Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 28, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Butch Robertson, Gerald Seiff, B.J. Dow, Julie Nash, Frank Farrish, Sue Madison and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: NONE George Faucette Jr., Dave Jorgensen, Ervan Wimberly, Lamar Pettus, Steve Gunderson, Larry Wood, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-24 DON & JANET LANOY - 1890 MISSION BLVD The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-24 submitted by Don & Janet Lanoy and represented by George Faucette Jr. Request is to rezone a 2 acre tract of land located on the northside of Hwy 45 East and across the street from Greenview Dr., from R-1 (Low Density•.Residental) District to R -O (Residential Office) District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; The presence of the C-1 District to the south presents a planning problem, the solution to which is one of two courses of action. If it is the intent of the City to retain this ara as a low density residential area then the C-1 Distict should be rezoned to R-1 District. This would make the grocery store a nonconformting use which could remain but not expand. If the C-1 District remains then the City should consider some buffering around the C-1 District with office and multi -family zones. If the latter course is chosen, it is suggested that a revised land use plan be developed for this area before any rezoning takes place. Commissioner Hanna felt the Planning Commission could not consider down zoning what was already there. He said if the store caught on fire it could not be replaced because of a non conforming use. Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for this petition. • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 2 George Faucette Jr. said he was representing the petition, but more direct Clark Miligan and Frances Wood. He said if the rezoning occured and if they purchased the property they would like to operate a counseling clinic. He said the petition was self explanatory, but would like to add something to it. He said he mentioned that Hwy 45 was a major east/west arterial for Fayetteville. Mr. Faucette noted he received some traffic counts from the State Highway Department. He said the traffic varied from about 7,000 cars a day west of Highway 265 on Mission to 11,500 cars on Old Wire Rd. Mr. Faucette added that Mr. Miligan and Ms. Wood would like to offer a Bill of Assurance if the rezoning occured. He said the Bill of Assurance would restrict the use strictly to an office of Psychology and counseling, with a provision not to alter or expand the outside of the structure or change the residential character in nature. Commissioner Robertson asked if the request for such could be obtained by a conditional use rather than a Mr. Faucette explained he explored that with the Director and she said that was not be a possibility for use in an R-1 zone. an office rezoning. Planning an office Commissioner Farrish asked if the people who wanted to buy this property would be living there. Mr. Faucette explained the home occupation possibility would not be permitted either because the people would not be living in the dwelling. Sandra Carlisle explained the R-2 zoning would permit a conditional use for such an office. Commissioner Madison asked how many professionals working at the office. Mr. Miligan replied the proffessionals would be less than 4 in number. Mr. Faucette also mentioned the property to the plat and he would like to offer a for the rezoning, which would accomodate Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the speak in opposition to the petition. would be number of was quite deep according depth of 200' be limited their needs. audience would like to Candy Edmonson, 1866 Winwood stated 1890 Mission was in her back yard. She said she had 2 small children that could not play in the front of her yard because Winwood was so busy, Dillions and the Bank on the far side of Hwy 45 and now possibly an office with more traffic in her back yard. She said she would worry about the children in her back yard. Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 3 Louise Russer Cramer, stated she had 9 acres on Mission and she was deeply concerned about what an R -o classification could do to the entire neighborhood. She said it seemed to be an extreme measure to take, and would be very difficult to undue what had been done. She pleaded that great caution be used in deciding to make any change at all. Ms. Cramer said she understood a group would be meeting at night if the R -O zoning was accomplished and the latitude for R -O extended to Beauty Parlors and other things as well. Gary Taylor, 1842 Winwood, stated he was also concerned about the future use and what would happen after the Psychologist left the area. His personal feeling was if the rezoning did not somehow improve the habitation of those who exist in the R-1 status it probably should be left alone and remain R-1. Ms. Cramer added there was another buyer for the property who had prior claim. She said the person had an option with the contingency that they be able to find a buyer for their home. She said last week a buyer was obtained for that persons house and they were in the process of finalizing the purchase. Carol Kinsy presently living at 845 Rush. ,Drive said she was advised not to speak to this petition for fear she might alienate the person selling the property, which she respected. Mrs. Kinsy said she did however settle with the person buying her home today with a signed contract. She said it was just a matter of the ending processes of finances coming together and whatever. Jacks asked if she had a legal option on the property. Mrs. Kinsy noted she had a 72 -hour first right of the property. She said if she was able to purchase the home she intended to use the dwelling as a residence. She said if she were to obtain the property as a family person she would prefer the property to remain R-1. She asked if the property were rezoned could the rezoning be revoked in anyway. Dr. Frances Woods said she was one of the people trying to buy this property. She said one of the reasons for an office here was that she saw children and the kind of office she was looking for was a place that would be safe and spacious for children with an outdoor place. She felt people were being a little short sighted because as time goes on this particular area would become office and residential and thought they were about as good tenants as anyone could have. Dr. Woods added the group Ms. Cramer was talking about was a womens support group, not any big deal and was really kind of ordinary community people with community problems. Commissioner Madison asked if Dr. Woods was withdrawing her • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 4 request and Dr. Woods replied "no". Mr. Faucette stated he was not aware of the prior contract of Mrs. kinsy or the sale of her home on Rush. He clarified that Clark and Frances' contract was contingent upon the rezoning. He said the other contract that Mrs. Kinsy held was through another realtor and remained in affect unless the rezoning was approved, then at that point she would have been given her 72 -hour notice. Mr. Faucette said he was not privy to the conditions of Mrs. Kinsys' contract, but if the zoning were to occur then Mrs. Kinsy would be given notice and within 72 -hours she would have to say she would go through with the deal even though her house sale had not closed or they would give it up and let the other buyer have it. Jacks closed the public hearing and returned disucussion to the Planning Commission. Mr. Faucette said the prospective buyers would be willing to add to the Bill of Assurance that if they ever sold the property that it would revert back to an R-1 zone. Dow asked Carlisle if that could be done legally. Carlisle said she did not know and would have to check with the City Attorney. Commission Hanna said he was basically opposed to putting and R -O unit across Highway 45, however because of what they had heard tonight thought that was probably a mute question. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to table this petition for rezoning until the next regular Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Robertson. The motion to table passed 6-3-0, Hanna, Robertson, Dow, Madison, Jacks and Seiff voting "yes" and Farrish, Nash and Green voting "nay". APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT - ZION ESTATES 'ZAMBERLETTI - NORTH OF ZION RD AND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS The second item on the agenda was consideration of approval of a preliminary plat of Zion Estates submitted by Zamberletti and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located outside the Fayetteville City Limits, total acreage is 33.32 with 9 proposed lots. Carlisle advised proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office prior to this meeting. Farrish advised this item was heard at the Subdivision Committee • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 5 meeting on September 24, 1987 at 3:30 p.m. He noted a motion was made to approve subject to: 1) plat review comments which include all the compliances with the City Standards; 2) a recommendation that the maximum length of the cul be waived and the tandem lot be approved as a conditional use; and 3) a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk on one side of Julie Lane; Farrish advised the developer had asked for a waiver of the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements for the subdivision. Farrish said the Subdivision Committee could not vote on that waiver. Green advised the Planning Commission could not waive the street requirements as well. Carlisle noted the developer had mentioned reducing the City Standard width, which could only be done by the City Board of Directors. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1) plat review comments which include compliances with the City Standards; 2) a recommendation that the maximum length of the cul be waived and the tandem lot be approved as a conditional use; and 3) a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk on one side of Julie Lane be accepted, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Commissioner Madison was opposed to the trash enclosure for the north end of the tandem lot. Carlisle advised that was part of the tandem lot ordinance. Madison felt curb side pick up would be adequate rather than enclosures for garbage cans in the front yard. Jacks said there was a provision in the tandem lot ordinance to construct a turn -around down on the property for trash pick up or an enclosure. Carlisle advised the ordinance did give a choice to either type. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this request. Robert Burge said he lived in front of the street that went up to the proposed subdivision. He said a large volumn of water traveled down Julie Lane and requested that the curb, gutter and sidewalks be installed at time of the development. Jacks advised the motion required the developer to curb, gutter and sidewalk the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Green advised the conclusion at the Subdivision Committee was that the City Engineer would have to approve the drainage plans for the proposed subdivision. He said there may be some difficulty handling the drainage, but it would resolved and everyone would be treated properly. Ellen Burge said she was not primarily concerned with curbs and 1 • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 6 gutters in the proposed addition, all she wanted was Julie Lane curbed and guttered because if bar ditches were opened on either side of that street it would face her property. Chairman Jacks assured the property owners that the City Engineer would look into the drainage problem before the subdivision took place. Jorgensen advised this was the second time this subdivision had been brought through. He noted the street was cut in on the first go around in 1984 then a problem occured with the owner which put the project on the back burner. Jacks advised the minutes of this meeting would caution the City Engineer that the drainage was a problem. Madison asked if no improvements were required for Zion Rd. Farrish advised Zion Rd. was a County road and improvements could not be required by the City. The question was called and the motion to approve the preliminary • plat passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SPE DEE MART HOYET GREENWOOD - CURTIS AND 15TH STREET The third item on the agenda was consideration of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Hoyet Greenwood and represented by Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers. Property located at the northwest corner of Curtis and 15th Street and zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Carlisle advised proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office on September 25, 1987. Carlisle noted the City Attorney advised that a signature on the plat would be adequate proof of notification. Farrish advised the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the LSD subject to: 1) plat review comments; 2) no recommendation regarding the screening waiver; and 3) contingent upon the City Attorneys opinion as to proper notification. Wimberly advised the land was a triangular piece of property and said there was a 100' power line easement owned by SWEPCO. He noted that trees could not be planted on the easement, but grass and shrubs could be planted. He added in adjacent to the 100' • easement there was a 15' easement on the trailer court property. For that reason he felt the 115' of- grass would serve the purpose of the screening requirement. Wimberly said the property owners • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 7 of the mobile home park had no problem with the 115' easement between them and the spe dee mart. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to: 1) plat review comments; and 2) waive the screening requirements to the west of the property, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Jacks said his only concern waiving the screening requirement had to do with the car lights. He said the grass would not do much to keep the lights off some of those trailers. Wimberly said it was at the intersection already and the mobile home park was already affected by the cars. Commissioner Nash stated the ordinance said there would be screening and did not say unless the adjacent property owners said it was okey not too. Nash said she would not vote to waive the screening ordinance to be waived. Dow said she had a visual problem with -the car lights and wondered if the edge of the parking lot could be screened on the west side where the car lights would be flashing across there. Carlisle advised if the screening requirement was waived the ordinance still required vegetation on 10% of the open area which would consist of 1'6" high at time of planting. Madison said she would not be inclined requirement at all. She thought those mobile home park had lived there a long privacy from the car lights. to waive the screening people who lived in the time and deserved some Farrish advised unless the Planning Commission waived the screening ordinance, vegetation could not be planted along the west parking lot. The question was called and the motion to approve the Large Scale Development passed 6-3-0, Hanna, Robertson, Farrish, Jacks, Green and Seiff voting "yes" and Dow, Madison and Nash voting "nay". REPORT FROM LARRY WOOD - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The fourth item on the Consultant, Larry Wood on respectfully requested more agenda was a report from Planning Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Wood time to complete his report. • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 8 DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSAL TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A METHOD OF FUNDING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES The fifth item on the agenda was a discussion of a proposal to recommend to the City Board of Directors a method a funding capital expenditures for public facilities, presented by Stan Green and Frank Farrish. Commission Farrish said one of the objectives he would like to see happen was a capital improvement program, specifically for streets and sidewalks to be undertaken by the City of Fayetteville. He said this type of program would resolve the question of Rational Nexus and start correcting the problem that existed (Polarbeck). Farrish advised this program would help money that had been allocated in the form of Bills of Assurances with, no matching funds to complete the improvements required. Farrish then said one of the things Tulsa did was to have capital improvements. Determined by citizen input and specifically voted on to do those improvements, funded, by a _specific tax dollar. Farrish then said he and Commissioner Green would like to know if the Planning Commission would participate in something like this proposal. He then asked if the the Planning Commission would like to put together a proposal, and recommend it to the Board of Directors for a capital improvement program. Farrish added the Planning Commission would hold a series of public meetings in various districts of the City, to determine, which streets those individual districts would like to see built or brought up to City standard. He said at the same time hold a public hearing for an overall City wide improvement tax. The public hearings would determine a list of priorities for each individual section of the town. He said then a vote for the funding of those priorities would be put to a City wide vote and then those things would be done. Chairman Jacks then asked if the people in that district would pay an additional tax. Farrish said the overall City would vote for the tax for improvements in every district as well as an overall City improvement. Jacks then said this would be a City wide tax for a specific district. Commissioner Green explained the City already had a one cent tax to fund the sewer plant. He said he called the City • Administrative Office today and asked for information on that tax. Green said he was told by that department. they thought the tax would expire or done its' purpose and funded the sewer plant • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 9 by late next year or earlier of 1989. Green said his idea was to propose a new package of improvements, with street and sidewalks being the most important ones, but the package would not have to be limited to streets and sidewalks. He said they would ask voters to renew the one cent tax, so they would be paying out no more money than they were paying today. He said the one cent tax would be used for a different purpose and he would grant that if the tax were to go away the people would have one percent more of every dollar they spent in their pockets. Greens said this was not like a no tax tax, it was a real live tax. He thought the only way to get people to vote for a program like this was to prove to them that their money would be spent intelligently and appropriately and on improvements that were needed. He said in his mind he did not want any more taxes unless he could see where the money was going to be spent, what it would accomplish and if he was satisfied that it would be worth the money to him. Green felt what happened in the last school election probably showed if people don't like what they were getting, then they were not going to vote for the taxes to be passed. Commissioner Farrish added one other benefit would be all the Bill of Assurances that were lying idle could possibly be matched with this money. He said a number of Bills of Assurances for Green Acres Road were lying idle because the City could not match those Assurances. Commissioner Green said the General Plan was to be updated over the course of the next year, with public hearings being held on the General Plan in various parts of town to receive input on it. He said it seemed like the biggest problem they faced in administering the General Plan and the Subdivision Regulations was the fact that the current system was so poor. He said if the Planning Commission was going to be holding public hearings on updating the General Plan, then it seemed to be the logical time to receive input from the citizens on what type of capital improvements they thought that their part of town needed to have. He said the recommendation from the Planning Commission would be that the City Board at least address the concept of this program and tell the Planning Commission if it were a good idea, or a bad idea and basically if they were willing to support the program and give the Planning Commission the marching orders to hold the public hearings. Commissioner Madison asked if the City had the power to pass property millages or was that strictly a County or School districts tax. Larry Wood said the City did have that power and Madison asked if the City currently had any and Larry Wood replied yes. Madison then asked if those taxes expire like a sales tax. Larry Wood said they would be submitted every year Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 10 and voted on. Commissioner Seiff expressed his opinion Commission Farrish and Commissioner Greens' with the information that had been submitted been researched. saying he supported suggestion. He felt that the program had Commissioner Green added this program seemed to be a very appropriate way of accomplishing several things. He said number one, getting a real sorce of money to address some of the problems that the Planning Commission kept hearing about. He said the Planning Commissions opinion was that Rational Nexus had claimed absolutely no victories to date and had not resulted in a single major street being constructed. He said other things that had been discussed recently such as impact fees would be so great that they would completely squelch development in Fayetteville. He said if that was what people wanted then maybe that was an option the Commission should pursue, but personally they did not want that option. He said the attractiveness of this program was that the people who would be paying the bill would be the ones saying how the money would be spent. He said this was not a program where another one cent tax sales tax would be generated for the City to spend in whatever fashion it -pleased. He said there would be a list of specific projects that would be tied to it and they would be an unalterable part of the vote and could not be altered except by another vote of the people paying the bills. He added there would be provisions in the ordinance that would put the vote into effect, which the citizens would also vote on how to handle any excessive taxes that would be generated. Green said 95% of the control over the spending of those dollars would be in the hands of the people who were paying the bills. Green said the second thing he would proposed to do would be a sale tax overview committee (appointed) who would be responsible for monitoring how the funds were spend and reporting back to the citizens on exactly what or what had not been accomplished. Green also noted on the clip out of the Tulsa was a report to the people and in summary it said since 1980 they had funded almost one-half billion dollars of capital improvements. He said obviously Fayetteville would not generate that much money over the course of six or seven years, but it had been a very successful program for Tulsa which they had used the program to eliminate a lot of their problems ranging from streets to flood control. He said in addition to that they put the tax in affect for 5 -years and the citizens liked it well enough that they voted it in for another 5 -years and where asking to extend it for another period early for some additional plans to use for funding. He said again the program was being submitted to the voters. Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 11 Chairman Jacks asked if the City Boards through its' past Financial Committee not looked into this type of program and possibly rejected it for one reason or another. Commissioner Hanna said this was similar to what they did when they voted the extra penny sales tax for the sewer plant. Commissioner Farrish said the theme had always been the same for the City in that "yes there were problems with the streets in Fayetteville", and there was a limited solution to the problem because of limited funding. He said to the best of his knowledge there had been no specific proposal to say "lets setup a capital improvements program for street improvements". He said he thought they had tried as a City other things such as Rational Nexus being the latest thing tried to get the developers to fund street improvements, with the general fund being used where and when money became available through Community Grants or Block Grants. He said all that money had gone away and the City did not have that anymore. Chairman Jacks asked what the districting of the City had to do with the program Green replied to be fair to everyone in town and everyone who would be paying the bills on this program that the project should be equitably spread all over town. He said hearings should be held by district so they would not have one big meeting and hear people from all over town about 14,000 things that need to be done. He felt every area should be concentrated on and every area should have some improvements. Chairman Jacks felt there may be enough to be discussed at the public hearings on the General Plan without this new proposed program. Commissioner Green said that was a good point and felt that detail should be worked out. He said the major point was that the timing was right because the City was in the process of updating the General Plan. Commissioner Green said this was not a novel idea, but the logical thing to do was figure out what the Planning Commission thought could be done and send the recommendation to the City Board of Directors asking for a decision. Green added he had also heard that other people and other groups in town would like to do similar things with the sewer tax when it expired. He said their purposes may be valid, and the extension did not have to be limited to specific types of things, if there were enough valid projects of any type that the citizens would be willing to support. Green felt this idea should get in the hopper before any other ideas or at the same time other ideas were brought up about what this tax could possibly be used for if renewed. One �\ • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 12 last point Green said Rational Nexus would not have to go away if the tax passed. He said the two were not mutually exclusive because if a developer wanted to do something which would be an abnormal drain on the City's funds then the two could be modified and make a better service purpose. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend to the City Board of Directors a resolution requesting a hearing of the proposal, seconded by Seiff. Commissioner Seiff said he would like to know if the material Commissioners Green and Farrish have now would be sufficient to send to the Board or should the Planning Commission put the program into a more concrete or complete format. Commissioner Farrish said what he was looking for was "what do the Board of Directions think about this type of concept" and if the Board was willing to endorse it and say do it, then he felt the details could be worked out. Commissioner Nash felt the idea was excellent, but past experience with the Board aried sometimes. She said if an idea was presented to the Board they may say they did not want to vote on anything that was that unspecific. Her suggestion would be to present what Commissioners Green and Farrish presented and if the Board appeared to be going for it then suggest to the Board they form a joint committee to work out the specifics. Commissioner Green pointed out the important thing was that the Planning Commission was not proposing that the Board run out and put a one cent sales tax on the ballot for the next election. He said the Planning Commission was proposing that the Board tell the Commission whether they would be interested in the concept or not. That the Board of Directors then give the Planning Commission permission to schedule a series of public hearings to obtain input on the projects and input generally from the citizens to whether they thought this was a good idea or a bad ideal. And to allow the Planning Commission in some shape, form or fashion be it through a joint committee of the Board and Planning Commission or just initial input from the Planning Commission to develope a suggested list of projects, prioritized for their review and consideration. Commissioner Green said he and Commissioner Farrish would be willing to present the proposed program for the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 13 Madison said she would vote for the motion, but wanted to say that it was only because she very, very much thought that the City needed a capital improvements program for streets and sidewalks, but at this point she was not infavor of the sales tax to accomplish things. The question was called and the motion to recommend a resolution for Capital Improvements to be considered at the October 20, 1987 Board meeting passed, 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 14, 1987 meeting were approved with the following corrections. Page 4, paragraph 3, a protest must be raised by a "Planning Commission member delete bold face. Page 12, paragraph 5, line 4, insert a comma after register a promise • Page 13, paragraph 3, line 1, change may of to may have • OTHER BUSINESS Don Mills Chairman of the Board of Adjustment was appointed to the Elderly Committee. Jacks advised the next Planning Commission member to attend the Board of Adjustment meetings was Frank Farrish. Commissioner Madison asked if a written opinion had been received from the City Attorney on "gas pumps". Carlisle advised she sent a memo to the City Attorney, but a response had not been received as yet. POLARBER Carlisle advised since the Subdivision Committee had referred Polarbek to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission should then set a special hearing for proper notification and rehear the Polarbek, Large Scale Development expeditiously. Nash asked if proper notification was seven days. Farrish asked if the seven days had been approved. Carlisle advised the notification ordinance had not been changed. Farrish then noted the Planning Commission was operating under non ordinances. Farrish said he would like to see the Planning Commission send • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 14 the Polarbek issue to the City Board and let it all be heard once and for all by the City Board. Notification would be given for the Board meeting. Commissioner Nash agreed with Commissioner Farrish saying the issue should be in front of the Board of Directors because it had become a political issue and they, were the political body. However since the Board had told the Planning Commission basically to hear the issue. She felt the Planning Commission should hear the appeal and then send the issue to the Board. Lamar Pettus, representing Polarbek advised that the Rosemary Shaddoxs' appeal was dismissed in Washington Circuit Court at 3:45 p.m. today. He advised Polarbek would not consent or submitt the project to the jurisdiction of the City. Polarbek felt the LSD process had been finally and totally concluded this afternoon. Mr. Pettus advised the City Attorney felt compelled to attempt to interprete the notice requirement, but the defective notice was only challenged in the Circuit Court appeal. That appeal was dismissed, the time frame for anyone else to • appeal the decisions of the City had expired. Mr. Pettus said as far as Polarbek was concerned they were entitled to the permits when applied for. Mr. Pettus said should the City under Mr. McCords instructions and again he would like to ask the City to not make up the rules as they go. Mr. Pettus said should the City elect to proceed with new hearings, Polarbek would respectfully appear, but would state in each hearing that they would not submitt to the Citys' Jurisdiction. Mr. Pettus also stated the City Administrators publish the notices of the meetings because he felt legally Polarbek could not even publish the notice of the hearings because of the stance they had taken. Green asked Mr. Pettus if Polarbek had been dismissed with prejudice, and did that mean it could not be refiled and Mr. Pettus replied that was correct. Green asked what basis was the issue dismissed on. Mr. Pettus said the problems were worked out with Mrs. Shaddox in regards to the Subdivision. He said one of her main problems was the widening of James Street. Mr. Pettus said the City had entered into a Bill of Assurance in 1984 with Aspen Development Company, Inc., which the City required that corporation within one year to widen James street to City Standards. He said that Bill of Assurance also provided if they did not take that action then the City Board of Directors could order the street widened and cause a lien to be place against the property owned by Aspen Development Company. And of course 3 years had passed since that and the City had taken no action. Nash said the City Board had asked the Planning Commission to rehear the appeal and she would like to hold the appeal because • • • Planning Commission September 28, 1987 Page 15 the Planning Commission was asked to. MOTION Farrish moved to drop consideration of Polarbek until the Planning Commission had been instructed to do something, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Green said this whole issue had be an classic case of over reaction on everyones part. Green felt Commissioner Farrish had the best idea and agreed not to do anything. He said the Subdivision Committee referred the issue to the Planning Commission. He added the Planning Commission should now decide that this issue had become sufficiently muddled and that the Planning Commission should do nothing and take no action. He felt the issue should be sent to the City Board for their advise and direction about how to proceed in view of all the circumstances which had developed. Dow said she was concerned because of to many legal opinions. She hated to take actions contrary to the City Attorneys direction without running the issue by him again. She agreed with Commission Green as to passing this on to—..the City Board, but thought it was the City Attorneys opinion that the Planning Commission could not do that. Commissioner Seiff asked when the City Board met. Carlisle replied October 6, 1987. Robertson said Polarbek complied with all requirements and the appeal process had come and gone. The City Board went so far as to fire the Planning Commission or sue the Planning Commission. He said all the Planning Commission did was play by the Board of Directors rules and if they do not like the rules of the game then the Board needs to change the ordinances. AMENDED MOTION Farrish moved to take no action on the Polarbek issue", seconded by Green. The motion to take no action passed 6-3-0, Hanna, Robertson, Farrish, Jacks, Green and Seiff voting "yes" and Dow, Madison and Nash voting "nay". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at about 7:30 p.m. 1 4-