELIMINARY PLAT - WHITE OAKS MANOR RICK TORNATORE - E. SIDE OF HARVEY DOWELL, S. OF WYMAN ROAD The final item was a preliminary plat for White Oaks Manor for property located on the east side of Harvey Dowell Road and south of Wyman Road. The property is outside the city and contains 43.9 acres and 27 lots. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.