Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 9, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: M814BERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Jerry Allred, J. David Ozment (left before the voting on the second item), Jack Cleghorn, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman and Gerald Seiff J.E. Springborn John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1989 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-27 MICHAEL HEATH & JAMES MITCHELL - 132 E 15TH & 1418 S COLLEGE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning - petition #R89-27 submitted by Michael Heath & James Mitchell for property located at 132 E. 15th Street and 1418 South College Avenue (Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 of Block 8 in the Berl Dodd Addition). Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff is recommending that this rezoning be denied. These are two pieces of property which are adjacent to each other an the north side of East 15th Street basically between South College and South Washington. This area is at the southern end of a predominantly single-family residential area characterized mostly by modest homes extending from the downtown area to East 15th. It is across the street from Walker Park. He advised that there are several reasons for the recommendation to deny which include: 1) staff considers this under the heading of sort of a speculative rezoning without any definite plans to develop the property. Staff is particularly concerned when dealing with a speculative rezoning when it is this close to a major city park or any place where there would be a large concentration of people, especially children. 2) East 15th Street has served as a reasonable boundary between the predominantly residential uses on the north side of the road and in to the neighborhood on the north side of the road and some of the vacant area on the south side of the road is zoned I-1. 3) The present Land Use Plan in the City and the proposed year 2010 Land Use Plan designates this area as one and two-family residential. • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 2 Commissioner Nash stated that the petitioner had stated in his application that because of the heavy volume of commercial traffic, they felt that this would eventually become an unsafe residential neighborhood. In the past, the R-0 zone has been used as sort of a buffer. She asked Mr. Merrell, if he could see any validity in that approach. Mr. Merrell stated that there is perhaps some validity in that approach although the opinion of the staff is that neighborhood is really not that far gone to require this. He noted that the staff realizes this is a debatable thing and the owners are entitled to their opinion. The public hearing was opened. Michael Heath stated that he is a resident at 132 East 15th Street and they are requesting R-0 zoning because there is heavy industrial uses across the street from them and the street is very busy. The trucks pulling in and out at Hiland Dairy across the street causes a lot of noise all night because they are open 24 hours a day sometimes six days a week. There is a lot of machinery over there that makes a lot of noise also. He advised that he has lived in the area for approximately 10 years. He added that he felt it would benefit the City to rezone this so that they can put in dentist offices or something there. This would be a bumper between the residential and heavy industrial area. In answer to a question from Commissioner Seiff, Mr. Heath stated that they do not plan to live there if this is rezoned to R-0. They would turn the house into some sort of office. He added that he has talked to all of his neighbors in depth and they agree that rezoning this property would be beneficial to the City. Commissioner Allred asked if they have any perspective commercial tenants for this property at this point. Mr. Heath answered, no, and stated that the lot next door is occupied by Mary Horton who rents it from Mr. Mitchell. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, John Merrell advised that if this is rezoned and they get someone interested in converting one of these houses or tearing the houses down and building a new office building, those properties would have to comply with all the other requirements of the zoning ordinance such as paved parking. Commissioner Allred asked if there has been a traffic count done on this street. Mr. Merrell answered, no. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this. There being no response, the public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Allred stated that he concurs that Mr. Heath has a problem but he is reluctant to think that rezoning this is a solution to the problem. That property is currently zoned R-2 which is in itself a buffer to a lot of that area. What he wants to do here would be cost prohibitive and he would be more in favor if Mr. Heath had a complete outline or concept as to how to develop it • • • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 3 other than on a speculative basis. Chairman Jacks agreed that this is one of those instances where they have residential property next to industrial although there is a wide street in this case with a good bit of separation between the two. If this were rezoned, it would sort of move the problem up a notch to a certain degree because things like eating places are allowed in R-0 zones and not just dentist offices and quiet things. He advised that they are called upon to decide if this should be R-0 property or not regardless of what might be put in there. He noted that Mr. Heath makes a good case for what he wants to do here, but he is worried about the neighborhood. Commissioner Seiff stated that he thinks that Mr. Heath has a weak argument in changing the zoning to R-0 because it wouldn't be any more effective as a buffer than now. There is a better buffer as it is now than R-0 would be. It is the Planning Commission's concern to think about the overall benefit to the City. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to deny the petition as requested, seconded by Klingaman and followed by discussion. Commissioner Nash noted that she agrees with Mr. Heath that this is not a good place to have a family with the noise pollution and the big trucks. She added that she would be happy to see this as R-0 property because there wouldn't be anyone sleeping there so the noise wouldn't be a problem for them. Commissioner Klingaman stated that a line of trees put in there would provide some sound buffer and the lot is wider enough to accommodate that. Also, only one of the two yards is fenced and if he had small children, that would be the first thing he would do. Commissioner Hanna stated that he agrees with the staff on this and he believes that the staff would have looked favorably on a rezoning if there were a plan to use this property that is compatible and showed that it would help the situation there. However, knowing how much vacant R-0 property there is available in the City, he doesn't think that there is too much of a demand for R-0 property in that area. He added that he would be hesitate to rezone this speculatively and wait and see what comes in. Chairman Jacks reiterated that what the Planning Commission needs to determine is should this be zoned R-0. He advised that even if Mr. Heath submitted a plan for a dentist office, there would be no guarantee that it would be built after this was rezoned. Commissioner Allred asked if it would be more logical to table this until Mr. Heath can provide a proposal that will work or if Mr. Heath withdrew his application and came back at a later time when he has something developed. He noted that he would like to see that property upgraded and developed, but he • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 4 feels Mr. Heath needs to do a little more work on it. Chairman Jacks stated that his view is that they can't table it because they would be getting into contract zoning. Commissioner Nash stated that she thinks a withdrawal would be a good idea, but Mr. Heath has to offer to withdraw it. Mr. Heath stated that would like to withdraw the petition in order to gather more facts to show the Planning Commission more of what they are trying to do there. Commissioner Seiff withdrew his motion and Commissioner Klingaman withdrew his second. NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to accept Mr. Heath's withdrawal of this petition, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Jacks stated that Mr. Heath needs to submit proof that this should be R-0 property not specifically for some particular use. • PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-28 PRESTON FERGUSON - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF OLD WIRE RD The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition #R89- 28 submitted by Preston Ferguson on behalf of Cedarcrest Development and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers for property located west of Crossover Road and south of Old Wire Road containing 18 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Jacks stated that the residents in this area had sent some material to all of the Planning Commissioners. Also, he had asked the Planning Office to send a copy of a letter that the prior City Attorney, Jim McCord, had written to the Planning Administrator, Sandra Carlisle, dated January 24, 1986. He noted that he sent it primarily because of this particular rezoning petition that they are discussing now. However, there is nothing in this letter that speaks directly to this request, but he thought this would be a good time to make the Planning Commission aware of what Mr. McCord gave them in terms of citing legal precedents, etc. Commissioner Nash stated that this letter is addressed to Sandra Carlisle with a carbon to all of the Board of Directors so Jim McCord did not specify who hears the political issues such as the property values. John Merrell stated that the staff is recommending that this rezoning be approved and they do want to emphasize that they view this as a zoning issue and only that. The question this evening is the appropriate zoning of this property. How the property might be developed later on down the road is reserved for another question particularly the Plat Review process. He added that there is • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 5 significant neighborhood opposition and the staff does appreciate the opinions that some of the neighbors have. However, the property contains 18 acres which is almost surrounded by property that is already zoned R-1 and developed as R- 1. Also, the staff is concerned that A-1 is not an appropriate zoning district for this property because this whole area has developed as single-family residential over the past few years. There have been other tracts of land that have been rezoned from A-1 to R-1 as the City has grown in this direction. He noted that A-1 is sometimes used as a holding zone as such but the staff feels that it is not really appropriate to regard A-1 as a holding zone for this particular piece of property because it is almost surrounded by single-family residential development. Furthermore, the A-1 zone allows uses which could be put to the property which would probably be far more objectionable and offensive to the neighboring property owners. The staff sees this strictly as a pure zoning issue to determine what the appropriate zoning is for the land. Based on the surrounding zoning patterns and the growth of the City in that direction, the staff feels that R-1 is clearly the appropriate zoning district and A-1 is clearly an inappropriate zoning district. Commissioner Nash asked Mr. Merrell to state some of the uses by right in the A-1 zone. Mr. Merrell advised that the A-1 district is fine for a tract of land on the edge of town where there is very little development around and there is some question as to how that area might develop. This district allows Use Units 6 & 7 which allow most any sort of farming for crops, eggs, truck farms, hay baling, packing of fruits and vegetables, threshing, smoking and curing of livestock, cemeteries, livestock farms, veterinarian treatment areas and certain recreational uses such as rifle ranges, riding stables, rodeo grounds and a guest ranch. In answer to a question from Commissioner Seiff, Mr. Merrell stated that raising poultry would be included. The Public Hearing was opened. Harry Gray, representative, reiterated that everything north, south and west of this property is already zoned R-1. The east is basically still undeveloped and zoned A-1. Commissioner Ozment asked if this property is generally below or above the adjoining subdivision as far as the lay of the land. Mr. Gray stated that the part on thq north side of the Mudd Creek tributary is about the same elevation as the property along Magnolia Drive and the part on the south side of the creek is below the Cedarwood Addition. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition of this request. Dorothy Maguire of 2672 Ferguson asked if this rezoning would include the reclamation of the flood plain which was in the original request at the meeting when the concept plat was considered. Chairman Jacks advised that the petitioner • • • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 6 is asking for the entire piece of property to be zoned R-1. She asked if this was rezoned, would the petitioner have a right to reclaim flood plain to build on. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the petitioner could do whatever is allowed in the floodplain regulations so they could fill in the 100 year flood plain, but there are certain regulations they would have to follow and it may have to be approved even by the Corp of Engineers. Mrs. Maguire stated that she had addressed a problem relating to the storm drainage at an earlier meeting. She submitted pictorial evidence of flooding of the storm drain next to her house from 1 1/4 inches of rain received on September llth. She stated that the location of the water tower on Township is the highest point in their immediate area All the streets in this area are terraced and Ferguson is at the bottom of that terrace. She added that she is also concerned about the area behind Lots 9 & 10 where there is so much erosion going on. She advised that she is not against development; her only concern is how it is going to be done and that the Planning Commission takes the drainage & erosion problems into consideration. Commissioner Hanna asked if her main objective was to building in the floodplain. Mrs. Maguire answered, yes, she is concerned about how the Planning Commission can control to the advantage of the desired development and the people who are already living there. In answer to another question from Commissioner Hanna, Mrs. Maguire stated that if they didn't develop in the floodplain she would have concern but as an ordinary citizen she couldn't object to it. Commissioner Nash stated that the rezoning petition only has to do with what can be built on the land. The specifics of the building will be discussed when they bring a development plan through. In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Bunn stated that the affect of an alteration of the landscape below a subdivision would only affect the people uphill if the floodway was blocked someway so that water was backed up like it is with a dam. Then depending on the height of that obstruction, the water could be backed up. He noted that they don't anticipate that this would happen. In all likelihood, the developers would be clearing out some of the debris back there and doing minimal work on the channel and allowing the water at that point to flow faster and probably lessen the danger of flooding in the immediate area. He advised that the downstream would have to be considered also. Generally, the kind of work that he envisions them doing here would not be obstructing the channel so water wouldn't be backed up anymore than what is backed up now. Chairman Jacks asked if federal standards along this line really speak to preventing this damming up of water. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, the work that is done can't change the flood stage more than one foot. In this case, they wouldn't allow it to be changed by anything close to one foot because the development nearby would have to be protected. • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 7 In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Bunn stated that there would be any greater runoff uphill if this property were cleared completely and there were any damming of water caused. It would reduce the flood level in that immediate area. Commissioner Allred asked if the ordinances in A-1 and R-1 are the same as far as blocking the floodway or building in a floodplain. Mr. Bunn stated that there would be no difference in the regulations. Commissioner Allred stated that as A-1, there are some uses that could be developed on that property which would have a lot more severe negative impact on the neighborhood than if this were zoned R-1. Commissioner Nash stated that she would like to see the owner donate this land to the City for use as a wild life management area. She asked if Mr. Gray had talked to anyone on the Parks Board about the greenspace. Mr. Gray stated that there was is a large portion of this acreage running along the south side of Mudd Creek which they would like to donate as a park or a wildlife sanctuary. Commissioner Nash asked if the Parks Commission would accept the land in the flood plain as parks land. Mr. Gray stated that it would have to meet certain regulations. He added that there too much of this total acreage that is developable and too valuable to donate. They want to try to develop as much as possible and work with everybody out there. He advised that they will not be filling to any extend to flood anyone. Lois Fordyce of 2737 Wakefield Place stated that the Planning Commission has an erroneous idea of how the houses of many of the residents that are appearing here lie in relation to the flood plain. She advised that there are only three houses on the south side of the creek that are high above the flood plain. Of those three, there are two where the back yards are still on a level with the flood plain. The rest of the houses on Wakefield Place and Ferguson are either on a level with the flood plain or are built on the flood plain. Therefore, the residents are concerned as to what will happen when they build this flood plain in where it will be either higher than they are or even with them. There will no longer be a place below them for that water to go to. The assurances that the City give the people are not very consoling because the measures to prevent the overflow of water are not working in this community. Mrs. Fordyce was also concerned because the access for the east side of the development plan that was presented goes out onto Highway 265 at one of the lowest places on that road where flooding has resulted in the Highway being closed several times. Therefore, with only one access into that property, what would happen if emergency vehicles could not get into this during a major flood. She noted that this particular floodplain is different from the ones that have been mentioned as being ideal examples of flood plain reclamation. The area that is being looked at is a relatively narrow strip of land between two very high hills. In the other examples there is a great expanse of flat land and then hills off in the distant. She commented that there seems to be a feeling that since flood plains have been built on before, therefore, it would be unfair to the developers to not allow them to develop. The residents of this area feel that this is grossly unfair to the general public. There should be fairness to • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 8 the contractors and the land developers, but it should be weighed against fairness to the people. Rita Dunkelberger of 2725 Wakefield Place stated that she has done extensive research about water resources and has gotten her information from Floyd F. Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Geography. He states that the relationship between the vegetative cover and runoff is the heavier the vegetative cover, other things being equal, the less the erosion which depends much on the meaning of the word "heavier". Floods usually result after a heavy period of precipitation on land that is already saturated with water. Floods are the result of rapid and excessive runoff. He notes that surface conditions play a very important part in flood and flood losses. In a mountain area with steep slopes, the master stream may fill quickly and runoff water become a raging torrent. The amount of destruction will depend much on the extent to which man has occupied the mountain valley. Planning relative to flood plain areas can lessen damage resulting in floods but local government must stop permitting indiscriminate development of flood plain areas for factories and housing developments. Our immense flood control complex has induced a false feeling to the general public that there is nothing to fear because man is learning to conquer nature and floods will someday be eliminated. However, only the number of floods will be reduced. Leaves and branches of forests help to hold back much of the rain from running off the ground and leaves will increase the amount of water that soaks into the ground. Forest soils are also a help in absorbing great amounts of water because they are more porous than field soils. The reduction of runoff by good land management practices is one of the measures being used to help control flood waters which involves maintenance of forests or grass on slopes as the best use of this sort of land. The increase of flood damage is in part the result of man's invasion of lands that properly belong to the rivers. The paving of large areas and the straightening of stream channels are contributing factors. The most effective measure to take to avoid flood damage is to avoid, as much as possible, the construction of homes and industry in flood plains. The greatest losses due to floods are in the upstream areas. Commissioner Allred stated that he understands the concerns of the residents in this area, but what the Planning Commission is being asked to do tonight is to decide what the best use of the land is and not what can be developed there. He asked if the neighbors would prefer that it be left as A-1 where they can come in and do what they want to or rezone to R-1 which is the most restrictive zoning. All the drainage and flood plain problems will be addressed at a future time. Ms. Dunkelberger stated that her concern is that if the grass and trees are taken away, it will flood their property. Commissioner Allred advised that the developers could clear it now regardless of the zoning. He reiterated that they are not dealing with the development tonight. Commissioner Nash stated that the owner could take a bulldozer and strip the land right now and put possibly five poultry houses there. What the Planning Commission needs to decide is what is whether A-1 is best for this property or an R-1 zone that has a certain amount of standards for what can be built there • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 9 with a little more control over the construction process. Robert Barger of 2560 Ferguson Avenue stated that this has been zoned A-1 since zoning took place in Fayetteville. He noted that as far as using this for agricultural uses, the owner couldn't raise any animals within 200' of the creek and he wouldn't want to plant a crop that is going to get flooded out. If it is rezoned, the natural laws of water still can't be changed. He stated that he is a licensed building contractor and he thinks the land should be left as it is because if the rezoning is approved, it leaves the developer wide open to do pretty much whatever he wants to. If 27 houses are added on 18 acres of land, how much sewage can that create in a day's time. The closest lift station is on Old Wire Road and this will add an additional load to that station which may cause back up of the sewers in the area. Commissioner Hanna asked Mr. Barger if he would have any objection as a neighbor if houses were built above the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Barger stated that they would still have to fill up to some extent and the Corp of Engineers has a maximum height that it can be built up to. He noted that he has no objection to development outside the flood plain as long as it doesn't cause any additional water problems to the ones that exist already. Linda Craghead of 2717 Wakefield Place stated that she works for a poultry producer and as far as poultry houses are concerned she wouldn't want one built in her backyard but a poultry producer would not want the liability of building on a flood plain. She noted that when she bought this house, the realtors promised that this property wouldn't be developed because of the fact that it was on a floodplain. Shay Lastra of 2753 Wakefield Place stated that Chairman Jacks had said at the last meeting that originally there was an F-1 zone which would have been this area. She added that basically is why this property would be agricultural because they no longer have the F-1 zone and not because it necessarily is a good place for agricultural. She noted that the east side of Highway 265 is entirely agricultural property. This rezoning petition is to allow for low density populous which would encourage development of homes in this area and they are worried about homes going in there in a flood plain. She noted that 99% of the opposition would probably consider agricultural uses here before they would approve of homes built here because of the amount of land that is going to be built up there. The reason for the rezoning is so that Mr. Ferguson can put a development there not because it shouldn't be agricultural. This property just behind the Cedarwood Addition is in a valley and is surrounded by other homes that are located in the floodplain. Further development in the floodplain could affect these homes in a flood situation. Mrs. Lastra stated that the floodplain limits also need to be addressed. She noted that Mr. Gray explained at the August 23rd meeting that the Corp of Engineers had determined through studies that you can fill within the flood plain up to the floodway without endangering anything. He also explained that the floodway had to remain open to carry the 100 year flood. On August 28th, the • • • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 10 Planning Commission explained to the public that a person has the right to do, in the absence of ordinances to the contrary, whatever he would like on his property except in the floodway where before he does any filling activities, the Corp of Engineers would have to be consulted. She stated that according to Mr. Hud, District Engineer at the Corp of Engineers in Little Rock, sufficient runoff would indeed increase the floodplain and floodway area She noted that there is a controversy on where the present day floodway area is. The last maps were made in 1982 and there has been an extreme amount of development in that area since this time. She submitted a petition with signatures of people who agree that this area should not be rezoned until it is determined that it should be an R-1 area for subdivision development and that it won't affect existing surrounding homes or future homes of that area and a petition with signatures of people who have witnessed the dense fog and the problems it has caused. Mrs. Lastra was also concerned about traffic problems along Highway 265 and the dense fog that collects in this area along Mudd Creek tributary. She submitted pictures to show how the fog collects in this valley and a letter from a victim of an automobile accident in this area. Commissioner Seiff asked if the signatures were the same on the two petitions she submitted. Mrs. Lastra stated that most of them probably are the same. Mrs. Lastra stated that the Public Works Director, Bob Kelly, said that he would definitely not recommend any subdivision to be made on a flood plain having only one access. Dr. Van Scyoc of 2910 Old Wire Road stated he has property to the north of the subject property which joins the Mudd Creek tributary. He noted that he is concerned about the increase in the amount of water coming through there. He added that if channelization is done and that Mudd Creek tributary is straightened out, it would increase the amount of water and the speed but it would stop at the end of that property because he does not intend to have any channelization. If this is rezoned to R-1, it would be the first major step to a development with 27 more homes going in which will cause more water and it will back up more. He advised that he is willing to take his chances with the A-1 zoning. He asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to refuse R-1 zoning in a floodplain. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't think that the Planning Commission has the authority to deny because of floodplain. Commissioner Klingaman stated that some of the material that was passed out at one of the meetings about a year ago indicated that floodplain would be a justification for denial of zoning along with traffic problems, etc. Commissioner Ozment apologized for having to leave the meeting. He noted that on the surface, he doesn't have problems with approving a rezoning from A-1 to R-1. As a member of the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission, he has real reservations about this project based upon what is going to happen to the terrain and trees out there, etc. All of this will have to be discussed at a later date. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission does have the power to refuse • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 11 to approve subdivisions on steep grades, unstable soil and floodplains. However, their rights as far as zoning have to do with planning issues such as property relationships, buffering, etc. Shay Lastra recommended that the Planning Commission look at this project and consider that a portion of it is going to be 2/3's in the floodplain according to the current floodplain/flood zone map and a portion of it will be outside the floodplain. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Klingaman asked how one would go about getting an updated floodplain map based on the construction that has taken place in the area. Mr. Bunn noted that it would have to be computed in the 100 year flood with the assumption that all of the upstream properties are fully developed. He added that he isn't sure if there are any updated flood maps available. The engineer for the development would be responsible for developing the information that will be reviewed by the City and possibly the Corp of Engineers. Commissioner Nash stated that discussion had taken place at the Subdivision Committee meeting about possibly leaving the property that is in the floodplain as A-1 and rezoning everything outside the floodplain as R-1. Mr. Gray stated that they will like to be able to reclaim at least some portion of the floodplain. Commissioner Nash noted that she agrees with the staff that this land and the land across the street which is currently A-1 will probably be developed because the town is moving in that direction. She noted that if only a part of the land were rezoned, it would be a safety measure. Commissioner Allred stated that it would be more of a negative impact on the neighborhood not to rezone this to residential because that area is growing and will be developed at some point. The Planning Commission isn't in a position at this time to address building in the floodplain or changing the floodplain. They have been asked to consider rezoning this and they can't deal with any other issues to help the opposition satisfy their problems until it is rezoned. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he agrees the best use for the majority of the property is R-1. However, he doesn't want to see development in the floodplain area and he is afraid that they have to take the worst case scenario that the developers will fill right up to the floodway itself. Therefore, he doesn't feel that he can vote for the motion. The motion to record approval of the rezoning was denied 4-3-0 with Hanna, Allred, Jacks & Nash voting "yes" and Klingaman, Seiff & Cleghorn voting "no". • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 12 NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to deny the rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Klingaman and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman asked if this was denied could they not re -petition for another year. Chairman Jacks stated that if this were denied, then the petitioner could not come back for a rezoning for a year unless they could present new evidence or new information and ask for a rehearing. Commissioner Seiff stated that he is troubled with the flood area boundaries which were based on a assumption that all of the upstream property is developed and the fact that it hasn't been updated for so long. Therefore, he doesn't feel that they have an accurate floodplain to go by. Also, he feels that as Planning Commissioners, they have a right to deny this so that they don't have to get to the development stage because he feels that the best use for this land is just the way it is. The motion to deny didn't pass. The vote was 3-4-0 with Klingaman, Seiff & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Hanna, Allred, Jacks & Nash voting "no". • Commissioner Nash asked if they could vote to rezone a part of this property without rezoning the total property. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. • Commissioner Allred stated that he would like a clarification as to whether there is an ordinance on the books in regards to building in floodways which regulates develop in these areas. Mr. Gray advised that there is a "flood ordinance" which is specifically for controlling development in the floodplain. It sets out elevations above the 100 year floodplain and establishing these floodway perimeters. Chairman Jacks advised that there was a "flood zone" in the ordinance for years with regulations about how development took place in the "F-1" zone. Then in the late 70's, the federal government got into the act and mapped the area, established the flood areas and set up regulations which the City adopted as flood ordinance. At that time, it was taken out of the zoning ordinance. NOTION Commissioner Nash moved to recommend approval of a rezoning of all the property in this tract that is outside of the 100 year floodplain, seconded by Klingaman and followed by discussion. Chairman Jacks noted that this motion would refer to whatever is ultimately established as that floodplain line that the City Engineer accepts. Commissioner Allred asked if they approve or deny this based upon not wanting development in a floodplain and there are ordinances setting out how development can be done in a floodplain, where does that leave them. Chairman Jacks noted that the motion is to recommend a rezoning of the property outside that line. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 13 Mr. Barger requested that the petitioner resubmit a new proposal for rezoning with the property to be rezoned above the floodplain and exclude the rest of it to make it clear and accurate. The motion passed 7-0-0. Chairman Jacks reiterated that they have sent forth a recommendation to the Board of Directors to rezone to R-1 all of the property above the re-established floodplain. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R89-29 FAITH INVESTMENTS - 6445 WEDINGTON DRIVE The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition #R89- 29 submitted by Faith Investments for property located at 6445 Wedington Drive where the existing "One Stop Convenience Store" is located. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff looked at the overall character of Wedington Drive when doing a report on this. The last thing the staff wants to see is a long commercial strip from the Bypass all the way out to Double Springs Road. However, the City's present Land Use Plan and the proposed year 2010 Land Use Plan do identify several locations on Wedington Drive that would be appropriate for commercial development and this area at the intersection of Double Springs Road and Wedington Drive is one of those areas. The staff recommends that the rezoning petition be approved as requested. The public hearing was opened. Walter Niblock stated that he is representing the petitioner and he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition of this petition. There being no response, the public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to recommend approval of this rezoning petition as requested, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARADISE VIEW ESTATES JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF OLD WIRE The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a preliminary plat of Paradise View Estates submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 14 Tull & Associates for property located west of Crossover and north of Old Wire Road containing 7.58 acres with 19 lots proposed and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this property is west of Highway 265 and east of the Sweetbriar Addition with part of it being adjacent to Paradise Valley Golf Course. He added that there weren't any particular problems identified by the utility companies at Plat Review. He noted that water is located directly on the property and sewer is some distance from the property but can be extended. Even though the property is zoned R-2, the plan is to restrict the development to single-family residential. The subdivision is laid out so that the single street that goes into it can be extended to the north or the south. They are dedicating 50' of right-of-way in both directions for that purpose. It is blocked on to the west by Paradise Valley Subdivision. He advised that the staff recommends that the plat be approved subject to 1) the payment if the required parks fees, 2) the filing of subdivision covenants, 3) subsequent approval of water, sewer, street and drainage plans and 4) sidewalks. Also, he noted that they had asked that the street name be changed to "Eagle Drive", but they will have to find another name because it conflicts with other streets in Fayetteville. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the gas line is a big line or just a residential sized line. Mr. Bunn noted that the gas line is on the east side of Lot 3 in Block 3 and along the west side of Lot 3 in Block 1. He advised that they won't be able to build within the gas line easement. Tom Hopper, representative, stated that it is a 10 3/4" high pressure gas line. Commissioner Nash stated that the Subdivision Committee agreed with Don Bunn findings so the motion was approval of the preliminary plat subject to Subdivision Comments. Everything that had come out in Plat Review had already been changed. Tom Hopper stated that they have decided on the street names "Pecan Drive" and "Par Court" which they have approved through the Water Meter Division and they added the tree line on the plat which was requested at the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned about the high pressure gas line on Lot 3 of Block 1 and he would feel more comfortable if it were on a property line. Mr. Hopper noted that it is a gas company requirement that it be 50' wide. Commissioner Klingaman stated that it is a "let the buyer beware" situation. NOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to Subdivision Committee comments, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Item U1: Chairman Jacks advised that the workshop that had been scheduled for • Planning Commission October 9, 1989 Page 15 October llth has been delayed. He added that he had provided all the Commissioners with a copy of a letter that he had written to John Merrell spelling out concerns that he has about the process so far. John Merrell stated that he has discussed this with the City Manager and he is in agreement with the concerns that Chairman Jacks has raised and he feels that they simply need time to catch their breath. Item 112: Commissioner Cleghorn asked for clarification on whether the Planning Commission can deny or approve something for the reason of "good planning". He asked if they could deny something just because they felt that it wasn't good planning. Chairman Jacks stated that an ordinance is on the books spelling out clearly what can be done in subdivisions and large scale developments so they can't deny develop if it meets the rules and regulations of the these ordinances. As far as zoning, they have to look at land use and the proper relationships in land use. Mr. Merrell next meeting There being recommended that they pose that question to the City Attorney at the no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.