Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-08 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on May 8, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: J.B. Springborn, Ernie Jacks, Gerald Seiff, Jerry Allred, Jack Cleghorn, J. David Ozment, Gerald Klingaman and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Nash OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, Jim Cramer, members of the press and others The minutes of the regular meeting of April 24, 1989 were approved as distributed. RE -SUBMITTAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MELANOA WEST SUBDIVISION NORMAN & BARBARA GABBARD - VELDA COURT, E OF ONE MILE ROAD The second item on the agenda was the re -submittal of the preliminary plat of Melanda West Subdivision submitted by Norman & Barbara Gabbard and represented by Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors for property located on Velda Court, east of One Mile Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 1.85 acres Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this was brought before the Planning Commission on April 10, 1989 and was tabled in order to allow the staff to answer a couple of questions. One question was whether a particular paragraph, Art. 3, Sec. A(1)(k)(6), in the ordinance applied to all of the subdivision regulations or just the parks fee and it was determined that it had to do only with the parks fees. Another question was whether this was a multi -family development. As it stands right now with one ownership,it is a multi -family development even though each house is a separate residence and only one family lives there. As it is submitted as a subdivision, it is a single-family development. The third question was at whose expense was the street paved. That street was paved in 1985 at the expense of Community Development and the cost was $8 or $9,000. He noted that in the investigation of the Community Development involvement, they found that in exchange for improving the street Mr. Gabbard was asked to give a 50' right-of-way along Velda Court Mr. Gabbard did file an easement at the Court House but because of an error in the legal description, it really didn't give the City anything but a straight line and a circle at the end. However, that is corrected on this plat, but if the Planning Commission does not approve the plat, then Mr. Gabbard would sign another agreement which would give the City 51 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 2 the 50' right-of-way requirement. This plat doesn't give the City the amount of turnaround area that they normally ask for with the reason being that the two houses at the end would actually be within the street right-of-way. Mr. Bunn stated that of the eight lots, only two meet the 8,000 square foot minimum with the others ranging in size from 7,000 up to 7,700 square feet. Also, five of the lots fail to meet the front setback requirements. He added that the staff recommends that the revised subdivision plat be approved subject to the PLat Review minutes. Basically, the reason for their recommendation is that the development is existing and approval of this plat to allow the sell of those houses individually would not change the existing situation. Commissioner Klingaman asked if when these houses are sold and then resold, will the buyers have to go through the petition process to allow for the nonconforming setback every time when they go to get a loan. Mr. Bunn answered, no, with the approval of this plat, these would become nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures on the lots. He noted that this has been done in situations where additional right-of-way is required as a result of a lot split or a subdivision which many times makes the house on that lot nonconforming by causing the setbacks to be less than what the ordinance requires. These are generally dealt with as nonconforming lots and nonconforming houses on the lots. In this particular case where the front setbacks are not 25', any improvement to those houses could not include any addition to the front because it would make the house more nonconforming. However, they could add on to the side or the back or improve it in other ways so it limits them somewhat but not totally in what they can do with the houses. He advised that there are many houses in the older part of town that are nonconforming. Commissioner Hanna stated that he agrees with the staff's recommendation but he doesn't understand why this is referred to as a subdivision. Under these new guidelines that they have on the unified development ordinance for the City of Fayetteville defines a "subdivision" as the subdividing of land into lots and blocks resulting in the need for access, etc., and this property has not been subdivided up to this point. Also, it was said that the parks fees would not apply to this subdivision because the housing units are existing yet it is not a subdivision until they approve this. He noted that he doesn't understand why the parks fee doesn't apply. Mr. Bunn stated that they requested an opinion from the City Attorney on whether parks fees would apply to this development. His opinion was that they didn't apply to this. Commissioner Hanna stated that if this were new development where they were dividing the land and those houses weren't there and they allowed it to be substandard, they would have to pay the parks fee. Mr. Bunn stated that the fact that they are substandard wouldn't have anything to do with whether the parks fees were applicable but yes if these were vacant, the parks fee would be required. Chairman Jacks advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this subject to Plat Review comments at its meeting on the 5th of April. He • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 3 asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. There was no response. Commissioner Seiff stated that he doesn't think he has ever seen another case like this. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Seiff based on staff's recommendation. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ANTIQUE AND CRAFT SHOP BILL & SHARON STTT.RS - 102 NORTH SCHOOL AVE The third item was a Conditional Use for an antique and craft shop requested by Bill and Sharon Stiles for property located at 102 North School Avenue and zoned R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this request should have came to the Commission at the last meeting. However, the staff failed to properly advertise the request so it had to be postponed... This property consists of two buildings that are located on the corner of School and Meadow with the front being on School. The old house that was built in the late 1800's sits on the corner and the newer building which was built in the 1920's is an old two- story, brick store building that is attached to the old house. The Stiles propose to utilize both stories of the brick building for an antique shop and there son plans to lives in the house itself. They have proposed a situation whereby they would construct a driveway that would come off of Meadow and run behind the house with parking provided there and then on out onto School on the north side of the old brick building. He added that the staff was relieved to hear that they propose to restore the exterior of the house which is "wooden clapboard" siding in a sensitive manner to preserve the architectural detail on the outside of the house. He added that the staff is recommending that the Conditional Use be approved based on four conditions: 1) an off-street parking area be constructed on the property which is capable of accommodating at least four vehicles, 2) the Stiles voluntarily make a strong effort to preserve as many existing trees as possible on the property, 3) the Stiles voluntarily make a strong effort to preserve the existing exterior architectural details on the residence particularly the original siding and 4) the hours of business be restricted to no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Allred asked if the parking would have to be paved or could it be gravel. Mr. Merrell stated that the zoning ordinance would require paved parking but it might not necessarily have to be asphalt paving. The zoning ordinance uses the term "durable and dustless" so it could not be loose gravel. 5z • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 4 Commissioner Klingaman asked if that would be a one-way traffic flow through that parking lot. Mr. Merrell stated that he didn't know but they have enough room to maneuver two ways. Commissioner Seiff stated that it is obviously from Mr. Merrell's report that he did a lot of work on this and he wants to complement him for it. Mr. Merrell stated that this is the kind of development that the staff is excited about seeing in this area. Late last year, they put together a program which they took to the Board of Directors whereby they established two target areas on either side of the commercial corridor along Dickson Street where they are trying to concentrate their Community Development Block Grant Program specifically loan interest loans and grants for rehabilitation of these buildings. In this particular case, they did not qualify. However, this kind of development along with the rehab work that can be done through the program shows that this area has a very bright future over the next few years. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Stiles if he was aware of the four conditions that Mr. Merrell just pointed out and did he agree with them. Mr. Stiles answered, yes. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this request. There was no response. • MOTION • Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the Conditional Use as requested with the four provisions set by the Planning Staff, seconded by Klingaman and followed by a question. Commissioner Klingaman asked if this would be specifically limited to just that particular use and if they cease to operate, it would go back. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. The motion to grant the Conditional Use passed 8-0-0. RE -SUBMITTAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR EASTSIDE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH WEST SIDE OF CROSSOVER ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF THE WYMAN ROAD INTERSECTION The fourth item on the agenda was a re -submittal of the Large Scale Development Plan for Eastside Missionary Baptist Church represented by Lonnie Nickell, contractor, for property located on the west side of Crossover Road just south of the Wyman Road intersection, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and containing 4.46 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting. Water and sewer are available at the site and none of the other utility companies had any problem in serving the church. The Master Sidewalk plan shows that a sidewalk is required along Crossover Road. He added that the 25' utility easement adjacent to Crossover Road should be granted by a separate instrument and they suggested that the area in front of their proposed 53 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 5 dumpster be heavier than the normal section so that the garbage trucks won't make holes in their parking lot. He noted that it was the staff's recommendation that the Large Scale Development Plan be approved subject to that dedication by separate instrument of a 25' easement across the front of the property and a Bill of Assurance on the construction of the sidewalk. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to remove this from being tabled for consideration today, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. Commissioner Springborn stated that the reason for tabling this proposal at the last meeting was to obtain more information relative to the traffic situation there and they now have that in hand. Therefore, he thinks that the Subdivision Committee has no further problems with this. The Subdivision Committee approved this subject to Plat Review Comments. Mr. Nickell stated that the questions were about the 25' easement, the approval of the Highway Department and the sidewalk. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this. There was no response. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 8-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF FRED STARR ESTATES(FORMERLY SHERWOOD ESTATES II) JOE FRED STARR - EAST OF LOVER'S LANE AND CANTRRBDRY ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was the final plat of Fred Starr Estates (formerly Sherwood Estates II) submitted by Jim Lindsey for Joe Fred Starr and represented by Alan Reid for property located east of Lover's Lane and Canterbury Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with 20.09 acres with 6 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that about the only thing that has changed on this since the preliminary plat is the name. It was changed from "Sherwood Forest Estates II" to "Fred Starr Estates". There are no additional comments from the utility companies except that the drive to the two tandem lots would actually be a designated utility easement to be used by the power and cable companies. The preliminary plat generated a lot of discussion on developments on slopes. The staff recommends that this be approved. He noted that the reason they are bringing the final plat through now is their desire to go ahead and build on the lots but they will be required to enter into a contract with the City for the balance of the improvements before a building permit can be 511 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 6 obtained. He commented that it is noted on the plat that no septic system is allowed on Lots 2 & 3 of Block 2 They will have to either go by gravity into the sewer system or put in grinder pumps and pump into the sewer system. The rest of the lots do have sewer available to them. Commissioner Springborn stated that the biggest problem that the Subdivision Committee had with this is the handling of drainage plans and cuts & fills. He noted that he feels as long as all of this material is submitted to the City, he sees no problem with how it is handled. Mr. Bunn stated that normally street plans and drainage plans are not submitted at the time of the preliminary plat and in some cases not even before the final plat is approved. However, the plans will have to be approved and they will have to construct a certain part of the street or progress to a certain point before the City will allow a building permit to be issued. Commissioner Springborn stated that the chairman of the Subdivision Committee raised a point as to whether the ordinance needs to be amended. He added that he couldn't see the need for it but he asked for Mr. Merrell's opinion on this. Mr. Merrell stated that his feeling is that this is something they need to look at. He noted that he has discussed several items with Mr. Raby although he has not specifically discussed this exact development with him. However, he does know that the staff is concerned about hillside development and in the last couple of weeks they have been in contact with other cities as to how they regulate development of this type. He commented that he would ---anticipate that the new unified development ordinance will address and beef up some of the regulations for projects like this. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to a approve this final plat subject to Plat Review comments with the understanding that the drainage, cuts and fills will be handled in the customary manner with the City Engineer, seconded by Hanna and followed by a question. Commissioner Cleghorn asked if they couldn't sell lots off before they start the street or a building permit can't be issued before. Mr. Bunn stated that they can't issue a building permit. The motion passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES TERRY MCCONNELL - 1901 COMMERCE DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for an expansion to Superior Industries represented by Terry McConnell for property located in the industrial park at 1901 Commerce Drive and zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that they are proposing a 10,000 square foot addition to an existing approximately 200,000 square foot industrial facility. Most of the comments at the Plat Review meeting had to do with the additional power loading with no significant comments. The staff recommends approval of 55 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 7 this large scale development plan. John Merrell advised that this is a case where one of the industries in the City wants to add an addition which is just barely over 10,000 square feet to a large industrial plant on a 30 acre tract of land. In this situation the provisions of our ordinance sort of caught the industry in a bind. This is another thing they need to look at because this isn't really a large scale development by any stretch of the imagination. It is an important development and perhaps they should look at deregulating a situation like this at least a little bit. Commissioner Springborn stated that the legal notification was submitted so there were no other reservations relatively to approving it in the Subdivision Committee. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this large scale development subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OAKLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION CURTIS WRAY, DAVID MIX & JERRY JOHNSON - GULLEY ROAD (W.C. 345) The seventh item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Oakland View Subdivision submitted by Curtis Wray and represented by Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineers, for property located outside the City Limits on Gulley Road N.C. 345) north of Highway 45 East and containing 10.00 acres with 6 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there didn't appear to be any significant problems as far as utility companies being able to serve this subdivision. Water is available to the subdivision but they will have to extend it about 800' in order to serve it. No sewer service is available since it is well outside the City Limits so they will be doing perc tests. He advised that the staff recommends approval of this subdivision subject to the Plat Review minutes and the County's approval. This went before the County on May 1st and they have approved it. He noted that they will be required to pay the parks fees. Commissioner Hanna asked if parks fees were always charged on subdivisions outside the City Limits. Mr. Bunn answered, yes. Commissioner Springborn noted that at the Subdivision Committee meeting there had been a question about the protective covenants. The Planning Secretary stated that those had not been submitted. Mr. Milholland stated that they have a list of things that are going to be put in the covenants but they don't have them typed up. Commissioner Seiff asked if the street (Peaceful Drive) is a driveway or an extra long cul-de-sac. Mr. Milholland stated that it will be a County Road and has been approved by the County. Commissioner Seiff stated that was his point that since 5� • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 8 it is County and not in the City Limits, it doesn't fall under the 500' rule. Commissioner Springborn asked if the applicants had submitted that plat with all of the signatures of adjoining property owners. The Planning Secretary answered, yes, all of the adjoining property owners had signed but one and they had submitted a copy of a certified letter that was sent to that one. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the little sliver of land on the other side of the road will be a part of the property. Mr. Milholland stated that the right- of-way will go all the way to the property north line. Commissioner Springborn stated that the matter of underground utilities came up at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He asked if they were planning to put them all underground. Mr. Milholland stated that they do plan on putting them all underground. James Gulley of Route 9, Box 70 asked which direction the water will be coming from for this subdivision. Mr. Milholland stated that the existing water system comes from the north and the south both from about the same distance but they are planning to come from the south because that is the high pressure. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this. There was no response. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-16 NELLIE SHOFNER - SE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD AND HUNT LANE The eighth item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition #R89- 16 submitted by Nellie Shofner for property located at the southeast corner of Huntsville Road and Hunt Lane and containing 1.54 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this rezoning is for the sole purpose of constructing one single-family house. He noted that the applicant has approached Don Bunn, City Engineer, with a property line adjustment which if approved would reduce this property down to a little over one and one half acres. There is a provision of a two -acre lot minimum in an A-1 zone so that is why the rezoning to R-1 is needed. 57 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 10 Commissioner Springborn stated that he was expecting some comments from Mr. Bishop relative to how this was proceeding out there relative to Phases I, II & III. Mr. Milholland stated that the Planning Commission had stipulated prior to construction of Phase II that an additional access be made into Stubblefield Road Since then Mr. Bishop has purchased the "L" shaped part which is called Phase III. The purpose of this plat is to make a complete loop from the existing Phase I completely around this "L" shape back into Stubblefield would give a complete loop. Therefore, Phase III will be constructed next and then Phase II will be constructed. Chairman Jacks asked if Hemingway Ridge is a part of this development. Mr. Milholland answered, no. Commissioner Springborn stated that the only thing that has changed that they are looking at is the addition of four lots. Mr. Milholland answered, yes, the addition of four lots to allow traffic flow from the existing Phase I completely around through the "L" shape property back out to Stubblefield at a different access. He advised that they did not change any layout of any lot or design. Commissioner Springborn understood all that at the Subdivision Committee meeting but he thought it was best that the developer explain it. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the revised preliminary plat subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 8-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Possibility of Video Relative to What Planning Commission Does & Focusing on the New Plan Chairman Jacks stated that they had a meeting with Fayetteville Open Channel and discussed the possibility of doing a video relative to what the Planning Commission does and focusing on the New Plan. If this all works out, it might be a good way to get this to the public. Chairman Jacks stated that John Merrell had sent them all a sample ordinance from the Planning Consultants. Mr. Merrell stated that he had provided them with a preliminary outline for the unified development ordinance which will pertain to zoning and subdivision regulations, landscaping, etc., as well as a preliminary draft of the first two articles of the new zoning ordinance which is being prepared by Eric Kelly, the Land Use Attorney. He noted that he had been contacted recently by Al Raby, the Consultant, and he commented that they have been revising the report to reflect the input and comments made at the Workshop in March. He stated that they will receive the new revised amended report in the very near future and they will promptly send it to the Planning Commission. Also, Mr. Raby had a report on the progress of the unified development ordinance particularly the zoning and they seem to be well ahead of schedule on that project. The contract extension • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 9 Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 8-0-0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF YORKTOWNE SQUARE - PHASE III WADE BISHOP - N OF STUBBLEFIELD RD, W OF OLD MISSOURI RD The ninth item on the agenda was a revised preliminary plat of Yorktowne Square - Phase III submitted by Wade Bishop for property located on the north side of Stubblefield Road west of Old Missouri Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with 10.66 acres with 34 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the original preliminary plat was submitted on May 9, 1988 and approved by the Planning Commission. The revision consists of the additional of four lots on the west side of the original submittal. The utility companies had no significant problems with the development. The Planning Commission minutes of May 9, 1988 reflect concern over two items: 1) the status of the proposed improvements on Stubblefield Road - A contract has been presented to the Board of Directors for their approval at their next meeting under which they will design the improvements for Stubblefield Road and also consider the drainage. Unfortunately, the funds for the construction are not in this year's budget but will be in next year's budget. The incinerator issue has thrown somewhat of a cloud over the City's ability to fund some of these projects so the only thing they can address is what they are planning to do and that is to do the engineering this year and the construction next year. He advised that this work was to be done with the sale of revenue bonds being paid off by the sales tax proceeds. 2) the number of ingress/egress points to Stubblefield Road and this will have an ingress/egress point on Stubblefield Road. This makes the second phase of Yorktowne Square that is being done. He advised that there is a phase III which sets on the north side of Phase I which is not proposed to be done. Mr. Bunn stated that he had included a map in the agenda packet which shows how things are fitting together in that area. Hemingway Ridge Subdivision which is just east of this, has an ingress/egress point on Stubblefield Road and one on Old Missouri Road and it will tie into Yorktowne Square - Phase III in addition to tying into the Phase II of Yorktowne Square which is yet to be done. He advised that these are all future developments and there is nothing at this point which guarantees that they are going to be done. He noted that the staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak for or against this. 58 • • • Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 11 that has been approved by the City gives a deadline of the second week of August. Mr. Merrell noted that one comment made at the Workshop in March was the possibility of sending out a questionnaire or a survey form on the unified development ordinance. He added that Eric Kelly developed a questionnaire and last week they have sent out well over one hundred of these questionnaires and will be sending out a few more. The recipients of the survey have been asked to send the form directly back to Mr. Kelly in Colorado. Mr. Merrell commented that they are ready to have another workshop and the staff's recommendation is that it be a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. He asked if either Tuesday, May 30th or Wednesday, May 31st would be a convenient time for the workshop. He pointed out that they may start out with a meeting and then the possibility of boarding a bus with the Consultants, Commissioners, Directors and the staff and going out into the field so it would be the better part of a day. There was a general consensus that either of those days would be all right. Chairman Jacks stated that he has some definite feedback comments about the sample definitions and he would like to meet with Mr. Merrell and discuss this. He added that he felt that the numbers should be taken out of the definitions and make them broad and general. Item #2: Anonymous Nail Commissioner Hanna stated that he wanted to comment about the anonymous letter that Mr. Merrell had received and sent to the Planning Commissioners. He noted that he thought anonymous or unsigned letters sent to the Planning Commission should be thrown away or filed away and not distributed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved that anonymous or unsigned letters addressed to the Planning Commission be discarded by the Planning Office, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. Commissioner Seiff stated that he would hope that the public could somehow be notified of this before they vote on this so if anyone has anything they want considered, they will know it has to be signed. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that if someone does have some valid information and for whatever reason they don't want to put their name down to it, then he would be appreciative that he did receive it. There could be a point in time that something could cross the desk that did have a bearing although he agrees with what has been said. Mr. Merrell advised that he received two copies of the letter: one in an envelope addressed to the Planning Commission and the another in an envelope addressed to the Board of Adjustment. The staff policy on this is if it comes in Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 12 an envelope addressed to the Planning Commission, it will be opened and distributed to them. However, if it has one of their names on it, the staff will call them and get it to them. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Cleghorn voting "no". There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.