Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 10, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, and Charles Nickle Gerald Rlingaman and Joe Tarvin (J. David Ozment resigned) John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Jerry Rose, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-19 STEPHEN DAVIS - N OF SYCAMORE, W OF COLLEGE AVE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-19 submitted by Stephen Davis and represented by Steve Gunderson, Attorney, for property located north of Sycamore and west of College Avenue (34 E. Sycamore). The property contains 1.00 acre. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-0, Residential -Office. Chairman Hanna pointed out that there are only six members present at this meeting and it takes five positive votes to pass a rezoning. Therefore, if the applicants of the rezonings requested desire to table their requests until the next meeting, they may do so. Steve Gunderson, representative, stated that, out of all fairness to his client and this Commission, they would like to request that their petition be tabled. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table this rezoning petition until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Nickle and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn commented that the last time this petition was before them, there were only six members present. However, six members is more than the quorum required to conduct business and it seems that they conducted their business at that time. He stated that, in all due respect to the City Board, he was sorry to see this petition referred back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Hanna stated that the reason given by the Board for referring this petition back to the Planning Commission was the fact that they voted 4-2-0 on the rezoning. The City Board felt that the outcome of the motion might have been different if there had been a full Commission present. The motion to table passed 6-0-0. /03 • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 2 Chairman Hanna advised that the next six agenda items are rezoning request on properties that are contiguous to each other. He noted that they will discuss all six pieces of property at the same time. He requested that the discussion from the audience and the report from the staff be given on all six pieces at the same time. Then each item will be voted on individually. He noted that four pieces of property front directly on 6th Street and the other two front on Mitchell Street. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R90-22 THRU R90-27 N OF 6TH ST, W OF LEWIS AVE Rezoning petitions R90-22 thru R90-27 are being represented by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the petitioners are asking for a C-2 rezoning for those properties that front on West 6th and an R -O rezoning for those that front on Mitchell Street. He noted that the staff report gives a summary of the surrounding land uses and zonings. There is quite a mixture of zonings in this area. This area has developed more commercially than industrially in recent years. The staff's recommendation is to approve a rezoning to C-2 for the tracts of land that front on West 6th Street with the recommendation that a Bill of Assurance to provide a tree preservation plan be executed by the owners of the tracts of land that front on West 6th Street. He explained that this is a heavily wooded area with some very nice hardwood trees which would enhance any kind of commercial development. The staff is recommending a retention of 60% of the trees that have a caliper(diameter) of eight inches or more with flexibility for the staff to administratively revise that by 10% if the circumstances so justify. Mr. Merrell further stated that the staff doesn't feel that an R -O zoning is justified for the properties that front on Mitchell Street. The staff feels it would be hard to market those properties for an office type of use. Nevertheless, professional offices are allowed as a conditional use in R-2, so they would have that the option. However, if the Planning Commission decides to approve an R -O zoning of the properties which front on Mitchell Street, the staff would make the same recommendation regarding a Bill of Assurance for a tree preservation plan on those properties. Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates stated that they have no problem with the Bill of Assurance, but they are concerned with the 60% figure. They would like to have it set up so that each individual owner could come to the Planning Commission and let that be decided on at that time. However, if that is the standard number, they will go along with it. Also, the reason they asked for the R -O zoning in the back is because they have put together a possibility of an extension of Kaywood Lane to the east all the way to Lewis Avenue. This street would give visibility from the northern property towards the south. They feel that an R -O zoning would be an easier marketing tool and would be more compatible than multi -family type residences. He added that they aren't opposed to staying with the R-2, because they realize there are compatible uses allowed by conditional use. Chairman Hanna advised that the Bill of Assurance for tree preservation gives the prerogative to allow another 10%. Mr. Elsass noted that they understand that and will go along with whatever the Planning Commission decides. Commissioner Nickle asked if the extension of Kaywood Lane would take place even if the northern property isn't rezoned. Mr. Elsass stated that the extension of Kaywood Lane is proposed, but there are no plans to develop it at this time. They felt that the only way to market this property for the highest and best use /Or • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 3 was for an extension of Kaywood Lane. Chairman Hanna asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or in opposition of a rezoning of any of the six pieces of properties. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Merrell stated that this is the first he has heard about the possible extension of Kaywood Lane. He added that it would not make a difference in the staff recommendation. He noted that it would create some double frontage lots. Chairman Hanna stated that one option would be to rezone all the property to the south of the Kaywood Lane line to C-2 and leave everything to the north of it as R-2. If someone needed more space for a C-2 development, they could come back and request it at any time. Mr. Merrell advised that what Chairman Hanna is suggesting would provide a 300' deep piece of C-2 property. Furthermore, if a conditional use for a professional office on the R-2 property is submitted at a later date, the staff would look at it on a case-by-case basis. Chairman Hanna stated that they would vote separately on each property. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R90-22 MADELINE TRIBBLE - N OF 6TH ST, W OF LEWIS AVE (1716 W 6TH) The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition R90-22 submitted by Madeline Tribble and represented by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates for property located north of 6th Street and west of Lewis Avenue (1716 West 6th Street). The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning to C-2 on the portion of the subject property south of the dividing line (a line running directly east of the north right-of-way line of the existing Kaywood Lane) subject to the staff's comments including the tree preservation bill of assurance and to recommend that the remainder of the property be left as R-2, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. REZONING PETITION R90-23 FAYE SODTHERLAND - N OF 6TH ST, W OF LEWIS AVE (1740 W 6TH ST) The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-0, Residential -Office. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning to C-2 on the portion of the subject property south of the dividing line (a line running directly east of the north right-of-way line of the existing Kaywood Lane) subject to the staff's comments including the tree preservation bill of assurance and to recommend that the remainder of the property be left as R-2 , seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. /OS • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 4 REZONING PETITION R90-24 ERNEL FOX - N OF 6TH ST, W OF LEWIS AVE (1800 W. 6TH ST) The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-0, Residential -Office. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning to C-2 on the portion of the subject property south of the dividing line (a line running directly east of the north right-of-way line of the existing Kaywood Lane) subject to the staff's comments including the tree preservation bill of assurance and to recommend that the remainder of the property be left R-2, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. REZONING PETITION R90-25 WADE WINKLE - SW CORNER OF LEWIS AVE & MITCHELL ST The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. This petition was withdrawn by Mr. Elsass, the representative of the applicant. REZONING PETITION R90-26 BILLIE SWANEY - NW CORNER OF 6TH ST & LEWIS AVENUE (6095 LEWIS AVE) The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning to C-2 on the portion of the subject property south of the dividing line (a line running directly east of the north right-of-way line of the existing Kaywood Lane) subject to the staff's comments including the tree preservation bill of assurance and to recommend that the remainder of the property be left R-2, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. REZONING PETITION R90-27 FAYB SOOTHERLAND - W OF LEWIS AVE, N OF 6TH ST The request was to rezone Thoroughfare Commercial. from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to recommend a rezoning to C-2 rezoning on the portion of the subject property south of the dividing line (a line running directly east of the north right-of-way line of the existing Kaywood Lane) subject to the staff's comments including the tree preservation bill of assurance and to recommend that the remainder of the property be left R-2 , seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. REVISED FINAL PLAT OF GADDY ACRES BOB GADDY - S OF MISSION BLVD, E OF WHIPPOORWILL LN The ninth item on the agenda was a revised final plat of Gaddy Acres submitted by Doug Hemingway of Professional Surveyors on behalf of Bob Gaddy for property located south of Mission Boulevard and east of Whippoorwill Lane. The property • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 5 is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 40.32 acres with 21 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that the changes to the plat involve the layout change of lots 16, 17, 18, 19 & 21. Lot 21 has increased in size from 2.15 acres to 2.66 acres, but its frontage remains on Whippoorwill Court. Lots 18 & 19 have been reoriented so that lot 19 has a 140' frontage on Lover's Lane and lot 18 is behind it as a tandem lot. Lot 17 is a tandem lot off of Whippoorwill Lane. Lot 16, as shown on this plat, does not appear to be a legal lot. However, Mr. Hemingway has subsequently redrawn it to make lot 16 a tandem lot behind lot 21. Mr. Hemingway distributed some revised plats with this correction to the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Bunn advised that lots 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 13 & 19 through 21 are all standard lots with a 70' frontage. There are eight tandem lots: 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18. He advised that none of the utility companies appeared to have any problem with service to the area, although there have been no utility improvements done to date. He noted that there was a question about the improvement of Starr Drive. The original plat was approved subject to improvements on Starr Drive and that is still the requirement. He added that, with approval of the final plat, the Planning Commission required the construction of a barrier on the drive running through subdivision to prevent through traffic. The utility companies will still have a means of access to maintain their lines. The staff recommends that the barrier be constructed at the time the first lot is developed. The staff is recommending approval of this revised final plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of the plans for water, sewer, streets & drainage; payments of the parks fee in accordance with City ordinances; construction of a barrier as required by the Planning Commission; the filing of subdivision covenants, if there are any; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan. Commissioner Springborn advised that there are no city streets in this subdivision, they are all private driveways. One of the reasons for this kind of a development at this location is the terrain. Doug Hemingway had no additional comments. Commissioner Nickle stated that this subdivision came up before he was a member of the Planning Commission. He noted that he would have had an objection to the layout at the time. He stated that he feels it should be developed as a subdivision rather than a bunch of tandem lots. He is concerned that potential buyers of these lots may wonder why the'City doesn't pave their street. There needs to be something to make them aware that this is not a City street. This could give the City a bad name in the future. He added that it has gone too far for objections, therefore he will make a motion. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the revised final plat subject to the Subdivision Committee comments and the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF THOMAS ADDITION (FORMERLY KEATING ESTATES WEST) RICHARD KEATING - N OF TOWNSHIP, E OF OLD WIRE RD The tenth item on the agenda was a final plat of Thomas Addition (formerly Keating Estates West) submitted by Richard Keating and represented by Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors for property located on the north side of Township, east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 2.3 acres with 9 proposed lots. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 6 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no significant problems identified at the Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. The staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments, either dedication of greenspace or payment of parks fees (He noted that he believes the Parks Board has accepted a couple of lots in lieu of the greenspace fees.), approval of the water & sewer plans, and the filing of subdivision covenants. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee has nothing to add to the staff's comments. Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors, representing the developer, stated that this subdivision came through the preliminary plat process as "Jason P. Kennedy Estates". They then changed the name to "Keating Estates West" but were advised to change it once again. Therefore, it is now "Thomas Addition". He added that they are waiting to find out the Parks Department's decision regarding the donation of land in lieu of greenspace fees. Mr. Bunn advised that three of these lots flood plain. Therefore, the grounds are these lots will need to be constructed at are either completely or partly in the subject to flooding and the houses on least 2' above the flood plain level. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to Plat Review and staff comments, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 6-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF A REPLAT OF PARK PLACE ADDITION - PHASE IV JIM LINDSEY - OFF OF CAMBRIDGE, S OF MISSION BLVD The eleventh item on the agenda was a final plat of a replat of Park Place Addition - Phase IV submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for property located off of Cambridge, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 8.51 acres with 18 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no problems or issues raised at either the Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. The staff recommends approval of this final plat subject to the Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments, a contract executed with the City for the unfinished public improvements within the subdivision, construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances, payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances, and the filing of subdivision covenants. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee had no additional comments. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve this final plat subject to the Plat Review, Subdivision Committee, and staff comments, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 6-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF PARK PLACE ADDITION - PHASE V JIM LINDSEY - OFF OF CAMBRIDGE, S OF MISSION BLVD The twelfth item on the agenda was a final plat of Park Place Addition - Phase V submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for property located off of Cambridge, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 11.05 acres with o 8 • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 7 25 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that there were no problems identified at the Plat Review meeting as far as utilities are concerned. However, there was a requirement, when the preliminary plat of Phase V was approved, that an emergency access between this phase and the phase to the east be constructed and maintained so that there would be access for emergency vehicles from Crossover Road through the subdivision. He stated that this was not shown on the preliminary plat. Since then, it has been revised to reflect a 50' right-of-way shown at the east end of Victoria Lane. There will be a 16' wide emergency access drive constructed when the phase to the east is constructed. On that basis, the staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to the Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments, execution of a contract with the City for the uncompleted portion of the public improvements, construction of sidewalks, payment of the parks fees, and the filing of subdivision covenants. Commissioner Springborn advised that the Subdivision Committee had nothing to add. A member of the audience asked for clarification as to whether there would be a connection from this phase to the phase to the south. Mr. Bunn stated that there will not be a connection. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to approve the final plat subject to Subdivision Committee and staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDGE HILL SUBDIVISION MARK FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES - S OF RAVENSWOOD LN, W OF COUNTRY CLUB DR The thirteenth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Edge Hill Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster 6 Buddy Peoples for property located south of Ravenswood Lane and west of Country Club Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 15.31 acres with 26 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no problems as far as access of utilities to the subdivision. There were some changes in easements requested that were granted by the owners. There were two questions raised by the staff and developers that need to be answered before the plat can be approved. The first one involves access to property to the west of this subdivision. He explained that, when the original Country Club Subdivision plat was presented, it showed access to the west. After looking at the situation, the staff still believes that some kind of access should be given to property to the west. There is access, generally, to the forty -acre tract from Highway 71 which might be sufficient if it were all owned by one person. The access from Highway 71 is sometimes through substandard streets and right-of-ways that are not of sufficient width. The staff feels that some sort of access needs to be provided through this subdivision to the west. The other issue raised is the width of the streets. He explained that Country Club Addition was developed in 1970 prior to the adoption of the 31' street width requirement. Most of the streets in this subdivision are 27' wide. He advised that a new subdivision was recently approved in this area which had a 24' street on either side with 27' streets approved. The staff feels that, in spite of their prior approval of 27' street, it is the recommendation that a full width street be required for this subdivision. The staff recommends approving the preliminary plat subject to provision of that access to the west, Plat Review 6 Subdivision Committee comments, approval of plans for streets and drainage, as -built locations for the existing water & sewer lines, construction of sidewalks, payment of the parks /OQ • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 8 fees, and a requirement of a full width street. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee endorses the staff's view regarding maintaining the right-of-way to the south. Also, relative to the 27' streets, the Subdivision Committee favored it and recommended it, but it should be noted that the 27' isn't being endorsed by any means for the rest of the City. There is quite a precedent for the 27' wide streets in that general area, and the Subdivision Committee felt that approval of 27' is in order here. Dave Jorgensen, engineer for the development, presented a plat to the Commissioners with a view of the property to the west of this subdivision. He presented a copy of the final plat of the original Country Club Estates which addresses the fact that the City streets were dedicated except for those in the cross -hatched areas. These lots fell in the cross -hatched areas. He stated that they respect the staff's decision on this, but they are seeking approval with a closing of the access to the west and with 27' wide streets. Chairman Hanna clarified that the developers have an objection to extending West 29th Court to the west edge of the property between lots 15 & 16. He added that, as shown on their plat, they would be accessing two lots by providing a private drive. He commented that it is very questionable whether or not those two lots (lots 25 & 26) could be developed because of the terrain. Lamar Pettus, attorney for the owners, stated that the Country Club Estates plat which was originally filed specifically states that only those streets and other easements shown for immediate development had been accepted by the Fayetteville Board of Directors. The lots being discussed today are lots 129 through 150 of the original subdivision. Lots 129 through 148 and 150 are excluded from the immediate development. Therefore, a vacation of that street would not be necessary, because all of the streets in this whole area are deeded to a corporation and were never dedicated to the City. At the Court House, there is a deed for the street in a corporation's name. He noted that, as the handout Mr. Jorgensen presented shows, there is an access to the property to the west off of Peach Street from the west; it is a 27' wide dedicated street. There is an access from the north off of Ravenswood Lane. It also appears that there may be at least part of an easement off of Cherry Street(a 15' wide street), into this area. He added that their research indicates that Frank Scott owns all the property that is immediately adjacent to and west of the proposed boundary line. So there would not be a situation where they would be land -locking anyone. He stated that they request the preliminary plat be approved as presented as far as the street width is concerned and with the private drive being substituted for what appears on the old plat (West 28th Court). Commissioner Springborn asked for input from the City Engineer on this proposal regarding West 28th Court. Mr. Bunn stated that he doesn't have a particular problem with the idea that those streets that are contained within the cross- hatched areas of the original Country Club Estates are not dedicated City streets although there are public improvements within those streets, such as water and sewer lines. The question of whether they are dedicated streets isn't really relevant to the decision that they have to make. The only difference would be that the owners would not have to go to the Board and have that street closed if the Planning Commission approves the plat without a street there. But, as far as an access to the west is concerned, the staff feels that one is needed. Chairman Hanna asked if Ravenswood could act as an access. Mr. Bunn stated that Ravenswood would be an access, although it does not go very far. There are two rather large homes in that area, so it would probably never be an access. Chairman Hanna stated that a year or so ago, one property owner in that area • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 9 wanted to access off of Ravenswood and was complaining about not being able to get to his property. Mr. Bunn advised that the property owner was asking about a private drive that is built partly on the right-of-way of Ravenswood. The question was who was going to go to the expense of tearing out that private drive and putting in a standard city street. Therefore, there is a property owner that may want to access through Ravenswood at some point which they can do. Chairman Hanna asked if there is an access on the south side for the property that is still to be developed or will the property to the west be totally cut off. Mr. Bunn stated that was the extend of the original plat to the south. Chairman Hanna stated that he is concerned about land -locking property to the south. Mr. Jorgensen stated that it is possible they may be able to access that forty -acre tract from the south. Mr. Bunn advised that the staff would like to emphasize that access to this property is not the only issue. General traffic flow and the fact that there is a large area there now with only one access point are also considerations. He reiterated that the staff would still like to see an access to the west. Even though there is a potential for other access points, they may or may not happen. Commissioner Nickle asked if Frank Scott, who is listed as the property owner of the property to the west, was notified. Becky Bryant stated that Mr. Scott was notified. Commissioner Nickle stated that he still supports the staff's recommendation and the comments that they had in the Subdivision Committee meeting, namely the 27' and street with access to the west. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the streets being 27' back-to-back, providing access to the property to the west, and other staff comments; seconded by Springborn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn stated that he feels the 27' wide street is very appropriate at this time. But, if future developments justify changing this position, he is sure that this Commission would be happy to look at it again. The motion passed 6-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COTNER SUBDIVISION WARREN COTNER - W OF HWY 112, N OF 71 BYPASS The fourteenth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Cotner Subdivision submitted by warren Cotner and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for property located on the west side of Highway 112, north of the 71 Bypass. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, containing 33 acres with 6 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that at the Plat Review meeting, the power company seemed to have somewhat of a problem with the adjustment of the existing power lines to fit the easements that are shown. But, that can be worked out if the preliminary plat is approved. Other problems identified are the need for street names, the need for a waiver of the maximum length of a cul-de-sac and the need to approve lot 4 as a tandem lot. He noted that the 50' frontage on Highway 112 from lot 4 is wide enough to build a street, but it is not wide enough for frontage on a standard lot. Therefore, lot 4 would have to be approved as a tandem lot. There is a 25' access shown from the proposed street into lot 4. Also, parks fees will be required on these lots. Mr. Bunn advised that the subdivision could be approved as it is drawn up. The /42 • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 10 lots are of sufficient size for the A-1 zoning. There is one C-2 lot included. Mr. Bunn advised that the issue discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting wasn't the layout of the subdivision but the intended development of the subdivision; it concerned the intent of the developer to sell the parcels without filing a final plat and without the intent of putting in the improvements as shown on the plat. Whether that can be done is a legal matter. He noted that the staff is reluctant to recommend approval of a subdivision because of the way they understand the subdivision is to be developed. If there were no question abouthow the lots were to be sold off, then the staff could recommend approval of it. Chairman Hanna stated that the property could be subdivided into a smaller subdivisions. Mr. Bunn advised that, with a rezoning, there could be a great number of R-1 lots there. Commissioner Springborn noted that the Subdivision Committee didn't have any real problem with the proposal as submitted except the order of procedure. Their recommendation was that the developer provide the City with some assurance that the monies required to put the street in could be obtained at such time as the street was to go in. The motion that was made at the Subdivision Committee was that this be accomplished in a manner that satisfied the City Attorney that the City was protected in that aspect. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated that, until the County receives a final plat approved by the City Planning Commission, they aren't going to accept any deeds transferring lots. He noted that the general rule is that lots cannot be sold until the final plat has been approved. Therefore, lots can't be sold based on preliminary plat approval. The whole purpose of this preliminary plat approval and final plat approval is to ensure that someone is responsible for the improvements to be done. If you don't have that assurance, the City oftentimes ends up picking up the tab. The City could get involved in rather costly lawsuits from individuals, who think streets, sewer and drainage should be provided by the City, if the developer has not provided these things. He advised that the Planning Commission has to decide whether or not this preliminary plat should be approved. He knows of no legal reason why they should act one way or another. That is completely within their discretion. Apparently, they have been put on notice that after these individuals receive their preliminary plat approval, they will attempt to sell lots. He further stated that he wants the record to reflect that everyone is put on very firm notice that, until someone receives final plat approval, there can be no sale of lots. The deeds couldn't be recorded until then. There have been a couple of instances where ownership has changed between preliminary plat and final plat approval. Whoever comes back before this Commission for final plat approval is going to have to give some strong assurances to this Commission that these improvements will indeed be made. The problem legally is that some individual down the line may question why preliminary plat approval was given, if the improvements weren't done. Commissioner Springborn stated that, based on the advice from the City Attorney, it seems it would be in order to approve the preliminary plat with a note that when the final plat is submitted, they then have a bill of assurance or a bond regarding the streets before it is approved. Dave Jorgensen, representing the owner, stated that he does agree with the City Attorney. The developer's intention wasn't to duck from the improvements on this property. The intention was to get approval of the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments, including the waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac and the tandem lot on the west end. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 11 Chairman Hanna asked if they could have accomplished their object under the ordinance by doing simple lot splits under the ordinance. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they had considered that, but wasn't sure it would be any better than this process. He noted that they plan to sell the lots subject to the perspective buyers signing an agreement that he is obligated to install his share of the improvements as shown on that preliminary plat. And, that no building permits can be issued until those improvements are installed. That is the City's way of policing this. Phillip Moon, attorney for Warren Cotner, stated that there was some difficulty in going through the procedures with the requirements as set forth in the ordinance. That is why they proceeded in this fashion. In fact, Mr. Cotner is not attempting to conduct a sale and skirt the City ordinance or to record some deed without the final plat approval. This property has been advertised for sale, and they have proposed to sell it in lots, then sell the property in bulk to see which one would bring the most money. There are several potential buyers for the property. Because of the concern of the staff and of the Commission, this sale will be subject to final plat approval and to the fact that a contract will be required. His client is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance, and they are willing to put a covenant running with the land that the sale would be subject to improvements required by the City ordinances. The closing date of any sale will be a foreseeable period of time, possibly 30 to 45 days, which will present an ample period of time to meet the other conditions that were expressed by the staff and the Commission. His client is willing to back that up with a contract to be secondarily liable for any buyer or developer to be responsible for the improvements if they aren't done. Commissioner Nickle asked what the potential might be if this property sells to several people and the new owner of tract 5, for instance, wants to rezone his tract to develop but can't get cooperation from the people who own tracts 1, 2, 7 & 6 to build the street. Mr. Moon stated that he sees the point, but with the type of sale they are trying to conduct, that is something that a potential buyer has to take into consideration. The controls this Commission has will also ensure any concerns about the use of the property. He noted that he understands the City's concern with lawsuits, but in this case with the covenants being placed on the deed and the requirements that could be placed in the terms of sale, that future land owner could have a potential lawsuit against the other owners. The potential buyers will be fully aware of the status of the property. He noted that it could fall back on Mr. Cotner potentially. He could be secondarily liable by executing a contract to ensure that, down the line, part of the purchase price or whatever could be earmarked for that. Commissioner Allred stated that there is a hodge-podge of zoning and zoning potentials on this property that should be addressed. It is leaving the City open for mismatched residential zoning, because with such large tracts, there will most likely be some future subdividing of these lots. By approving this, they would be setting a precedent of letting all of the developers try to sell their lots before they get final approval. Mr. Jorgensen commented that the reason they didn't request a rezoning on the property is because they didn't know what zoning the prospective buyers may want. The submittal of plans by the prospective buyers will give the Planning Commission plenty of opportunity for review of proposed developments. Mr. Moon stated that the bottom line is that, by approval of this preliminary plat, the City and the Commission aren't going to lose control of the situation. There are certain safeguards that the Commission and the City have. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 12 In answer to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Jerry Rose stated that something could be worked out. He added that the preliminary stage is not the stage that they discuss much about the guarantees that are going to be made. That is generally discussed at the final plat approval stage. The preliminary stage is just one in which you allow them to go forward with their plans. He noted that Mr. Moon is talking about having contracts for sales that are contingent upon final plat approval. There isn't anything wrong with that concept. The secondary contract could be done, but he didn't quite understand if Mr. Cotner was willing to take up the slack, if for any reason the land owners could not perform. If that is what he said, it is a good idea. The covenants in the deeds could be done. He advised that he could envision a way that this would work. It is just risky. It is not so much as risky for the City as it is for the potential buyers. Mr. Rose noted that Commissioner Nickle questioned what would happen if one land owner wants one thing, and the rest don't want it. There is some fairly good law to the affect that the owner of a single lot within a subdivision usually has no right to seek subdivision approval of the entire tract. That requirement is intended to protect the community by preventing any kind of piece -meal development of an area. But, it can leave a lot owner in some instances with little recourse, if the developer bails out on them. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the staff understands that the Planning Commission's approval on the plat has to be based on the plat itself. He reiterated that it does require a waiver from the subdivision regulations and approval of a tandem lot. He noted that he doesn't think that development of the subdivision, as Mr. Cotner plans, meets the intent of the subdivision regulations, although they may find a legal way to do it. The subdivision regulations were intended to keep this from happening. Also, subsequent subdividing of these tracts would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, and it might require expenses that are not apparent by looking at the plat. For instance, if several of those tracts were rezoned R-1 and the maximum number of lots developed, it would be within the Planning Commission's prerogative to require an elimination of the cul-de-sac and a tie -through to another street. Commissioner Allred asked whether this subdivision aren't any successful bidders at this sale. Mr. premature for him to comment on that, but they alternatives to further the use of this property plan will be scraped, if there Moon stated that it is really would probably look at other in some manner. Dave Jorgensen, engineer, stated that, if this preliminary plat isn't approved, they would probably resubmit a preliminary plat again with the intention of eventually getting approval of a final plat. Mr. Moon stated that it has been noted that this plat could be approved as drawn up. He added that the City Attorney feels that it is somewhat risky, and the last comments by the staff were that this may not be what was intended by the rules and regulations of this City, but it could be approved in the format that has been presented. At this point, with what his client is willing to do, the City still retains control. There won't be any undermining of the area in general or this Commission to further oversee development. Commissioner Cleghorn asked how the approval of the preliminary plat will enhance this sale. Mr. Moon stated that anytime alternative situations can be presented for a group of buyers, who may have different interests, it opens up to much more potential. He added that smaller tracts tend to sell better than larger tracts. There is potential that someone might buy the property in whole; this subdivision might then be scraped. Commissioner Nickle noted that the staff report states that, if the improvements • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 13 shown on the preliminary plat are not started within a year, then the preliminary plat would automatically become void with no requirement that another plat be filed. In that case, ownership of the various lots would have been conveyed without improvements, and the City would have no control over the situation except to continue to deny building permits. He is concerned that if, in a year nothing is started, then everything is back to zero, yet people have ownerships to lots. Mr. Moon advised that there will be no conveyance to these owners without the approval of the final plat. The Circuit Clerk at the Court House will not accept the deed to these lots without the final plat approved and recorded. Chairman Hanna stated that, the way he understands it, it will be offered subject to final plat approval. And each person will be sold a lot (if it sells that way) with a bill of assurances that he will complete his portion of the City's required improvements. If that doesn't happen, the preliminary plat will be scrapped. Mr. Moon stated that the potential buyers will take that into account when they are bidding and protect themselves accordingly. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that, after listening to all the discussion, there are just too many things that he isn't comfortable with. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to deny the preliminary plat. The motion died for the lack of a second. Commissioner Allred stated that this is a good concept development plan. However, it is probably something the City would live to regret years down the road. He can see people buying the property two or three conveyances down the road and having problems with it. Commissioner Cleghorn commented that he lived in Florida during the land boom and there are people who are still paying under deals like this. It is not the original person that creates the problem, but another seller down the line. Commissioner Allred asked Mr. Rose if there is any way the Planning Commission could deal with this with a contingency that, if the sell is successful, this could go into affect and tie it to a date shortly after this auction. In that way, if the auction isn't successful, this is totally scrapped. They need to find a way to try to accommodate them to a degree but not commit the City on anything. Mr. Rose advised that the Planning Commission does have the power to put conditions on preliminary approval. Mr. Jorgensen stated that maybe the preliminary plat could be approved subject to the filing of the final plat and any other conditions they want to put on it. Mr. Rose commented that Becky Bryant has come up with an interesting idea which is that on each sales contract, there be a contingency clause, stating that the buyer must become a party to final plat approval. In that way, all the buyers would have to be involved in the final plat process, and the Planning Commission can be sure that there is no misrepresentation being made. Chairman Hanna stated that they could approve this preliminary plat contingent upon a final plat being presented within 60 days or some time period. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat of Cotner Subdivision contingent upon the buyers of all of the tracts being a party to the application for final plat approval, and that such application shall be made within 90 days • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 14 or the Commission will withdraw the preliminary plat approval with a guarantee that the improvements required by the Planning staff and the Subdivision Committee be made before any development takes place, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 4-2-0 with Allred, Springborn, Hanna & Cato voting "yes" and Cleghorn & Nickle voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION (FORMERLY OAR HILL SUB.) GEORGE FAUCETTE - S OF SYCAMORE, E OF GREGG AVE The fifteenth item is a preliminary plat of Woodview Heights Addition (formerly Oak Hill Subdivision) submitted by George Faucette and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 7.96 acres with 24 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no real problems identified as far as utilities. There were two questions raised about this subdivision regarding easements. He explained that this subdivision is platted on top of an old subdivision. There is a 20' easement running across the property that the owner will have to have vacated through the Board of Directors. The other question was raised about the possibility of tying into Spruce Street. The staff does not feel that is a possibility due to the grades involved. Also, there is a question of whether some easements should be given off of the south side of this subdivision with a possible extension of Vandeventer on to the east and the staff doesn't feel that is a good possibility. The staff recommends that this plat be approved subject to the Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments, approval of the street, drainage, and water & sewer plans, payment of parks fees, construction of sidewalks and the vacation of the 20' alley running across the subdivision by the City Board. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that there will be a waiver required on the length of the cul-de-sac street. It is longer than 500' feet. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee had nothing to add. Harry Gray, representing the owner, stated that they propose to restrict access to the new streets on the lots that will have double frontage (on Sycamore & Vandeventer). He advised that they will be renaming the street since it conflicts with an existing street. Commissioner Nickle advised that several people attended the Subdivision committee meeting, who were very adamant about no access being allowed off of Vandeventer. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments and a waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac with a recommendation to the Board of Directors that they approve a vacation of the alley, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 6-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OFFICE -WAREHOUSE ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICES CORP - E OF SHILOH, S OF MT COMFORT RD The sixteenth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Office - Warehouse submitted by Arkansas Book Services Corporation and represented by Chester Dean of Architectural Construction for property located east of Shiloh Drive and south of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial & Heavy Commercial containing 2.18 acres. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 1990 Page 15 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no issues raised at either Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. The only comment was that distance between driveways was not sufficient which they complied with. staff recommends approval of the large scale development. the the The Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee had no additional comments. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve the large scale development plan, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 BOB MOORE - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD, W OF SHERMAN AVENUE The seventeenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Bob Moore for property located south of Huntsville Road and west of Sherman Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains .60 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated parcel of property into two .30 Avenue which is a gravel street. that they are proposing to split a .60 acre acre lots. It does have frontage to Curtis The staff recommends approval of the split. The petitioner did not have any comments. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the lot split, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 REBECCA MATHIAS - NW CORNER OF SYCAMORE & GREEN VALLEY (100 Sycamore Street) The eighteenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split #1 submitted by Rebecca Mathias for property located on the northwest corner of Sycamore Street & Green Valley (Lot 1 of Block 2 of Green Valley Second Addition). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately .4 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this lot contains approximately .40 of an acre, and the proposal is to split off the north 80' of the lot. Each tract would contain approximately .20 of an acre. All utilities are available to both lots. The split will require an additional 10' of right-of-way on Sycamore Street for a total of 30' on the north side. Also, the Master Sidewalk Plan called for a sidewalk along Sycamore Street. The staff recommends approval of the street subject to the dedication of the additional right-of-way and the construction of sidewalk as called for by the Master Sidewalk Plan. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that he isn't sure if this is rental property. Chairman Hanna stated that split would meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements in R-1, but he doesn't like the idea of a backyard being cut off and another house built on it. There was no one present at the meeting to clarify or answer questions. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table this lot split request until the petitioner is present, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 6-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. !HZ