HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-00 RESOLUTION•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 101-00
MICROFILMED
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A LESSER DEDICATION OF
RIGHT OF WAY THAN REQUIRED BY THE MASTER STREET
PLAN FOR THE WESTERN EXTENSION OF HOWARD
NICKELL ROAD, A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AS REQUESTED
BY GEORGE FAUCETTE ON BEHALF OF JO ANN GLADDEN
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT HOWARD NICKELL ROAD
AND SALEM ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts a lesser dedication of right of way than
required by the master street plan for the western extension of Howard Nickell Road, a principal
arterial as requested by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard
Nickell Road and Salem Road; and hereby approves a 50' right of way be dedicated to the City for
this principal arterial.
Section 2. That a deed restriction be accepted by the City Council for the balance of the
required right of way (60') plus 25' on either side of the right-of-way be included in the deed
restriction to accommodate required building setbacks.
Section 3. That the deed restriction prohibits the erection of any structures within the
area described in the attached "Exhibit A".
PASSED AND APPROVED this 18TH day of July , 2000.
s FY rte
r; fi
ATTEST:
By: L/a AJ.!6
Heather Woodruff, City Crerk
APPROVED:
By:
r`
NAME OF FILE:
•
S /C/-
CROSS REFERENCE:
Date
Contents of File Initials
7/&-6b
t i
&o
/4//-
�> /%
XijrA Tom! %9 ��( a �Ll,�a711ti/
; & L61/4 '
/��fl�z it//�.ae97-e )
/
(p-(i� DD
..'17=7 SA,:bn
/./.
Its
4 2/
,
&
0
7 /g -dc
_i .
_,,
119-0o
0 �-
C
/
G
•
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description for 50' Road Dedication
res. 101-00
EXHIBIT A
z>
A part of the Southwest Quarter (SW%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/4) and a part of the
Northwest Quarter (NW%) of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4), all in Section Twenty-nine (29),
Township Seventeen (17) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Being more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4) of the Northwest
Quarter (NW'/) of said Section Twenty-nine (29), said point being an aluminum capped 'A" iron
rebar; thence S 00°20'52"W along the West line of the Northwest Quarter (NW%) os said Section
Twenty-nine (29) 25.00 feet; thence N 89°46'05" E 989.81 feet; thence N 00°16'14" E 25.00 feet to
a set iron on the North hne of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/) of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4) of
said Section Twenty-mne (29); thence N 89°46'05" E 330.01 feet to an existing railroad spike at the
Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW%) of said Section
Twenty-nine (29); thence N 00°13'06" E along the East line of the Southwest Quarter (S W'/4) of the
Northwest Quarter (NW'/) of said Section Twenty-nine (29) 25.00 feet; thence S89°46'05" W
1319.74 feet to a point on the West line of the Southwest Quarter (S W%) of the Northwest Quarter
(NW'/) of said Section Twenty-nine (29); thence S 00°19'20" W 25.00 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 1.3255 acres (57,736.9255 square feet), more or less, Washington County, Arkansas.
AE&/?.
2 tscAz
COLDWeu.
BANKGR
FAUCETTE
REAL ESTATE
June 6, 2000
•
Lsuu-17 Gladden
Ankra Edwards pp 167
velopment Coordinator
6/7/00
Revised from PR - for SUBDIVISION
Tim Conklin, Planning Administrator
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE- Lot Split Application, Gladden, etal.
Salem Road (outside Fayetteville City Limits), Washington County, AR
Dear Tim:
CORPORATE OFFICE
3589 N COLLEGE, SUITE 207
FAYETTEVILLE. AR 72703
BUS (501) 521-0220
TOLL FREE (800) 293-0220
FAX (501) 571-0220
This letter is submitted with all revisions, except one, required by the City of Fayetteville, as
- detailed at the Technical Plat Review held •May 31- -2000.- The purpose of the letter is to request a
waiver from the strict requirements of the Master Street Plan by virtue of this lot -split -request.
Objective of the Proposed Lot Split:
This lot split application is submitted so that two long time Fayetteville families may purchase the
north 39.69 acre tract and further divide it one time to provide two large (15-25 acre) homesites
for their personal family residences The result of this application and the additional split will
create a total of three lots, those being 30 acres and (approximately) 25 acres and 15 acres Any
further subdivision would require the approval of the City of Fayetteville.
Pursuant to the aforementioned Technical Plat Review, please find attached a plat showing the
revisions requested, with the exception of the aforementioned street dedication. It is decision of
the property owners that this street dedication is unfair, is possibly unconstitutional, presents an
undue hardship on the owners and future owners of the property, and maybe most importantly, is
unnecessary The rationale is as follows:
Is the required street dedication unfair?
The owners of this property are the daughters of Mr. Howard Nickle, who is now deceased. Mr.
Nickle purchased the property in 1948 and raised his family and lived out his life there. The
master street plan was adopted m 1995, with absolutely no direct notice to the owners, two of
Branch Offices
FAYETTEVILLE
3589 N. COLLEGE AVE.
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703
BUS. (501) 521-0220
TOLL FREE (800) 293-0220
FAX (501) 444-7546
SPRI NG DALE
1127 S. GUTENSOHN. SUITE 101
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
BUS. (501) 751-3030
TOLL FREE (600) 668-3939
FAX (501) 751-3176
ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS
2010 W. WALNUT
ROGERS, AR 72756
BUS. (501) 636-8100
TOLL FREE (800) 556-7253
FAX (501) 636-3193
801 HWY412 W.
SILOAM SPRINGS. AR 72761
BUS. (501) 524-9353
TOLL FREE (877) 524-9353
FAX (501) 524-9350
Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated.
BELLA VISTA
2770 BELLA VISTA WAY
BELLA VISTA. AR 72714
BUS. (501) 855-6123
TOLL FREE (800)877-6123
FAX (501) 855-7427
•
whom now live out of state. Although I am sure there were news stories and possibly legal
notices pubhshed in the local newspapers, those stories are meaningless to those persons who live
outside the City and, historically, have no need to wonder how city streets and master street plans
affect them. After all, they live in the County and do not benefit from such city services as police
and fire protection and access to sewer service. To have a street cut through the very "heart" of a
beautiful tract of land, with absolutely no input from the property owners and no compensation, is
unconscionable.
Could the required street dedication be unconstitutional?
Mr. Don Kendall, an attorney and long-time friend of the property owners, in his letter dated May
10, 2000, to Mr. Jerry Rose, Fayetteville City Attorney, cites three cases and suggests that the
City's taking of these lands without compensation is a possible violation of the Fifth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Mr. Rose, in his response dated May 15, 2000, cites state
statutes in support of the City's right to demand this type of taking, but states "I would agree with
you that none of the above would allow a regulatory taking as prohibited by the U.S. and
Arkansas Constitutions," and further states, "I am not unsympathetic to your arguments and I will
be pleased to discuss the legal risks with the Planning Commission and/or City Council should you
decide to seek to persuade either group that an undue hardship exists m requiring the extensive
right-of-way requirements on a simple -lot -split".
Does the required street dedication present an Undue Hardship on the property owners?
The right-of-way required east to west through the property and south down the west side
constitutes a total of 4.27 acres. That north line of the right-of-way runs through the middle of
the existing house, making any renovation or modernization unfeasible. Using the contract value
of $9,250 per acre for the land and $25.00 per square foot for the house yields a value loss of
$83,020 by virtue of this taking; and the "takmg" is all based on a somewhat arbitrary line drawn
on a map by an engineer, again with absolutely no formal notice to the property owner.
In addition, the utility companies require that easements for same have to be outside any right-of-
way of streets and roads, resulting in an additional 20' on each side of the proposed street. This
adds another 2.72 acres of land that cannot be used for building and a 150' "swath" through the
property, east to west, and 75' north to south.
Is the required street dedication necessary?
The result of this lot split request, with the additional split on the north 39.69 acres, in and of
itself, will result in virtually no additional vehicle traffic. The property remains rural in nature, and
therefore, no rational basis exists (I believe the term is nexus) for the requirement of a 110' wide
major arterial to be dedicated, based solely on the additional traffic created by this lot split
• •
request. Even if this property were to be developed to its maximum residential density, there is
still no basis for a four lane thoroughfare to be constructed.
This property lies at the extreme northwest corner of the City's Planning Growth Area. In fact,
where the proposed extension west of Howard Nickle Road ends is at the absolute end of that
Growth Area. To the northwest hes the Clear Creek drainage area, with some fairly steep slopes
down to the creek valley. It is highly unlikely that any growth patterns would result in heavy
traffic going all the way to this particular mtersection and beyond to the north and west, even if
the streets were built, because it is not a logical traffic pattern for ANY through traffic.
Lastly, there is currently an existing, improved road/street that extends from the current end of
Howard Nickle Road south to Mt. Comfort Road, that being Salem Road. Because of this, there
is no need to extend Howard Nickle Road another 1/4 mile to the west, then turn south for an
additional road extension, and extend on south with virtually no currently existing roads to Mt.
Comfort Road, when the aforementioned Salem Road currently exists and is in place.
This part of the master street plan contemplates approximately 8,700 feet (1.65 miles) of NEW
road to be constructed versus using an already improved road that is in place for this entire
distance.
- Waiver Request:
The petitioner hereby requests that this lot split request be approved with a 50' street dedication.
Essentially, this is sufficient for any normal residential use, even if some of the property is fully
developed (later) as a residential subdivision. In exchange for this lesser dedication, the owners
are willing to execute a covenant running with the land stating that "no structures will be
constructed in the balance of the proposed right-of-way." This arrangement would allow the
property owners to have partial use and enjoyment of the lands until such time, if ever, as it needs
to be acquired by the City to accommodate future traffic patterns. Please understand that this
request is not to change the Master Street Plan, but merely to accept a lesser dedication than the
110' necessary for a principal arterial.
Other Information:
This compromise has a precedent with a similar format. In August, 1997, at the northeast edge of
the City's defined growth area, a 90' arterial, running right through the middle of a 60 acre tract
was on the master street plan, and a lot split was being requested. Through an agreement with the
City Council, evidenced by a document prepared by Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, a deed with a
restriction "not to construct" was prepared and executed. The one difference is that this waiver
had NO dedication of lands at that time, whereas this current request merely asks for a lesser
dedication.
•
There are two recent precedents of street dedication in the vicinity of this property.
1. One is a 2 '/ acre lot immediately east of the subject property. The lot split request
that was granted was for 2 parcels, on which two single family homes have been
constructed The City did require a dedication of 55' off of the north side of this tract;
however, the density created by these two tracts was much greater than the subject.
2. The other was for the Woodland Subdivision located on Howard Nickle Road,
approximately 1/2 mile east of the subject property. This property was subdivided into 10
parcels of 4 to 10 acres each. Since the land already had frontage on a (60' right-of-way,
paved) Howard Nickle Road, only 25' additional feet was required of this property. This
did not have a significant impact on the usability of this land, and this subdivision had three
times as many lots (and potential traffic) than the subject property.
Attached to this request are 37 copies of the following documents:
1. Revised survey showing all of the changes required, including a 50' street dedication.
2. Plat of survey showing the results of a full 110' dedication.
3. Map showing parts of the Master Street Plan and the Growth Area affecting this
property.
4. Copy of the deed with restrictions from the 1997 grant of waiver that was referenced
earlier in this letter.
5. Aenal photograph of the property.
Respectfully submitted,
Geor: - a 1 -tte(Representative of the Property Owners
encl
cc: Mr. Don Kendall, Attorney
Madames Jo Ann Gladden, Judy Barker, Sandra Burton, Property Owners
Mr. and Mrs. Scott Bailey & Mr. and Mrs. Tom Coker, Prospective Purchasers
I
SALEM ROAD
MOLL( nOR)
to
1y
9
F
s
M
22 2
b
FAL
2
b
•
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
• LS 00-17.00
PC Meeting of 26 June 00
Gladden Lot Split
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Sara Edwards, Ron Petrie P.E.
DATE: June 22, 2000
Project: LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) was submitted by George Faucette on
behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickell Road and Salem Road. The
property is located in the City Growth Area and contains approximately 70 acres. The request is
to split the property into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres.
Findings: This property is located in the City growth area at the edge of the planning area
boundary. Howard Nickell Road presently ends at the existing driveway for the house on Tract
A. This existing house will be located within the future right-of-way of Howard Nickell Road as
shown on the Master Street Plan. The applicant has met all requested requirements with the
exception of conformance with the Master Street Plan.
Recommendation: Approval subject to the six (6) conditions listed below.
Conditions of Approval:
Dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way along the west boundary of Tract B for the future
extension of Rupple Road, which is a minor arterial and requires 90 feet or right-of-way
and dedication of 110 feet of right-of-way centered on the lot split line for the extension
of Howard Nickell Road, a principal arterial, as shown on the Master Street Plan. The
applicant is requesting in lieu of the45' right-of-way dedication for Rupple Road, a lesser
dedication of 25 feet and is requesting in lieu of the 110' of right-of-way dedication for
Howard Nickell Road, a lesser dedication of 50' be accepted with a covenant restriction
that prohibits structures within the future Master Street Plan right-of-ways (see
applicant's letter). Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to dedicate the
right-of-way pursuant to §156 D.1. a. (3) of the Unified Development Ordinance requiring
Master Street Plan dedication and to be consistent with the dedication that was required
of the adjacent property to the east of Tract B (LS 98-20). Any lesser dedication must be
approved by the City Council.
Page 1
• • LS 00-17.00
Page 2
CHAPTER 156: VARIANCES
D. Consideration by the City Planner
1. Subdivisions creating only one new lot (lot splits).
a. Interference with Future Subdivision.
(3). Dedication of Right -of -Way. The City Planner shall not
waive the preliminary and final plat requirements of this chapter
for a proposed subdivision until the subdivider dedicates sufficient
right-of-way to bring those streets which the Master Street Plan
shows to abut or intersect the proposed subdivision into
conformance with the right of -way requirements of the Master
Street Plan for said streets; provided, the Planning Commission
may approve a lessor dedication in the event of undue hardship or
practical difficulties. Such lessor dedication shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
2. If a lesser dedication is accepted, Staff recommends that it only apply to this lot split as
well as one additional lot split of the 40 acre tract. All subdivisions and further lot splits
shall be reviewed independently as to the Master Street Plan requirements.
A permit is issued by the Arkansas Department of Health for an individual sewage
disposal system.
4. Proof of the Arkansas Department of Health permit for an individual sewage disposal
system shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to the lot split being filed.
5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
Background:
The proposed Lot Split was reviewed at the May 31, 2000 Technical Plat review and the June 15, 1999
Subdivision Committee meeting.
• • Ls 00-17.00
Page 3
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the Master Street Plan right-of-way
dedication requirements.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Lot Split to the full Planning Commission without a
recommendation.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
a) Water is available.
b) Sanitary sewer is not available.
c) Streets. See the Conditions of Approval.
d) Grading and Drainage. Not applicable.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
Approved Denied
Date:
Comments:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required
Approved Denied
Date: / /
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
by
title
date
500 0 500 Feet
Existing Master Street Plan Proposed Master Street Flan
E "Ne Freeway ZN/ "nor �*%J Freeway ; ; Ninor
/� Pnnclpal Artenai tt+ , Pnnclpal '", " Artenal
' `/ Artenal Z\/ Collector 0j~ Arterial %' Collector
•
•
LS00-17.00 - Gladden - One Mile Diameter
HOWARD NICKELL
1400
0 1400 Feet
Existing Master Street Plan
Freeway /N_ Ninor
Arterial
Menai I ZN/ Collector
Proposed Master Street Plan
Freeway
Pnnapal
Artenal
•S ; Ninor
Artenal
le
�4. Collector
•
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Page 3
LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo
Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickell Road and Salem Road. The property is in
the Planning Area and contains approximately 70 acres The request is to split into two tracts of
40 acres and 30 acres.
Odom: The first item on tonight's agenda is a lot split submitted by George Faucette on
behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickell Road and Salem
Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70 acres
The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. Staff's
recommendation is for approval subject to four conditions of approval. The first
is dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way along the west boundary of Tract B for the
future extension of Salem Road, which is a minor arterial and requires 90 feet of
right-of-way and dedication of 110 feet of right of way centered on the lot split
line for the extension of Howard Nickell Road, principal arterial, as shown on the
Master Street Plan. Please note that the applicant is requesting in lieu of the 45
feet right-of-way dedication for Salem Road, a lesser dedication of 25 feet and is
requesting in lieu of the 110 feet of right-of-way dedication on Howard Nickell
Road a lesser dedication of 50 feet be accepted with a covenant restriction that
prohibits structures within the future Master Street Plan right-of-way. Staff is
recommending that the applicant be required to dedicate the right-of-way pursuant
to § 156D.1.a.(3) of the Unified Development Ordinance requiring Master Street
Plan dedication and to be consistent with the dedication that was required of the
adjacent property owner to the east of Tract B, which was LS 98-20. Any lesser
dedication must be approved by the City Council. The second recommendation is
that if a lesser dedication is accepted, Staff recommends that it only apply to this
lot split as well as one additional lot split of the 40 acre tract That all
subdivisions and further lot splits shall be viewed independently as to the Master
Street Plan requirements. Third, a permit is issued by the Arkansas Department of
Health for an individual sewage disposal system. Fourth, proof of the Arkansas
Department of Health permit for an individual sewage disposal system shall be
provided to the Planning Division prior to the lot split being filed. Fifth, that the
Plat Review and Subdivision comments, to include the written staff comments
mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility
representatives. Sixth, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and
calculations, where applicable, for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection,
streets, both public and private, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The
information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general
concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and
approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements.
Staff, are there any further conditions of approval?
151AdNrid
Con -m;
?mar
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Page 4
Conklin: Chairman Odom, I would like to make one correction with condition 1. It should
refer to Rupple Road extension not Salem Road extension so that does need to be
corrected.
Odom: Salem Road needs to be Rupple Road.
Conklin: One other comment with regard to Mr. Tom Cocker who is referred to in Mr.
Faucette's letter, that is Dr. Tom Cocker who is a prospective purchaser of one of
these lots. I just wanted to make that one point.
Odom: I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time.
Bunch: Mr. Chairman?
Odom: Yes Commissioner Bunch.
Bunch: Due to a business relationship with one of the prospective purchasers I will be
abstaining from this issue. Also, at the Subdivision Committee I was unaware of
the potential purchasers and I did participate in a vote there. My vote at that time
was to forward this to the full Commission.
Odom: Okay. Thank you Commissioner. Mr. Faucette I will note that there are 2
Commissioners absent and one Commissioner has noted that they are going to
abstain and that you need five votes on a lot split or just a majority?
Conklin:
Odom:
Just a majority of those present.
So, you don't have as many of us as you normally do but you only need four of
us.
Faucette: Okay. I'll go ahead. Thank you for advising me of that. Chairman Odom and
Commissioners thank you for hearing this request tonight. I know you have my
letter of explanation so I promise you to be brief. I'm sensitive to the time you all
spend on the Commission. Let me again state my objective of being here and of
my request You know that City Council has to ultimately approve any action
you take, at least regarding this dedication. So, my objective in presenting the
facts tonight is to have you all recommend favorably to the City Council that they
consider not requiring the entire dedication for these two streets. Let me again
emphasize what it is not. It is not a request to change the Master Street Plan. It is
very simply, as Chairman Odom read in the letter, a wish to reduce the
requirement for the 110 foot arterial that would go east to west and the minor
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Page 5
arterial that would go north to south after it turns south on, I guess, what would be
Rupple Road ultimately. Those 50 foot dedications are consistent with
requirements for residential streets, fully improved residential streets in the county
and, as a matter of fact, in the City of Fayetteville too. Additionally, as again
Chairman Odom suggested, we are offering a bill of assurance or deed restriction
that would mandate that no additional buildings could be built in the entire
principal or minor arterial as defined by the Master Street Plan. The reason for
that is that if the city ever, down the road somewhere, whether it's 10, 40 years,
whatever it is, decides that in fact this needs to be what is defined now, that the
taking for compensation at that point would not have to include any structures. It
would only be the land. Again, the provision would hold true not only for this
split but for one more split of the north 40 into tracts that would be no less than 15
acres. In the ordinance in D,1,a,1 (3) it talks about dedication of Master Street
Plan. It says very clearly that the City Planner shall not waive the preliminary and
final plat requirements of this chapter for a proposed subdivision until the
subdivider dedicates sufficient right-of-way etc.... It further says however,
provided the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event
of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Such lesser dedication shall be subject
to approval by the City Council. In my opinion the hardship in this case is
manifested in three ways. The first has to do with the fairness with regard to
notices in the providing of city services to residents in the growth area. When this
Master Street Plan was adopted in 1995 absolutely no direct notice was given to
any of these landowners affected, as I'm sure none in the Growth Area of the City
was. The only way these folks could have learned about it was to have read legal
notices and or news stories in the local newspapers. I would suggest to you that
even if folks see a news story headline in the Times or the Morning News or
whatever that says City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan is going to be discussed
at public hearing, there is little chance that people in the county will take notice
because they don't consider themselves subject to city regulations. They consider
themselves residents of the county and they are not subject to those regulations
nor are they the recipients of city services, water, fire, police protection. The
historical perspective is that the city business is for the people who live inside the
city. So, for all intents and purposes, these folks as well as others in the Growth
Area had minimal chance for input into this Master Street Plan when it was
adopted, and in this case very dramatically adopted. I'd also submit to you that
the situation is grossly different from most of the effects of Master Street Plan
definitions within the city. Most of those, not all certainly but many of those, lie
on existing developed city streets. So, if the city decides to widen or otherwise
improve that street, they can do so and they can take the land but they have to
compensate the landowner for it. A second factor has to do with what I think I
understand is the theory of nexus. Last week at your meeting I chose to beat
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Page 6
myself up by watching all five and a half hours if it on TV and I applaud you for
your patience in doing that. But during the meeting Commissioner Estes
mentioned the theory of nexus when he was, I think, discussing whether all the
folks that submitted the appeal had standing to do so, was there a connection
between what they were trying to do in the appeal of the Grading Permit. So, as I
understand it a nexus is a tie, link or connection from one thing to another and as I
interpret nexus as it applies to planning, it is will the requested split create enough
additional use or load on infrastructure or other factors to consider the taking,
again, without compensation. This particular request is to take a 70 acre parcel
and to divide it into three parcels an average of 23 acres per parcel. Again, I
would ask does that warrant the taking of the full arterial? And lastly, I
mentioned a couple of times, has to do with compensation. This represents about
4.25 acres worth of land as defined and based upon the value of that land under
contract and some value for the house that's over $80,000.00 that is a loss.
Secondly, and getting close to lastly, is the dedication even necessary? As you
know from the Master Street Plan, from the little map that I included with the
packet that you all have, at the point that Howard Nickell Road currently ends
Salem Road turns south and is improved either fully or partially all the way to
Mount Comfort Road. It is now the traffic route that people take to go to schools
or whatever. The Master Street Plan is drawn to contemplate over 1.7 miles of
new road from the point that Howard Nickell ends at Salem to the point that it
would connect back at Mount Comfort Road presumably Rupple at that point and
of that there is .25 mile that is marginally improved gravel road and about .02 that
is improved to go to the new school. So that is in excess of 1.25 miles of
completely new road that would have to be done if this street went in. Combined
with the fact that the city's Growth Area where this proposed Howard Nickell
Road ends and turns south, northwest of that point is outside of the Growth Area.
So, this is at the extreme northwest corner of the city's defined Growth Area at
present. I would ask you why cause a taking when it would cause a road to break
new ground when an improved road exists and in all likelihood future street
patterns might dictate that that road be the one used. Tim mentioned to you a
president in the immediate vicinity, that lot split and I think Chairman Odom read
it, and I would submit to you that it is significantly different from this request in
that it was a 2.5 acre parcel divided into 2 lots. And in two one acre parcels is
grossly different density from 23 acre parcels which is the average that this
request would result in. There is a third president I mentioned in my letter. In
1997 almost the exact same situation occurred northeast of the Fayetteville city
limits on Gulley Road. It was also in the Growth Area. There was a 90 foot
minor arterial that was shown directly through the heart of a 60 acre tract that was
being split. In that situation the City Council did not take any lands. They did
require the mandate of no structures. They felt like who knows down the road if
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Page 7
this was fair to take them. I can't tell you what was in their minds exactly, but my
guess is that they felt it was not a fair taking given the likelihood of that road
being developed. Your recommendation to the Council is not out of, in my
opinion and my own experience, the historical character or practice of the
Planning Commission In times past your body has been called to make calls
between the lines, so to speak, of things that seem fair and reasonable in light of
the request. I would submit to you that this is a reasonable solution and fair
solution and no one loses. I believe it's win, win not only for the residents and or
future resident of the city in this case but also for the city's need to justly support
people's property rights. That's all I'm going to say. I want to thank you for
reading my four page letter and for listening to me tonight. I'd be happy to
answer any questions and I would like to reserve the right to respond to any
comments made by either the public or the Commissioners.
Odom. Mr. Faucette, what we will do at this time is take public comment then come back
to questions and you will be given the opportunity to respond.
Faucette: Thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on
this lot split request? Would you please come forward at this time.
Bailey: Yes, my name is Scott Bailey and I just wanted to make sure that, I'm looking at
the top 40 acres there and we are not planning to go in there and put 80 half acre
lots in there. A friend and I are going to split that, probably 25 and 15 acres each
and put an estate on there so we can have some horses and things like that. There
won't be a high traffic area from the north 40 of that area for sure. I Just wanted
to let those intentions be made known.
Odom: Thank you Dr. Bailey.
Bailey: Thank you.
Odom: Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for
questions or comments of the applicant or staff. Staff, I'm just going to go ahead