Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-27 Minutes• • • MINUTES OP A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday October 27, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion building, 113 West Mountain Stree, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT• OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, Julie Nash, B.J. Dow and Gerald Seiff Sic rrlaci;son Gary Carnahan, Arthur Skelton, Greg House, Ervan Wimberly, Roger Staub, George Faucette Jr., Dave Jorgensen, Sandra Carlisle, Larry Wood and Tessa Franzmeier EAST OAKS APARTMENTS PHASE II - LSD LOTS 16, 17 & 18 - JIM LINDSEY The first item on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Gary Carnahan for 56 units, in East Oaks Phase II, lots 16, 17 and 18 containing 2.16 acres and is zoned R-0, Residential Office. Green stated the Large Scale Development Plan was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting contingent upon a Conditional Use request being granted by the Planning Commission for apartments in an R-0 District. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-16 214 & 216 BUCHANAN - ARTHUR SKELTON The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-16 submitted by Arthur Skelton for .508 of an acre located at 214 and 216 Buchanan. Request is to rezone from R-3, High Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant recommended P-1 for the following reasons: 1. The property is to be purchased by the Fayetteville Public School system for addition to the High School property; 2. The property adjoins the land already owned by Fayetteville Public Schools; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 2 Jacks opened the public hearing on the proposed rezoning. Mr. Skelton stated this property lot and the School had proposed parking. Ms. Wallace, representing the would be in keeping with the She said it in no way would neighborhood in any way. The would remain rental property to use this property. MOTION was next to the High School parking to use the property for additional School system stated the intended use nature of the surrounding property. change the neighborhood or affect the property is rental property now and until the school could decide on how Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-3 to P-1, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GREG HOUSE - LOTS 5 & 6 OF HARRISON ADD. The third item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for a lot split, submitted by Greg House. Location of property is lots 5 & 6 of Harrison Addition Block 4 on Fletcher Street. This property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Hanna stated Mr. House was trying to make 3 lots out of 2 and felt the lots would be too narrow. Carlisle stated "There shall be no specific requirements as to minimum lot width, lot area or minimum area per dwelling unit for townhouses or condominiums". She said Mr. House was building townhouses and would sell them under separate deeds according to the Horizontal Property Regime act. In answer to a question from Dow, Carlisle replied 6 townhouses. Hanna stated before he would vote to split the lots he would like to see a parking plan and how they would access the street. Robertson said he did not see how they could consider this request without additional information and no one to represent this request. Jacks stated he would like a little time to look the requirements over for the Horizontal Property Regime. • At this point Mr. Greg House had arrived at the meeting. n\� • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 3 Mr. House stated he represented Mr. Raymond Block Jr. from Little Rock. Mr. House said they needed the lot split primarily for financing purposes. He said the property was zoned R-2 and realized they could build ten units on the property but it was Mr. Block's desire to build 3, 0 -lot line townhouse duplexes which would be a total of 6 units. Mr. House said the reason for the lot split was for the FHA financing so they could build in that fashion. Mr. House felt the townhouses would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Otherwise they would be tempted to build a boxy apartment complex. He said at present the plans call for a higher rent unit that would appeal to professionals. Hanna asked Mr. House if they had done some dirt work and Mr. House replied "yes". Hanna said he had a problem with how they were going to handle the parking and the access off of Fletcher street with the grade. Mr. House said he planned an entrance to the north side of the property between 2 big Oak trees. He said there would be one drive into the complex with 12 or 14 parking spaces planned with a 2 lane drive accessing off of Fletcher. Nash asked Mr House if he had a set of plans for the proposed townhouses and Mr. House replied "yes". She said she would be interested in seeing theparking layout and the general plan. MOTION Nash moved to table this item for 2 weeks so the Planning Commission could review the proposed plan, seconded by Robertson. The motion to table passed 8-0-0. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - DR. BEN ISRAEL EAST OF HWY 265, NORTH OF FRED STARR RD The fourth item on the agenda was the preliminary subdivision plat for Dr. Ben Israel submitted by Ervan Wimberly. This property is located east of Hwy 265, north of Fred Starr Rd. and Contains 31.7 acres. This property is outside the City limits. Green asked Carlisle if the Green Space ordinance applied outside the City limits and Carlisle said she would have to check with the City Attorney as to if it applied or not. Green stated the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plat as submitted. Green said there was some discussion about the 2 points of access onto Highway 45. MOTION • Green moved approval of the preliminary plat as submitted and subject to the resolution of the Green Space Ordinance, seconded by Hanna. riP • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 4 In answer to a question from Nash, Green said there was one lot on the plat showing a driveway onto HWY 45 and the other 4 lots would share 1 driveway onto HWY 45. He said one of the Subdivision Committee members would have prefered the one lot that had its own driveway to somehow share the other driveway with the other 4 lots. Green said it did not seem practical because the developer did not expect this lot to be a real hot item since the outfall line for the new City Sewer Plant was across the street. Dow stated she was the dissenting voter at the Subdivision Committee and said she liked the fact that it was on HWY 45 and would minimize the development on a busy Highway. She said she would not like to see a large subdivision going in with a lot of houses. Dow said her only opposition was the 2 accesses out to Highway 45. She felt the 2.6 acre lot could possibly be incorporated into 7.8 acre lot. The question was called and the motion to approve passed 6-1-1, Dov voting "nay" and Seiff abstaining. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - H.H. HDDGENS SOUTH OF OZARK SMOKEHOUSE, WEST OF HOOT OWL LANE - HUDGENS ADDITION The fifth item on the agenda was the preliminary subdivision plat of Hudgens Addition to the City of Fayetteville, submitted by H.H. Hudgens and represented by Ervan Wimberly. The property is located south of Ozark Smokehouse and west of Hoot Owl Lane. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Green stated the Subdivision Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to: 1) Bill of Assurance for the abutting sections of lots 1 and 2 on Smokehouse Trail for curb and gutter and their portion of the street; 2) The property owners would not call upon the City to improve Hoot Owl Lane at the City's expense; 3) a fire hydrant be installed when the first lot of lots 3, 4, 5 or 6 was sold; 4) and compliance with the Green Space Ordinance ($525.00). MOTION Green moved approval of the preliminary subdivision plat subject to the stipulations listed above, seconded by Farrish. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. FAYETTEVILLE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH - LSD 1600 MISSION BLVD. - ROGER STAUB • The sixth item on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan for the Fayeteville Christian Fellowship Church submitted by Roger • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 5 Staub and located at 1600 Mission Blvd. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Green stated the Subdivision Committee recommended approval subject to: 1) plat review comments; 2) Bill of Assurance for a sidewalk along Highway 45, across the front of the property. Green said left unresolved was the question of screening on the property. He said they had asked for a waiver on the screening requirement. Green noted the screening requirement needed to be addressed by the Planning Commission. Nash stated she had heard a few problems from some of the property owners. She said the problem was that the parking lot was situated so that when the cars in the evening turn to go back onto the Highway the lights shine right through their homes on Ramsey Street. She said evidently the screening of trees would correct that problem rather than a fence. Farrish said this piece of property was an unusual shape and only a portion of the property was being developed which was the north portion. He said their question was should Mr. Staub have to screen all of the property when he was only developing the rear portion. Farrish felt Mr. Staub could have came here with a different proposition and Mr. Staub just happened to show all the property he owned. Farrish said he was in favor of not making Mr. Staub screen the entire tract at this time until further development. Nash said that seemed fair to her but she was concerned about screening around the parking lot so it does not cause a problem for the neighbors. Green said the discussion from the Subdivision Committee was (and he thought this was Carlisle's interpretation also) Mr. Staub would have to screen everything all along his property line. Green said the Church started out with the structure on the front of the property and could not meet the required setbacks and did not want to tear down the existing home site so they moved the building to the very back of the property. Green said they sort of left it at Subdivision Committee with the feeling that it was possible that the existing trees that were already all over the entire property could meet the 10% requirement. He said the Committee left it with the understanding that at some point Sandra Carlisle would check into that and that might be the solution to the problem. In answer to a question from Dow, Nash said Ramsey turned west at HWY 45 and there is a pasture between Ramsey and the site of the new building. She understood from two telephone conversations that the parking lot was situated so that the lights from the cars would shine into the homes on Ramsey. Ed Torbett stated he lived just east of the proposed parking lot. • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Torbett said his house set about 350' west of the proposed parking lot. He said the open pasture that was referred to was his property and there was not a thing there. It's relatively flat and has one tree between his home and the proposed parking lot. He said he did not have any complaint against the proposed use of the property and realized he lived in the middle of the City of Fayetteville and was lucky enough to have a few acres there. He said Mr. Staub had plans for that property and that was the only location Mr. Staub could place his building. However, Mr. Torbett was concerned in 2 ways: 1) about 350' west, where they plan to park up to 135 vehicles the lights would shine right into his home; 2) Mr. Torbett said the drainage from the parking lot had to go somewhere and it probably would go south or north or both. Mr. Torbett said the lights led to the screening situation and that was the problem he was faced with. Mr. Torbett said as he understood the building was going to be to the east and then to the west of the parking lot there would be a 10' green space between the parking lot and the property line. He suggested they start from the corner of the property owned by Mr. Kilgore and plant some sort of a green vegetation screen (pine trees, 4-6' tall and spaced 10' apart). Mr. Torbett said a fence would not add to the looks of the area. • Jacks said the ordinance required a fence or view obscuring vegetation. • Mr. Torbett said he had no problem with the vegetative screening if that was what everyone agreed upon. Mr. Torbett noted that maybe they could park the cars in a north/south line. Roger Staub stated the front part of the property was used as residential and was hopeful the Planning Commission would take that into consider- ation. Mr. Staub said the property had a lot of greenery on it now and they would simply like to add to the existing greenery. He said the minimum regulation called for something a minimum of 18" high. Mr. Staub said that Mr. Torbett would be the only property owner that would be affected by the lights. Mr. Staub suggested in concern for Mr. Torbett that they could put in something more substantial on that west property line. Jacks stated Mr. Staub was asking for a waiver of the screening ordinance for everything except a 350' strip on the west side. In answer to a question from Green, Mr. Staub said much of the property has vegetation along the eastern boundary and along the cemetary line of the Memorial Park. He said there were gaps in there and they would fill them. The northernmost boundary which is approximately 200' had a lot of vegetation and would probably meet the requirement. Mr. Staub said the extension between the parking lot and Mr. Torbett was the only area where screening would have to be done Jacks said as he saw it the Planning Commission would only consider • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 7 the back portion of the property and waive the screening ordinance to the 10% alternative with the exception of the 350' strip on the west side. Green said at the Subdivision Committee they had talked about the desirability to not require anything not even the 10%. Carlisle stated between any non-residential use in an R-1 district screening was required but a variance could be requested. Carlisle said it was the Planning Commission's decision as to what they would require for screening on that property. Green said as he understood Carlisle the Planning Commission could decide that they do not have to have view obscuring screening and they would not have to put 10% landscaping all the way from HWY 45 to the back section of the property that the building sits on. Robertson felt the Planning Commission should not give them a permanent waiver on the screening requirement. MOTION Green moved to waive the landscape requirement 768.73' north to Highway 45, seconded by Hanna. The motion to waive the landscape requirement passed 8-0-0. Jacks said they had granted a waiver for everything except the west side of the parking lot. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR TANDEM LOTS GEORGE FADCETTE JR. - NORTH OF HWY 45 AND EAST OF FAT GULLEY RD The seventh item on the agenda was a request for tandem lots located north of Hwy 45 and east of Fat Gulley Road. This property is in the Fayetteville Growth Area and contains 32.15 acres. George Faucette stated the tract of land was 32 acres total and the request was for 2 lot splits and 3 parcels of land. Faucette said the Planning Office could administratively do the lot splits but tandem lots had to be approved through the Planning Commission. Jacks stated he owned land across the street and felt it was a good idea. He said the tandem lot ordinance was for this kind of purpose. Dow said the tandem lot ordinance said one tandem lot could not be behind another. Faucette stated both of the tandem lots have their own 30' access road. Jacks said you could not have 2 tandem lots off of the same point of access. n�\ • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Gulley wanted to know the size of the tandem lots and Jacks said there was no specific size and that a tandem lot simply meant one lot behind another. Mr. Gulley said he adjoined this property on the north side and was concerned if they start making roads that it was going to stir the sand up. He asked if it would be possible to leave a buffer zone of vegetation. Mr. Faucette said along Mr. Gulley's line was a large line of trees and there would be no intent to disturb those trees. MOTION Hanna moved to approve the conditional use for 2 tandem lots, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. CONSIDERATION OF A CONCEPT PLAT DAVE JORGENSEN - PARR PLACE ADDITION PHASES 4, 5, 5A, b 7 The eighth item on the agenda was a consideration of a concept plat for Park Place, submitted by J.B. Hays and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Albright and Associates. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Dave Jorgensen stated the main reason for the concept plat at this time was to modify the original Bill of Assurance. He said they had planned to connect to Highway 265 from phase 4 of Park Place Subdivision. Jorgensen said what they would like to modify was the connection to Highway 265 to make it so it was not too convenient for people to cut across through the subdivision. He said there was a conjested inter- section at Highway 45 and 265 and that was the main reason for the modification. In answer to a question from Dow, Jorgensen explain the original plan was to connect to Highway 265 off of Phase 4 from the recreational area due east to Highway 265. Jorgensen said they were still planning on connecting it for various reasons but would like to connect so it was not so convenient for through traffic. Jorgensen said they had notified the adjacent property owners. Jorgensen said the other item of business was the proposed phase 7. He said at this time phase 7 did not have access and there were two alternatives; 1) access off Highway 45; 2) the other alternative was the way the concept showed coming off of Bristol Place cul-de-sac. Jacks asked the length of that street in Phase 7 and Jorgensen replied approximately 550'. Jacks then said they eventually would ask for a waiver for that. • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 9 Jorgensen said they would like to develop Phase 7 and keep it apart from Park Place Subdivision for various reasons, one of which was the potential occupants being able to take advantage of the recreational area. Jacks said they generally had been in favor of eliminating as many accesses from Highways as possible. Jorgensen said they do have a Bill of Assurance at this time to connect to Highway 265 from Phase 4. He said they were not trying to get out of the Bill of Assurance they just wanted to modify and felt they would improve the situation. Jorgensen asked what they would need to do to modify the Bill of Assurance. Carlisle explained the Planning Commission minutes from July of 1985 moved approval of the final plat with the stipulation that no lots would be sold in Phase 4 until the street connection was made to Highway 265. She said she had not found a Bill of Assurance in the file and if there was one it would have to be released by the Board of Directors. Hanna said he thought this was an improvement over what they saw the last time as far as connecting to Highway 265 and did not see anyone having an objection to Phase 7 with the access off of Bristol Place rather than Highway 45. MOTION Hanna moved approval of the concept plat, seconded by Farrish and followed by further discussion. Farrish said Mr. Jorgensen had asked for several things in the concept plat and would like for them to be clear as -to what they were approving. Jacks said Mr. Jorgensen was asking for 2 things, the street pattern tying into Highway 265 and the development of Phase 7 as shown on the concept plat. Farrish said the other thing Mr. Jorgensen was asking for was a waiver that would say they did not have to build a street through Phase 4 since it was not there. Mr. Jorgensen said that was the next plan, the immediate plan, would be phase 4 and the next plan would be Phases 5 and 5a. At this point they would be going towards connecting the subdivision similar to what was on the concept plat. He said they felt they needed to over- come the 2 items listed above before they went about doing their work. Green stated a point of clarification that Phase 4 never included • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 10 the road to Highway 265. He said the property had always been a separate Phase of the development. The question was called and the motion to approve the concept plat passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The ninth item on the agenda was a discussion on the Subdivision Regul- ations. Jacks stated they had two major items left on the substantive subdivision regulations revisions. The first one was on the existing street grades. Ervan Wimberly had made a table showing existing street grades which was passed out for the Commission's information. Jacks stated there was a suggestion from the study committee to require developers for street grades in access of 12% to come to the Planning Commission. Jacks said now the code required anything over 15% be heard by the Planning Commission. Dow asked out of curiosity if the maximum of 15% ever came before the Planning Commission and Jacks replied he had not recalled any that had and that most of the streets had been constructed before 1970. Farrish said he was satisfied with leaving the grade at 15%. He said if they changed the grade to 12% they would create a hardship in trying to plan around it. Jacks said he felt they could not do too much about major streets but on local streets he would not mind having more restrictions. Jacks said local streets could be planned so they were not so steep. MOTION Farrish moved to keep the grades at 15%, seconded by Green and followed by further discussion. Dow commented that on Highway 265, with a 13% grade and in the rain, she drove behind trucks that could not make it up that hill. She said there were major problems because people would try to go around on a blind hill so 13% grade concerned her. She said she contacted Deryl Burch and Marty Coates and they were inclined to go with the lesser grades for the sake of the Eire trucks and safety equipment. Hanna said this was being considered because of ice and snow conditions. • Dow said she thought there were a lot of variables on grades and Wimberly replied there were. • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 11 The question was called and the motion to leave the grade at 152 passed 5-2-1, Dow and Nash voting "nay" and Seiff abstaining. Jacks said the other major item was to incorporate new drainage standards. He said a question came up whether or not to require retention. Wimberly stated Rogers required retention. Wimberly explained a pond. He said it only fills up would slowly discharge as the rain retention and Springdale encourages retention basin was a wet weather when it was raining heavily and it passed. Jacks said the drainage provisions which Mr. Wimberly and Mr. Milholland had written for the Planning Commission's Committee did not require reten- tion but encouraged retention. In answer to a question from Jacks, Wimberly said the ramifications to him would be in a small development there would be a maintenance problem. He said the subdivision would have to set up a property owners association to maintain it or the City would take over the maintenance. Seiff asked if the construction on the retention basin would be concrete and Wimberly said not necessarily, it could be earth. Wimberly said it did not have to be a fancy or expensive type of construction but the basin usually eats up some land. Jacks said if they did not require retention it would be leaving it up to developer to assess his chances about what might happen in court. Jacks asked Wimberly if he had any ideas or recommendations as to what they should do. Wimberly said he thought 10 year storm frequency was adequate. He said it was the small storms that really created the big problems to the downstream neighbors. Jacks asked Wimberly (as an engineer) would they like to see written into the ordinance the requirement of retention for a 10 year storm with the provision it could be waived at the Planning Commission. Wimberly replied that would not be a bad idea but again he thought they were getting into how it would be maintained. Farrish asked if the normal storm drainage that goes into subdivisions, handles a lot of the drainage. Wimberly said the problem was if the storm drainage tied into a stream that would not handle the increased flow. • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 12 Seiff asked about the terms "retention" and "detention" and which one was it. Wimberly said detention was to slow the flow down and not to retain it. Jacks said any new subdivision regulation, including new drainage standards, would be reviewed at the Plat Review Committee by and including the City Engineer, so whatever was written into the subdivision regula- tions, including drainage, would be spoken to by the City Engineer. Green asked which would be a better solution to have detention ponds all over the subdivisions or to fix the drainage structure downstream so it would be big enough handle the flow. Wimberly said that again would depend on the case. Farrish said they were totally unqualified to make any sort of judgement decision on this and would hesitate to make this a requirement of subdivisions. MOTION Farrish moved to include the drainage standards into the subdivision regulations as submitted which encourage but does not require detention, seconded by Green. The motion to include the new drainage standards as submitted passed 8-0-0. Dow would like to see if they could encourage the City Engineer to make recommendations when they feel they need to be made. Jacks made reference to Section 9, inspection fees. He said the inspec- tion fees were set at a minimum. Jacks said Wimberly was concerned about the word "minimum" he said that would leave it wide open for the City to require testing and inspecting of various things as far as they wanted to. Jacks suggested to removed the word "minimum" and leave the requirement in there for a certain number of inspections and testing. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks stated the Planning Commission had received a letter from Mrs. Rozier, south of Archibald Yell. Jacks asked Carlisle to send the Roziers the appropriate use unit descibing the diffence in warehousing and retail. Jacks said an item on the agenda for the next meeting would be a report from the Scope of Work Committee. MINUTES The minutes from the October 13, 1986 meeting will be considered at A • • • Planning Commission October 27, 1986 Page 13 the next regular meeting. Commissioner Robertson said there had been quite a bit of conversation by the City Board as to his status on the Planning Commission. Robertson said the Board adopted a Board policy stating for anyone to serve on the Planning Commission or on any Board they had to be a resident of Fayetteville. He said they agreed at that meeting to allow him and one other individual to make their own decision as to whether or not to continue serve their term. Robertson said he intended to serve out his term. He was appointed, he applied for this position and enjoys it and intended to do the best job he could. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.