Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 13, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff and Fred Hanna HEMMERS ABSENT: B.J. Dow and J.E. Springborn OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Larry Wood, David Fulton, Rita Miller, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others CONCEPT PLAT OF NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES - ROLLIN A. BARNES APPROX. 275.1 ACRES - N OF HWY 16 WEST, W OF RUPPLE ROAD Chairman Jacks announced that the concept plat of Northwest Acres Estates had been withdrawn earlier today. He apologized to anyone that was inconvenienced by this. An attempt was made to notify everyone of this withdrawal. This one will have to be advertised again, etc., before it comes back before the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-9 REECE A. PARHAM - 791 LONGVIEW STREET The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R88-9 submitted by Reece A. Parham. Request was to rezone a .63 acre tract of land located on the south side of Longview Street, approximately halfway between Hwy 71B and Plainview Ave., from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to R-0 (Residential -Office) District. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Planning Commission consider a change to an R-0 (Residential -Office) District indicating that 1) The R-0 District would establish the same transitional zoning pattern on both the north side and south side of Longview Street; 2) The R-0 District should provide a stopping point from further encroachment into a residential area to the West; and 3) The public facilities and services are available to the area. • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 2 Chairman Jacks advised that they had investigated that fairly extensively earlier this year and with a great deal of thought and trepidation made a rezoning suggestion which was subsequently altered by the Board of Directors. He stated that he approaches this with a great deal of trepidation because this is one of the few instances where they have been able to see quite clearly what can happen to an established residential neighborhood. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in favor of this. David Fulton, representing Reece Parham, stated that they are aware of Chairman Jacks' concern for protection of a residential area. He said,as Mr. Wood had pointed out, all they are doing with this request is squaring up the area. The R-0 zoning does provide for some business uses as you know, but it would still remain substantially residential. They can't feel that this would hamper the lifestyle and certainly not damage the property values in that area. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the plan was to move the house like the one across the street. Mr. Fulton answered that the plan was to offer the house for rent as an R-0 space effective at the end of this month. It is an investment property. Commissioner Seiff noted that there is a sign there that the house was sold. Mr. Fulton stated that Mr. Parham has purchased the house and he is the present owner. Chairman asked if Mr. Parham intended to rent the house out. Mr. Fulton answered, Yes. Chairman Jacks asked if the R-0 zoning was necessary for rental. Mr. Fulton answered that it is not necessary for rental, per se, but for a specific usage. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this request. Rita Miller of 710 East Longview stated that she is concerned that their residential area would be rezoned for businesses. She referred to a letter from Mayor Johnson that they received in February that states that the Board of Directors hereby expresses its intent that the real property west of 792 Longview Street on both the north and the south side of said street shall remain zoned R- 1, Single -Family Residential District, which was approved on the 15th day of February, 1988. Chairman Jacks advised Mrs. Miller that the Planning Commission has a copy of this letter. Chairman Jacks closed the public hearing and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hanna stated that the letter that Mrs. Miller was referring to included the property west of 792 Longview and this property, according to the map they received, isn't west of 792 Longview but directly across the street He noted that he feels that since the property directly to the East is zoned C-2 ( Thoroughfare Commercial) that R-0 would be a proper zoning for this location. He stated that he didn't think that an office space would be encroaching into the • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 3 neighborhood west of where it already is on the other side of the street. It would certainly buffer the C-2 zoned area that is on the same side of the street. An office at this location shouldn't be any bother to the neighborhood after office hours. It looks to be in keeping with what they have already had before. Commissioner Robertson stated that he agreed with what Commissioner Hanna stated since it is just across the street. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the rezoning petition to R-0, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. Commissioner Seiff stated that he can't agree with what Hanna and Robertson stated. He stated that it is true that the letter that Mayor Johnson wrote was actually a resolution which stated that it shouldn't encroach any farther to the West. It doesn't say it should start with the East. If you look at what the property looks like there that was recently zoned R-0, there are too many uses in R-0 that will allow it to look the way it looks now. He stated that the line has to be drawn and it does not look residential in nature any longer at that property. It looks very commercial and if he lived on that street, he wouldn't want any farther encroachment from where it is. The motion to grant the rezoning Allred, Klingaman & Hanna voting "yes" Chairman Jacks advised that it takes 5 the Planning Commission). He asked if petition was denied 4-3-0 with Robertson, and Jacks, Nash & Seiff voting "no". votes to pass a rezoning ( a majority of any other motions were offered. Commissioner Robertson asked if it would be acceptable to Commissioner Seiff if there was a Bill of Assurance offered as to the use of that building. Commissioner Seiff answered that it was a possibility. He stated that he fails to see why it is necessary to have an R-0 if it is just going to be a rental property. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Fulton if the rental situation was going to be for a commercial establishment instead of a residence. Mr. Fulton answered that what they are shooting for is a residence with a beauty shop or bookkeeping arrangement and the reason for that is the rent goes up dramatically. Commissioner Seiff stated that under those circumstances he is definitely against it. Chairman Jacks advised that they would leave it as a denied motion. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF LOT 4, FLOCK 5 OF BROPHY ADDITION RALPH BROPHY - NORTH OF TOWNSHIP ON BROPHY CIRCLE The second item of consideration on the agenda was a final plat of the replat of • Lot 4, Block 5 of Brophy Addition submitted by Ralph Brophy and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located north of Township on Brophy Circle with 2.01 acres and 3 proposed lots, zoned R-3 (High Density Residential). • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 4 Commissioner Robertson commented that the Subdivision Committee found nothing unusual about this plat. All the Plat Review comments were met and it was passed 3-0-0. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve this plat subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve vas passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF SPRING HOLLOW ESTATES GORDON WILKINS - CORNER OF STUBBLEFIELD & OLD MISSOURI RD The third item of consideration on the agenda was a final plat of Spring Hollow Estates submitted by Gordon Wilkins and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located at the southwest corner of Stubblefield and Old Missouri Roads including approximately 11.91 acres with 25 proposed lots and zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Commissioner Robertson commented that the Subdivision Committee hinged on a lot of clarifications on this plat. He asked if the easement and all the Plat Review • comments had been met. Dave Jorgensen answered, Yes. He stated that they had brought in a signed copy of the Bill of Assurance on street improvements. • Commissioner Nash stated that she wanted to point out something that she had missed at the Subdivision Committee Meeting. Part of this subdivision is in the flood plain. What are the plans for fill and contouring, etc. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the portion that is in the flood plain will be the area where the houses will not be built. Commissioner Klingaman commented that it looked like Lots 16, 17 and maybe 15 there would only be about 75' to put a house on. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they will have to go through a flood certification and insure that the finished floor slab is built two feet above the 100 year flood in that particular location. He further stated that they have built in situations like this and they had to go through Freeman Wood, Inspection Superintendent. Chairman Jacks advised that the ordinance as written allows them to go ahead and subdivide this property with a guarantee that any structure will be built so far above the 100 year flood zone. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the final plat subject to Plat Review comments and flood plain requirements being met, seconded by Nash and followed by further discussion. Commissioner Klingaman asked if this street is a city street or a developer street. Chairman Jacks advised that it will become a city street. Commissioner Klingaman stated since this is the final plat, it seems to be a little late to be making any suggestions about the flood plain situation. If that street had been • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 5 taken a little farther to the West, more of the land would have been out of the flood plain. Chairman Jacks advised that they had presented a preliminary plat in which the Planning Commission hadn't discussed the flood plain. He advised that at this point it seemed like they have gone to enough expense. Unless they choose to do that themselves, which they maybe should think about. Dave Jorgensen noted that they did attempt to move the street to the West. However, as it turned out, if they did move it to the West, they would end up removing several of the lots. The motion to approve the final plat was passed 7-0-0. CONCEPT PLAT FOR NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES Chairman Jacks advised, as he had announced earlier, the concept plat for Northwest Acres has been withdrawn. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - (LOT SPLITS 2 & 3) CHARLES HANNA - SOUTH OF SKILLERN RD & WEST OF OAKLAND -ZION RD The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot splits 2 & 3) submitted by Charles Hanna for property located on the south side of Skillern Road and west of Oakland -Zion Road. Request was for the second and third lot splits. Charles Hanna stated that this is a 10 acre tract split being 3,3 & 4 acres. NOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to grant the lot splits, seconded by Seiff. The motion to grant the lot splits passed 7-0-0. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF QUAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION GERALD TOMLINSON & BILL BROOKS - WEST SIDE OF PORTER RD The sixth item of consideration was a preliminary plat for Quail Ridge Subdivision submitted by Gerald Tomlinson and Bill Brooks which was tabled at the last meeting. Property located on west side of Porter Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Bud Tomlinson, representing Gerald Tomlinson & Bill Brooks, stated that there were several questions raised at the last meeting concerning the cul-de-sac, the rational nexus idea of improving the street, etc. Basically, it looked like it was a matter of the cul-de-sac being long, with which there would need to be a waiver. He advised that they have some changes and some con'nnents they would like to make. • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 6 Mr. Tomlinson stated that the owners have an option to purchase the next 10.08 acres due north of this and intend to develop in some way, possibly a subdivision ( 363 feet north). You could carry the right-of-way as we have it at about a 30 degree angle and/or at a 90 degree angle to come up with a street coming back out on to Porter Road. If this were approved, Lots 17 and 18 would be held and not sold until the owners see what they want to do and how they could do it. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he thought that would be a reasonable solution to the long cul-de-sac. He asked where the logical spot would be to approach that frontage road. Why would it not be one of the other streets instead of Megan Drive. He asked if the frontage roads belong to the City or to the State. Don Bunn answered that he thought that would belong to the City. He stated that it is different in different areas. Chairman Jacks stated that it seems to him when they framed that "bypass ordinance" many years ago, the intent was to put the service road off the private property and on to state property. There may be some places that may not work that way. He noted that he is not sure they know the answer to Mr. Tomlinson's question. Mr. Tomlinson stated that his point was that someone would be interested in controlling at how many points streets are put through to that service road. At any rate, the owners have an option and they would like to consider leaving the temporary cul-de-sac at the end and saving lots 17 and 18 (not selling them) until they determine what they want to do there. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Tomlinson if what he was saying is that there is a good possibility of acquiring the land to the North in which case that would become a loop street. Mr. Tomlinson answered , Yes, that would be a loop street to come back out onto Porter Road. Chairman Jacks advised that he thought they would still run into an ordinance problem because aren't loop streets restricted to 40 units. Larry Wood answered that was the case in a P.U.D., not a regular subdivision. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Tomlinson to clarify if acquiring that land was a certainty or just a good possibility. Mr. Tomlinson answered that it was not a certainty, but they have an option on the property. Chairman Jacks asked if, by virtue of that, they would like to leave the cul-de- sac as it is and submit this for final approval. Mr. Tomlinson advised that they would like to leave it like it is, a temporary cul-de-sac. He further stated that the right-of-way is shown going off at about a 30 degree angle, but they might possibly come back and request a sharper angle (almost 90 degrees) if they develop the rest of it. It would go due North then and come back to Porter Road. Don Bunn stated that the frontage road at this particular point would have to be a City road because there is no room in the existing highway right-of-way to place a frontage road. If it is built at that point, it would have to be a City road. Mr. Tomlinson asked if it would have to have right-of-way east of that shown on the plat and how wide would the right-of-way need to be. Mr. Bunn • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 7 answered, yes, it would need to be 50' wide. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he didn't think that the off-site improvements on both sides of Porter Road should be enforced because a developer should be able to determine ahead of time what the requirements are going to be and depend on it. If that is to be a requirement in the future, then it would have to be based on something like the number of bedrooms per frontage, the number of lots, the length of the development, etc. He stated that he doesn't feel like, at this point, this should be imposed all of the sudden. If the developers were warned that in the next 6 months this was going to be required, then it is something they could plan for and put into the development costs. Chairman Jacks advised that the off-site improvements issue had at one time settled into the developer doing his half of the street, but then it is pretty easy to see where that is not a fair way to do it. This subdivision is a good example of that. In recent years, the only thing that has come along that seems to be able to pinpoint the rational nexus requirement in his view is the impact fees. It simply amounts to a very sophisticated way of computing it. It is easy enough to prove that none of the other systems are fair. Commissioner Nash stated that this was tabled last time before all the Subdivision Committee comments had been worked through. She noted that if she remembers this correctly, having them develop both sides of the road isn't something that we are just now deciding to impose on development. Don Bunn stated that he can't recall them doing that on any other subdivision. A lot of previous subdividers have commented that there was unfair imposition of off-site improvements when there was a long, narrow subdivision as opposed to a subdivision with a long frontage on the street and a shallow depth. This is just an attempt to try to impose equally. Chairman Jacks stated that it is easy to prove in every case that none of the systems which have been used over the years are equitable because of too many different variables and possibilities involved. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he would like to be invited as an engineer when it comes time to talk about those things. He noted that it doesn't make much sense to widen a street and put curb and gutter on it in a little 400' section. Chairman Jacks advised that they have not been doing it that way, they have been getting Bills of Assurance so that when the package can be tied together they will go ahead and do it. Commissioner Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee did what they have been doing on the past several things, they didn't mention it, it wasn't part of their recommendation. Commissioner Robertson stated that there is no magic formula that will work in every case and it just isn't fair, so they just eliminated it. Chairman Jacks stated that this is why he has finally come around after • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 8 considerable investigation, to thinking maybe this impact fees thing is a possibility. The answer to that is that they are undergoing a planning study now and this may very well be part of it. Mr. Tomlinson advised that there is a problem vertically also because one engineer sets a grade on his 400' section, the next engineer sets his, etc. If you could call the City Engineer's office and say I want to develop in a certain area what are the grades and the back of the curb requirements. If those were worked out on all the major streets, that would be a great help. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Tomlinson if what he wanted them to look at is the possibility of approving the length of the cul-de-sac on the basis of the possibility of acquiring the land to the North and to impose no extra off-site improvements. Mr. Tomlinson answered, yes, they show on the plat the right-of- way will be dedicated to go to the edge of the property so that street will be extended in that direction to the West. The other option of acquiring the land to the North hasn't been worked out yet. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Tomlinson to explain again how they plan to get to the frontage road. Mr. Tomlinson stated that they can't get to the frontage road so they are planning a loop road from the north side of the cul-de-sac up about 350' to go back into Porter Road. Chairman Jacks advised that Mr. Tomlinson was asking if they would approve the 900' cul-de-sac based on that as a possibility. Mr. Tomlinson commented that the loading on this subdivision isn't that heavy with thirty some lots . Heavy is like Betty Jo Drive where you have four-plexes and it is 2 1/2 times what they have here and the cul-de-sac street is 2 1/2 times as long. Chairman Jacks stated that one big concern with cul-de-sacs has been what happens in an emergency if emergency vehicles can't get in. Commissioner Seiff asked if the loop road would have (50') as the cul-de-sac. Don Bunn answered, yes. Commissioner Hanna stated that the easement would be they developed it even if these developers didn't. the same right-of-way width there for somebody else if Commissioner Nash asked if this is approved as it is based on Mr. Tomlinson's proposal that he might acquire the extra land and he doesn't get the extra land, have we approved this cul-de-sac. Chairman Jacks answered, Yes. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Tomlinson if he obtained the property to the North, wouldn't that easement have to change locations. Mr. Tomlinson answered, yes. Chairman Jacks clarified that they want approval on this answering two of their objections: 1) the 900' cul-de-sac with an easement out as far as their west property line goes toward a future service road and with the possibility that this could extend to the North and 2) that the off-site improvement requirements simply be their half of the road along Porter Road. Mr. Tomlinson answered, Yes. • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 9 Commissioner Allred noted that basically if they don't exercise the option on the North and the frontage road is never extended, they will have a 900' permanent cul-de-sac. He asked if it would not be advantageous to come back and do another plat with this as Phase I if they acquire the land to the North. Mr. Tomlinson stated that they are offering it as it is now, the option on the property to the North is just a business venture. They intend to develop the 10.08 acres to the North but that is not a part of the plat as it is at this moment. Commissioner Allred stated that he is concerned about this becoming a permanent cul-de-sac and the ordinance calls for a maximum of 500'. Commissioner Hanna advised that if they accepted a motion to approve this contingent on him putting a permanent easement on Lot 16, 17 or 18 through there that would answer the objection. Chairman Jacks stated then no matter who developed the property to the North, it would still tie in and make a loop street. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat with the provision that he provide permanent easement that could connect to the property to the North or to a frontage road if that is developed. The motion died for lack of a second and discussion followed. Mr. Tomlinson stated they could take an easement out of Lot 24 and 25. Chairman Jacks asked if the owners would be willing to show an easement to the North as well as this one so there would be two easements. Mr. Tomlinson answered, Yes. Chairman Jacks advised that the one going to the North would be his choice as to where he wanted to put it. Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon his making one easement toward a possible frontage road and one easement to the property to the North and off-site improvements be confined to one side of Porter Road, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman advised that this is the time they need to make some decisions since the ordinance says that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500', they should adhere to that within a fairly close limit. Additionally, they should as a matter of course stop approving lots developed in flood plains because there is enough decent land in Fayetteville that they don't have to put people in the possibility of a flood situation later on or create a flood downstream. He stated that he would prefer the developer consider making this cul-de-sac 500' long and if the frontage road was put in, it could be extended out with a through street or if they could get things settled with the property to the North. Commissioner Seiff stated that he had forgotten about this being in the flood • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 10 plain. He asked if he could withdraw his second to the motion made earlier. Commissioner Robertson stated that he would second the motion and followed by further discussion. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission does have the ability to refuse development for something in a flood plain. Don Bunn asked if they were still talking about a dedication for right-of-way to the frontage road off of the corner lot 17. Chairman Jacks advised that there would be two easements, that one plus one to the North wherever he chooses to put it. Don Bunn stated that they would need to give an easement off of the northwest corner of lot 17 in the event that the frontage road comes through. Don Bunn stated that since this has frontage on a street that is on the Master Plan, then he thinks that would bring up some contribution of off-site improvements on the the frontage road. Apparently, this subdivision will abut the right-of-way. Chairman Jacks advised that the motion is to approve this preliminary plat with those two easements for possible extensions and to limit the off-site improvements to a Bill of Assurance for their half of Porter Road. Commissioner Seiff advised in order to qualify for the 500' cul-de-sac length, they would have to put that north/south easement so that the remaining cul-de-sac would be no longer than 500'. Chairman Jacks noted that the motion includes nothing about what Don Bunn mentioned earlier about off-site improvements on the service road. Chairman Jacks asked if everyone understood the motion. Phyllis Rice with Northwest Arkansas Times asked if they should include a waiver for the length of the cul- de-sac in the motion. Chairman Jacks answered, Yes, that should be included. Commissioner Hanna stated that he didn't think this was necessary. He doesn't consider it a cul-de-sac when it has an outlet. Chairman Jacks stated that there is an easement but it is not an outlet yet. Commissioner Hanna stated that if he offers an easement to the future frontage road and one going to the North to the property to the North, it is no longer a permanent cul-de-sac if the property is developed. Commissioner Nash noted that it shows it as a temporary cul-de-sac and she thinks that they still have to waive it. Commissioner Hanna stated that since it is designated a temporary cul-de-sac, he would include a waiver of the length of it in the motion. Chairman Jacks advised that the motion is to waive the length of the temporary cul-de-sac with the stipulation that another easement be provided to the North, have necessary right-of-way off of Lot 17 for future service road, and that off- site improvements be limited to a Bill of Assurance for construction of half the street on Porter Road. • • • Planning Commission June 13, 1988 Page 11 The motion to approve this preliminary plat passed 5-2-0 with Klingaman and Seiff voting "no". FURTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks referred to the handout from the League of Women Voters that everyone had been given a copy of and asked the Planning Commissioners to look over it. Commissioner Robertson stated that he would like to send a resolution to the Board of Directors requesting that they review their policy on people living in the growth area not being allowed to serve on commissions or boards. He said that the reason he would like to do that is because the Planning Commission and the City Board directly affect what those people can and cannot do and he feels that for them not to have some representation on boards and commissions in the City of Fayetteville is not right. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to send a resolution to the Board of Directors that they reconsider their position on people living in the growth area not being allowed to serve on commissions and boards, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Robertson stated that he is not doing this just because he is in the growth area, not in the City Limits. He advised that he doesn't care whether it is him or someone else, he thinks it is wrong for people to be told what they can or cannot do and not be represented on boards and commissions. Commissioner Nash noted that when this was first brought up, she asked Mr. McCord why this had been established. She stated that his opinion was that the people in the growth area, the businesses, don't pay city taxes. Therefore, they shouldn't be represented on city boards; they should be represented on county boards. Commissioner Robertson stated that he doesn't think that is right because the City tells those people what they can or can't do and that is his whole point. He stated that in probably 99% of instances , the people in the growth area live, work and own property in town and pay taxes on it. Commissioner Seiff stated that they had a specific example of this out on Skillern Road where the City is making a decision and the people can't have representation. He stated that he thinks they should vote that resolution to the Board. The motion was passed 7-0-0. MINIPPES The minutes of the meeting of May 25, 1988 were approved as distributed. J0