Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday January 26, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Butch Robertson, Gerald Seiff B.J. Dow Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Frank Farrish, Julie Nash and Pat Parsons, Winston Simpson, Joan Smith, Dave ' Jorgensen, J.B. Hays, Paul Price, Sandra Carlisle, Tessa Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-1 BATESVILLE SERVICE CORPORATION - LOTS 806 THRU 812 OAK PARR PLACE The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-1 submitted by Batesville Service Corporation and represented by Pat Parsons, for property in Oak Park Place Addition lots 806 through 812. Request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; P-1 District was recom- mended for the following reasons: 1. The property is adjacent to the existing Fayetteville High School property and is intended to be acquired for school purposes; and 2. P-1 District is the appropriate zoning classification for school use. Madison asked if the general plan showed P-1 anywhere it would be desired or was it after the fact. Larry Wood replied the General Plan did show public properties. Madison asked if the Plan showed long range hoped for P-1 zoning. Larry Wood stated in the community itself the plan showed school property and park properties that were planned. He thought most of the properties were already owned by the Fayetteville School system but not built upon at that time. Madison said then, the Plan really did not address the need for more. Jacks stated in this case the land use or the need for facilities e5 • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 2 did not show growth for the school system in one location. Patrick Parsons with the Niblock Law Firm, representing Batesville Service Corporation who were the owners of lots 806 through 812 in the Oak Park Addition stated they were seeking a change from R-2 to P-1. He said the property was currently vacant and unused and surrounded on 3 sides by property that was already owned by the Fayetteville School District and immediately adjacent to lands that the Boys Club use. He said the property on the other side adjoins the school Aministra- tion grounds and on the other side of California Blvd. was the High School itself which stretched down to Virginia Avenue. Mr. Parsons stated they proposed the change in the zoning so that the property could be sold to the Fayetteville School District and utilized for school purposes. He said this would not cause any great change in the area of the neighborhood as it was already primarily utilized for school district purposes anyway. The property which would be adjoining it, as far as residences were concerned, is primarily rental area and student housing. Madison asked if they anticipated the property would be used for admin- • istrative purposes (offices). Mr. Parsons stated the school district had not said specifically what the tract of land would be used for other than the use for school purposes and utilization of future buildings. Alvin Neal, 224 Virginia Ave. asked if the land to the north was school property or designated a City Park. Mr. Parsons replied it was school property and it was being utilized as a playground for the area but was owned by the school. Mr. Neal asked if Ohio was a City Street and Mr. Parsons stated it had not been abandoned and there was a gravel strip that was used now only by, and primarily for, school purposes. Mr. Neal stated his only concern was about drainage problems. Mr. Parsons asked if there was a drainage problem and Mr. Neal said there was a small drainage problem now but felt if the trees and vegeta- tion were cut out there would be a great drainage problem Mr. Parsons said runoff in any land rezoning would be a concern and clarified there would be nothing built that would run off into the neighbor's property. He said they would not do anything to endanger nor devalue the neighborhood and thought it might enhance the area to get rid of that vacant open lot. He said there had been a concern in Fayetteville lately about the nature of unused lots and the potential danger to that kind of property to children. • Mr. Parsons said he did not think the City would allow any plan to go into effect, unless the issue of drainage was property addressed • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 3 in the first place. Elsie Cruse, 250 Virginia asked if the property owners in this particular area would hear more about this before construction takes place. Jacks replied they would be required to submit a Large Scale Development Plan to the City and neighbors would be notified by the City Planning Office. Hanna asked Mr. Simpson if he had any idea about what the plans were for the property. Mr. Simpson stated their desire was to build a school building on the hill but did not have a specific plan for the development of the whole area in terms of where the buildings, drives, grounds or parking would be. He said their interest in that property was to add to property the school district already owned. Hanna asked if the plan was to build in the immediate future or long time off or what. Mr. Simpson said their intent was to build in the immediate future. Hanna then said in other words this was probably tied to the new Millage increase. Madison understood they were planning a school not administrative offices or warehousing, but a school. Madison stated she would probably oppose the request because had they wanted office space a rezoning to an office use would be in order, but to actually put a school on that location distressed her because Stone Street was not a good street. She felt there was not adequate access to the property to use as a school. Mr. Simpson asked Commissioner Madison if she thought they were proposing to build a school on those lots that were proposed for rezoning. Madison replied she thought that what they had just said. Mr. Simpson said they were not attempting to use those specific lots to erect a school building upon. He said they were not anticipating that they would build any kind of structure or building upon those specific lots at this time. Mr. Simpson said he believed they were guaranteeing to make some sort of utilization of that property, but the specific use of those specific lots had not been designated as yet. Mr. Simpson stated he could not imagine building a school on those lots that were being proposed for rezoning. He said there was not room on those lots to build a school. • Madison stated she thought she would agree with that and asked then why do they need it rezoned. Mr. Simpson said they wanted to use • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 4 it as part of the grounds for a school which was different from saying they were going to build a school on those lots. Nash asked Mr. Simpson what age group would the proposed school handle and Mr. Simpson replied "high school". Madison then asked there would be a high school across from a high school and Mr. Simpson replied "yes". Seiff asked Mr. Simpson if the school district was planning to have 2 high schools, abandon one or in addition to or what? Mr. Simpson said the intent was to build another building across the street from the current building and use both buildings as a part of the high school. Seiff then said it would all be Fayetteville High School. MOTION Nash moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-2 to P-1, seconded by Seiff. The motion to recommend passed 7-1-0, Madison voting "nay". WAIVER OF A BILL OF ASSURANCE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS JOAN SMITH - HALSELL & CROSS The second item on the of Assurance submitted Road and Cross Street. for 3 lot splits and a 1986. agenda was a request for a waiver of a Bill by Joan Smith for property located at Halsell The Planning Commission had granted a waiver conditional use for a tandem lot on July 28, Joan Smith stated this was actually a request from 3 families for waivers on each of the properties. She said in July a lot split request was submitted by Julian Archer who at that time was the owner of the property. Mr. Archer was in Europe when the request was heard so Mrs. Smith and her husband were at the meeting to represent the situation. She said what had happened was they wanted to buy a portion of the property with two other buyers who also were interested in the property. She said they requested the lot splits (3) which were approved and at that meeting there was a request for them to sign a Bill of Assurance related to street improvements. She said they did not realize what that Bill of Assurance would entail for them. She said later after the sale they were presented with the Bill of Assurance and realized that it would entail and incumbrance on their titles that would follow with the land which could potentially cost them the amounts listed in paragraph 1 (letter submitted for request of waiver) for each family and those prices were estimates given by a City office. She said those costs would follow with their land if they ever decided to sell and the next owner would be responsible \?) Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 5 for making the street improvements at whatever cost or whatever time this would come up. Mrs. Smith said they did not realize how much that cost was going to be for each property owner at today's prices. She felt for several reasons the Bill of Assurance would be unfair for them to commit to making the street improvements in total. 1. If they ever wished to sell their property it would be extremely difficult, she did not think she would, and did not think many people would want to buy a piece of property when there was this unknown amount of money that might have to be spent within a very short period of time. She believed the Bill of Assurance gave 30 days to make the improvements or else the City would do it and put a lien against the property. 2. She said they were told the improvements would probably not be made on the road in their lifetime, and if that was true, then it incumbers their title for basically no reason for something that may never take place. 3. She said the intent of the ordinance which requires the street improvements was to deal with situations that had come up in the past in relation to large scale developers. She did not feel they were developers although each family was going to build a house on a piece of land with an already established street and they would be the only people on the street who would be required to pay for the improvements. She said they pay their taxes the same way everyone else did, but if the street was improved they would be the only ones who had to pay out of their own pockets for the improvements. She said in the ordinances it discussed they would have to pay in relationship to the needs created by the development, and there was really no mention of any percentage or cost relationship to their increased usage to the road. She said the Bill of Assurance said they would have to pay in total, for the street and they could end up with a bill of thousands of dollars for only adding 5 or 6 cars to the street. She said the Wells live off Sang and already use the street so there might be an addition of 2 more cars for thirteen thousand dollars which was quite a bit of money. Mrs. Smith felt they did not fit into that category, and also did not feel that the spirit or intent of the ordinance was to apply it to individual property owners in that way. She said even if it was to apply to them, the Bill of Assurance itself was not really specific enough to apply to them. Barbara Westendorf stated she was a resident across the road, and she hoped everyone had a clear picture in their minds of the location and the intent of the people who own the land She felt very positive that if the purchase of the land had not gone in the direction it had that it might of encouraged dense poplulation. She said the people • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 6 involved may increase traffic by 3 or 4 cars on that street and it seemed unfortunate to encumber their title in that way. Madison asked if the Planning Commission could release them from a Bill of Assurance or was it the City Board. Carlisle stated the Planning Commission put the restriction on the request. Carlisle stated the Bill of Assurance has never been signed by any of the property owners for the 3 splits. Joan Smith stated they were told they could not get a building permit until they signed the Bill of Assurance, so this way they could think about it and look into it further before they signed it. Jacks said then they had not actually bought the lots and Mrs. Smith said yes they purchased the lots before they saw the Bill of Assurance. Madison asked how did the deed get recorded at the court house if the splits had not been recorded. Carlisle stated the splits had not been recorded and Madison said but they bought the property separately. Carlisle stated the Smiths had bought the entire tract prior to asking for the lot splits and tandem lot. Mrs. Smith Clarified the situation and said the lot splits preceded their purchase of the lots and that the lots were individually purchased from Julian Archer. She said the Smith's bought one lot, the Wells bought another lot and the Scroggs bought the last lot. Carlisle asked did they get their deeds recorded at the court house and Mrs. Smith replied "yes". Nash stated from the minutes of the July Planning Commission meeting: Joan Smith stated they were purchasing the entire 5.8 acres and were going to sell the two remaining lots. Mrs. Smith stated that was misinterpreted and they were not purchasing the entire tract, and that was why Julian Archer applied for the lot splits. She said Mr. Archer was going to complete each sale separately to each of them and that was in their purchase contract with him and they never were going to buy the entire lot and split it themselves, they just wanted one lot and agreed to find buyers for the remaining lots if Mr. Archer would apply for the split. Nash stated according to the July minutes it sounded as if the Planning Commission granted the lot split with the understanding that they were giving the Smith's a lot split, and thought that was where the confusion was. /s" • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 7 Hanna stated he made the motion to asked for the Bill of Assurance for the street. He said he could see their concern, and problem, and felt it would not be fair for them to bear that kind of assessment with all the other homes that had built along Halsell. He felt that was not the intent of requiring Bills of Assurances to improve a stretch of road that was already mostly developed. Hanna personally felt the Planning Commission had made an error in requesting the Bill of Assurance and felt they should have either denied the lot split or granted it based on their request. Hanna stated he would personally be inclined to give the Smith's the relief they were asking for. MOTION Hanna moved to remove the Bill of Assurance for street improvements to Halsell Road, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Seiff added that the nature of that area where the Smith's live would be destroyed if the road was improved. Jacks stated there were situations like this one all over town, but the Planning Commission had been directed by the City Board of Directors to require that type of Bill of Assurances anytime a subdivision took place, and added it had been reaffirmed to the Commission 2 or 3 times recently. Hanna stated if the Commission went into what Rational Nexus required with the amount of traffic used on Halsell with their portion of improving the Road would not be anywhere near $23,000.00 Jacks agreed with Commissioner Hanna and felt those figures were a little strange also. Green said he was under the impression, from what they were told by the City Board was that they expected the Planning Commission to excercise some judgement in applying the ordinance rather than arbitrarily applying it. He said he was impressed by Mrs. Smith memo and felt she did an excellent job building her case and added if everyone built cases like this it would be more difficult to arbitrarily apply the ordinance. He said he seconded the motion the last time only because the Smith's agreed, and did not seem concerned, had they been concerned he would not of required the Bill of Assurance, and would not of voted to require the Bill of Assurance. Farrish stated one of the things that bothered him about the request was at the last meeting there was a Mr. McNeal who appeared with some concern about this split cutting off the development of a street that he considered to be necessary to connect with other streets. Farrish %i\ • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 8 understood the concern about the cost, but by the same token, anyone who divides a piece of property, regardless of how many pieces everyone was faced with that same cost. He said it determines the value of the property hopefully. Madison felt City standards had already been compromised on that property by allowing the tandem lot and lot splits. She said the Commission had quite often required Bill of Assurances for improvements when granting lot splits. She did not like making decisions on what they require of people based on their particular pocket books. She said those 3 sets of owners could sell their property tomorrow to fantastically wealthy people and it would be a completely different situation. She added she would not support this motion. Mrs. Smith said the City ordinance very clearly states that if the provisions in the ordinance would cause an undue hardship to a developer they could be waived and it was not something that's hard and fast. She said the Commission was given the ability to interpret and decide what would be an undue hardship to whoever was developing land. She took exception to that, and felt that should be something that was considered, and added every case should be considered as an individual case, otherwise why have this process. Jacks added another point in that the Planning Commission was given the power to establish the proportionate share of the Rational Nexus basis. Green said there was a provision in the ordinance under waivers that says a subdivider may petition the Planning Commission for a waiver in whole or in part on one or more of the following grounds; 1) the City has no plans for upgrading the substandard street or road on which off-site improvements were proposed to be required by the sub- dividers. He said it sounded to him the ordinance addressed the situ- ation perfectly, and added what the Smith's asked the Commission to do was perfectly in compliance with the ordinance as it's written. The question was for improvements and Hanna voting voted "nay" Mrs. Smith asked Board. Madison felt it cost would be to Mrs. Smith felt would be before called and the motion to waive the Bill of Assurance to Halsell Road failed to pass 3-5-0, Green, Seiff "yes" and Madison, Jacks, Nash, Robertson and Farrish if they had any recourse for appealing to the City might be appropriate to ask what the percentage of the Smith's. it would be appropriate to figure out what the cost the Commission asked someone to sign something. She 22 • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 9 said the tone did not seem like it was going to be something as astounding as the figures they were given. She also said the Bill of Assurance was very fague as to whether they would have to pave the entire road south of their property or just their half. She said the Bill of Assurance asked them to relinquish their right to due process, should that ever occur the City could foreclose on their land by public sale without necessity of court proceedings. She said they were asking an individual homeowner to sign away a lot of rights. Jacks stated as he understood the request was from Mr. Archer to split the property, and the Commission granted that lot split proposal in accordance with the City ordinance with the provision that a Bill of Assurance for street improvements be provided. Jacks said he felt it probably would be Mr. Archer's responsibility to inform the people who bought the lots. Mrs. Smith said they knew about the Bill of Assurance, but did not no what the document was and in actuality it was not prepared until after the sale was completed. Jacks said it sounded to him the complaint was with Mr. Archer rather than the Planning Commission and Mrs. Smith added she was not sure she agreed with that. CONSIDERATION OF A CONCEPT PLAT PARK PLACE - J.B. HAYS The third item on the agenda was consideration of a concept plat for Park Place, submitted by J.B. Hays and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Farrish asked if the Commission should be considering this because as he understood this was the concept of the temporary road to Highway 265 in lieu of somthing else and added the City Board could only waive that. Farrish said the contract for the connection to Highway 265 was between the City Board and Park Place developers. Jacks stated the City Attorney felt this should be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Board. Green had some concern about this item being left off the agenda and not advertised in the newspaper and felt as controversial as this had become should it have been advertised. Jacks asked if a public announcement of a concept plat was required, and Carlisle replied notification was required of a concept plat and not a legal notification. 23 • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 10 Jacks asked if the adjacent property owners were notified as required by the ordinance and Mr. Jorgensen replied "yes". Jacks asked if property owners around the whole periphery of the whole Park Place subdivision had been notified. Mr. Jorgensen said all surrounding property owners around the periphery had been notified. Farrish stated the last time this concept was heard there were property owners within the subdivision who were not notified and the Commission had determined that those property owners should of been notified. Carlisle stated all surrounding property owners within 100' of the proposed subdivision shall be notified. Green said it sounded like everyone in the subdivision should be notified because Dr. Hays no longer owns all of the property in Park Place. Green said everyone who owns a lot in the subdivision should be notified. Farrish said there had been some objections at the last concept hearing because property owners were not notified within the subdivision. MOTION Farrish moved to table the concept owners within the subdivision and external to the subdivision were motion to table passed 8-0-0. plat of Park Place until all property immediately adjacent property owners notified, seconded by Madison. The APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF PARK PLACE PARK PLACE PHASE I - J.B. HAYS The fourth item on the agenda was of the amended final plat of Park and represented by Dave Jorgensen zoned R-1 Low Density Residential consideration of approval of a replat Place Phase I submitted by J.B. Hays of Albright and Associates. Property District. Jacks advised this was before the Subdivision Committee on Thursday January 22, 1987. He said this was discussed at some length with mention of water run off to an already existing problem, other accesses available, and the cul-de-sac would exceed the ordinance limit of 500'. Jacks said the motion from the Subdivision Committee was to approve the request of the replat of Park Place Phase I subject to: 1) the amount of run off into Park Place not increase by the replat and be verified by the Public Works Department; 2) covenants be established same as Park Place regarding the square footage and other architectural restrictions. Jacks advised the motion did not pass and the vote was 2-2-0. Planning,Commission January 26, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Jorgensen addressed the drainage issue since it seemed to be very important in the proposed subdivision (Hays Addition). The motion was made contingent upon zero run off from the proposed subdivision down into the Bristol Place cul-de-sac. Mr. Jorgensen said there was no doubt that the drainage could be accomplished, however he did not know if Dr. Hays would be able to afford it. Mr. Jorgensen said the signatures on the replat under the certificate of ownership, title and dedications were made in 1984, and added that he spoke with Mr. McCord about this, and was advised this would be the best way to handle it. Mr. Jorgensen said the ROW's and easements were dedicated at that time by virtue of those signatures, therefore he left the signatures on the replat because they could not rededicate the easements or ROW's. Mr. Jorgensen said he added a note at the bottom of the plat which would read: The above Certificate of Ownership, Title and Dedication is for the "amended final plat of Park Place Addition, Phase I". The above Certificate of Ownership, Title and Dedication shall also apply for this replat with Ownership, Title as follows: He said in the provided blanks the owners of lots 10 & 11 which in this case were changing up. Madison stated there was a covenant in existence for Park Place now as to the size of lots and minimum square footage on the homes. Carlisle said the City nor the Planning Commission could address the covenants of a subdivision Madison realized they could not enforce them, but would hate for the Commission to violate them, and was concerned that lot 10 was not a buildable lot. Mr. Jorgensen said he was concerned with lot 10 also, and what he had done was draw a house on lot 10 with the legal setbacks, and came up with 1850 square feet excluding the garage. He said a house could be built on lot 10, however it would be a difficult lot to build on. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madison, Mr. Jorgensen explained they would like to leave the island in the middle of Bristol Place because it could be landscaped and made to be an attractive entrance into the proposed subdivision. Although it may present a traffic hazard, but it's a large cul-de-sac and thought there would not be a problem negotiating the turn. Steve Adams legal council representing Dewitt and Cindy Smith owners of lot 12 which was on the corner of Bristol Court and Cambridge Drive. Mr. Admas added lot 12 was probably one of the lots more severly affected by the change in the proposed replat. He said what's attempting to happen was what use to be Park Place Phase 7 has had a new change of name, and was being plugged into Park Place as the Hays Subdivision and was receiving the benefits that an awful lot of property owners its • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 12 in Park Place had paid for as lot owners in Park Place. The proposed subdivision would be receiving every benefit of Park Place, and thought that should not be allowed to happen as a matter of planning. The lots were not sized consistent with the lots in Park Place and added there was no assurance to property owners in Park Place as to what type of covenants or restrictions would be applied to the lots in the proposed subdivision He said one of the major problems with Park Place as it existed in all of it's current phases was the public safety problem of a street being to long, with too many people on it with one outlet. And what were they proposing to do, but to hook up what was a cul-de-sac into another subdivision. He said there was a contract with the City Board of Directors about not selling lots out there until another access was provided for the safety of the residences, and felt for no other reason the replat of Park Place Phase I should be denied because of the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the residences of Park Place. Mr. Adams felt there was one further reason to deny the replat because as he reviewed the preliminary design of the plat it suggested, that in fact, when the orginal owners signed a replat in September of 1984 to change the name from Cambridge Place to Park Place Phase I, now it seemed they had also assended to the change in Bristol Court to Bristol Place, and being a thoroughfare, and grand entrance to another subdivision entirely. One which would not be required to pay monthly or annual dues for the maintenance of the median strip, which had been suggested to be a grand entrance to the new subdivision. For the above reasons suggested they strongly urge this request be denied. Green said assuming there was a second access into Park Place from Highway 265 as the contract demands to take place before any development in one of the phases occurs. He then asked Mr. Adams out of the reasons he had submitted for denial which of those reasons would legally in either the Fayetteville City ordinances or Arkansas State law would the Commission be able to stand on. Mr. Adams stated he was not sure he could point to one such as the streets were not 50' wide and would not have the appropriate amount of sub -base or whatever. Frankly he was not that familiar with the actual details of the subdivision requirements, but did know that the Commission was entitled not to allow plats to go forward if they were not in the best interest of the health and welfare of those people whom the plat was actually affecting. He said he was not talking about the City in general, but thought more in lines of a converse of decisions that were made in "Wood against The City of El Dorado", which said owners and dedicators of the subdivision were not allowed to petition, to change or vacate portions of a plat because of a unilateral mistake in the dedication of a street or two on the plat. Green asked if the case Mr. Adams referred to was a similar situation where someone wanted to amend the final plat, directly affecting property Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 13 that was owned by the developer or was that a situation where property that other people owned that would be directly affected as in parts of there property might be replatted. Mr. Adams said he could not tell from reading the case itself what actually occured. He said it was his opinion that some of those folks received more land, but it did not say for sure how other property owners were in fact affected. Green asked if that case addressed the general safety, health and welfare argument that Mr. Adams had raised and Mr. Adams replied the case really did not address that Green added anyone could argue at anytime if a subdivision went in next to their property, and had access throught it, near it or around it that it would be detrimental to the safety, health and welfare of the people in the subdivision. Nash asked how long the cul-de-sac was and Jorgensen replied approx- imately 550'. Nash then stated the maximum length was 500' for a cul-de-sac, and that would be grounds for denial. Jacks said Hays Addition Phase I had been approved and no more than that. Jacks said he scaled the replat of Hays Addition because of the provision for access which needed to be considered, and came up with 925' from what was now Bristol Court. He said the whole reason for a concept plat was to show the whole thing. Madison said she searched in vain for the ordinance which allowed replats and asked Sandra Carlisle under what part of the code were replats allowed. Carlisle stated she asked the City Attorney that same question and he had no answer for her. She said many replats had been filed and she treated them as a final plat. Mr. Jorgensen went back to the 1984 signatures stating that it was very possible that the signatures might need to be updated. In other words each and every property owner within Phase I of Park Place may need to sign off. However when speaking with Mr. McCord, his opinion on that particular day, was it would be hard to rededicate the easements and ROW'S when they had already been done once. Nash stated the only problem she had with the signatures was that what they signed in 1984 was not what they were lead to believe. Glen Austin, 2487 Bristol Place (lot 18) said' he raised the drainage issue at the Sub Committee meeting. He had 2 or 3 serious concerns about the approval of the replat of Park Place Phase I. First and foremost was the drainage issue, and wanted to make sure the Commission understood the magnitude of it. He said he lived at the east end • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 14 of Bristol Place, Bristol was a street that was on a substancial slope, sloping down hill towards the east. Although his property was not close to the proposed replat, but was at the end of the drainage problem. He and his wife had lived there for one year to the day, and twice during the past year they had extremely heavy rain fall in a short period of time which resulted in water running over the top of the concrete curb on the north side of his property. He said he was not here to asked the City in anyway to do anything about the current problem, but did want to impress upon the importance of not approving any action that would increase the water flow down the street. His other primary concern was for the proposed subdivision to have the same covenants as Park Place. However to open the cul-de-sac up and call it anything other than Park Place was misleading. He said the public was going to consider the proposed subdivision an extension of Park Place. Park Place has very restrictive covenants that were placed on Park Place by the developer in the original process. He said they have mandatory membership requirements with a property owners association that required assessed funds to take care of the common properties which included the entrance and medians to the property. Dr. Hays stated when the concept plat was submitted to the Planning Commission he had asked about coming in directly off of Highway 45 and he believed it was suggested by the Planning Commission that the access would be better through Park Place (vote 7-0). He planned to have the proposed subdivision as an addition to Park Place so they could share in the amenities and have the same benefits, assessments and naturally he would not want the houses to be of any lesser quality because his home was adjacent to the subdivision. He thought there needed to be some people on the Board that were not nuttier than fruit cakes or trying, to keep a guy from doing something, and to go along with what they originally planned. He proposed coming in off Highway 45 to start with, and purchased two lots with that in mind. Dr. Hays thought there needed to be some people with common sense on the Board that could understand what a developer had to do. He said if the Commission does not want him to do the proposed subdivision then he would not do it, but thought he was trying to do the best subdivision that's been done in Fayetteville. He felt some of the people who were complaining about this had not paid their own assessments or paid for their own lots. Farrish stated one of the things that came up at the Subdivision meeting was did the developer have any objections to making this approval contingent upon, Hays Addition Phase I sharing in the assessments. Dr. Hays said he planned to have a similar assessment and similar type restrictions on Hays Addition Phase I. Farrish then said Dr. Hays did not object to making that part of this motion and Dr. Hays replied he wanted it to be that way. 2� • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 15 Dennis Fulbright, 2369 Bristol Place stated he was at the meeting Thursday afternoon and he kept hearing different things. He said he bought a piece of property which was an investment and hopfully was bought for the purpose of the enjoyment of his life. He said he had no particular objection to Dr. Hays doing what he wanted to do with his land, but they were talking about access to that land through a particular area that was already setup. He said he heard things tonight about the City Boards jurisdiction against the covenants, and ordinances that were set for housing additions. He wondered if the approval was contingent upon that, what proof would the property owners have that it would be followed. He was sure Dr. Hays had the finest intentions in the world of doing things that he said he had to do, but some mistakes had already been made in their housing addition for whatever reason. If they as property owners have no other legal aspect as far as Hays Addition being a separate entity in itself with access through Park Place Addition, but was subject to the same covenants that Park Place had, but the City had no jurisdiction over the covenants being followed then what do they as Park Place owners have as backup. Mr. Fulbright said the whole thing had some serious problems and that the Planning Commission needed to consider those problems plus the feelings of the homeowners. He did not care what the Commission said they were up there doing the City ordinances, but they were also working for the people, that was what City ordinances were for. Jacks noted a letter had been submitted by Mark E. Williams who owned a home at 2206 Bristol Place, but at present was in California. Mr. Williams stated in the letter that he objected to the replat. Another letter was submitted from Nancy Huff Luadell, 2405 Bristol Place who also opposed the replatting of Park Place Phase I. Jacks said also a letter had been submitted from a very concerned citizen about Park Place in general. Madison responded to Dr. Hays comment about some of them being nuttier than fruit cakes. She said fortunately she was not at that meeting and presumed that did not mean her. She reminded everyone that approval of a concept plat was not binding upon anyone. She said it was merely a chance for the Planning Commission, as well as property owners in the area to evaluate what the developer might do with his property. Madison said there was not the benefit of Plat Review comments and obviously staff had not put a scale on some of the cul-de-sacs, and those were the technical things that were being addressed now. So the fact that some people thought the concept plat was headed in the right direction had no bearing on what the Commission was doing right now. She was opposed to opening the cul-de-sac further, primarily because Park Place already was an absolute bonanza of cul-de-sacs. She said the City Board had made their position quite clear on excessive use of cul-de-sac's. This particular subdivision was already stressed with only one entrance, and she calculated a potential of 148 lots developed, not counting Hays Addition Phase 8 or the multi -family. • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 16 She would not want to extend a cul-de-sac, possibly one that would be in vioation of City ordinances that would put additional traffic into Park Place and saw no over whelming reason for the replat. Hanna said he evidently was here when the concept was looked at and did not have that much of a problem with a subdivision that size opening up on Highway 45. Personally he did not have much of a problem with it going on into Park Place, but with the comments from the neighbors his views had changed for access into Park Place. Hanna said there were three alternatives for that piece of property; 1) do not let Dr. Hays develope it or at least try and keep him from it; 2) access from Park Place or; 3) access Highway 45; Hanna felt it was not right to let Dr. Hays develop his property and was sorry the Commission did not have the benefit of these comments when the concept was heard. Hanna said the length of the cul-de-sac was the only concern in his mind, but if the Commission let Dr. Hays go through Park Place they would be letting him have a cul-de-sac that would be twice as long as one coming off Highway 45. Hanna said he would like to hear Commis- sioner Farrish's motion, but he thought before he voted on a motion for anything he would like to see how the other Commissioners felt about Dr. Hays coming off Highway 45. Farrish said the only thing that had been approved to this date was Hays Subdivision Phase I with a stub -out. He said what he would like to see happen to the subdivision would be access off Highway 45, and through Park Place. Farrish said that would give Park Place the two entrances that everyone was asking for. Dr. Hays said it would be better to widen his drive possibly, and to come in, and go back to the east about 200', then go back out into Park Place and have the residences of the proposed subdivision benefit from the use of Park Place, and help with the cost of the amenities. MOTION Farrish moved to grant the replat of lots 10 & 11 of Park Place Phase I, based on the following contingencies: 1) Hays Subdivision Phase I contain the same covenants as far as architectural standards, and the same restrictions as far as minimum square footage of housing, with lots being subjected to the same assessment as Park Place, and that they belong to the property owners association; 2) lots in Hays Subdivision Phase I could not be sold until the City grants the approval of additional sales of lots in Park Place; 3) City Public Works Department to approve drainage run off that would affect Bristol Place from one end to the other (the entire length of Bristol Place) and meet all City standards. The motion died for lack of a second. 3� • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 17 Nash explained the reason she could not support that motion was because at the last meeting the Commission was to consider Hays Subdivision all by itself, and not worry about anything that was around it which she had trouble doing. Now they were trying to approve the replat of Park Place and they weretalking about Hays Subdivision and felt the motion about Hays Subdivision was not necessary at this meeting. Farrish explained his reason for that was to protect the existing property owners that had shown up here tonight asking for relief. Green stated this was hard for him, and he had tried to find reasons to vote against the replat. He was leery of the Commission denying the replat on the basis that the cul-de-sac would be to long. He said there were a couple of things Dr. Hays could probably do that would be a lot worse for the people who already lived in Park Place. Green said Dr. Hays could open the access on Highway 45, and tie into Bristol Place and really create a situation that they would not want. Green also said Dr. Hays could put in two cul-de-sacs, one off Highway 45, and one off Bristol Place, and that would not be good for the people in Park Place. He said there were only realistically two altern- atives for the property in question, Bristol Place or Highway 45. Green said the reason he was not willing to second Commissioner Farrish's motion was he wanted to know whether Dr. Hays had any interest of going out onto Highway 45 at this point. Green asked Dr. Hays if the Planning Commission waived the maximum cul-de-sac length would he access off of Highway 45. Dr. Hays said one reason they planned the access the way they did was because coming around the curve on Highway 45 was difficult to see and felt the Bristol access was safer. He said he arranged the purchase of lots 10 & 11 to go through Bristol Place. Green asked Dr. Hays if he was saying no at this point, and that he was not interested in coming off Highway 45, and having a cul-de-sac that did not go through Park Place. Dr. Hays replied that he was not interested in doing that, and they had gone through this before. Nash said one concern of hers was the traffic safety (island in the middle of the cul-de-sac), and she had a real problem with the people who lived, and bought on Bristol Place. She said that was a final plat, those people paid the price to live on a cul-de-sac, and the property values reflect that and now suddenly it's not a cul-de-sac. She felt the Commission was not in the business of destroying existing neighborhoods, and she was not convinced there was a need for such an unorthodox plan. She added the least of her concerns was the length of the cul-de-sac, but that seemed to be the only thing that was supported in the ordinances and that would be her reason for voting against the replat. • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 18 Madison felt one problem with this was that they had never been able to see a big plan, they had seen Phases cut off from each other, and held in the air, and limbo almost. She said the Commission had not been able to address a whole big picture, and that bothered her. Madison said she would be totally opposed to waiving the length of a dead-end street regardless of whether it came in from Highway 45 or Park Place. She said it was beyond her knowledge whether there might be other street arrangements possible with that property. She did not want to deny the development of the property, but did not know the whole dimension. NOTION Madison moved to deny the replat of Park Place Phase I based on a strong conviction that they could not extend an existing cul-de-sac, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion. Green said a lot of people had made a lot of good arguments, and if he was living in Park Place he would feel exactly like some of the people who had expressed opinions tonight. Green said there was a provision in the Park Place protective covenants that would prevent the replat. And that was replats had to be approved by the environmental control committee and he recognized that Dr. Hays (the Commission had been told) was the environmental control committee and therefore would be the one to approve the replat. The problem Commissioner Green was having was the protection was in the covenants and the people who bought property in Park Place entered into the restrictive covenants and made a deal with Dr. Hays. He said unfortunately in this case that gave Dr. Hays the right to approve the replat. Green said the most authoritative thing the Commission had to deny the subdivision was an opinion from Jim McCord that said "the replat could only be denied due to the requirements in Article IV, Section B-H of the Subdivision Regulations". Green said there was nothing in the design standards that addressed this situation and there was no basis in the standards that he could see for denying the subdivision plat. Green added for those reasons he would have to vote against the motion to deny. Seiff stated this was an extremely difficult situation as far as he was concerned. He tried to sit and listen at this meeting as he did in the past. He has heard the opinion of two different attorneys and in fact, would like to ask Mr Smith a question. Seiff said Mr. Smith indicated to him that there was a possibility that they did not have enough time to research the legal aspects of the question and asked if that was a fact. Mr. Adams speaking for Mr. Smith said he had not had an occasion to discuss this with the City Attorney. Seiff stated he had empathy for the people here tonight with respect • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 19 to breaking the plat and creating a through street through the existing cul-de-sac, but he had to agree with Commission Green without some legal basis he would have to vote in opposition. Mr. Adams asked if the Commission was looking at the subdivision in a nickel and dime basis, saying this little part here was okey and that little part over there was okey, but when all three parts were put together there was a monster that was over 1100' long. Seiff stated he was looking to table this item because he would like to have further discussion with the City Attorney. Green asked Mr. Adams would he be interested in the Commission tabling this item for further research and discussion. Mr. Adams said he had not had a chance to confer with Mr. McCord and he for one, although speaking out as Mr. Smith's attorney would like the idea of tabling. MOTION Seiff moved to table the replat of Park Place Phase I for 2 weeks so the legalities could be discussed further, seconded by Green. The motion to table passed 6-2-0, Hanna and Farrish voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PAUL B. PRICE - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LEWIS & HOLLY The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for a lot split, submitted by Paul B. Price for property located at the southwest corner of Lewis & Holly. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Price was requesting a lot split which he was going to build a small house his mother was living in a home that was no way to insulate the walls, and for her to get into with her walker. off his mothers property, in for her to move into. Presently was 115 years old, and there the bathrooms were to narrow Seiff was confused as to the location of the house on the sketch provided by Mr. Price. Mr. Price stated the house on the sketch was the house that he wanted to build. MOTION Green moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks advised the Commission had received further information on the • • Planning Commission January 26, 1987 Page 20 • Greg House problem, but understood Mr. House would like to come back at a later date. Commissioner Robertson reminded the Commissioners to turn in their slips of paper with their recommendations for the nomination Committees. MINUTES The minutes of the January 12, 1987 meeting were approved with the following correction: Page 8, Paragraph 10, change "Jacks felt they should have more than the requested 97 spaces with a congregation of that size" to "Jacks felt like the requested 97 spaces were adequate for the size of the congregation". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. • 3N