Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 13, 1982 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Windell Cullers, Julie Nash, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Barbara Crook MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Jr. Larry Wood, Helen Edmiston, Claude Prewitt, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, John Burrough, Bob Moore, Lloyd Winscott, Sue Madison, Carol Coker, Bernard Madison, Helen Mullins, L. R. Kirby, Fred Hanna, Danny Wright, Ross Fefercorn, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, members of the press and many other unidentified persons The minutes of the Planning Commission MINUTES meeting of November 22, 1982 were approved as mailed. Pending the arrival of Gary Carnahan, VARIANCE FROM SETBACK Item 2 regarding Hyland Park pathways was SUMMERHILL SUBDIVISION postponed and Item 3 on the agenda was HELEN EDMISTON taken up - a request by Helen Edmiston for variance from the 25 foot front setback from the right-of-way of a public street in the Summerhill Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development, to 15 feet; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Helen Edmiston and Claude Prewitt were present to represent. Bobbie Jones explained that, in a planned unit development, there is a set- back requirement from a public street but not from a private street. Helen Edmiston stated they plan to build some condominiums of a two-story townhouse type in a traditional style to fit in with the neighborhood. She said they plan to sell individual homes and feel, with parking in the back, there would be more of a personal look, not an apartment look. (Commissioner Melanie Stockdell arrived at this point.) Claude Prewitt displayed a drawing showing how parking in the rear would look, and explaining how it would back up to the Summerhill parking lot. He stated Mr. Meadows of the Summerhill Racquet Club is allowing them to use his driveway for access to the back of the lots. He said they had originally planned to have private streets in the development and had designed the lots for that configuration - he said when they decided on having public streets, they inherited the 25 foot setback requirement. (Commissioner Windell Cullers arrived at this point.) Prewitt stated he had talked to almost all Summerhill property owners and has signatures from most lot owners who support the idea. It was clarified that the request concerns only Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and that the Masonic Lodge owns the vacant property to the west. Chairman Jacks added that a petition had been submitted to the City Manager by property owners and residents who reside adjacent to or in the vicinity of Masonic Drive, that the City Manager give serious consideration to blacktopping Masonic Drive. Jacks read from the petition, that "although the street is relatively short in length, it presents a serious problem with all the dust it creates. Traffic on this road has increased two to three hundred percent in the past two years and the dusty conditions are quite intolerable for local residents." 164 • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Two Bobbie Jones explained the petition had gone to the City Manager in September but was given to her after the Summerhill item appeared on the Planning Commission agenda. Chairman Jacks read Don Grimes' note to Bobbie Jones: "Be sure Planning Commission is aware of this in connection with Summerhill project. We're preparing materials cost estimates. Suppose developer might pay some of the materials costs if city provides labor and equipment to put down an asphalt surface?" Helen Edmiston stated she was not aware of the petition and request. Prewitt stated they had talked to the City about paving this area originally and had put in a full street with curb and gutter on Masonic within their Subdivision. He said several of the petitioners have property (outside their subdivision) on the street in question, in addition to the Masonic Lodge. Helen Edmiston said that she has no property on the unpaved portion of Masonic Drive. Ernest Jacks said he thought this was a good time to bring up the question but thinks it is the business of the City Street Department how this is worked out. Jacks said he finds it difficult to tie this petition to the request for variance; he said, in rare instances, an item such as this might be considered as an off-site improvement. Lloyd Winscott, 117 Noland, living across from Bob Moore, 1232 Alice, stated his concerns about the dust problems. He said that portion of the road began only as a driveway to Masonic Lodge and when the Racquet Club was built, the traffic increased greatly. He feels the condominiums will increase the traffic more. Jacks stated the only connection the Planning Commission ever has with street paving has to do with development. Winscott stated he feels because of the developer, the road has become a major access road to the development. Bob Moore, resident of 1232 Alice, stated he felt the condominiums, when built, will also be affected by the dust problem. (Commissioner David Williams arrived during this part of the meeting.) Morton Gitelman stated he sees no connection between the petition and the variance request. Gitelman moved to approve the request for a setback variance. The motion was seconded by Melanie Stockdell and passed, 8-0. MOTION Claude Prewitt stated he was willing to take part in an improve- ment district for paving the road, and also stated he wouldn't mind seeing the road closed, as he feels their development has plenty of access off Stubblefield Road Ernest Jacks made it clear the motion which just passed had no connection whatsoever with the request for paving. Lloyd Winscott stated that, although the motion was passed, it still didn't alleviate the dust problem. He asked if the street could be closed. Jacks said it is not the business of the Planning Commission to do that. He advised the residents to continue talking with the City Engineer. Mr. Moore said they had met with the Street Department who told them they might consider doing the paving but would not furnish the materials, only the labor. Jacks said it was his opinion the residents, including the developers present, should try to form an improvement district t� furnish the materials. 147 Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Three The next item brought up was SIDEWALK AND PATHWAY DESIGN the request by Jim Lindsey for HYLAND PARK SUBDIVISION approval of the sidewalk and pathway . JIM LINDSEY design in the Hyland Park Subdivision. Jim Lindsey was present to represent. Chairman Jacks said this had been tabled at the November 22 meeting for lack of information. He said that minutes of past meetings where this topic had been discussed had been made available with the agenda. He said that from those minutes, it appears that attorney John Lisle reported that the pathways would be asphalt, in 1974, when the pathway idea was first broached. He said the Planning Commission had discussed the matter of pathways versus sidewalks several times and the developer contended the steepness of a lot of the property prevented him from building sidewalks, and the concept of pathways was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission and passed by the Board of Directors. Jim Lindsey stated the Board said if it was a modification of the design, the Planning Commission could approve it. Melanie Stockdell pointed out the Board also said it was not a substitute for sidewalks, that there was either to be sidewalks or pathways, depending on terrain. Lindsey displayed a map of the pathways design and stated they installed sidewalks on Phase 2 because it was flat. He said he had had a design for sidewalks ready to construct for Phase 1, but that it was always torn up because of speculative builders so they were reluctant to put sidewalks in. He said the Homeowners Association did not want sidewalks in Phase 1 but preferred landscaping, so he gave them a check for the amount of sidewalk money and the Association got approval from the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors' to have sidewalks waived in favor of beautification. He said they prepared specifications which were approved, in effect, without Clayton Powell's blessing. He said some of the commissioners should come out and walk the pathways and, if anything additional needs to be done, he is willing to do it. He said unless the Planning Commission says otherwise, it is assumed they agree with the specifications. He said he feels they have complied with the specs. He said they have not built sidewalks in areas where lots have not been developed yet, since anyone building would destroy sidewalks that are already in. Windell Cullers said he thought on Lots 20 through 26 of Phase 4, according to the minutes, Lindsey asked for a relocation of pathways because one of those lots was sold and a house would be built in the middle of the pathway design, the minutes saying that, in lieu of building that pathway, to move it out to the street and build a sidewalk to city standards and the minutes state he agreed to do so, on 9-10-79. Lindsey stated he would comply with that requirement, but does not think he is derelict in his duty because of the five-year rule. Bobbie Jones explained where a standard city sidewalk is required on a subdivision approved at the time this one was approved, whoever builds on the lot is to put the sidewalk in, in connection with the building, and if the lot remains vacant for five years past the date of final approval, then the owner at that date puts the sidewalk in. City Attorney McCord says on the pathways we should not withhold issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on a lot because the pathway was not in. • 148 • • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Four Lindsey said he is willing to build a sidewalk, knowing that a good portion of it would be destroyed when people build. He said also, two houses have been started in the area and they also have approximately $500,000 worth of lots under the extension of the contract to meet this obligation. Lindsey said, as they got away from the road, they delineated pathways with cross -ties and surfaced with SB -2 and creek gravel after being cleared. In answer to a question from Ernest Jacks, Lindsey stated this was true for all the pathways. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone wished to speak from the audience. Sue Madison, who lives on Lot 18, stated her children walk the pathways to get to the schoolbus. She said at the entrance to the pathways it is indeed gravel and crossties, but further into the woods there is no delineation and no brush cleared. She said her neighbor offered to walk the pathways with hiking boots and slipped and slid and could not find the trail She explained that this was the pathway which began between Lots 28 and 29 (Phase 3) towards the direction of Lot 32 and out to the bus. She also said the entrance from Rockcliff between these two lots uses a drainage culvert as the pathway which all weekend has been full with water. She said her interpretation of the minutes was that Lindsey agreed that where the pathway abutted a street it would be to sidewalk standards but, instead, where it adjoins the street is where the railroad ties and gravel are used She stated that, through the woods, there is no surfacing on the pathways. She said some of the pathways start at a street and terminate in the middle of the woods. She questioned who would maintain the pathways. There was discussion about what the Planning Commission approved as far as the surfacing for the pathways. Melanie Stockdell said, in the Board of Directors minutes of 11-9-77 and Planning Commission minutes of 11-14-77 it shows the Planning Commission approved surfacing to be cross -ties and SB -2 where they can and, in very critical places, "they will go with what's already there." Jim Lindsey read the text from the Hyland Park Sidewalk and Pathway Specifications, Section 2, Pathways. He said he felt they had complied with this. Jacks. said the minutes referred to by Stockdell where it is stated, "they will go with what's already there" do not make sense. Stockdell stated the motion was passed unanimously when Jacks indicated the materials would vary from asphalt to gravel. She asked Jacks if he meant that to be inclusive or was he suggesting changing those done in asphalt to be done in gravel. She said she thought this needed to be clarified. Jacks said he had no idea what he had meant at that time as it was five years ago. Bobbie Jones reported Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, had not inspected any pathways because he wanted to know from the Planning Commission what the standards were to be before inspecting them. Gary Carnahan said they thought the concrete swale would be a natural place to walk and said they built steps from the street to the swale because it was so steep. Jacks said he was satisfied about where sidewalks should go and where pathways would go, but is unclear about the specifications for those pathways. Carnahan said they drafted a master plan for pathways and submitted it to the Planning Commission and have been under the assumption all along that those specifications were approved. Jacks said he does not recall ever approving merely a path with no surfacing, which is what the specifications say. 169 • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Five Cullers pointed out that gravel surfacing on the pathways would not be realistic because it would eventually move around and have to be replaced. Carol Coker, 679 Cliffside, said if Lindsey can build a street, he can build a sidewalk. She said she plans to live at Hyland Park until she is old and pointed out that the pathways as they are are not suitable for elderly or disabled persons to get around. She asked that, if sidewalks are not possible, there at least be asphalt surfacing on the pathways. Melanie Stockdell stated she thought children who ride bicycles should be able to have the same access to the pathways as,,they have to the sidewalks. She said also there does not appear to be a continuous system of pathways, which she said was implicit in the City Board approval of the sidewalk waiver. Lindsey said in order to put sidewalks on the other side of the street from Carol Coker they would need handrails because there is a 25' drop off and to put sidewalks on her side of the street would make her driveway even steeper than it already is. He said he is willing to look at the pathways with the residents and come up with a standard that is reasonable, although they thought they had built them according to specs that were approved. Bobbie Jones said she has a record that the specs were submitted to the Planning Office on 11-9-77. Barbara Crook said she does not find a record to show the specs were ever approved. Dan Jenkins, 624 Rockcliff, said that because of the terrain, a pathway would be built only twenty feet from his back door and he objects to this as it affects his privacy and security. Bernard Madison, Lot 18, said if pathways are substituted for sidewalks, specifications must be drawn up and he would want to know that they are. Jacks pointed out there are specifications; the question is, did the Planning Commission ever approve them? He said what is stated in the minutes is not clear. Lindsey said, if the specs were approved, he feels they have complied -- if the specs were not approved, he needs someone to go out and tell them what they need to do. Jacks says he agrees there .without walking in the street. Gary Carnahan said Phases 6 and 7 have pathways have not been completed for those. Cullers stated only two of the present at the time, that he was one of them and he sidewalks. MOTION Cullers moved to table the issue with the requirement that the City Attorney find out (1) if the "Hyland Park Sidewalk and Pathway Specifications" are legal and a part of our ordinance and where it was approved; (2) if Clayton Powell approved those specifications, we should make an inspection of the area with the specs in hand for Phases 3, 4 and 5; and (3) if the specs were not approved, that McCord report back to the Commission. Lindsey said Powell stated to him that he had never approved the specs. The motion was seconded by Julie Nash. Melanie Stockdell said the Commission has no justification for drawing that set of specifications into consideration because nowhere in the minutes were they ever discussed. The only specs ever talked about were SB -2 and cross -ties. Gitelman pointed out that the discussions of SB -2 place at a meeting before the specs were submitted. Lindsey said he could not imagine how the Planning approved the plat without the specs. The motion passed, 7-1, with Melanie Stockdell voting is no good system from one spot to another, not been developed yet and, thus planning commissioners were serving is still not in favor of waiving and cross -ties took Commission could have "nay". 170 PLanning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Six Bobbie Jones asked Ernest Jacks if he would try to find an agenda from 11-14-77 to see if the specs were attached to it. Gary Carnahan commented that the intent of the specs was, because of the rough area, the pathways were to be like a nature trail. The fourth item on the agenda was CONDITIONAL USE -DAY CARE a conditional use request submitted by 2190 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Helen Mullins for day care for six HELEN MULLINS children in her home at 2190 North College; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. A very small (NW) corner of this property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mrs. Mullins was present. Bobbie Jones stated all adjacent property owners had been notified. Mrs. Mullins stated this is her first request. She said she has three letters from persons in the area who do not object. She said there is one house to the south which was vacant until August of this year and she is on a private drive which is privately maintained. Melanie Stockdell said there is an ordinance condition that Mrs. Mullins not be open earlier than 7:30 A.M. or later than 5:30 P.M. and asked if that would pose a problem. Mrs. Mullins said that she does have one parent who needs to be at work by 7:00 A.M. Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission has the authority to adjust those hours. David Williams movedapproval with hours from 6:30 A.M. MOTION to 6:30 P.M. for one year. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers and passed, 8-0. Ernest Jacks explained to Mrs. Mullins that approval for only one year is given to see if there are any problems within the first year. Bobbie Jones said, under the ordinance, if there are no complaints, she can renew the approval at the end of the first year. She said that the year begins with the date of approval. The first item on the addendum REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY to the agenda was a petition from VANDEVENTER AVENUE University Baptist Church to have the UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH public right of way for Vandeventer Avenue between Lafayette Street and Maple Avenue vacated. Gary Carnahan was present to represent. Carnahan spoke about the growth of the University Baptist Church, stated the children's building was built right on the setback and that the Fire Department has told them they are in violation of the safety code because they only have one exit from their children's building when two are required. The exit they wish to add on the west end would cross the setback line on Vandeventer. He said Vandeventer cuts right through the center of the church's property, which presents a hazard to the church's pedestrian traffic. They would like to close Vandeventer on given church days and put up speed bumps. He said the church owns all the property on both sides of the street, Vandeventer is a one way street ending at Lafayette and beginning at Wilson Park, being only two blocks long; Ip) Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Seven he stated there is very little traffic and stated that closing the street would not harm the traffic flow. He said the utility and city departments have concurred in closing the street. Chairman Jacks noted by the presence of a large group of University Baptist Church members that it is evident there are many persons present who are in favor of the request. He asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition. John Burrow, 331 West Lafayette, stated he had lived at that address for eight years and had owned the property there for four years. He stated he observed quite a bit of traffic on Vandeventer and that, in spite of its being a one-way street, the traffic sometimes goes in both directions. He said he thought West Avenue was used by the Fire Department to travel to the north and he thought the closing of Vandeventer would add to the traffic on West Avenue, making it more difficult for a fire truck to get through, possibly causing property damage or loss of life. He also said that if the street were closed and if building were to take place, people who would normally' walk or jog through there would have to go down Lafayette or Maple which are more dangerous alternatives for pedestrians. Melanie Stockdell asked if there were any traffic counts for the street. Bobbie Jones said she did not know but would check with the Traffic Department. Barbara Crook stated she lived on Louise Street and has used Vandeventer Avenue because it is the easiest place to get out onto Maple Street. She'said the work that was done on the jog in Maple Street in that area has now made the traffic speed up through that intersection; she stated we need more safe intersections. She has watched the traffic recently and many people use Vandeventer to avoid.West Avenue and the stoplight. She said she had called some neighbors living between Maple and Ila on Vandeventer and they are not displeased at the idea of closing. She would go along with the request for a traffic count and thinks there should be some comment from the Fire Department, since the street was built for the public. Melanie Stockdell stated she had received two calls from persons who had strong objections - one was concerned that, if they had not been'in a position to receive the addendum, they might not have known about it. The second caller was concerned because of the fact that, in the wintertime, Vandeventer is a safe route to take because of the steepness of Mock and the inaccessibility of West. Bobbie Jones said the addendum was published below the regular agenda in the newspaper and it was stated that the issue might also be considered by the Board of Directors at its next meeting. Mrs. Jones also said that the church needs to contact her because, in the acquisition of some additional properties, they have some activities which should have come before the Planning Commission as conditional uses and have not done so to change the uses of those properties. Gary Carnahan said, if the street closing were granted, they would continue to use the street but would close it off only on busy church days. He said they may want to install a canopy across the road at some time in the future. Ernest Jacks stated he objects as he uses the street, that he objects to the principal of closing the street because the church owns property on both sides, since they also own property on Maple and Lafayette, and he objects because there would be no passage for three blocks. i • • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Eight L. R. Kirby, 1500 Old Wire Road, member of University Baptist Church, stated the closing of Vandeventer was first proposed to the church by the City, that the church was approached by the City who stated that if the church would donate property to straighten out the jog on Maple near Vandeventer, in return the City would close Vandeventer. He said this was at a time when the church did not yet own the Sigma Chi property or Turner Brown's property, that the church honored their commitment to the City by donating the property to straighten out the intersection and had hoped the City would honor its side of the agreement. He said if the street were closed, the church would never completely close it to traffic, would be obliged to maintain the street, but would have the right to build up to the right-of-way instead of having to observe the building setbacks. He said at the time the City approached the church, the City felt that part of Vandeventer was not • important to the City. Bobbie Jones said she knew there was some discussion along these lines but did not know if there was any confirmation in the files as to an agreement. She said there is an agreement in the file only as to what would be done in and around that intersection. Fred Hanna, 504 Vandeventer, said since Maple has been widened, it is not practical to drive across Maple onto Vandeventer. He said he has lived there twenty years and it is one of the worst ways to go when it snows. He said twenty years ago people were speeding down Vandeventer and since the UBC has bought property there, it is a much nicer neighborhood to live in and he thinks because of this the church deserves to receive some consideration from the City. David Williams asked what the historical precedents are for closing streets particularly if there have been acquisitions of property similar to the church's situation. Windell Cullers said he thinks the street closing makes sense as far as UBC is concerned, but the public good may not be served by what UBC needs. Don Hunnicutt said he thought a traffic pattern has been established and feels the street will stay open to serve the church anyway. He said if the Commission does not approve closing the street there will be requests for setback waivers coming before the Commission. Jacks asked Bobbie Jones to find out if there had ever been an agreement of any kind between the church and the City. Danny Wright, Oakland Avenue, said about five or six years ago, Mr. Jim McCord and he entered into some initial negotiations for the swap -off referred to by Mr. Kirby, that the church donate tsome property in exchange for at least the City's tacit consent to the closing of the street. He said there were some other considerations, such as the removal and replacement of a retaining wall, and other things, but he thinks it finally fell'.through. He said he and McCord were going to draw up the necessary documents, but there was never any agreement made on paper that he ever saw. He said Ralph Goff had talked to a City administrative official who authorized Wright and McCord to get together. Bobbie Jones pointed out that David Malone.was City Attorney in 1973. Barbara Crook moved the question be tabled pending 1) a traffic count; 2) a letter from the Fire Department MOTION regarding the closing; 3) a statement from the Police on the traffic situation; and 4) further information on discussions which took place between City officials and the church regarding the intersection and trade-off that was mentioned. Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Nine The motion was seconded by Julie Nash. Gary Carnahan stated he did not think a good traffic count could be made unless the church traffic were kept separate. Jacks said he thought that point would be taken into consideration. Jim Lindsey asked if it was possible to monitor the traffic on Saturday and again on Monday to see what percentage of the traffic was church traffic. Barbara Crook said she thought that suggestion was reasonable. Melanie Stockdell asked if this item will be publicized before the next meeting as a public hearing. Ernest Jacks said this was not to be a public hearing. Stockdell asked when a public street is considered for closure what opportunity is there for the public to attend. Jacks said it would be published with the agenda, as the Planning Commission decisions will only be recommendations to the City Board. Morton Gitelman had to leave the meeting at this point and announced he would be abstaining from the vote on the motion for personal reasons. Gary Carnahan said Jim McCord had explained to him that when someone owns property on both sides of a.street and when they already have approvals from utility companies and city departments there is no requirement for a public hearing. David Williams said it would help him to know if the church decision to donate property to the City for the widening of the corner was made with the understanding that the "deal" was still there or with the understanding that it was clearly off, and asked if the church would help the Commission to understand this at the next meeting. The motion was passed, 6-1-1, with Don Hunnicutt voting "nay" and Mort Gitelman abstaining. Ernest Jacks stated the item would be brought up again at the meeting on January 10, 1983. Under other business, Ernest OTHER BUSINESS Jacks reported that the Arkansas CITY ORDINANCE NO. 1661 Supreme Court had ruled against the City as to the service road question on the Bypass. Jacks explained that in James T Calabria, et al vs. the City of Fayetteville, Mr. Calabria had claimed that land had been taken from him for a service road without due process. The Court stated the City has the power to take land with regular subdivisions but the service drive was not considered to be in this category. He said there was no discussion about the City's ability to close some SO access points that the Highway Department gave away as soon as the service drives were in place. He said City Attorney McCord will attempt to have a rehearing on the issue. The last item of other business BRONZE TREE to be considered was the question of BROPHY SUBDIVISION a clarification of a motion made at ROSS FEFERCORN Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1982 on the Final Plat of Bronze Tree Village at Brophy Circle. Mr. Fefercorn was present to represent. '7y • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Ten Bobbie Jones referred to the handouts of Plat Review minutes of June 17, 1982 and Planning Commission minutes of June 28, 1982. She said a motion was made on page five of those Planning Commission minutes which the City Attorney says is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. She said in this instance the Street Superintendent was asking for a performance bond rather than a contract. The developer is asking for a contract. The question is, did the Planning Commission approve a bond or a contract? She read the motion, "Don Hunnicutt moved to approve the final plat of Bronze Tree Village contingent on Plat Review comments and specifically pointing out that the curb cut mentioned by Clayton Powell be handled property and that the contract with the City that is called for in the Plat Review as a bill of assurances be complied with before officially issuing the final approval." Mrs. Jones stated all the improvements are not in. The developer desires a contract to assure they would be completed and Clayton Powell had asked for a cash bond. Don Hunnicutt read Clayton Powell's statement from Plat Review minutes: "he would recommend this final plat not be accepted without a cash bond for the private PUD, street construction and drainage control, or post a perfor- mance bond to complete the work at the call of the City without any of the legal ramifications of statute of limitations..." Bobbie Jones stated she thinks we should drop the term "bill of assurances" when discussing this since that term is not in the Code. Hunnicutt, who had made the motion in question, said he thought the intent was to leave it to Clayton Powell and the developer to work out. Jacks asked Bobbie to explain why Clayton Powell does not want a contract. Bobbie said that the contract says that, within a certain number of months, the developer will have all of the required improvements installed and this constitutes a lien on the entire subdivision, that no structure may be occupied until that lot on which it sits is released from the contract. She said the City has had problems where some subdividers are not completing their improve- ments by the expiration date of the contract and problems where, even though the contract says the building cannot be occupied, if they have temporary water there, they move people in anyway. She said the City Attorney says once they have temporary water, you cannot take it away from them. Ross Fefercorn said last Friday he and Clayton Powell had worked out an agreement which was to be put in letter form and given to Bobbie Jones. Bobbie said Clayton Powell has not given this letter to her yet. Fefercorn said because he lives in Minneapolis and it is difficult to communicate, that may be why Clayton Powell has been put out with his performance. He said he has now formed a partnership with a local contractor and a local landowner, Ralph Brophy, which should improve communications. He said the whole question deals with site improvements and that the local landowner will be installing the site improvements. The contract would be between Mr. Brophy and the City. He said Powell was supposed to have the letter of agreement typed up for the meeting today. Fefercorn said, to paraphrase the agreement, they had agreed that by December 15 or 31st of 1983, all site improvements would be in place. Fefercorn said he felt Mr. Powell was conceding at that point that an agreement was alright and that nothing was said in the agreement about a performance bond. Fefercorn said Jim McCord wanted the Planning Commission to clarify what was to have been required. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1982 Page Eleven Ernest Jacks wanted the developer to try and make an agreement with the City officials rather than having the Planning Commission make a decision. Jacks said he didn't have the slightest idea whether the Planning Commission had approved a standard subdivider's contract. David Williams moved the Planning Commission approve whatever agreement Ross Fefercorn can make with Don Grimes and MOTION Clayton Powell. The motion was seconded by Windell Cullers and passed, 7-0, with Morton Gitelman absent. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. /76