Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-27 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Roberston, Frank Farrish, B.J. Dow and Paul Skwiot None Mel Milholland, Wade Theral, Steve Meyers, of the press and others Bishop, Randy Adair, Kent David Williamson, members The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacks and the minutes of the May 12, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. PARADISE VALLEY SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT LINDSEY, SEXTON AND REYNOLDS LUMBER The second item of business was consideration of the preliminary plat of Paradise Valley Subdivision submitted by Lindsey, Sexton and Reynolds Lumber. The 7.42 acre tract is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and is located on Joyce Street, East of Old Missouri Road. Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plat subject to plat review comments, Greenspaee issue being determined by the Parks Board and improvements to Joyce Street with the maximum as per Clayton Powell's recommendation, pending final resolution by the City Board as to determination of off-site improvements. . MOTION Nash moved approval of this plat seconded by Madison. Upon roll tall, the motion passed 9-0-0. CT 0 Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page2 YORKTOWN SQUARE SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAT WADE BISHOP — STUBBLEFIELD ROAD The third item on the agenda was consideration of the preliminary plat of Yorktown Square Subdivision submitted by Wade Bishop and repre- sented by Bishop and Mel Milholland. The 26 acre tract is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District and is located on the North side of Stubblefield Road. Jacks advised in Subdivision Committee there was a split vote 2-2, with considerable amount of neighborhood oposition, with several consi- derations Righ-of-Way dedication on Stubblefield Road; a bill of assurance for street improvements to one-half of Stubblefield Road for the frontage of this property; and a maximum of 20 units be built at which time a second access must be provided; and a recommendation that priority be given to widening and improving Stubblefield (City participation). Mel Milholland representing Wade Bishop, stated this subdivision was brought before the Planning Commission one and half to two years ago saying its basically the same layout. The only major difference was the entrance, Bishop had proposed to have an entrance 90 feet East of Loxly. All other areas were approved except with that particular entrance, which was relocated to align with the same line as Loxly Avenue and they requested one waiver for street lights from the required 300 feet to what is shown on the plat. Madison wanted an explanation of why the frontage on cul-de-sac lot does not need a variance anymore. Milholland answered that the requirement is to have 70 feet at the building setback line, Madison asking then if there is no requirement for frontage. Madison pointed out when this was heard over a year ago, that there was at least 1 person concerned about the limited access to this subdivision. Having access from Masonic was discussed. Mr. Bishop had said he would make no attempt to pursue that. Milholland's reason for not pursuing, was that the last time this was heard everything was worked out and agreed to by the majority of the Planning Commission except for the access into the subdivision. Jacks stated the resident's concern over the size of lots and houses that are planned for this subdivision. They are somewhat smaller than Summerhill homes and there was also a concern that back doors will face the resident's front doors. There is also a lack of upgrading on Stubblefield. John Vinzant, 3290 Summerhill Drive, said his major concern is the one way in and out of the subdivision other than Loxly; no other plans • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page3 have been made for Masonic drive or for Old Missouri Road, the plan is showing one very poor access on Stubblefield road. Attorney Jim Boyd stated he was representing an area resident, Robert and Nancy Bradberry. He said it appears that the plat proposed by the developer encroaches on his client's property. He noted that a surveyor's stake had been found in Bradberrys yard. Boyd also stating there appears to be no park or recreational facilities for the children of the proposed 86 units. Stubblefield is very narrow and very dangerous and has deep ditches on both sides. Another problem the Bradberry's foresee is that the subdivision itself does not conform to the surrounding area. Bradberry's have a 2-1/2 afire lot, their neighbor has a 2-1/2 acre lot. And the proposed subdivision lots are 75 feet. Boyd stated no other waiver should be granted under the eireumstances with only one access on Stubblefield, which is already an unusable road without 86 more houses in the area. Grant Smart, 1427 Stubblefield Road, stated Harold Street opens Stubblefield to Highway 71, and half of the residents in that area travel down Stubblefield Road by those little narrow eurbs. Smart stated you must have an out to the West or to the East. The City had said they would pave Masonic!, Drive this year but they have not done it and they don't plan to do it this year. This subdivision destroys his investment and he would have to look at someone's tool sheds, dog pens and boats. Jacks stated legally the Planning Commission authority is limited to_the ordinance. Dale Johnson commented on the safety factor of Stubblefield road which is 14-16 feet wide with deep ditches on both sides. At the East end of the street is a very narrow 2 lane bridge and the only way his child can go to Butterfield School is up or down Stubblefield Road. This Road was not designed to handle the traffic flow. He is concerned about another 90 or 100 children using that street. There's no other place for the children to walk. Johnson would like to see the City or whoever handles this to get the streets in first and get some sidewalks. Madison, concerned about the access problem, stated there are two concerns related to the one way in and one way out. 1st concern is the safety of the people who will live in Yorktown Square. If there are 83 families in there with one way in and one way out, then she's concerned for their safety. The other problem is it puts all the traffic at one point on Stubblefield, it's funneled into one critical location. Stubblefield is very poorly equipped to handle this amount of traffic. Her preference would be to see another point of access down Masonic. It would easily and efficiently get the traffie to Highway 471, and it would have minimal impact on neighboring residents. She further stated that Masonic is to be paved. By way of compromise at Subdivision. She was willing to take the plan whereby Manchester O/ Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page4 Drive stretches to the East and curves back to Stubblefield. that at least breaks the traffic and puts it at two points. Mr. Bishop has stubbed out Manchester to his property to the East and he does have future plans for it. Nash was concerned about 3 items brought up. Lack of ingress egress; the fact that some people will be backing onto Stubblefield Road; and School busses stopping on Stubblefield Road, loading and unloading children. Madison stating there are to be no driveways on Stubblefield and if they happen by default, she would hope that the City will move to correct that. Milholland stated the main purpose for the lots facing Thornhill Drive is to make it safe. No lots will face Stubblefield. Dow repeated her remarks from Subdivision Committee that her only problem is the access. She feels Stubblefield is not equipped to handle 83 units, with one point of access. NOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of this of this subdivision subject to 1. Plat review comments; 2. Compliance to the greenspaee ordinance retroactive as the ordinance is changed; 3. a maximum of 20 units be occupied before Manchester drive is constructed to the East to intersect with Stubblefield; 4. right-of-way dedication on Stubblefield Road; 5. the waiver not be approved; 6. recommendation of street committee on improvements to Stubblefield. Nash seconded and further discussion followed, Green asking if this motion included the provision of 20 houses. Green, stated that Mr. Bishop has abided by all the requirements of the ordinance. The size of the lots, the back yards facing Stubblefield, size of the house to be built on the lots all conform to the City ordinance requirements. Green felt Stubblefield is a dangerous road and would like to see it upgraded as much as anyone here. Green felt the development will get Stubblefield improved and Mr. Bishop will be required to widen his half of Stubblefield Road, and install curb and gutter, to full city standard. Green's problem with access out on Masonic Drive, was that he is not sure if that would not shift some of the problems that now exist on Harold Street to Masonic Drive and into the new subdivision. Green said that building a street from Manchester Drive East that loops around and terminates at Stubblefield will solve the traffic access problem as it will certainly get another way in to a large part of the subdivision. But people being creatures of habit and convenience are not going to drive hundreds of feet out of their way to take advantage of that street. Green stated he cannot support the motion to approve this plat based on the limited number of houses to be constructed to provide another • • • • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page5 access point. Madison felt so strongly about another point of with Clayton Powell on condemning the North lot at Powell brought up the possibility of going to Milsap dictated to be constructed by the Christian life Cross. access, she talked the end of Masonie. , which is virtually Center and the Red Green felt it would be more hazardous because more making left turns off Milsap onto Highway 471. people would be Jaeks asked if this motion should read "a bill of assurance for off-site improvements". Hanna inquired if plans for Stubblefield have been made at this point. Madison answered that no plans have been made for Stubblefield. Hanna then asked if the Bill of Assurance will include a sidewalk. Milholland stated the master street plan shows the sidewalk to be on the opposite side of the street. Farrish asked when the City calls bills of assurance. Carlisle said the City has called the Bill of Assurance on Masonic. that it was bid last November and it was not time for eonstruction season so the bids were refected and they have a new advertisement for bid that will be out soon to complete all of Masonic Skwiot agreed with Madison and Dow about the access on Stubblefield. He feels it is incumbent upon us to preserve the integrity. He feels the teeth are there but what's lacking is the backbone. The character of the neighborhood has been determined and our responsibility is to be consistent. He feels the subdivision is too intense and it will have an eeonomie effect on the neighbor's property. Milholland stated Mr. Bishop is willing to put money up or sign a bill of assurance for construction. The motion was called, and upon roll tall, the motion failed to pass 6-3-0, Dow, Madison and Nash voting in favor of and Green, Skwiot, Farrish, Jaeks, Robertson, and Hanna voting against. Jacks asked for another motion for this subdivision. MOTION Green moved to approve the request as presented subject to; 1. include the waiver for street light spaeing; 2. plat review comments; 3. compliance Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page6 with the greenspaee ordinance retroactive as the ordinance is changed; 4. off-site improvements with a bill of assurance. Robertson seconded followed by discussion from Madison who asked if Manchester Drive need never be constructed unless another subdivision adjoins it, Green answered yes. Upon roll Ball, the motion passed 5-4-0, Green, Farrish, Jaeks, Robertson and Hanna in favor of and Dow, Nash, Skwiot and Madison against. Madison asked if this action could be appealed to the City Board of Directors, and if so she would like to appeal this subdivision approval. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RANDY ADAIR LAKE ADAIR - PAY POND The fourth item on the agenda was the approval of a large scale dev- elopment plan submitted by Randy Adair, located at 2400 S. School. This property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Jacks stated this plan was approved by the Subdivision Committee at their meeting of May 22, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R86-7 FAIRVIEW STREET, PART OF LOT 7, 8,9,10 AND PART OF 11 The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning petition R86-7 submitted by Jan Thomas and represented by Kent Tharel for .60 of an acre located on Fairview Street. Property is currently zoned P-1, Institutional, requested zoned to R-3, High Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood's recommendation to the commission was to R-2, or R-3 for the property indicating they to the North the property faces some intensive uses of the University of Arkansas. The general plan recommends the area from Cleveland to the North to Highway 62 to the South from Razorback Road East to the railroad tracks as either public medium or High Density Residential. Madison asked if anything that touches this property is presently multi family. Wood answered R-3 to the East and R-2 to South. Attorney Kent Tharel, representing Jan Thomas, said this property fronts on Fairview Street on the South and it runs 200 front feet along Fairview and is 130 feet deep. Currently the property is zoned P-1 as are the lots that join it immediately on the West, the property immediately North is zoned P-1, the property to the East 1/2 of lot 7 which is not owned by Mr. Thomas is zoned R-3, as are lots 6,5,4,3,2,1 to Harmon Avenue. Looking immediately North of Fairview Street that property is all zone R-3, immediately to the South of Mr. Thomas property would be lots located on the North of California Boulevard and that • • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page7 current zoning is R-2. Mr. Thomas has two children attending the University. This property was acquired in 1937 by his grandfather Dr. David Thomas. It is Mr. Thomas' desire to have the P-1 changed to R-3, in order to build a duplex on the East side of the property and it's probable that his children will live in the duplex, which would be planed on lots 7 and 8. The plan is for the duplex to look like a single family residence; have off street parking to accomodate 6 cars and he plans two levels with the upstairs entering on the East end and the downstairs entering on the West end He sought R-3 instead of R-2 because, as stated, to the East 1/2 of lot 7 is already zoned R-3 as are all the lots ajoining to the East and across Fairview to the Northeast. Mr. Thomas does not plan any multi unit complexes. Mr. Tharel brought up one question about the surface water and the possible effect this development will have on the property located to the South from the water draining off this property. Mr. Thomas does not plan to remove any more ground cover than absolutely necessary, as he said the duplexes will be two level instead of spread out, so there will be a minimum amount of surface disturbed. Mr. Thomas will be willing to work with the City and neighbors on the water problem. Nash asked why Mr. Thomas decided to go with R-3 instead of R-2. Tharel answered that Mr. Thomas owns 1/2 of lot 7 and lots 8, 9, 10 and 1/2 of lot 11, the other 1/2 of lot 7 is currently R-3. Madison asked why the property lines do not coincide with the lot lines that are shown. Carlisle stated the deed reads from the corner of Buchanan and the street right-of-way changed over the years. Jacks asked if all the other lots on that street keep to that same point, Carlisle stated yes they do. Julian Thomas, 725 University daughter of Mr. Jan Thomas said her plans are to settle in this area and she would like the Commission to take consideration in this decision. Mary Margaret Durst, 875 Fairview Street, speaking in opposition to the R-3 zone, said she would like to apply for R-2 zone to be in conformity with the whole hill as California is R-2. She is happy with the plans, just wants conformity with R-2. Harold Hantz, 855 Fairview slated it makes no sense to have the Durst property and the hantz property R-3, there's no explanation. Jim Grayson, 930 California said he had a severe water problem, and Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page8 was just eoneerned about the ground over to be removed. Hanna asked about the proposed street on the plat, eoneerned about a problem if someone bought the property to South and opened up that road. Skwiot wanted to know how Mr. Tharel felt about R-2 zoning. Tharel stated we do have R-3 zoning adjoining this property immediately to the East and across Fairview to the North. Mr. Tharel felt an R-2 zone would work fine. Hanna stated he might request that proposed platted street be closed. Robertson disagreed on the request and said if a street were in with curb and gutter it will be able to handle the water coming off the hill side and it would help the people who front on California. Madison asked for some assurance before rezoning to R-2 that it will not conflict with some Univiversity plan. Mr. Tharel asked the Commission to consider the R-3 zone as he felt it would be inconsistent with the overall zoning to grant an R-2. MOTION Madison moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning to R-2, Medium Density Residential, seconded by Nash, the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0 MOTION Madison moved that to recommend a public hearing on rezoning the Durst and Hantz property to R-2, seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 9-0-0 REZONING PETITION R86-8 - SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH 1707 CROSSOVER ROAD The sixth item on the agenda was a request for rezoning submitted by the Seventh Day Adventist Church for 1.5 acres located at 1707 Crossover Rd. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District and request is for P-1, Institution Consultant Wood recommended to the Commission to consider changing to P-1. P-1 is the appropriate district for the existing church and public facilities are available for future development. Pastor Steve Meyers said the church has been on that location since 1971 and why it wasn't zoned aoeordingly we don't know. Now we have decided to build a small school. • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page9 Jacks asked if this would be a Sunday School or parochial. Meyers stated it would be both. Madison asked if the residents adjacent to this property is owned by the church or included in this. Meyers answered that it was not their property. Farrish asked if rezoned P-1, will there be further development. Dow asked what size is the enrollment going to be. Meyers stated it will be one classroom with 30 children. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as presented. Seconded by Farrish, the motion to recommend approval passed 9-0-0 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - DAY CARE CENTER IN R-3 16 SOUTH DUNCAN - DAVID WILLIAMSON The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a Day Care Center. The property is located at 16 South Duncan and is zoned R-3. Williamson stated he plans to have approximately 40 children ages 2-1/2 through 5 years of age. Williamson contacted the Arkansas Licensing Bureau and Human Services and spoke with Nonnie Vance, Williamson stated he has either fulfilled or is working on prerequisits they require. He has also contacted Mr. Larry Poage of the Fire Depart- ment, and is doing everything that is required. Williamson has also contacted the Public Health Department about the kitchen facilities, they have inspected the house and gave Mr. Williamson a list of every- thing that is required by them. Williamson plans on screening the whole perimeter of the lot, with parking in the front, one space for every 1500 square feet of floor space as required by the City. Madison asked how big the lot was, Williamson stated 173 feet by 60 feet wide, 60 feet being the front of the lot. Jacks stated the screening was required by City ordinance and asked if there was a sketch available of the property in question. Dow asked if the Public Health had a problem with the size of the building with fourty children. Williamson stated the health service requirement was for clean kitchen, clean bathrooms, and so many square feet in the house itself for the children. Jacks stated the State Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel() has a requirement for so many square feet per child, Williamson stated the State requires 35 feet per child, and the City requires 250 feet per child. Dow questioned the condition of the building, Williamson stated the fire department had inspected the building and said some improvements will need to be made to the exterior and interior. Williamson stated he has plans for a new roof and paint to be in harmony with other single family dwellings. Madison asked why this was a request for a conditional use and not a petition for rezoning for a P-1 zone. Madison asked the minimum frontage for an R-3 lot, Carlisle stated 60 feet. Jacks stated this request is permitted in R-3, for a conditional use for a Day Care Center, Jacks said he saw nothing wrong with this remaining R-3, its not for a home operation but a business. Hanna stated he had a real problem voting for a conditional use with fourty children in the house as it is now. Dow stated a concern of hers was the location and the student traffic. Madison felt the lot was minimum size for the zone it was currently in but objected to putting an institutional use on it with parking out into South Duncan. She could not support conditional use or rezoning because of it's size. Green expressed concerned on the limited parking requirement of 2 spaces and felt its not a safe plane to let children in or out of the ear without stopping in the middle of the street. Madison stated there were no plans for drop off points. MOTION Robertson moved to table this request until further documentation from the State Agencies and Licensing Board and a better plan from Williamson Green seconded with a request from Hanna to have Larry Poage attend when this item comes up again. Madison would like to have the property owners across the street notified and upon roll mall, the motion passed 9-0-0. Jacks stated to Williamson the need to show better control of traffic and safety, the need for ingress and egress. Farrish asking for a more detailed layout of what he's actually going to do with the building and surrounding area. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PARR GREGG AND DRAKE STREET The eight item on the agenda was a discussion from the Parks Board. David Lashley representing the Parks and Recreational Advisory Board, • • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagell would like to address 4 items briefly, one being some background informa- tion and the recommendation to the park board for the acquistion of land for a park, a recommendation to amend the greenspace ordinance, and finally, for clarification on the responsibility for accounting for fees and interest on greenspaee ordinance. In March 1979, we were given a study of Fayetteville Parks, Public Parks and recreational land needs. This was prepared by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and was adopted by the City. We utilized the information included in this report for preparing a long range plan for future park needs and the plan was necessary for approval of the ordinance allowing greenspaee in lieu of dollars. In the Northwest quadrant we are in the process of developing some acreage in the Walnut Grove Subdivision and Quail Creek is another Subdivision in the Northwest quadrant. Consistent with this plan we proposed to acquire 12.59 acres for Quail Creek Park, which is to be named later, located at the corner of Gregg and proposed Drake Street extension. We have considered this matter for almost a year now and we have talked and heard from land owners several times, we have conceptual drawings, we have intense surveys, we have plats. We reecomend that you propose to the City Board that this acreage be acquired for use as a City park. Lashley asked if there would be any problem with swapping land in one quadrant for development in another quadrant. Jacks stated they had discussed that with City Attorney Jim McCord in connection with one_of the subdivisions. Lashley asked to recommend to the City that they amend the greenspace ordinance to allow this to happen. _Jacks asked if the Parks Advisory Board was in favor of this and Lashley answered yes. Lashley's 4th item of concern is, who is responsible for the fees asessed, the fees collected and the interest earned on the greenspace fees. Under the proposed ordinance that we are asking to change who would account for or be responsible to the people for applying the credits between funds. Carlisle stated Seott linebaugh, Director of the Finance Department, is responsible for the accounts and records are kept of who has paid and who owes, but we do not have what happens to the money after it is collected. Jacks stated that Lashley is asking the Commission to recommend to the City that this particular piece of land be acquired and that the Parks Advisory Boards would be in favor of the recommendation on Banking or crossing lines as far as banking is concerned. Jacks stated it would be discussed at our next meeting. Farrish stated they had listened to discussion of Yorktown subdivision and one of the objections to that subdivision was the fact that there was no playground area for the 83 new houses. Lashley stated that Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel2 Yorktown Subdivision did not have enough land to use for Park space, and in such eases, thats when the decision could be made to take dollars in lieu of land, eventually combining the monies to build a park in that quadrant. MOTION Nash moved recommendation to the Board of Directors that they acquire the 12.59 acres of land, seconded by Madison followed by further discussion. Wade Bishop clarified that as far as Yorktown was concerned he owns part of the land which the parks board wants to acquire for the Quail Creek Park addition. Bishop stated he would be willing to let the funds that he owes apply toward Yorktown if it eould be transfered over to the Quail Creek Addition. By the same token Bishop has no objection to paying the Bash on the Quail Creek Addition and letting the City pay him cash for the land at Quail Creek, either route would be fine. Jacks stated that what this amounts to is that Bishop and the Parks Board are not in agreement at this time with the property at Quail Creek. Lashley stated the misunderstanding was when Bishop stated he would let the Parks Board have so many acres, and we interpreted that to mean he was going to make a gift of this land, but found out later, at the City Board Meeting, that was not his intention. The Board feels if it comes down to the City buying the acreage, then we want to buy the acreage best suited for our purposes. Green stated another problem, other than Mr. Bishop and the Parks Board not agreeing, was that we are being asked to recommend that the City Board spend close to a hundred thousand dollars without any real documentation or evidence of why. Lashley stated he would give any information that was needed to make a decision. Jacks asked the Planning Commission see the system or have it explained to them again, it having been several years since the Ordinance itself had been challenged. Farrish stated the City was involved in a long range general plan. Farrish, quoting from Larry Wood, stated the amount of acreage the City currently owns was more than adequate for parks. MOTION Robertson moved to table the motion until the next meeting, seconded by Green. Upon roll tall, the motion passed 9-0-0. LETTER FROM THOMAS BILLMAN - 1224 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. CONSERVATION OF GREEN AREAS WITHIN FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS • • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel3 The ninth item on the agenda was a letter from Thomas Gillman, regarding conservation - green areas, Greeks, springs and marshes. Mr. Gillman asked what the Commission thought about the letter and a little feed back. Jacks stated it was pretty hard to argue with. Madison asked if this request should have gone to the City Board, Jacks stated the letter was addressed to the Commission. MOTION Madison moved the letter to go to the City Board without recom- mendation from the Planning Commission, seconded by Nash Upon roll Ball; the motion passed 7-1-0, Hanna voting against (Skwiot left the meeting to vote). REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MIRE PARKER FOR JOHN GREEN - EAST OF HWY 265, SOUTH OF ZION RD The tenth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Mike Parker for property located East of Highway 265, and South of Zion Road. Mike Parker represented Mr. & Mrs. John Green who presently own the farm located East of Old Wire and Zion Road. Existing on this property is a three bedroom home, a one bedroom home, and three chicken houses. They would like to sell off the larger home and retire to the smaller house to financially be able to retain the rest of their farm. Jacks asked if this land has aeoess and Parker stated there was a road going up two different sides of this property. The portion that is being sold off is in the Northeast corner of their farm and they are retaining an easement along the West boundary line. Jaaks asked if this was a perpetual easement and Parker stating yes it was recorded. Madison stated she failed to find the property in question with the information provided in the packet she received. Parker stated the property is actually East of Old Wire Road and at some point it changes into Highway 68 East. MOTION Madison moved to table this item until she could find the property in question. Parker asked if he could Clarify it any further, as delay would lose this partieular sale. Hanna asked if the Greens intend to retain the 251 X 260 plot with the small house for themselves. Parker stated this was the portion they were splitting off, 1-1/2 aares with their nicer home. The Green's will be moving into the one bedroom house on this same farm and intend Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel4 on paying off their mortgages so they can retire from the poultry business, but still keep most of the farm. Skwiot seconded the motion made by Madison to table this item. Nash stated the Planning Commission was not here to take into consider- ation financial gain or loss. However Nash knows where the property is located and felt the lot split should be approved. Farrish asked how many acres were on this farm, Parker stated it is a fourty acre parcel and this is the first split of 1-1/2 acres. The question was called and the motion to table this item for further information failed to pass 3-5-0, Skwiot, Dow and Madison voting yes Farrish, Jacks, Nash, Robertson and Hanna voting no. (Green leaving to vote). MOTION Hanna moved to approve the lot split, seconded by Robertson. Upon roll Ball, the motion passed 6-2-0, Dow, Farrish, Jaeks, Nash, Robertson and Hanna voting yes and Skwiot and Madison voting no. (Green leaving to vote.) VALLEY VIEW WAY A PORTION OF SUNSET WOODS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - DISCUSSION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS The eleventh item on the agenda under other business was a request for discussion from Attorney Lynn Wade representing owners of property near the Valley View Way portion of Sunset Woods. Wade stated their concerns about the Sunset Woods Planned Unit Development and Valley View Way Subdivisions. The recent nutting of trees, excavation and preparation for new development. Concern was expressed about how many units were to be placed on Valley View Way, the plat indicates some of the lots are to be triplexes and lot 26 has no indication of how many units will be built, indications of protective oonvenants with 25 units per private lane and with notations on the plat that there could be duplexes or lots splits granted, the property owners would like to be assured that this does not occur. Other concerns are traffic control and off street parking, Valley View Way being a very narrow street and off street parking would be a problem. Wade also stated there was some assurance for path ways from each one of these private lanes to the swimming pool and tennis court areas and those are not in place, also a suggestion of 2 parking spaces for emergency vehicles near the tennis court and swimming pool areas and those are not in place either. The immediate concern is when the first lot was cleared in Sunset Woods (PUD), the residents on Eva noticed erosion and drainage problems on there lots. Wade • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Page15 then stated that the Planning Commission might address the adverse impact outside the Planned Unit Development of drainage and erosion. Wade also stated another concern was there are protective covenants, and rules within the Planned Unit Development about swimming pool and tennis court use, and late night party activities, although this area is wooded its not that far from the swimming pool and tennis court to the residents living outside the Planned Unit Development, the residents have been adversely affected by the late night parties and noise, and have not been sueeessful with making complaints to the police department, nor have they been successful complaining to the home owners association. Wade asked what the plans were for Valley View Way in terms of the number of units on eaeh lot. Jacks stated the Planning Commission approved a total of 114 units, with the stipulation of a maximum of 25 per oul-de-sae in the Planned Unit Development. Jacks stated drainage is a big concern on the hill side. The Commission has relied on the City Engineer to reoom- mend to us the adequaoey of the drainage. Jacks stated the City Engineer would be the one to tell the Commission or the City Attorney that there is a problem. Wade stated that looking at were shown somewhat adjacent elosed, they have a numeral I that either a duplex or lot they eould have an assurance units. the plat of Valley View Way four lots to the old North Street which has been on those lots, there is marginal notation split might be granted. Wade asked if that those will be left as single family Carlisle stated, based on a ruling in the PUD, those four lots have to remain single family units beeause they are within 100 feet of the property line. Wade asked if lots 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, partiaularily lot number 26 which has no indication of any number of units, indicated three units. Carlisle stated lot 29 is now being built upon and it is a duplex not a triplex. Jacks stated as long as the developer is conforming to City standards there's nothing we can do. Madison asked if lot 31 fell within 100 feet of the PUD, Jacks stated he would assume the four lots are within 100 feet and are single family units in an R-1 district. Madison asked if the City Engineer had recently looked at the drainage situation, Wade stated he didn't see how they could have unless they looked at when the permit was issued. Carlisle stated the Engineer would not with a new building permit. Madison stated she thought the City Engineer needs to look at the drainage problem. Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel& Nash stated the only way the Planning Office would have anything to do with this was if a citizen called with some type of Violation or complaint. Ann Sugg, Owner and Developer of Sunset Woods Planned Unit Development, stated that from the beginning they had gone through all the proper channels with the City. We asked Clayton Powell to check our drainage and we had to add some changes which our Engineer proposed and it was accepted. We installed the drainage at a later time and Powell considered it inadequate, at which point we installed a French drain across Valley View. As far as access to the streets we also made them all cud -de -sacs at the City's request, our original plat showed Valley View connecting with Cedar Wood. Sugg stated there is off street parking required for eaoh residence that is developed, streets are narrow because they are private streets and they were designed that way because of the terrain and the desire to keep as many of the trees as possible. As to the development on Valley View, there has been a lot of clearing for building and Sugg understands this causes trauma on the lots below, caused by drainage problems during the time its under construction. As to the present condition of the drainage, the Sunset Woods property owners assoeiation has recently had an Engineer do a study of our entire area and he has made a recom- mendation for some maintenance to be done on the drainage situation. Madison asked Sugg about the emergency parking spaces that were required but are not there. Sugg answered they are not in and the City has signed off on our Certificate of Occupancy, she does not know if they were required or not. Dow asked what kind of pathways were proposed, Sugg answered there was nothing specific as to what they would be. MOTION Madison moved to have the Planning Administrator check on this potential violation of the emergency parking spaces and the completion of the pathways, seconded by Nash, followed by discussion. Peggy Anderson stated she was on the Planning Commission at the time this PUD was granted. Anderson stated A PUD is only as good as the enforcement of the ordinances and she felt the Commission is granting things that are not going to be enforced. Janet McMullen, 916 Eva, stated her house has structural damage and her back yard stands in water and the off street parking is not adequate with 4 and 5 students living in those houses each one having a ear and they park all along the roadway. McMullen stated there would be no way to get a fire truck up there if you had to. • • • Planning Commission May 27, 1986 Pagel7 MOTION Madison moved to have the City Engineer make an on site inspection of the drainage problem, the Planning Administrator check on potential violation of the emergency parking spaces the the completion of the pathways, seconded by Dow and upon roll Ball, the motion passed 8-0-0 (with green leaving to vote) Jacks requested for the next agenda committee reports. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. • • •