Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-22 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Thursday January 22, 1987 at 3:30 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Frank Farrish and B.J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE REPLAT OF AN AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF PARK PLACE PHASE I J.B. HAYS - PARR PLACE PHASE I The only item of consideration was the replat of a final Subdivision plat of Park Place Phase I, submitted by J.B. Hays and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Albright and Associates. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Dow asked the length of the proposed cul-de-sac (Bristol Place) and Mr. Jorgensen said the length would be approximately 650'. Dow then stated the maximum length was 500'. Farrish stated the only approval at this stage was Phase I of Hays addition and depending on future action the cul-de-sac may end at the end of Phase I because there had been no guarantee that Phase II would be approved. Farrish asked for his information only, what was the length from the approved end of Phase I, Hays Addition to Cambridge Drive. Mr. Jorgensen replied approximately 550'. Dewitt Smith, 1775 Cambridge stated he was on lot 12 which was adjacent to the two lots (10 & 11) that were proposed to be taken by the new connecting road. Mr. Smith stated there was an alternative to bringing the proposed subdivision access through Bristol Court which was to connect directly to Highway 45. He said there were two comments about that connection as to a sight distance problem. He felt that was not a problem and asked Mr. Jorgensen if he would respond. Mr. Jorgensen stated he agreed there would not be a sight distance problem, but the only problem he could see was the fact there was a grade difference between the center line of Highway 45 and the proposed subdivision. Mr. Smith stated the second issue with the connection to Highway 45 Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 2 was against the proliferation of connections onto Highway 45. Mr. Smith said another alternative was for the new subdivision to be connected to Dr. Hays existing driveway which would result in no more entries onto Highway 45. Mr. Smith said he felt a better solution would be to create a new entrance, vacate the old driveway and make a connection of Dr. Hays driveway internally into the entrance which would give better sight distance. He said either way, a valid altern- ative existed to access the property from Highway 45. Mr. Smith said he represented 1/5 of the lots on the cul-de-sac and 1/3 of the lots that were not controlled by Dr. Hays. He said the replat alters the cul-de-sac on which he lived and in his judgment the replat served to diminish his property value. In no way can Mr. Smith find that the replat would be beneficial to Park Place Subdivision. His primary argument was that there is clearly another alternative and was not in his interest to do the replat. Mr. Smith said the master plan of Park Place gives no indication of any proposed connecting developments to the west and apparently the replat would circumvent the necessity to connect out to Highway 265. Mr. Smith stated the standard 90X103" in the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the average lot sizing in Park Place. Mr. Smith could not find any reason that seemed compelling to him that the Subdi- vision Committee would want to, over the objection of the property owners, force a previously platted area to be altered in favor of one individual when there were other alternatives available. Jacks asked Mr. Jorgensen if he had a position on the idea of connecting to Highway 45. Mr. Jorgensen said going back to the submittal of the concept plat, the intent was to head -off problems on the front end and to'receive an idea of what direction the developer should take for access to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen stated the had the two alternatives (Hwy 45 or Bristol Place cul-de-sac), and the Planning Commission stated they would prefer the access off of Bristol Place for the reasons to minimize accesses off Hwy 45 and possible a safety factor. He said for that reason they went ahead with the preliminary plat of the subdivision and providing access through Bristol Place. Green asked Mr. Jorgensen if that decision was made because of what the Planning Commission prefered. Mr. Jorgensen replied for that reason and that the Bristol Place access was where Dr. Hays prefered. Glen Austin, 2487 Bristol Place stated he lived on lot 18 and had a few areas of concern for the approval of replatting Phase I, Park Place Addition. He said they lived at the top of the grade on Bristol Place for one year and at least twice within the last 12 months in a period of every rain the water -shed had been from 6-9" deep, running • • • Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 3 over the curb into the front yard, across the corner of his lot then across lot 3 which presently a new home is under construction. He has serious concerns if pavement was allowed to proceed west and up the hill the grade increases dramatically. He said it was his belief that the water run-off, regardless how it was platted, would compound the run-off as it approached his property. Another concern was that if the proposed subdivision was not identical to the Park Place restrictions, then he would have property value concerns. He said Park Place has a very restrictive set of covenants and they require mandatory property owner membership and a property owners association. He said eventually the Park Place property owners would be required to fund the maintenance of the medians and entrance ways to Park Place. He said if this Committee allows the opening of Bristol Place to incorpor- ate a separate subdivision he did not see how anyone could view that as anything other than an extension of Park Place and with those reasons he was speaking in opposition to allowing Bristol Place to be opened to the west. Dennis Fulbright, 2369 Bristol Place, stated his home was on lot 13. Mr. Fulbright and his wife moved to Fayetteville about 1-1/2 years ago and they proceeded with an extensive search to find a home that was suitable to them. He said they looked in Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville and decided on Park Place Subdivision. He said their decision was based on a lot of factors, one being the original layout of Park Place. He said the only place that showed future develop- ment was over by the lake and did not see future development behind Bristol Place. He said purchasing his home was a major step for him, and he had a lot of money invested in it and has great concern about that investment. Mr. Fulbright said if the cul-de-sac was opened into Hays Addition, it would be obvious that the Addition would become part of Park Place. Another concern was for the size of the proposed lots, and if the lots are half the size, then the quality of the homes stand to be substancially less. He said in the past there had been inconsistency on the part of the architectural committee in Park Place to meet what he understood as the requirements for homes in his addition. He said if the developer had trouble with meeting the requirements within his subdivision, then what were the plans for the proposed addition. Mr. Fulbright also has concern for the water problem in Park Place. Dave Jorgensen stated he did not know if they could alleviate the flooding problem that was occuring; however, he felt the developer could minimize or control the runoff that would occur from the proposed subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen said it was his understanding that the lot sizes and the quality of construction on the new homes would be comparable to Park Place. He said there was a good chance Buddy Peoples would be buying several of the proposed lots in Hays Addition Phase I. Mr. Jorgensen said 3 of the lots in the proposed subdivision were larger than any of the lots in Park Place and 3 of the lots were smaller. la • • • Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 4 He said the convenants in the new subdivision would maintain the same covenants and restrictions as in Park Place, but it appeared to him that there was a problem in Park Place as to a lesser quality of homes than others. In answer to a question from Commissioner Green, Mr. Jorgensen said as to the drainage he would propose to control the runoff from the proposed subdivision and not increase the existing problem in Park Place. Mr. Jorgensen said he hated to say they could catch every bit of the runoff but on the other hand he felt confident that he could (if designed correctly) catch all of the runoff by putting in a graded inlet all the way across the road and sizing the channel large enough to handle the expected 25 year flood. Wally Ingalles, 2405 St. James Place stated the water problems did not affect him and as far as the orginals plan were concerned, they were far from anything they were told when they bought into Park Place. He said the Windsor townhomes were supposed to 48 in number and only 12 existed. Mr. Ingalles said opening up the cul-de-sac would create more traffic and more traffic equals less property value. His objection to the replat was they were going to run a pile of traffic through Park Place that would be detrimental to property values of all the home owners in Park Place which would minimize his chances of selling his place, which he was trying to do at this time. Mr. Smith stated the approval that was given at the concept plan by the Commission and the direction the developer was given to come through Bristol Place was done at a meeting that he was not in attendance at because he had not been notified. He said if he would have been at that meeting to represent the interest of the Bristol area, that the Commission probably would not have directed the access through Bristol Place cul-de-sac because of other alternatives. Green asked what protection did the Park Place covenants give the homeowners against replats. Mr. Smith said the only thing he had found was a replat may be done for engineering reasons by the declarent or be approved by the environmental control committee of the master association which currently was controlled by Dr. Hays. Mr. Smith felt the replat should not be turned over to the Park Place covenants to protect the property owners but it should be this committee's responsibility to protect the Park Place home owners interest. Green stated the City's regulations could not protect the quality of the development in Park Place. He said there was a minimum house size in the City's Regulations but surely the property owners would not want that regulation to apply. k\ • • • Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 5 Green said he was sympathic with the property owners, and if he lived there he would be opposed to the replat, but the only basis the Commission could deny a subdivision was if the developer did not comply with City Regulations, and he could not find a regulation that the developer had not complied with. Dow stated as City Planners they should be able to see that they are creating a bigger problem by approving the replat. She said they were encouraging the developer to create something illegal. Green felt the Planning Commission did not direct Dr. Hays for that access. He said Dr. Hays had a couple alternatives and when the opinion was asked the Commission said "yes". He said last week and he would say again this week he would be willing to vote to approve the subdivision plat with an access to Highway 45 because he does not have a problem with that, but that is not what the developer has asked this Commission to do, and Green did not feel at this point any regulation had been violated. Mr. Smith disagreed philosophically with Green's position as to the power .of this group (Subdivision Committee) to approve or disapprove if the developer can only meet engineering regulations why have this meeting anyway. Mr. Smith said because this Board was the property owners only outlet, to avoid, for the benefit of one individual, to come in and violate previously committed plats and master plans. Green told Mr. Smith that if he could show him what regulation the developer was violating, he would vote against it; Mr Smith replied "that was not his job". Dow stated if this Commission approved the replat just because it was legal, then Sandra Carlisle the Planning Administration could just as well approve the replat rather than this Commission. She felt there were some decisions that needed to be made in terms of City Planning and foresight. Farrish asked what would the length would be if the access was off Dr. Hays driveway. Mr. Jorgensen replied approximately 600', and Farrish said then basically this Commission would be asking the developer to violate the length of cul-de-sac ordinance. Farrish restated the only thing the Planning Commission had approved at this point was Hays Addition Phase I. He said Phase I of Hays Addition does not violate the long cul-de-sac requirement coming off Cambridge Drive. He said there was absolutely no assurance or guarantee that it could ever be approved beyond that point. He said it appeared to him that the developer was taking a risk of whether the north extension could ever be connected. • • • Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 6 Cindy Smith, Dewitt Smith's wife asked what guarantees do the people who live in Park Place have that this proposal would be long term. She said the Park Place was very new and already the proposed changes were drastically changing their property values. Farrish answered there had been many cases like this one come through the Planning Commission and the big protest was property devaluation. However, the protection they have is what the City Code allows to happen within the City. He said if Mrs. Smith thought the codes were to lax, then there were proper channels to go thru. Dow felt the property owners of Park Place had very legitimate concerns as to the character of their property, particularly the Smith's. She said if there were no alternatives then she could be more open minded to the replat but she felt there was an alternative for access onto Highway 45. Green said if they approved the replat, they could make it contingent on engineering for Hays Addition Phase I with the approval of the City Public Works Department to not increase the flow of water into Park Place. Farrish said he would be in favor of approving the subdivision based on the facts that the runoff would be controlled, and the convenants and restrictions would be equal to or greater than the Park Place covenants and restrictions. Farrish asked if there would be any problem with the property owners in the proposed subdivision becoming members of the property owners association of Park Place. Mr. Jorgensen thought that might be the logical thing to do, but did not know exactly what the original intention was. Mr. Jorgensen summarized everything that had happened up to this point. He said a person came to him wanting to put in a subdivision on his property. Mr. Jorgensen said Albright and Associates had not been the developer's engineer in the past and welcomed the chance to help the developer out. Mr. Jorgensen said now it looked like he was forcing the proposed Subdivision down the property owners throat. Mr. Jorgensen said if he was controlling the situation, he could possibly come up with another solution to the problem. MOTION Farrish moved to recommend the replat of lots 10 & 11 of Park Place Phase I subject to: 1) as a result of this replat there would be no additional run off onto Bristol Place, and the engineering of the drainage be approved by the Public Works Department; 2) the covenants and restrictions of Park Place to apply to Hays Addition Phase I with the proposed homes subjected to the architectural standards, seconded )3 • • • Subdivision Committee January 22, 1987 Page 7 by Green and followed by Discussion. Green said he was all for the deal with the restrictive convenants but wanted to know if Mr. Jorgensen was in agreement or volunteering. Mr. Jorgensen said as he understood the developer was willing to do that. Dow stated her reasons for voting against the replat. She said Dr. Hays has an alternative in developing this property that would not change the character of the existing cul-de-sac and the neighbors in Park Place. She was also concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac and felt this Committee was encouraging the developer to create a cul-de-sac that exceeded the City requirement. Mr. Austin appreciated the Commissions position on his water problem and their efforts to cure that. He asked if there would be liability if those efforts do not result in stopping the water and Jacks said he would assume so. The question was called and the motion to approve tied with a 2-2-0 vote, Farrish and Green voting "yes" and Dow and Jacks voting "nay".