Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-09 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday February 9, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robinson, Frank Farrish, Julie Nash, Gerald Seiff and B.J. Dow NONE Robert House, of the Whitfield, Ann Sugg, Dave Jorgensen, Greg Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-2 P.R. GREEN ESTATES - NORTHEAST CORNER OF GARLAND & SYCAMORE The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-2 submitted by P.R. Green Estates and represented by Robert Whitfield, for property located at the Northeast corner of Garland Ave. (Hwy 112) and Sycamore Street. Request is to rezone the 5 acre tract from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R-2 District was recommended for the following reasons: 1. The general character of this area is a mixture of single family houses, duplexes and apartments; 2. The property is located at the corner of an arterial street and a collector street; 3. The north and east adjoining properties back up to this site, there is a church on the southside of the site, which leaves just the single-family on the westside of Garland Ave. facing the site; 4. There is R-2 zoning on the southside of this site; and 5. There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed develop- ment. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the requested petition. Jacks then asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the petition. • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 2 Mark Robertson, 1158 N. Maxell stated he was against the proposed change, and had a petition that he circulated among the neighbors which consisted of 132 names against the proposed change. He said 98.5% of the people he spoke with were against the change, and 1.5% of the people either had nothing to say or favored the change. One personal point was that he had just recently moved into that neighborhood because in that area of town there was not a lot of multi -family although it was surrounded by apartments and duplexes. He said there was some character to the neighborhood which he felt should be maintained, and felt the change to multi -family would do away with that character. Mr. Robertson felt there was already a traffic problem on Garland Street and this change would enhance that problem. He said they as residents already face a run off problem which was due to excessive amounts of asphalt and concrete due to a lack of open space for the water to percolate. He felt if those 5 acres were turned into additional multi -family residences it would increase the run-off problem. Mr. Robertson stated the neighbors were very strongly opposed to the change, and some were even angry that this change was brought up again. Jacks asked Mr. Robertson to read the heading of the petition. Mr. Robertson read "We the undersigned Fayetteville Residents due hereby declare their opposition to the rezoning proposal of the lots on the northeast corner of Sycamore and Garland from R-1 to R-2". Lynn McWerter, 1779 N. Oakland stated she was a single parent of one child. She said she had lived in that area for 8 years, and felt the neighborhood was a good environment to bring her child up in. She said her property adjoins the property in question, and she had a drainage problem. She said when it rained her back yard was a pond for several weeks, and also traffic was a problem. She was also concerned about her property values, and the noise level in the neighborhood. Elmer Barber, 1772 Oakland stated this was the third time he had been at a rezoning hearing for the property in question, and felt it was a shame. Mr Barber stated he had lived there for 24 years, and when he moved into the neighborhood there were no apartments around his home. Since then apartments have built up all around his home, and people run through his yard. He stated since the apartments had come in it was just unbelievable. Mr. Barber said he could not see the one way out for the proposed apartments because of the traffic situation. Judy Alexander, 1766 Janice stated she was opposed to having apartments because of the residential neighborhood in her section. She said the traffic at the corner of Sycamore was already bad, and she would hate to see apartments come in, and add more conjestion. • James Parrish stated he lived on Maxwell, and this was also his third trip against the rezoning of the property in question. He said it Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 3 was more and more apartments, and there was very little R-1 left in that area. He felt they did not need R-2 for everything, and if it crossed over to his side it would create more traffic problems. He said somewhere down the line the City was going to have to stay with what they originally agreed with. He said he bought the house under R-1 zoning and someone comes up to rezone. Mr. Parrish said he had been there 2-3 times a year to fight because anybody could come up with R-2 zoning. He said the rezonings slip through (Oak Plaza slipped through as C-2), and he was not notified. Mr. Parrish said he did not want to live by an apartment complex, and if the City wanted to change it then he would sell them his property and move. Jacks agreed the neighbors had been to a number of rezoning hearings, but a citizen had a right to petition the Planning Commission for a zoning change. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Mr. Parrish stated he lived across Garland. Mr. Whitfield stated the P.R. Green Trust was a new property owner with the property being acquired shortly over a year ago. He said he was advised that there had been an application for R-2 zoning on one occasion. He stated there was not a master plan submitted at that time as he understood it. Mr. Whitfield stated it was not his intent to build apartments and never had been. The developers' intent was to install a cul- de -sac street (dedicated) from Sycamore. He said in 1982 the U.S. Department of HUD instituted a program called the "afordable housing program" which basically meant that smaller was better, smaller lots with smaller homes, and that's what he was attempting to do with the property in question. He said the townhouse regulations were somewhat misleading. He said they had no intention of building apartments for rental purposes, and they would be individual homes for sale to individual homeowners. But because of the configuration of the development he had to apply for an R-2 zoning regulation. He said what the configuration basically amounted to was two homes adjoined by a fire wall with a "0" lot line on one side. At this point Mr. Whitfield passed out the proposed drawing of the development to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitfield explained the development was very close to qualifying for R-1.5 zoning reclassification, but because of some peculiarities, and some economic feasibilty tests that were applied to the development they had to apply for the R-2 category. He said there would be basically 2 homes on 22 lots, and from the street it would appear that there was one home in the front, and one in the rear with a fire wall between. The east property line would be a blank wall with no windows. He said the plans were all new concepts and there had not been a develop- ment like that in the community of Fayetteville. Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 4 Mr. Whifield said the development incorporates economic considerations that would permit them to sell homes for $45,000 to $55,000. With that in mind he wanted to point out that the property owners on the east and the north sides were composed of 12 different property owners. Five of the twelve property owners were renters, and the remaining 7 were occupied by owners. He also pointed out that 10 of the 12 homes were assessed in the $30,000's, and they intend to build homes for $45,000 to $55,000. He said the average value of the existing homes was $36,000 and felt the project was worthwhile and worthy for young professors and young students. Mr. Whitfield stated he had developed two previous developments of somewhat the same type, and the only difference in the proposed development was only 2 joined townhouses. Hanna explained to the audience townhouses that would be joined horizontal property regime. He lot as an individual home. the development would basically be as duplexes, but divided under the said each side would have its own Mr. Whitfield explained a duplex with a fire wall, with an individual lot would make it different from a condominium. He said if there is a lot then it would be a townhouse development and if there was not a lot then it would be a condominium. Mr. Whitfield also felt the proposed development would be a good buffer for the existing neighborhood considering that 4 -lane streets were anticipated on both sides of the property. He said it would be a wonderful, affordable housing project for faculty, graduate students and yound married people. He stressed they are not apartments and he did not develop apartments, he developed homes Jacks asked Mr. Whitfield what if the townhouses do not all sell. Mr. Whitfield said at the present time he was the developer, and he had asked three builders to join with him. Of the three builders only one considered it standard policy to rent until they sell. Nash stated she agreed with Consultant Wood's recommendation as far as the character of the area in question, but her problem was the traffic was incredible at the corner of Sycamore & Garland. She said the plan was an excellent idea, but she could not see putting 44 more cars on that intersection. Mr. Whitfield stated they would be required to widen the street as well as curb and gutter for this development plan, unless he petitioned for a waiver and he had never done that before. Nash asked if there would be 44 new homes and Mr. Whitfield stated there were 2 existing homes, one of which would be sold after it was • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 5 remodeled and the other was conditional as to whether it could be remodeled to adapt itself to a new development. Nash stated with a 2 car family it would increase traffic to 80 more cars in that area. Mr. Whitfield stated that Garland was not the principal artery to the University Campus, Leverett was the principal artery where -by students go back and forth to campus. Mr. Whitfield pointed out that on the corner of Sycamore and Garland there was a bus stop with student and faculty penetration. Madison asked how long the cul-de-sac was in the proposed plan that had been circulated. Mr. Whitfield replied approximately 570'-580' and Madison stated the maximum length for a cul-de-sac was 500'. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madison, Mr. Whitfield stated those decisions had not been decided and he had been told that the Highway Department would not permit curb cuts onto Garland. They were anticipating all the traffic coming back to the cul-de-sac. Madison asked if the plan was going to have some tandem lots, and Mr. Whitfield explained this was a townhouse development, and the tandem lot designation did not apply. Mr. Whitfield said he received that ruling from the City Attorney along with the Planning Consultant. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madision, Mr. Grimes said Sycamore Street was on the 5 year plan for improvements. Madison asked Mr. Whitfield if he was aware of the Church with an elementary and pre-school across the street. Mr. Whitfield replied he was aware of the church but not their activities. Mr. Whitfield said they were talking about homes not apartments, and no doubt about it there would be more cars, but he felt that 80-90% of the penetration in that location would be student owners, graduate students and faculty owners. Madison stated without the R-2 zoning Mr. Whitfield could still put 35 houses in a R-1 zone. Mr. Whitfield said he could not comply with the lot minimums because of the configuration, and also the economics of the houses jumping up to $65,000 or $70,000. Farrish asked what the density was for R-1.5, and Carlisle replied 12 units per acre and R-2 was 4-24 per acre. Farrish said according to his calculations he could put in 60 dwelling units under R-1.5 and not have to go to R-2. • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 6 Sandra Carlisle stated Mr. Whitfield would have to meet the side setback requirement in R-1.5 and in the R-2 he could have the "0" lot line. Carlisle also said there was a minimum lot width in the R-1.5, but was not in the R-2 for townhouses. Jacks pointed out to the Planning Commission that they should be deciding whether or not this property should be R-2, and not how to develop it. Madison asked if Mr. Whitfield would offer a Bill of Assurance to reduce the density to approximately what R-1 would be. Carlisle stated that was contract zoning and the Commission could not do that. Madison stated he could offer a Bill of Assurance. Madison said at this point she was not inclined to enchroach on what was an R-1 neighbor- hood to the west, north and east with a pre-school across the street. Seiff said in view of what had been presented, had any of the people who spoke in opposition changed their opinions. Mr. Parrish said Mr. Whitfield had a good idea, but the only problem he had was once the property was zoned R-2 the developer could throw his plans in the trash and build an apartment complex (catch 22). Mr. Whitfield stated he would have no problem with the Bill of Assurance and with the R-1 limitations. Mr. Whitfield said this development would have an architectural committee with covenants and restrictions. He felt all the adjoining property owners would find everything to be very desirable, and should enhance the neighborhood. Farrish asked if the request was approved would Mr. Whitfield come back through with a Large Scale Development and Jacks replied a Large Scale Development Plan would be requested. Seiff stated Mr. Whitfield could turn around and sell the property and someone else could come in and build a bunch of apartments. He said the City could give Bills of Assurances all they want. Madison stated the Bill of Assurance would go with the land. Green said if someone volunteered a Bill of Assurance the Commission could take it with a condition of rezoning and not have a problem. Green said what he saw wrong with the R-1.5 was if it did not work then they would have to go the Board of Adustment for a waiver for the lot sizes because this Commission could not approve them. The Board of Adjustment has strict guidelines as to when they can or cannot �0 • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 7 grant waivers. He felt the Board of Adjustment might say it probably should be zoned R-2. Green said if Mr. Whitfield was willing to volunteer a Bill of Assurance, and he would still have to come back through a Large Scale Development, it seemed to him that was a good solution. Mr. Whitfield said he could not see the density being any greater than it was now. He said he would like the Bill of Assurance to read 43 houses because he had one home at the northwest corner which might have to be demolished. Hanna then stated Mr. Whitfield was offering a Bill of Assurance that the density would not exceed more than 9 residences per acre. Kathleen Mullins, 1022 Bel -Air stated she lived approximately one block from the proposed location. She wanted to support the other opponents in what they had already stated. Terry Taylor stated she lives on North Maxwell, and wanted the Commission- ers to know there was another warm body in the room to reiterate the opposition to the development. Her reasons had already been stated and there was no need for her to repeat them. She asked if the developer offered the Bill of Assurance after it was zoned R-2 was the developer bound by that bill. Jacks stated the Bill of Assurance would go with the land. Ms. Taylor disagreed with Mr. Whitfield, and felt Garland was a very viable main stream to the University. Datha Mullins, 1771 N. Oakland stated she had lived there a short time. She said she bought her home one year ago and paid more than $36,000, and there were several homes in there that were worth something. She has a drainage problem at the back of her property which was on the east of the property in question. Gladys Crittenden, 1773 N. Oakland with all of the others. She said Sycamore, Garland and Dean Street be enough to stop this request. stated she was opposed and agreed the traffic was something else on already. The traffic alone should Clyde McConnell, 925 Bel -Air Drive stated something that had not been brought up was the fact that a few years back he would hang his flowers out front, but could no longer do that because people would steal the flowers. He said traffic runs through his yard quite often, and the water problem had not been stated strongly enough. Dow asked if the property remained R-1 what would be the maximum number of homes that could be developed and Jacks replied as many as 35. Robertson asked why the drainage was so bad in that area. Mr. McConnell stated at one time it was a swamp and when they started building they brought in fill to build the lots up. Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 8 Robertson stated it appeared to him that curb and guttering of the street would help eliminate some of the water problems rather than making it worse. Madison stated Mr. Whitfield's plan was a lovely plan, and he had done everything possible to be cooperative. She stated to the neighbors that the development would not pass City approval for the development to compound the existing drainage problem. Madison said anything that happens to the property in question would add a burden to the traffic in that area. Madison said she was having trouble with this and would prefer that it did not exceed the R-1 density because of the surrounding neighborhood, and the way it would front on a sub- standard street. Jacks asked the developer if he would be interested in tabling this request so that he could take sometime to show his plan to the people in the neighborhood who were distrustful of the situation. Hanna agreed with Chairman Jacks, and felt if the request was tabled then Mr. Whitfield could take the plan to each individual and explain his intention. Hanna felt the impact on the neighborhood would not be much different from developing it as another R-1 subdivision, and probably would have nicer homes per lot. Mr. Whitfield stated he did not anticipate this kind of opposition, and was sorry to see it, but quite frankly he felt the neighborhood wanted a park for a neighborhood. Mr. Whitfield requested a vote at this meeting on his rezoning request rather than tabling. MOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to R-2 based on Mr. Whitfields offer of a Bill of Assurance restricting the density to no more than 9 units per acre, seconded by Robertson and followed by discussion. Seiff pointed out one more time that R-1 would provide 35 residences. The question vas called and the motion to recommend approval from R-1 to R-2 with a Bill of Assurance restricting the density to no more than 9 units per acre passed 6-3-0, Green, Seiff, Hanna, Robertson, Farrish and Madison voting "yes" and Jacks, Nash and Dow voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SWIFT'S JEWELRY INC. - 27 N. BLOCK • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 9 The second item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Sub- division Regulations for a lot split, submitted by Swift's Jewelry Inc., and represented by Ann Sugg. Property located at 27 & 29 N. Block, lots 1 and 2, block 17, Original Town Plat. Property zoned C-4, Downtown. Ann Sugg distributed a plan to the Planning Commission of the proposed split. She said the plan showed the 2 buildings on one lot, one being Swift's Jewelry store and one to the north (Dave's Barber Shop). She stated the Barber shop building was up for sale and a lot split would be necessary. MOTION Farrish moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. 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. • Dave Jorgensen stated the concept plat was originally submitted for the purpose of questions and possibilities of the proposed Phase 4 and 5 of Park Place Subdivision. He said the purpose of the resubmittal was to show a proposed emergency access road tying Park Place Subdivision into Highway 265, and that was the only reason for the concept plat submittal at this time. He said the concept was referred to the City Board whereupon the developer tabled it. He said the Board recommended the developer tie into Highway 265, and since that time the developer has shown the tie in by way of a temporary gravel driveway. The main reason for the temporary road was because of the excessive cost to tie in from Park Place Subdi- vision from the east to Highway 265. The developers alternate recommen- dation was a temporary gravel drive for the purpose of emergency access. The developer would like to install temporary barricades to limit the use of the access into the subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen said the concept plat for the emergency access road had been referred to Jim McCord, and on January 19, 1987 Mr. McCord recommend that both the Planning Commission, and the City Board approve the emergency access road. Richard Lewis, 2365 Lensfield Place, stated he had several concerns about a gravel road. He said they chose a home in Park Place because of their understanding and from what he could research that it was indeed to be an exclusive area. Mr. Lewis stated a gravel road did Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 10 not fit in with an exclusive area even on a temporary basis. A gravel road would stir up plenty of dirt and dust, even though temporary barricades were intended to reduce the through traffic for those who want to bypass that terrible intersection on Highway 45 and 265. He said the additional dirt and dust would be unbearable because he has a son who was very allergic to dust. He said some of them were concerned that, that kind of an access may in fact simply increase the traffic back in that area, and maybe they should rename Lovers Lane or move it because he thought that's what it would become. Mr. Lewis had doubts about that area being patrolled because of the barricades, and was concerned if someone was up to no good the gravel road was an invitation to another way out. Mr. Lewis said with those things in mind he was very opposed to the graveled road. He said the original plan was for the road to be paved not gravel. He said he would personally like to hear from the Fire Chief, and the Director of EMS of what they thought of an actual emergency, and using the temporary road, stopping moving the barricades then proceeding. Dennis Fulbright, 2369 Bristrol Place stated he did not see how they could make a decision about the connecting road until what was happening to the west had been decided one way or the other. Mr. Fulbright thought if the road was approved then the subdivision to the west might hedge in on the tail end. Madison stated at one point she spoke with Deryl Burch and he thought the road was going to be available for daily use, and Mr. Grimes had said that would not be the case. She believed there would be no ROW dedicated with the temporary road, and as she understood it would be tricky for the City to enforce any maintenance of it. She, like Mr. Lewis, envisions children on dirt bikes or whomever kicking up dust, and most importantly tearing up the road, and then the City would have no position to enforce the maintenance. She said the letter in her packet from Mr. Jorgensen made no stipulation that a real road would ever be built. She said there was word from the Traffic Super- intendent who thought the gravel access was suitable until Phase 8 was built. She counted before Phase 8 was built there would be a potential of 148 lots all going in and out of Highway 45, and that figure did not count the multi -family or Hays Addition. She said to her, traffic and safety were daily issues, not just cases of emer- gencies that would come up from time to time. She felt the Subdivi- sion remained substandard regarding safety and access, if continued with only one access on Highway 45. She said since this was a concept plat she felt compelled to go ahead and address some of the cul-de-sacs that perhaps should be stubbed out (some are potentially too long), and would like to question if the Commission ever granted a temporary waiver on Cambridge. Madison stated at the City Board meeting Director Bumpass said "regardless of what the Planning Commission thinks, some directors think the street • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 11 needs to be built fairly quickly", had hoped Dr. Hays would come back 4 & 5 at once, so they could get on disappointed that he did not. and at that point the City Board with a plan to construct Phase with the road, and she was sorely Dave Jorgensen said the developer planned on developing Phase 4 and 5 at the same time or 4 immediately, and 5 as quick as he could get on it. As far as the concern for the potential quality of the road, no doubt it would not be a City street, but with the Commissions permis- sion and possibly their final recommendation, the developer would be very receptive to the approval of this, subject to an approved plan submitted to the City Engineer that would include drainage, and a substantial gravel road. He said the road would not be a cow trail, and for holding down the dust the developer could probably oil the road or put chip and seal on it to minimize the dust until the subdivi- sion could be expanded. Dow stated her major concern was, when would the road be built as a real road. Mr. Jorgensen stated as far as Phases 4 and 5 go the developer was just about ready to start construction within 6-8 weeks on Phase 4, and Phase 5 would be started later in the spring, possibly June Phase 5A would be next, and naturally Phase 5A would come before the Commis- sion, and Phase 8 he was not sure. Mr. Jorgensen said it would be nice to have a paved road, but the problem was it would make the project unaffordable. He said if they paved from the east side of Phase 5 due east to Highway 265 the approximate cost would be $150,000 on the minimum. Farrish said the last time this item was before the Planning Commission the request was for a waiver of the contract that had been signed with the City to build the road before Phases 4 and 5 could be built. At that time the Planning Commission recommended the waiver to the City Board because the Planning Commission could not release the waiver. Farrish said the City Board asked that there be some provision for emergency vehicles which the plan shows, and quite frankly he did not know why this item was back before the Planning Commission, other than Mr. McCords recommendation for the Planning Commission to look at the plan again. He said it was ultimately the City Board who would have to make the final decision. MOTION Farrish moved that the Planning Commission continue their vote the last time this was heard, and recommend the waiver of the street being built, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Dow stated her reason for voting against the temporary road was her ah Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 12 concern for no conditions when the road would be developed. Robertson asked if the Commission could send this to the Board without a recommendation. AMENDED MOTION Farrish moved to send this to the Board of Directors for their action without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, seconded by Seiff, and followed by discussion. Madison stated she would vote against this motion as well, and felt Dr. Hays signed a contract and he should honor his obligations, and do what he said he would do. She did not think gravel roads were adequate to meet their needs for City streets. The question was called and the amended motion passed 8-1-0, Madison voting "nay". APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF PARR PLACE PARK PLACE PHASE I - J.B. HAYS The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a replat of the amended final plat of Park Place Phase I submitted by J.B. Hays and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Albright and Associates. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This item was tabled at the January 26 meeting. Dave Jorgensen explained the reason for the replat was for access into the proposed Hays Addition Phase I. Mr. Jorgensen said in the process of obtaining approval for the Hays Addition one of the conditions was the approval of the replat of Park Place Phase I which basically showed the access into the proposed subdivision through lots 10 & 11 on the west side of Phase I of Park Place. The biggest concerns were opening up the cul-de-sac, drainage and the potential increase in traffic in and around the cul-de-sac. An opinion from the City Attorney (Jim McCord) for denying a replat was that basically Mr. McCord did not know of any legal grounds for denying this replat. Green explained the reason this was tabled at the last meeting was for the sole purpose of the attorneys getting together since there were conflicting opinions about what could or could not be done, and to determine whether there was something Mr. McCord had neglected to tell the Planning Commission. Green said he would be interested in knowing if any headway had been made in that area. Steve Adams representing Dewitt and Cynthia Smith stated he had an opportunity to speak with Jim McCord on several occasions. Mr. Adams said there could be some translational errors in his review of their • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 13 discussion, however he said they talked about 2 things throughout the week. Number one was the signatures that were required on the plat, and Mr. McCord opined that was something that was very new to him and had not ever been brought up in this type of context. Mr. Adams said the second item they discussed was the letter Mr. McCord wrote on January 20, 1987 which indicated the reasons for denial of the subdivision replat approval. Mr. Adams suggested he did not believe Mr. McCord was writing with respect to this particular subdivision in his actual opinion. Mr. Adams discussed with Mr. McCord the problem that the Planning Commission was faced with in this situation was a piecemeal attack on the subdivision. Mr. Adams said the one thing that Mr. McCord wanted to emphasize to him was that the Planning Commis- sion was not required to look at these in a vaccuum as project 1, project 2 and project 3. Mr. Adam's suggestion to the Planning Commission was there was one very Blearing error in Hays Addition Phase I and II, which resulted in a street that was too long with one outlet. Mr. Adams stated that was more than an adequate reason to deny the replat of lots 10 & 11. Green assumed for a moment that the Planning Commission was willing to waive the maximum length of a dead end street, and asked would there be no other basis for denying the subdivision. Mr. Adams said he was not saying that he had been able to look into this as thoroughly as he could. Green said that was the reason it was tabled last time, and Mr. Adams said he thought the reason it was tabled was to find something, and he found something. Green wanted to make. sure, and asked Mr. Adams if he was advising the Planning Commission that, primarily the reason for denying the subdivision was the maximum length of a dead end street as the concept plat showed and Mr. Adams replied "that was true". Madison said there were two issues, and one was the road was too long which concerned her. She said Dr. Hays could bump the road out to Highway 45 at the other end, and the road would no longer be a cul- de-sac. She said it seemed incredibly ridiculous to her to tear up an existing platted street in an existing subdivision, and would like to know where the code actually allows tearing up platted streets that had been built. Green said he could show more than one example of existing cul-de-sacs in his neighborhood that had been opened up to tie into Township Road. Madison then stated that was for the good of the City, and she did not see the City being served by this in the least. • Mary Engles, 2405 St. James Place stated the people who lived behind the brick wall had something special and they wanted to keep it that • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 14 way. She said the people who lived in Park Place were frustrated because they did not know what's going to happen, and that was why she wanted to speak against the proposal. She felt some people were so concerned about the legal grounds. She said there were cul-de-sac rules and Green Space ordinance and the word Planning in the Commission which implied to her that they looked to the future. She felt lots 10 & 11 were not the only concerns, and that every lot and every property owner in Park Place was against opening the cul-de-sac. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the request because 10 years from now she did not think Dr. Hays would be proud of that fluke. Wally Engles, 2405 St. James Place stated he agreed with Commissioner Green and all the rest of the people that laws were fine. He said that his point was rules were great, but sometimes they needed a little milk of human kindness and take individuals into consideration. Glen Austin, 2487 Bristol Place stated his concern was the water drainage problem that would be created by opening the cul-de-sac. Mr. Austin commented on what Mr. Hays had said at the last meeting about some of the property owners being somewhat less than financially responsible. Mr. Austin said he was 44 years old and had never been 30 days late in his life, and was not sure Mr. Hays could stand up under that examin- ation. With that he closed with not supporting the approval of opening the cul-de-sac. Dennis Fullbright, 2369 Bristol Place said the drainage problem was one of his concerns as well. Mr. Fullbright said if the developer could not afford to build a road in the back part of the addition what was to say the drainage would be met properly. Mr. Fullbright said the obvious reason for developing that area was to provide a quick in -flow of cash, and that everyone was aware there were some financial problems in the whole thing. He said the way the lot sizes were designed indicated quick sale type situations, and people who sold homes for J.B. Hays told him exactly what type of houses were being planned for those lots. He said the minimum type house was one-half of the price of the current homes in Park Places. Mr. Fullbright said he had attended the Subdivision meeting and originally it was said the developer could not come off Highway 45 because of the cul-de-sac length, and that they were going to come through Bristol Place because it would allow a legitimate length for a cul- de -sac. He thought Mr. Green stated at that meeting if they could prove that the cul-de-sac did not meet the length then there would be a reason for not approving. He said at the last meeting it was stated that the cul-de-sac through that area exceeded that length by a substantial amount, more than a cul-de-sac would be coming in the other way. Green asked Mr. Fullbright if he would rather have the road open up onto Highway 45, and go all the way through Bristol Place. Mr. Fullbright replied "no", he would rather that thing be totally separate, no access • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 15 through Bristol Place at all. Madison withdrew her motion from the January 26 meeting at that point. MOTION Dow moved to deny the replat of Park Place Phase I based on the length of the proposed cul-de-sac, because it exceeded City standards, and also added there were an alternatives to the Subdivision that would not interfere with the integrity of an existing neighborhood, seconded by Nash and followed by dicussion. Seiff said agreed with the motion for reasons he would like to be known. He felt that there were a large number of families in that development bought on a plan with a cul-de-sac. He felt if it were him he would be terribly upset by the replat and felt feelings were terribly important. He also agreed it would be an illegal street and the developer may have another development called Phase I of Hays addition, but to him it was just another phase of Park Place with a means of access. Farrish stated the Planning Commission encouraged Dr. Hays to come in off of Bristol Place, and now if they deny him access off Bristol Place would that mean the Planning Commission was giving passive approval to allow the developer access off Highway 45 with an illegal cul-de-sac. Farrish said basically what the Commission was saying was if they deny this and deny him access off Highway 45, then they were denying the developer the right to develop his property. Green thought Commissioner Farrish made a good point and that was the reason he was going to vote against the motion. Green said he had not seen the plat of Phase II of Hays Addition, although he had seen the concept plat. Green said the developer could very well solve the whole cul-de-sac problem by opening a street up to Highway 45. Green said the only thing he had heard so far that carried a lot of weight was the fact that the Commission did not want the developer to build a dead-end street, and apparently the street was too long, and some people were not willing to waive that requirement. He personally felt a through street that went all the way from Highway 45 through the cul-de-sac was far more detrimental, far more hazardous, and far more dangerous to the people who live in Park Place than what the developer had proposed. Green stated he could not go along with this because as much as he hated to approve the subdivision he hated even more to vote to deny it with the possibility that the developer could open that street all the way through to Highway to solve one problem. Nash said one thing that had been going over and over in her mind was that the Commissioners keep changing their minds, and she wanted to point out not necessarily had the Commission changed their minds Ack • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 16 since Park Place was developed, but the Commission had changed their membership. She said the Commission was not limited to two choices in her opinion and she did not believe things had to be either left or right. Nash said possibly they could sit down and explore this and possibly come up with some new ideas; for instance, as Dr Hays pointed out he had a driveway that could become an ingress/egress. Seiff added they kept referring to the road as Highway 45, and to him it might have the name Highway 45, but it was also called Mission Blvd. He said a Highway had a speed limit of 50-55 MPH, and he thought they should look at the fact that the road was a lot less than that speed limit. Madison wanted to make it perfectly clear that there were many reasons to deny the replat. She said there was not enough access to the subdivi- sion, there was potentially an illegal street, and there was a drainage problem. To her one of the over riding reasons was to not tear up an existing platted, promised cul-de-sac, and it would break a trust between the City and the subdivisions residence. The question was called and the motion to deny passed 7-2-0, Jacks, Nash, Seiff, Hanna, Robertson, Dow and Madison voting "yes" and Green and Farrish voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GREG HOUSE - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF REBECCA & WILLOW The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Sub- division Regulations for a second lot split, submitted by Greg House for property located at the southwest corner of Rebecca and Willow. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Greg House pointed out the property in question was an adequate use for the neighborhood and would be in conformance with the surrounding area. Hanna asked when the first split took place, and Mr. House replied the back portion was split off in 1984. Mr. House said the lot line for the 1st split had been adjusted so that the existing structure would come within the qualifications of the required square footage for that type of dwelling units. Madison asked if the property in question was in the Historical District. Mr. House replied he was not sure exactly where the Historical District boundaries were. Madison said she was a little distressed that they were cutting up • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 17 the Historical District for lots. Hanna stated the lots looked different to him from when the 1st split was done. Carlisle said she believed the split was from north to south, and then Mr. House requested and received a property line adjustment to make the existing structure conforming. Hanna stated if and when the developer decided to build off of Rebecca there was a 15' drainage ditch, and on his plat it did not show dimensions running east to west. Carlisle stated running east to west the dimension was 226', and Hanna said that's before the split. Hanna wondered if and when Mr. House was ready to build on that corner would he have enough to meet the setback because of the angle line that was 117'. Green asked if the proposed lot split met the minimum lot size requirement and Carlisle replied "yes". MOTION Green moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. In answer to a question from Madison, Commissioner Hanna said had split one lot off and now it had been changed, and now wants to split a second lot off, after he changed the 1st lot He said by the time Mr. House clears the drainage ditch, of his house may be to close to the angle line. At this point Commissioner Nash left the meeting. MOTION Mr. House Mr. House split. the back Farrish moved to table this request until they could determine if the property in question was in the Historical District, seconded by Madison and followed by discussion. In answer to a question from Commissioner Green, Commissioner Farrish thought the Historical District had some governing rules and regulations. Green asked Sandra Carlisle if there was anything illegal about the request that she was aware of, and Carlisle replied "no", and did not know if the Historical District had come up with anything enforcable. (2\ • • • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 18 Madison felt it was somewhat encumbent upon the Commission to preserve the dignity and integrity of the Historical District. Mr. House said his intent was to build and not a little rent house. He said Fayetteville was always in the finest build cheap, inexpensive rent houses. He immediately adjoining the property in to bring that down in value either. a colonial home on that lot, every project he had done in of integrity, and he did not had an interest in the property question, and had no desire The question was called and the motion to table failed to pass 3-5-0, Dow, Farrish and Madion voting "yes" and Jacks, Green Seiff, Hanna and Robertson voting "nay". Motion on the floor to grant the request as requested. The question was called and the motion to approve the request as requested passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Hanna, Chairman of the Update Committee announced the committee was 2/3 of the way into the proposed changes. He said another meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 17 at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Jacks announced one other item of public business was the Commission had received a letter from the City Attorney in regard to the property on Halsell Road. Jacks said he spoke with the City Attorney today, and apparently he had not realized the Planning Commission was working from the standpoint of subdivision of property. Mr. McCord felt the Commission should be able to do whatever they thought would be proper. However, Mr. McCord was sending an amendment to the lot split portion of the zoning regulations. MINUTES The minutes of the January 26, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OFFICERS FOR 1987 The eight item of business was the appointment of Planning Commission Officers for 1987. Commissioner Robertson, Chairman of the Appointment Committee stated the following recommendations for Officers in 1987. Chairman - Commissioner Jacks Vice Chairman - Butch Robertson Secretary - Fred Hanna, seconded by Seiff. The recommendation to • Planning Commission February 9, 1987 Page 19 approve the Officers for 1987 passed 8-0-0. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. VJ�