Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-10 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 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: Fred Hanna, J.H. Springburn, Jerry Allred, Gerald Rlingaman, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, Jack Cleghorn, Jett Cato, and Jana Lynn Britton OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission of December 10, 1990 were approved as distributed. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DOUBLETREE ESTATES LESLIE HOWELL - MT COMFORT RD, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS The second item on the agenda was a submitted by John Mahaffey of Mahaffey property located on Mt. Comfort Road contains 23.09 acres with 10 proposed preliminary plat of Doubletree Estates Engineers on behalf of Leslie Howell for outside the City Limits. The property lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is intended as a single-family residential development. Utilities are available to the site with an 8" water line on Mt. Comfort Road. There will be a couple of fire hydrants located in the development. There were no significant problems identified at the Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to Washington County approval; approval of water, streets, and drainage plans; and the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments. Commissioner Springborn stated that subject to Mr. Bunn's comments, the Subdivision Committee recommends that the plat be approved. John Mahaffey, representative for the owner, was present but did not have any comments. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the plat subject to the Plat Review and staff comments, seconded by Tarvin. The motion passed 8-0-1 with Britton abstaining because she arrived late and didn't hear the discussion. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ZION PLACE JOHN LARGENT - LOCATED ON W.C.87 - OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS The third item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Zion Place submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers on behalf of John Largent for property located on Washington County Road 87 outside the City Limits. The property contains 80 acres with 16 proposed lots. / VS • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 2 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there weren't any significant problems noted in the Plat Review meeting. All the utility companies have service nearby. There were several easements requested and agreed to by the owner. The City requested that the 50' setback line along County Road 543 be designated as a utility easement as well. The Fire Chief recommended that fire hydrants be placed on both ends of the subdivision although it isn't required outside the City. There were several property owners present at the Subdivision Committee meeting concerned about drainage on the northeast part of the subdivision. They indicated there is some flooding because of the drainage channel on the property. The staff does recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to resolution of the drainage problems; approval of the water, streets, and drainage plans; and Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments. Commissioner Nickle noted that the interested citizens in that area were concerned about the drainage and the fact that the plans did not reflect specific improvement that would be addressing the drainage problems. Commissioner Springborn noted that the Subdivision Committee did not make a recommendation to the Planning Commission because of the drainage issue not being resolved. Mel Milholland, representing the developer, stated that the project isn't in the 100 year flood plain according to the FEMA maps. This is all open territory and there is a low spot in the pasture. On the east side of County Road 87, there is approximately 50 acres that will drain .across that culvert. Presently, there is a 30 inch tile across the County Road. The owner/developer is willing to put a 30' or 40' drainage easement down the center of that low spot for any future improvements that may be needed. There is a pond where this particular low spot discharges off to the adjoining land owners which catches some of the runoff water. If a ditch was put in right now, it would drain on to the adjoining neighbor to the north. These lots are so large, there doesn't seem to be any problem with flooding the existing houses. The owner/developer would be willing to accommodate a drainage easement or ditch, but they feel it will create more problem. Commissioner Nickle clarified that the access to lots 2 and 3 would be across that drainage easement. Mr. Milholland agreed. He added that they would specify on the final plat that a larger drainage tile would be installed if that is what is wanted. Mrs. McGinty stated that they are concerned about the drainage and she requested clarification of what they were planning to do to solve it. Chairman Hanna stated that the developer has advised that he will grant a 30' to 40' drainage easement so that if drainage problems are forthcoming because of the development, there would be an easement for the drainage. Mrs. McGinty asked if the drainage will be draining across W.C. 87 road to her property. Mr. Milholland stated that the water drains to the north and to the west away from W.C. 87. He added that, with this development, they would not be contributing to drainage on the east side of the property. There being no one else wanting to speak, discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved comments, the Plat Review of a drainage easement 40 The motion passed 9-0-0. to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's and Subdivision Committee comments, and the execution ' wide across lots 2, 3, & 4, seconded by Springborn. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 3 FINAL PLAT OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ESTATES STEVE COMBS - W OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD, S OF WEDINGTON DR The fourth item on the agenda was a final plat of Double Springs Estates submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers on behalf of Steve Combs for property located on the west side of Double Springs Road and south of Wedington Drive outside of the City Limits. The property contains 10 acres with 4 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to Washington County approval. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plat subject to the staff comments and the Plat Review comments. There being no one else in the audience wanting to address this, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the plat subject to the Plat Review comments and the staff comments, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 9-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF AARON SUBDIVISION CHARLES (DUB) DUNAWAY - NW CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD & CHERRY LN The fifth item on the agenda was a final plat of Aaron Subdivision submitted by Dub Dunaway and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates. The property is located on the northwest corner of Huntsville Road and Cherry Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 1.34 acres with 5 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no significant problems identified at either the Plat Review meeting or the Subdivision Committee meeting. The staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of streets, drainage, water & sewer plans; construction of sidewalks as called for by the Master Street Plan; payment of the required parks fees; and execution of a surety for off-site improvements(improvement of one-half of Cherry Street for the frontage along lots 1 & 2). Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee recommends approval of the plat. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, stated that they agree with the staff report. There being no one else wanting to speak to this, discussion took place among the Commissioners. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the cost of improving the road along lots 1 & 2 will go to the new property owners once those two lots are sold or be shared amongst the owners of all the lots. Don Bunn stated that the money will go to the City in a fund to improve the street when the surety is called. He added that the developer will be assessed for this. He advised that with previous bills of assurance, the bill of assurance takes a lien on the property as such. Theoretically, the City could go back to the individual property owners if the owner were to renege on his bill of assurance. But, the intent is that the developer be responsible for paying that money. • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 4 In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn stated that under the present bill of assurance setup, the cost could come back to the property owners. The staff is currently looking for a way to avoid that. It is the City's intent to hold the developer responsible for the cost of the improvements. Commissioner Allred advised that, when a lien is placed on the property, it will be picked up in the title search when they sell the property. Mr. Bunn agreed but stated that not everything picked up in the title search may be pointed out to the buyer. Commissioner Springborn stated that this matter has been taken up with the City Attorney. The staff is doing their best to find a more certain and better way to handle this. But at this point in time, the bill of assurance is probably the most appropriate way they have. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the plat subject to Plat Review and staff comments, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 9-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE(CU90-32) FOR HOME OCCUPATION IN AN R-1 ZONE(CHILD CARE) DOUG & CHRISTY KITCHENS - 1022 RODGERS DRIVE The sixth item was a conditional use (CU90-32) for a Home Occupation in an R-1 zoning district for child care submitted by Doug & Christy Kitchens for property located at 1022 Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that this began in November of 1987 when Mrs. Kitchens applied for a conditional use for a home occupation - child care. Because of the amount of opposition at the time, the Planning Commission voted to table the request so that Mrs. Kitchens could confer with the neighbors and try to resolve the opposition. Apparently, because of a misunderstanding on her part, Mrs. Kitchens thought that she had the right to go ahead and operate her business. She didn't confer with the neighbors and did not come back to the Planning Commission. The City Planning staff recently had a complaint from a neighbor; a violation was issued. Mrs. Kitchens is now applying for the conditional use. Commissioner Britton asked if Mrs. Kitchens is actually applying for a conditional use or a home occupation. Ms. Bryant stated that it is a conditional use for a home occupation. She noted that it is very confusing but a child care facility and a home occupation child care are both conditional uses in R-1 districts. Chairman Hanna clarified that the home occupation is limited to six children or less where the child care facility is allowed up to 10 children in R-1. He added that Mrs. Kitchens was apparently under the impression that a conditional use was not required when keeping under six children. Ms. Bryant stated that, as she understands it, the major complaint was the amount of traffic created on Lighton Trail by this business and the fact that Lighton Trail is a gravel road and dusty. She advised that Lighton Trail is scheduled to be chip and sealed in 1991 which should alleviate a lot of the concerns. The staff also believes that the petitioner will comply with the requirements of the Home Occupation ordinance. The staff does recommend approval. • Christy Kitchens stated that she had submitted a letter with her application with the details of her request. She stated that the Commission should have a copy /Y'7 • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 5 of the petition in favor of her request that she received from the majority of the neighbors on Lighton Trail and Rodgers Drive. In answer to a question from Commissioner Britton, Mrs. Kitchens advised that there isn't a sign posted advertising a child care facility at her home. She added that she only has five children right now, so it is just a small business. Betty Martin stated that she owns the property next door to the Kitchens on Rodgers Drive. She advised that she was probably the major objector at the meeting in 1987. She is still opposed to it, because she doesn't want to build a house next to a day care. She stated that she knows the Commission does not address the covenants of the property owners, but this request would be breaking the covenants of the land owners. Basically, she feels that this decreases the value of her property. Jerry Williams stated that his 2 1/2 year old son is cared for by Mrs. Kitchens daily. They have been extremely happy with the care she has given to him. There isn't anything quite as important to working parents as a decent quality place to leave your children. Also, he noted that Mrs. Kitchen's mother owns the lot on the west side of her and there are empty lots on the east side. Because of the large size of the property and the fact that it backs up to a cliff, it isn't very visible. Considering that the five children cared for by Mrs. Kitchens range from 8 months to 4 years, he would be surprised if there are any neighbors that ever know they are there. As far as traffic, there are only four cars coming and going daily because two of the children are sisters. Lighton Trail is a 10 mile an hour road, so there shouldn't be much dust stirred up. Sid Norbash stated that he is the parent of two of the children kept by Mrs. Kitchens. He stated that they have great respect and concern for the neighborhood. However, Mrs. Kitchens is one of the best care providers. The constant of home care is so important to parents. He noted that, as far as the condition of the road, they try to be courteous. They have been commuting back and forth, and he hasn't seen any major problems. Danny Wright stated that his daughter is cared for by Mrs. Kitchens. With respect to the traffic situation, which is probably what generated the complaint, they haven't experienced any difficulty with the traffic. Additionally, Lighton Trail deadends at the Kitchens property, and they have built what amounts to a turnaround area for the use of the people in that area, including the person who filed the original complaint with the Planning Office. Again, with respect to the dust, the road is very rugged and rough. The neighborhood that Mrs. Martin spoke of on Rodgers Drive largely doesn't know anything is going on because Lighton Trail is a separate access to the rest of Southern Heights. It lies about 60' in elevation above Rodgers Drive. Therefore, unless you know their house is up there, it isn't very visible. He doesn't see how it affects anyone else's property. As far as advertising, he noted that Mrs. Kitchens doesn't need a sign to advertise her business, there are people signed up waiting to get their child in. Kathy Adams, who owns the closest existing house to the Kitchens on the east side, stated that the issue is not that Mrs. Kitchens provides a good service but property values. She noted that they had no idea there would be a day care center in the area when they bought into this neighborhood. She is concerned about what this does to their property value and is opposed to it. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mrs. Adams stated that she hears the children sometimes. But she works and is gone mostly in the daytime. She stated that she can't say it has been bothersome. But it is a concern to her that, by approving this request, they are allowing businesses in this are to get • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 6 a foot in the door. She added that there would be a lot more opposition within their neighborhood if the Kitchens access was from Rodgers Drive. Debbie Wright, mother of one of the children kept by Mrs. Kitchens, stated that she works with a family day care home association. They work with about 115 homes currently in the four -county area. The State started a new program about one year ago for child care in homes which is called "Voluntary Registration". It is for homes that want to keep five or less children in their homes. It is an alternative to licensed care which is for six or more children. One of the main reasons "Registration" was started was to be able to identify more care for children in the State, especially for children under two years. It is not mandatory for a home to register with the State. But Christy Kitchens has registered and been approved by the State to be a Voluntary Registered home. This is one factual way to show that Mrs. Kitchens is trying to provide quality child care and to be above board about it. Mrs. Wright submitted some materials on the Registration program to the Planning Commissioners for their information. Mr. Taylor stated that the Kitchens have four children of their own which are in the 7th through 1st grades. Therefore, there is only one more child at this home during the week than there is on the weekends. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he drove all around the property today and he was impressed by the ruggedness of the road. He can't see how anyone could go very fast and stir up a lot of dust. However, he understands that the objection is the possibility of some sort of day care facility going in the neighborhood. To him, that might be a concern if Mrs. Kitchens were applying to care for six or more children. As it is, he doesn't see this request as being particularly detriment to the neighborhood. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to grant the conditional use for a home occupation child care which was followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn was concerned that the motion clarify annual review is required for this conditional use. Ms. Bryant advised that the ordinance does require an annual renewal of home occupation conditional uses in R-1 zoning. Chairman Hanna explained to the audience that home occupation conditional uses in R-1 zones are up for annual review by the City Planning Office. If any justifiable complaints are received by the Planning Office during the year's time, the request can be brought back before the Planning Commission. Therefore, a conditional use in an R-1 zone isn't always permanent. He advised that there are other uses that are a conditional in an R-1 zoning including a church, private school, and beauty shop. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Ms. Bryant stated that the staff has only received one complaint about Mrs. Kitchens operation that she is aware of during the time period from 1987 to the present. This complaint was due to traffic and dust on Lighton Trail. Commissioner Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. • • • 5.14 Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE(CU90-25) FOR A TANDEM LOT MARY FRANCES GLADNEY - 834 EAST ASH The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use (CU90-25) for a tandem lot submitted by Mary Frances Gladney and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers for property located at 834 East Ash. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that this item was tabled at the October 22nd Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the staff doesn't have any additional information. The item has been postponed for a couple of Planning Commission meetings in order for Mrs. Gladney and the property owners to work out a possible sale of the property to the property owners. He noted that the staff has determined that the lot split request associated with this conditional use isn't necessary. Since those lots behind Mrs. Gladney's house were bought as half lots, the split has already occurred. Those lots could be sold as they are now, since they are already separate parcels. A tandem lot, however, for provision of access does have to be approved for the lots to be buildable. Chairman Hanna advised that they have received a letter from Mrs. Gladney explaining her position on this. He noted that she has found out through Mr. Gray that the lot split is not necessary since the lots have already been platted. David Malone asked what the limit is on the number of lot splits in a subdivision. Mr. Bunn advised that there is a limit of three lot splits on one parcel. He explained that it is not a subdivision limit, it is a parcel limit. In this case, each lot has been split only once. Chairman Hanna stated that Mrs. Gladney is interested in selling her home and land in order to move to Butterfield Trail Village. She has been advised by her realtor that it would be better for her to have an easement to her back property to give her the option of selling the house separate from the back property. Hanna stated that he understands there has been a verbal offer made by the neighbors to buy the land which was accepted. However, up to this point, nothing has been done in writing. She has left it open so that the neighbors might follow through with their offer and buy the property. But she still wants the tandem lot. David Malone stated that he is present as an adjoining property owner and not in an official capacity. He stated that the neighbors understand Mrs. Gladney's position in this matter. They are trying to deal with Mrs. Gladney in very good faith to purchase the property. However, it has been very difficult because of the legal issues involved. More than four meetings have been held in the neighborhood to try to work out those legal issues. Their first thought was perhaps the City could zone this for green space, which they have found impossible. He advised that Dan Coody, one of the new city board members, has suggested that this property be put in a land trust. However, the proposed Fayetteville Land Trust that has been formed doesn't have full legal status yet. The National Land Trust is going to come and look at the property. He advised that they have met with some Nature Conservationists in Little Rock which takes properties and holds them in trust to preserve them. This isn't their ideal kind of property, but they are willing to consider looking at the possibility of holding' this property. They have also talked with the State Commemorative Commission which is also in the business of holding easements. He noted that the neighborhood's object is to try to hold this property as green space and to preserve it as it is. He has met with the City Attorney to work out a legal way in which the neighbors could purchase the property and then transfer it to the City with a conservation easement to hold the property as it is. They don't want to donate it as a city park, because they want it left in its natural • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 8 5.15 state. They have an item on the next agenda of the City Board requesting that a conservation easement be accepted. He noted that there are still a few neighboring property owners, who haven't made a firm commitment to purchase the property, because they want to see how the legal issues are worked out. However, Mrs. Gladney is pushing for a decision, and they don't want to hold her up. The neighborhood is opposed to a tandem lot no matter who owns the property. They will continue to try to purchase the property no matter what the Planning Commission's decision is today. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is a great admirer of greenspace, but he doesn't see how landlocked property would benefit the public. Mr. Malone stated that a tree ordinance is set up to benefit the public generally and this is a wooded area. He stated that they wouldn't object to the general public having access to it, but they don't want trails through it, etc. He added that he is sure it has occurred to them to ask why the individual property owners don't just buy the other half of their lot. If they did, each one of them could have a tandem lot. It could be split in half, with the neighbors on one side buying half and the neighbors on the other side buying half. But the property lines don't match up, because it is two different subdivisions. Commissioner Springborn stated that there seems to be a simple solution to Mr. Malone's concern about all the neighbors having potential tandem lots if they purchase the other side of their lots. It could be replatted with this land being included in their present lots. Mr. Malone stated that Mrs. Gladney could replat hers and include it in with her lots. Mrs. Gladney stated that the property may never be built on and even if it was only one house is allowed per ordinance. Also, she can't see people chopping down a lot of trees to put in one house. As far as drainage, a person building a house these days wants to take care of the drainage. She noted that she thinks she has a right to have an easement to her property and a right to sell it In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mrs. Gladney stated that she doesn't have a buyer for her home yet, but she is anxious to sell so that she can move into Butterfield Trail Village. She stated that, although it is more desirable to sell all of her property as one unit, she would like the option to sell the land separately from the house. She is supposed to be in Butterfield Trail Village by the first of the year, but they understand her problem. Chairman Hanna asked the Commission if they wanted to table this item today or go ahead with it. The consensus was to vote on it. Dale Johnson, who owns the property directly to the east of Mrs. Gladney's, stated that his main concerns are drainage and the sewage lines when there is heavy rain. The houses at the east end of Ash Street and at the south end of Juneway are experiencing some problems getting sewage from their house into the drainage lines because they fill up with runoff water. He advised that each time a new house has been built farther uphill, they have increased drainage in their backyard. Cindy Schmidt of 1942 Austin Drive, the west one-half of lot 6, stated that she has been working directly with Mrs. Gladney, several of the people on the Commission, and Mr. Malone trying to work out a way to buy this property. She is opposed to a tandem lot. She has talked to realtors who have told her that access to this property would have a direct affect on the value of her home. Realtors, at the time she bought property in this area, assured her that the subject property was landlocked and would not be developed. She is also concerned about the drainage. The City crews have been out there every time it has rained trying to do something with the drainage problem that comes off of • • 5.16 Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 9 Austin and into those woods. If this is cleared, the water flow will be a lot worse. She advised that they aren't trying to keep Mrs. Gladney from selling her property. Wade Luster of 1904 Austin Drive(one-half of lot 3) stated that he is concerned about their property value. If a driveway is put through to her back property, it would come right down their back property. Commissioner Britton stated that the driveway would not be coming down his property line. Mr. Malone advised that the driveway could theoretically go along the back of all of the lots. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Luster stated that his house is about 60' from his back property line. Mr. Luster advised that the people that he bought the house from stated that Mrs. Gladney had bought the property to keep anyone from building behind her. Goldie Carpenter of 1925 Juneway Terrace stated that she just bought her property in September and had been told that this land would never be developed. She likes the privacy and the sanctuary it provides for animals. She stated that she understood that there is a subdivision covenant against this. The flooding possibility concerns her because it came to within 8' of her house this year. The creek runs between her and her neighbor and it comes from the wooded area. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Ms. Carpenter stated that the creek is a defined creek and has water all year round as far as she knows. Mrs. Gladney stated that Therefore, if a house was affect her property. Ms. Carpenter lives on the developed on Mrs. Gladney's farthest end of this area. back property, it wouldn't Glen McWhorter of 1905 Juneway Terrace (Lot 2 of Caudle Addition) stated that when it is flooding the water gets within one-half inch of his floor. He had to install 150' of drain around his house for a total of over 300' drainage tile, after the property split off of lot 2 of Sunset Heights was built on. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. McWhorter stated that the water problem is a result of water that comes all the way from Austin through the woods. But if the woods were gone, it would come faster. He added that, if this is approved as a tandem lot, it will devalue their property. Jack Tuck of 1950 Austin Drive stated that their property borders on the north part of the property in question. They have two interests: Mrs. Gladney getting every consideration for any reasonable requests that she makes and in being sure that she gets a fair market value for the property in question. However, the Commission should give serious consideration to the quality of this neighborhood. He added that this is a high quality neighborhood. Mrs. Gladney stated that this is a high quality neighborhood, but there is an unkept lawn across the street from her. The house next door is a rental property. Mr. Malone stated that the City Attorney, Jerry Rose, has been asked to review this. He advised that he realizes that the City doesn't enforce subdivision covenants. But there is a big difference between not enforcing covenants and being in the position of breaking covenants. The City Attorney agreed with that. He clarified that Mrs. Gladney has requested a tandem lot on the back half of lots 3, 4, 5 & 6. What this means is that a house could be located anywhere in there. The tandem lot ordinance requires a certain size access with room for all the services to be provided including fire trucks and garbage trucks. The driveway could go all the way behind all of those existing houses. They don't think a tandem lot should be permitted because of the decrease in the property values, the drainage problems that would be created, and the fact that they all relied on covenants that were in their abstracts, when they bought their • • 5.17 Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 10 properties stating that only one house is allowed per lot. Commissioner Springborn stated that one point that has been raised is the fact that the neighboring properties want to acquire the land behind them. However, there has been nothing substantial in terms of money or paper accomplished to date. Mr. Malone advised that they don't have the $12,500 that Mrs. Gladney is asking for the property. Commissioner Springborn stated that, if they can't raise the money, he thinks that is a significant point. Mr. Malone stated that they think there is a very good chance they can raise the money if they can get the legal issues solved. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the $12,500 offer seems like a good buy to him. Mr. Malone stated that, if all those property owners bought the other half of their lot, then they could each request a tandem lot. Commissioner Tarvin stated that they would all have to come before the Planning Commission for review. In answer to a question from Commissioner Britton, Mr. Malone stated that he was a lawyer when he bought his lot and examined the title. He bought a half of a lot because that was permitted back in those days. Commissioner Tarvin stated that it seems the legal problems would disappear if they are buying just the back half of their own lot. Mr. Malone stated that not all of the property owners can afford to buy the back half of their lots and they all have to do it together. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing Mrs. Gladney, stated that Mrs. Gladney is optimistic that this will culminate in a sale and everyone will be happy. However, she needs to get on with this. He added that he doesn't feel that the covenants enter into the City's decision on it. He feels that there are deed restrictions that may apply on nearly any development. In the past, the City has chosen not to be a part of the covenants. Mrs. Gladney's request is in line with other tandem lot developments. The lot is four times as big as any other lot on the west side of it ( 136' wide and about 1.25 acres). The lots on Austin Drive on the west are uphill from this property, so development should not affect them drainage -wise. He can't see any residential development on this lot affecting the downstream drainage significantly. A member of the audience provided them with a copy of a plat indicating that there are two houses existing on lot 2. According to this, a lot split for lot 2 was approved on October 26, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The hearing was closed to the public and discussion took place among the Commissioners. Commissioner Britton stated that the fact that these lots are not part of lot 1 makes them landlocked and it seems they would have to give her a right to access these lots. Ms. Bryant stated that her understanding is that there are state laws about access. Commissioner Allred stated that he is abstaining from the vote and discussion. Commissioner Britton stated that this is actually five pieces of property. Commissioner Nickle stated that apparently this has been passed along as one piece of property with a legal description including several lots which isn't uncommon. Chairman Hanna stated that, as he sees it, Mrs. Gladney could legally sell the • • Planning Commission December 10, 1990 Page 11 5.18 east half of one of these lots and give someone a deed for that. They couldn't build on it, because they don't have access. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to grant the tandem lot subject to it meeting all the regulations set forth in the tandem lot ordinance, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-1-1 with Cato, Klingaman, Tarvin, Hanna, Springborn, Britton, and Cleghorn voting "yes", Nickle voting "no", and Allred abstaining. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT MARY FRANCES GLADNEY - 834 EAST ASH The eighth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split submitted by Mary Frances Gladney and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. This item has been withdrawn because of the determination that it isn't necessary. CONDITIONAL USE(CU90-31) FOR A TANDEM LOT AND A LOT SPLIT ROB LEWIS - 1375 CROSSOVER ROAD The ninth and tenth items on the agenda were a conditional use(CU90-31) for a tandem lot and a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split submitted by Rob Lewis for property located at 1375 Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the original tract is 5.88 acres and the proposed split will create one 2.5 acre lot adjacent to Crossover Road and a 3.33 acre tandem lot behind the other one. There is an existing house on the front lot. Water is available on Crossover Road and it appears that sewer will not be readily available to either lot. However, both lots are of sufficient size to allow for septic systems. The staff recommends approval of this conditional use for a tandem lot and the lot split subject to the payment of parks fees, and the sidewalk to be constructed in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan. Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen Engineers, representing Rob Lewis, stated that they agree with the staff's comments. The plan for the back property will be to develop it when the property is developed to the north(Park Place - Phase VIII). In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Jim Lindsey owns the property adjoining this on the provide access. Ralph Brophy has the property to the objection to it. Property to the south is owned contacted with no response. Mr. Jorgensen stated that north and has agreed to west and doesn't have any by McBryde, who has been In answer to a question from Commissioner Britton, Mr. Jorgensen stated that the plan is for the property to be accessed from Park Place Subdivision or Ralph Brophy's property to the west. However, just in case something comes up, they have provided the 25' access as shown. Commissioner Britton asked if there would be any restriction in the deed that states that at such time the access is no longer necessary, it would revert back to the owner of the front property. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he feels like the owner would agree to that. In answer to aquestion from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Jorgensen stated that there was an agreement for an access on the north and the south ends of the property, so that they could use the one that turned out to be .the easiest route. Commissioner Britton stated that having two accesses to this property is setting yy Planning Commission December 10, 1990' Page 12 it up for another lot split. She would prefer an either/or situation and would like to consider this only under that option. MOTION Commissioner Britton moved to grant the conditional use and the lot split subject to the staff's requirements and to only one access to the property with the other access reverting back to the original owner when it becomes unnecessary, seconded by Allred. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Covenants and Restrictions on Lot Splits. Commissioner Springborn stated that he had made a suggestion to one developer informally and then took the idea to the City Attorney. The idea was that in drawing covenants, the consideration be given not to prohibiting lot splits, but to prohibiting taking lot splits to the city for approval without the approval of the rest of the lot owners in the subdivision. He advised that Mr. Rose had stated that might save a lot of headaches in the future. Chairman Hanna noted also that subdivision covenants do expire after a certain length of time. Item i2: Status of the Revisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the status is of the revisions on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances project which Al Raby, Planning Consultant, worked on. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that the staff wasn't satisfied with the documents provided by Mr. Raby. They plan to go back and look at them piece by piece, but progress is slow. They hope to hold some public hearings on the General Plan in the Spring of 1991. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.