Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Co ission was held on Monday, March 12, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Fred Hanna, Gerald Klingaman, Joe Tarvin and Jett Cato MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINIMS J. David Ozment and Jack Cleghorn John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others The minutes of the regular meeting of the February 26, 1990 were approved as distributed. REHEARING OF REZONING APPEAL R90-1 KRUPA & LYNCH - N OF OLD FARMINGTON, W OF HWY 71 BYPASS The second item on the agenda was a rehearing of rezoning appeal R90-1 submitted by Pete Camfield of Realty World on behalf of Frank & Irene Krupa and Frank & Mary Lynch for property located west of Highway 71 Bypass and north of Old Farmington Road containing 10 acres. Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this item was heard and defeated by the Planning Commission recently by an 8-0-0 vote. It was then appealed to the Board of Directors who had a public hearing and decided to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for the following reasons: 1) the rezoning now specifically pertains to 10 acres instead of the 30 acres and 2) the willingness of the potential buyer to offer a Bill of Assurance stating that if he did not begin construction of the new Biotech facility within a reasonable period of time, the zoning would revert back to the present A-1 zoning. He stated Mr. Camfield sent a memo which pointed out that this is now a rezoning request for 10 acres (the northern most portion of his property). The staff's response is that this is technically not a new proposal, because this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, the agenda session of the Board of Directors and the regular Board meeting. Another item pointed out in the memo is that Biotech would prefer a location on the Bypass with high visibility. The staff has been assured that Biotech would do an environmentally sound construction job and believes they are sincere. One problem the staff has with Za • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 2 this is, for several years, the City has tried to limit this type of commercial growth to intersections and interchanges rather than strip zoning along highways. Therefore, to approve this rezoning would represent somewhat of a policy change by the City. Another problem is, if the northern 10 acres of the tract were rezoned to C-2, the remainder of the 30 acre tract would still be R-2 which would leave a section of R-2 land between two commercially zoned properties. He projected that it would only be a matter of time before a request would come in to rezone the remaining R-2 property to commercial. He advised that the main concern with the offered Bill of Assurance is defining "a reasonable amount of time." A Bill of Assurance such as this would be difficult to enforce. He added that this proposed use would require a conditional use (specifically Use Unit 21) in addition to the C-2 rezoning. He advised that the staff recommends disapproval of the rezoning. Commissioner Springborn asked if this is appropriate as a "rehearing" since it was referred back to the Planning Commission by the Board. Mr. Merrell answered, "yes." He added that he isn't sure if the Planning Commission has the authority to not accept an item that has been referred back to them by the Board of Directors. Pete Camfield, the representative for Krupa and Lynch, stated that he recently heard a speech from a couple of the City Board members to the Real Estate Board including the following comment: "It appears that Fayetteville is becoming a bedroom community for business going to the North." He added that more effort should be made to keep business in Fayetteville. He commented that small business employs 2 out of 3 people in the work force today, and this request would be of dual benefit to Biotech and the City of Fayetteville. He advised that a "reasonable time" determined by the Commissioners would be complied with. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Camfield stated that Biotech had looked at the possibility of locating in the proposed new industrial park but did not want their business in an industrial area. He stated it is his understanding that Biotech is going to locate their building on the back of the 10 acres in order to blend in with the trees and contour of the land. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that the staff had looked at recommending the rezoning of the back part of the 10 acres and leaving the front portion as a buffer. However, the idea was rejected because it didn't seem to serve a good purpose. Mr. Camfield stated that there is very little activity along the corridor of the new expressway in an area that is zoned R-1, R-0 or R-2. And when there is a lack of activity on developers part, there must be a reason for it. He commented that the reason may be that this land isn't zoned for what the developers want to use. He added, if developers put in types of uses that are similar to the Biotech project, it wouldn't be so bad to have it all zoned C-2. Dale Benedict, President of Biotech, stated that the front half of this property • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 3 facing the Bypass is cleared, but the rear half is still wooded. He advised that they have no intention of clearing behind their proposed structure or messing up what lies between the location of the proposed structure and the Bypass. He advised that their business is Health which is very closely associated with environment. It is a high-tech use which would not fit in an industrial area If it were located in an industrial park, it would not receive the exposure they want. Commissioner Allred stated, as he understands it, the proposed industrial park is to be more of a commerce and research park in lieu of an industrial park. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Benedict stated that they would consider 6 months a "reasonable amount of time." In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Benedict stated that their plan is to use the front half for a winding road approaching their development. Therefore, they wouldn't be opposed to rezoning just the back portion as long as they are allowed enough room for their business. Commissioner Tarvin stated that, if all the property was zoned C-2, there wouldn't be anything keeping them from selling the front portion to someone else for development. Mr. Benedict advised that they want the front for visibility so selling the it would defeat their purpose. Commissioner Springborn stated that one of the attractions of the proposed new industrial park is visibility from the Bypass. Mr. Benedict stated that it would be a group of buildings, so moving traffic would have difficulty singling out one particular building. Commissioner Springborn noted that there is a new medical complex being developed on the north side of the City which might serve their purpose. Mr. Benedict advised they looked at this location, but determined that they would not have visibility for the transient traveler as well as the local traffic. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Benedict stated their company is privately owned with no plans to make it public in the near future. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Allred stated that 217 two-bedroom apartments could be placed on that property as it is zoned now. This would have a tremendous impact on the area. He added that the proposed development might have less of an impact. Commissioner Cato noted Mr. Benedict's proposed business is very desirable in that area from an aesthetics standpoint. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve the rezoning contingent on the Bill of Assurance that was offered and that the zoning on this property would revert back to the present zoning, if the required conditional use is not successful. This motion was seconded by Tarvin and followed by discussion. • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Allred asked if the Bill of Assurance would include a provision that nothing will be developed on the front portion of the property. Mr. Merrell stated that it would be in their best interest to submit a Bill of Assurance stipulating the "reasonable amount of time" and others items such as the provision that Commissioner Allred just mentioned. AMENDMENT TO THE NOTION Commissioner Allred amended the motion to include the contingency that nothing be developed on the front part of the property (that it be left as greenspace), seconded by Tarvin and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the big issue is whether they want that entire area to be zoned commercial. Rezoning all of it to commercial would negate the advantage of being isolated on the hilltop, because the adjacent properties could have their businesses built on the hilltops too. He noted that, if this is approved, there would be scant grounds to turn down another rezoning to C-2 in that area. • Chairman Hanna reiterated that a conditional use will have to be obtained for a wholesaling/warehousing business in this location. • Commissioner Springborn stated, if this is rezoned, the probability of preventing the rezoning of and having control over development of that whole corridor is pretty slim. He advised that this is typical spot zoning and should be looked at from a broad standpoint. Commissioner Allred stated there has been several requests for commercial zoning in this area since he has been on the Commission. Subsequently, they need to look into changing the policy of commercial zoning in that area. Chairman Hanna stated that this is an offer of a nice development in this location and he tends to think that apartments would fit between two commercial properties. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the biggest concern is the appearance along the Bypass and, in his opinion, this development would look much better than an apartment complex. There doesn't seem to be a demand for apartments in this area. Chairman Hanna advised that the motion is to approve this rezoning contingent on a Bill of Assurance limiting development to the back of the property and contingent on construction starting within 6 months after their approval. The motion did not pass. The vote was 4-2-0 with Hanna, Allred, Tarvin & Cato voting "yes" and Klingaman & Springborn voting "no". Chairman Hanna advised that five votes of approval are required to pass a rezoning. He noted that this can be appealed to the City Board. • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL. R90-5 JOHNSTON - 1220 N GARLAND ( PART OF THE OAR PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER) The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning appeal R90-5 submitted by Donald Johnston and represented by Richard Osborne. Property is located at 1220 North Garland (part of the Oak Plaza Shopping Center). Request was to rezone from R-0, Residential -Office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, advised that this is a rezoning request of the majority of the property in the Oak Plaza Shopping Center at the intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and North Garland. The staff recommends that the Commission rezone the requested area with the exception of the one lot that fronts on Holly Street. That lot has a single-family house on it that appears to be some sort of home occupation business. A lot of the property surrounding this area is already zoned C-2. There are a couple of pieces that are zoned C-1, including the portion of the shopping center that is not included in this proposal. Basically, the portion that is not included is the Dillon's, the drug store, the laundry and a portion of the parking lot. The staff's feeling is that virtually every shopping center in Fayetteville is zoned C-2, and throughout the country, a C-2 zoning is traditionally for a shopping center which allows for a wide variety of retail services. The staff has no objection to rezoning the whole shopping center to C-2; however, the request.is only for a portion of it. He advised that in the next few months, when the staff is out working on the new zoning maps, he would anticipate that they would look favorably towards a C-2 rezoning of the part of the shopping center that isn't included in this request. He pointed out that, if this were a new construction, they would be required to have a buffer zone along the back side of the shopping center which backs up to the houses that front on Oakland Avenue. But that isn't the case. He reiterated that the staff is recommending the rezoning be approved with the exception of the one small lot that fronts on Holly Street, since it is still basically a residential street. Richard Osborne stated that, when Austin Parrish sold the shopping center, he sold Dillon's the footprint of their store, the land out back which is a driveway, and the parking lot that services Dillon's. Phil Calwell bought the drug store that he still owns. Mr. Pharris kept the laundry. The parking is shared by everyone. He advised that they would be thrilled to have that property rezoned also, but they weren't in a position to request it. Mr. Osborne advised that Mr. Ravellette wants to put in a stereo repair shop in Oak Plaza across from where Ben Franklin used to be and was informed that he wasn't allowed to do repairs in the C-1 zoning, although you can sell new stereos in that zone. He noted that he had suggested they request a rezoning for the all the land they owned in the shopping center while they were at it so that they would be competitive with all the other shopping centers in town. Mr. Ravellette stated that he was amazed when he found out that he couldn't open a stereo repair shop in that location because of a zoning problem. He believes that he would be offering a good service, a benefit to the citizens of the City • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 6 of Fayetteville. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested with the exception of the house on Holly Street which would remain R-0, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-0-0. Mr. Osborne stated that they don't have any problem with the house on Holly Street staying R-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R90-6 CHARLES HEATHCO - NW CORNER OF SYCAMORE & PORTER RD The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning appeal R90-6 submitted by Charles Heathco for property located on the northwest corner of Sycamore & Porter Road containing 6 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this request does pertain to property at the intersection of West Sycamore and Porter Road. Mr. Heathco is requesting a rezoning from A-1 to R-2. He noted that the staff has done some fieldwork, and they agree with Mr. Heathco that this is not really very good agricultural property. Also, they agree that it wouldn't be very good as R-1 property for two reasons: 1) the property in essence backs up to the Bypass with a corner of the property touching the Bypass and 2) it is adjacent to two existing apartment developments. He advised that the staff is also uncomfortable with an R-2 zoning designation for a couple of reasons: 1) one of the existing apartment complexes in that vicinity is the Life Styles Apartment Complex which has a density of about four dwelling units per acre. The other is the Green Mansion Apartments which has a density of about eleven dwelling units per acre. When the rezoning of the Green Mansion Complex property was brought through, there was a certain amount of controversy about it and ultimately a Bill of Assurance was offered to limit that particular development to 27 apartment units. He advised that this is a situation where there are two existing apartment complexes virtually adjacent to this particular piece of property which are both zoned R-2. However, they both were developed to a density which is more in line with R-1.5. He advised that the Land Use Plan designation for this property is Medium Density Residential which translates either into R-1.5 or R-2 zoning with the question of what particular piece of property is being considered. He stated that the staff is also concerned about the traffic situation in that area. There have been nineteen traffic accidents over the last two-year period on the section of Porter Road from the Bypass to Wedington with six of those at the intersection of Deane & Porter. The staff doesn't consider the intersection of Deane & Porter to be very well designed and feel that it is somewhat hazardous. The staff recommends that an R-1.5 be approved instead of an R-2 zoning. This • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 7 would still allow Mr. Heathco to develop that property at a higher density than he would be allowed under R-1 but not quite the large scale density that could be put in there under R-2 zoning. Charles Heathco of 2525 West Sycamore stated that he asked the staff to take a look at the area and tell him what he ought to do with it before he submitted his application. Originally, they thought he ought to go for R-1 which he didn't understand with apartments all around and the Bypass so close. He commented that "medium density residential" means R-2 to him not R-1.5, which is "moderate density residential". He stated that he was shocked to find that when the Plan called for "medium density", that wasn't what the staff wanted. Mr. Heathco advised that as far as density, he isn't looking for apartments. However, he needs the density in order to get usage of his property because he doesn't have a 1,280' x 103' deep piece of property. He noted that he loses 40' to 50' to easements with the main water line running right through the front of this property and the sewer along one edge and down through the rest of the property. With R-1.5, under his current plan, the most he could put in would be 6 families per acre which is only half of what is allowed in R-2. Mr. Heathco advised that Porter Road is a "collector" street and he agrees that the intersection is dangerous. However, he did a traffic count from 7 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. one morning and there were 287 cars on Deane Street and 167 on Porter Road. He noted anything that came off of Deane, but didn't count on Porter. Therefore, there is traffic coming from all over the City and out in the woods which wouldn't have anything to do with what he might build on his 6 acres Mr. Heathco agreed the Lifestyles development is very sparse, but they have only used half of their property. There isn't anything to keep them from putting maximum density on the other half (approximately 1 1/2 acres). He noted that there is almost 6 acres of R-2 behind the residential houses on Porter Road so they could max that out if they want to. Also, the Bypass is so noisy, he has to consider what he would be able to sell in that location. He reiterated that he does not want to develop apartments, but he needs R-2 to have the density for a development similar to the one at the corner of Sycamore and Garland (Garland Terraces). He added that he feels R-2 is perfectly in line with the Planning Commission's usage for that land out there. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Heathco stated that he would only need a density of 12 families per acre. Commissioner Allred stated that if they rezone this to R-2, there would be a potential for 24 families per acre. Mr. Heathco stated that he would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that he would only develop 12 families per acre. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Heathco stated that a unit would be per individual housing unit (family) and not a duplex. There being no one else wanting to speak, discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 8 Commissioner Springborn noted that he has no problem with the number of units the applicant is requesting if he is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the rezoning as requested subject to a Bill of Assurance limiting development to no more than 12 family units per acre, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-0-0. DISCUSSION OF SALEM ROAD CONNECTION VIS-A-VIS MT. COMFORT AIR PARK The fifth item on the agenda was discussion of the Salem Road connection between Mt. Comfort Road and Wedington Drive which might cross the proposed Mt. Comfort Air Park property. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, informed them that the Planning Commission, at their August 26, 1985 meeting, discussed the possibility of constructing Salem Road. It was discussed as a "collector" street between Wedington Drive and Mt. Comfort Road. Then, it was discussed at the City Board meeting of September 3, 1985 whereupon the Board voted 5-2 to recommend that the extension of Salem Road be considered as a "collector" street. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff has some concerns about this because the_.Board's intent is unclear as to where they wanted the street to be located. He added that, if the Board meant for it to be constructed straight through between Mt. Comfort Road and Wedington Drive, it would cut through the middle of this subdivision. There are several different options including the possibility of Rupple Road being used as the connecter between those two arterial streets He advised that the staff's opinion is that it should be taken back to the Board for verification on whether this is still the policy they want to approve. He advised that Don Bunn (City Engineer) and Perry Franklin (Traffic Superintendent) have gone out to look at the area. As the staff sees it, the issues are whether or not the road should be straight or an "S" curve to deal with the topography, this proposed development, and whether or not Rupple Road should be used as the connection. Larry Wood, of Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning, stated that he didn't believe the Planning Commission, in 1985, had any preconceived idea of how that road should be designed in terms of configuration. He added that their point was that it should tie on the north to Salem Road and tie on the south to Highway 16 West. He commented that, when Walnut Grove Subdivision was developed north, of Highway 16 West, the south end of this street was tied down. Consequently, approximately half of that road is in place as a "collector" street. He noted that as far as Rupple Road is concerned, the Technical Advisory Committee that has been looking at the Fayetteville Master Street Plan has been looking at Rupple Road as a possible "minor arterial." Therefore, this proposed road is a good spacing for a "collector" street. Chairman Hanna stated that, as he recalls, the Planning Commission were more concerned with connecting Mt. Comfort Road and Wedington than they were with • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 9 extending Salem Road in a straight line. Mr. Wood stated that he had gotten the impression that they wanted to tie Salem Road for continuous movement. Although, in planning terms, it is better to offset a collector at arterials. Debbie Steinburg stated that she is representing the community surrounding this project in reference to the Salem Road extension. In response from a request from her, all the people present who were interested in this development stood that consisted of most of the audience. She stated that their community feels there is a necessity of completing the Salem Road project regardless of whether the air park is developed. They are concerned about benefits to the entire community and not just to a single developer. She commented that the community would like to know when they can expect the Salem Road project to begin and how it would be financed. They are concerned the influx of traffic that development of the air park would bring and, given this, the possibility that Salem Road should be completed prior to the air park development. People in the community were also concerned that the poor visibility at the intersection of Salem and Mt. Comfort Roads warrants a flashing yellow caution light. They were concerned about how construction of a public road on private property would be financed. Chairman Hanna stated that it is unclear to him what the Planning Commission is being asked to do in.regard to the Salem Road issue. Mr. Merrell advised that, if their is a consensus from the Planning Commission, the -staff will submit the item to the Board of Directors to review with the Planning Commission comments and suggestions regarding what they perceive as a possible alternative for the street location. Commissioner Tarvin commented that Mr. Wood had stated it was sometimes best for "collector" streets not to be straight particularly through major intersections. With that in mind, and with the map in the agenda showing a curve projected with a change in east/west alignment of the proposed Salem Road, it might be better to leave Salem Road where it is on the portion south of the creek and go north from that point with a jog to an intersection with Mt. Comfort Road. In this way, the proposed air park wouldn't be eliminated. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to recommend to the City Board that Salem Road remain designated as a "collector" street and that the alignment be flexible to conform with development that occurs prior to the actual construction of the road but not allow development to occur that would preclude it, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 6-0-0. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR MT. COMFORT AIR PARK The sixth item on the agenda would be required for the Mt. Mr. Merrell stated that most was discussion to determine if a. conditional use Comfort Air Park development. of the property in this area is zoned R-1 and an • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 10 air strip is a non -conforming use under the zoning ordinance. The staff feels that, if this development were to be successful, it would increase the air traffic which in turn would amount to an increase in the non -conforming use. However, Mr. Vizzier, who is the Planning Consultant on this project, and Dr. Harris, who is developing the property, disagree with this. Therefore, the staff decided to bring this before the Planning Commission for their input. The staff feels that the possible increase in air traffic at this location would constitute an increase in non -conforming use. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is also concerned about whether or not this is safe in terms of aviation safety. In the agenda packet, there is a letter from the FAA that touches on the issue of aviation in that area, but it doesn't necessarily go into all the various aviation safety aspects. He added that the staff recognizes that this is an innovative proposal, but they feel it should be handled very carefully. Commissioner Springborn stated that the FAA notes that they are speaking only to air space and makes a particular point of having no control over subsequent development in this area regarding obstacles to safety. For example, the possibility of the proposed industrial park being developed near this area with pipes extending up into the air. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff would like clarification from the FAA about their concerns. He advised that, in the second paragraph of their letter, it states that this determination should not be construed to mean FAA approval of the physical development involved in the proposal nor is it approval of its effect on the environment. It is only a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of the air space by aircraft. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Merrell stated that this is on the agenda as a discussion item. Therefore, it can not be considered as an approval of a conditional use at this meeting because the proper advertisement and notification hasn't been done. The staff feels that it is important for the Planning Commission to discuss it. Commissioner Allred stated that the proposed Land Use Plan designates that whole northwest part of the City as an area for potential future growth. He asked if the staff had an opportunity to see what type of impact a development such as this would have on the new Land Use Plan. Mr. Merrell commented that the proposed New Plan states that, over the next 20 years, they envision a lot of westward growth so there is a pattern set up. Another comment is that the City might think of joining with other municipalities and governments in the area for a regional airport. He advised that a lot of this area to the west of the city is designated as R-1, Low Density Residential. Chairman Hanna clarified that this is a non -conforming use in existence. He asked if the staff feels that this would need a further conditional use. Mr. Merrell stated that there is a section in the zoning ordinance that stipulates, in certain cases, a conditional use is required to increase the intensity of an existing non -conforming use. Given that, the potential increase in air traffic • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 11 extends the non conforming use. James Vizzier, representative for the Air Park, stated that the basis of his disagreement with the staff on this issue is that a non -conforming use is something that exists before the ordinance takes affect that would be non- conforming to the zone after it takes affect. He added that his area is R-1 and, within this zone, an air strip is allowed on conditional use if it is new construction. He advised that they aren't asking for a new air strip. Therefore, it could conceivably be a conforming use under the ordinance. Given that, they feel that a conditional use is not required. Donald Hart, who lives at an airstrip in Wedington Woods, stated that he has been to many of these fly -in airstrips all over the country and they seem to have no problems. Debbie Steinburg stated that she had spoken with the Fayetteville airport, the tower superintendent in Fayetteville, FAA in Little Rock, accident prevention and the regional office in Fort Worth. To her understanding, all FAA has approved is the airspace for the safety of the pilots. They take no responsibility nor do they make any recommendations at ground level. She noted that the Accident Prevention Department informed them they could protect themselves by obtaining a copy of flight standards, rules & regulations and, as a community, observe the plane traffic and watch for -infractions. Then, officially turn in the infractions and wait for a hearing after which they would do an investigation Other than that, there will be no official policing in a private air park. She added that they aren't objecting to pilots, they are objecting to the increase in the number of airplanes buzzing above their homes. She added that, according to the ordinance, an application for a conditional use would be in order. She reiterated that the neighborhood's concern is that of community safety. The existing Younkin private airstrip is approximately three miles to the east and the Wedington Woods private airstrip is approximately three miles to the west. Therefore, if this use is permitted, who but other private aircraft owners would want to move into their community with an air park with individual hangars visible. Dr. Floyd Harris stated that the traffic will not be that severe and will not be a commercial type operation. Most of the people that live there will have their hangars connected to the house. He noted that the approach path is east/west and not over any houses. He added that the FAA allows flight in any rural area at 500' unless you are on the approach. He added that this will be a nice development with covenants ruling the architectural design. The air strip is not big enough to accommodate large aircraft. Shirley Marc of 3504 Mt. Comfort Road stated that, if the approach is east/west, why do the planes fly directly over her home. Dr. Harris advised that if they circle over her house, he is sure they are above 500'. Bennie Harris of 3173 Mt. Comfort Road stated that the majority of time, the Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 12 planes go right over his house lower than 500'. Rick McKinney, who lives on Olive Street, stated that he has been a pilot for about 16 years. He commented, regarding the letter from FAA, it seems that there is concern about possible industrial development to the east of this proposed air park as far as smoke stacks and such that might be obstructions to the airplanes. He advised that the existing Younkin air strip didn't seem to stop development from taking place near there. He added that aircraft is a part of life today and people can't live in a community like Fayetteville without having some sort of aircraft or mode of transportation that makes noise around. Karen Rollet, who is a landscape architect, stated that she worked on the plan for this. She noted that it is bounded on one side by Mt. Comfort Road, which is 800' away from the airstrip, and on another side by a hill that is covered with sound -absorbing trees. To the east and west are fields and stream beds. Therefore, the grass runway sits in a protected coordinator. She added that the proposed layout will ensure that none of the hangars will be up front. The' Architectural Control Committee that will be set up by the covenants will make sure that the style of the hangars will fit in with the houses. Also, the lots themselves are large enough, so the hangars will have minimum visibility from Mt. Comfort Road. John Dockery, who has property adjoining this on the east. side, stated that he is concerned about the affect this proposed development iiould have on future plans to develop his property. He added that this would devalue any development he might wish to do on his property. Wylie Parker stated that he has been involved in aviation for a little over 30 years and is currently a general partner of AeroTech in Fayetteville. He commented that there seems to be a misconception as to what this air park will look like. He stated that he has been in many air parks around the country and they are aesthetically pleasing and wouldn't detract from values of land. He stated that he thinks this is a worthwhile project. Joe Terminella, who has been flying for 16 years, stated that in his opinion the air park would be a wonderful asset to the community. Wilson Kimbrough, of 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, issue. However, when a beautiful pastoral of a large number of planes landing in and nerves. He urged the Commission, if they inspection of this development. stated that this is not a personal scene is changed to the potential out of that area, it jangles the hadn't done so, to do an on-site Howard Sanders, who has been an aviator for 15 years and recently moved from Alaska, stated that 24 lots is a very minimal number of airplanes when you come from an area where air travel is a way of life. He added that most of these flyers would be Sunday flyers, and the kinds of planes they would have wouldn't create that much noise. • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 13 Aileen Kimbrough, of 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, stated that Mt. Comfort is a historical community in this section of Fayetteville. This community is growing due to many young families moving in. She stated that she was absolutely desolated when she heard that their community was about to harassed by airplanes. She added that she had no objections to 25 new homes but was opposed to the airplanes. Debbie Steinburg stated that there are no houses in the flight pattern to date. She added that the safety issue seems to have been overcome by the appearance of the development. She stated that, with all due respect to those involved in the extensive planning of this project, their concerns are of community safety and how the development of this project will affect not only the adjacent land owners but also the surrounding community. She asked how the proposed annexation will affect the property owners who already reside within the proposed area of annexation. Also, what will be done about utilities, streets, sidewalks and fire hydrants either in need of improvement or installation. They are concerned about what costs the community will have to absorb, the noise, the glare and the safety for both the pilots and the community. They have no assurance that the pilots will fly with regard for community safety. Shirley Marc, of 3504 Mt. Comfort Road, stated that even if humans don't consciously hear the airplanes after a while, their bodies are still affected. She noted that she is concerned about the existing traffic_problem on Mt. Comfort Road. She added that this is a residential community, -and she doesn't object to the addition of more homes. Gary DeVun, of 3009 Loxley, stated that he isn't a pilot, but he has been a passenger in airplanes with many private pilots. There is a lot of concern about the safety, but pilots are very concerned about safety as well. He added that the air park would be very good for this area. Bennie Harris, of 3173 Mt airplanes flying over his in the air, they are safe. been a lot of crashes. . Comfort, stated that he doesn't look forward to 25 place. He added that he believes, when pilots are But, when they are landing and taking off, there have Commissioner Springborn stated that he tends to agree that the nature of this proposal is creating enough change to justify conditional use requirement. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to require a conditional use for this proposed air park, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-0-0. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Commissioner Springborn stated it is his understanding that, if they require a conditional use, it does not preclude with the avenue of appeal being open to the owners. • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MT. COMFORT AIR PARR FLOYD HARRIS - S OF MT. COMFORT RD, E OF RUPPLE RD The seventh item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Mt. Comfort Air Park submitted by Floyd Harris and represented by James Vizzier, Planning Consultants. The property, which contains 70 acres, is located on the southeast corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Rupple Road with a portion of it located outside the city limits and a portion of it zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. There are 27 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that he didn't do a report on this one. Commissioner Tarvin advised that the Subdivision Committee did meet on this and basically weren't able to work out the details that the staff had concern for. He stated that there were two conditions: 1) that this be considered a tandem lot development and 2) the street light poles be lower than the normal height ( about mailbox height) so that air planes wings wouldn't hit the light poles. Mr. Vizzier stated that this is a unique subdivision in which there would be common property with each owner being a part owner of the air strip, taxiways, driveways and any common property. He advised that the lots will be about 1 1/2 acres in size and there will be an Architectural Control Committee who will handle the restrictive covenants. He added that they had worked out most of the utility problems with the Plat Review Committee, Subdivision Committee and the staff. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Vizzier stated that automobiles will drive off of Mt. Comfort Road on the taxiways. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Vizzier stated that the landing strip isn't paved and there are no plans to pave it at this time. He advised that sidewalks would be required along Mt. Comfort and Rupple Roads as well as along the deadend street coming east off Rupple Road. He added that the City will require Dr. Harris to contribute to the improvement of Mt. Comfort and Rupple Roads. Commissioner Klingaman asked why improvements would not be required in the development itself. Mr. Bunn advised that other than the street that comes off of Rupple Road, there isn't any public streets within the development. Commissioner Allred stated that he is concerned that they are going too fast with this project and overlooking the concerns of the neighborhood. He added that he would like to approach this as a concept, and he isn't sure that he is ready to vote on it. This development could enhance the area, but if it isn't done correctly, it could be a detriment to the area. Commissioner Springborn stated that, at is going to require Salem Road to be a be at a position to be proceeding with this point, they don't know if the Board straight road. Therefore, they may not this. Chairman Hanna stated that he isn't familiar with aviation and airstrips, but the noise and safety factors of the neighbors needs to be considered. He added J� Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 15 that he isn't prepared to vote on this at this point. Mr. Vizzier stated that he followed the FAA regulations as far as setbacks, etc, in planning for this. He added that this will be shown on the FAA charts as a private airport and not open to public passing by. He commented that most of the approaches, taking off and landing, are over the creek beds. He noted that they might want to look more carefully at the covenants which would be enforced by the Architectural Control Committee, not the City. MOTION Commissioner Allred movedto table this preliminary plat until the staff can review the impact of this proposed development on the surrounding neighbors and report back to them, seconded by Springborn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn stated that the concept really appeals to him, but he is concerned about the affect on the neighborhood. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Merrell stated that he isn't sure how soon the staff could have a report back to them. He added that he thought they could get it back by the first meeting in April. Commissioner Klingaman noted that he would like to have the number of takeoffs and landings that could be expected on weekdays and weekends from similar sized air parks. Chairman Hanna stated that he would like to know how many airplanes use the airport in Wedington Woods. AmgrammT TO MOTION Commissioner Allred amended his motion to state that this would be tabled until the first regular meeting in April, seconded by Springborn. In answer to a question from a member of the audience, Chairman Hanna stated that they will hear this on April 9th and it will be advertised in the newspaper. A member of the audience stated that they were notified by letter, but it didn't say anything about an air park. The motion passed 6-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION LARRY ROBBINS - W OF STONEBRIDGE RD, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD The eighth item on the agenda was the preliminary plat of Stonebridge Subdivision submitted by Larry Robbins and represented by Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen & Associates Property is located on the west side of Stonebridge Road and north of Huntsville Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 4.7 acres with 11 proposed lots. ql • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 16 Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this property is located west of Stonebridge Road between Wyman Road and Huntsville Road. He noted that there is one cul- de-sac street in the proposed development, which is 465' in length. He advised that this property was originally owned by Forrest Drake. Mr. Drake obtained two lot splits in April of 1989, which were situated so that they actually constitute, for all practical purposes, lots within this subdivision, although they aren't platted as part of the subdivision. One of the conditions relating to those lot splits was that any subsequent development of this property would include off-site improvements along the frontage of those two lots. He noted that there weren't any significant comments by any of the utilities in connection with the subdivision. It is the recommendation of the staff that this preliminary plat be approved subject to: 1) Plat Review comments, 2) Subdivision Committee comments, 3) subsequent approval of the water, sewer, street and drainage plans, 4) payment of the required parks fees, and 5) a bond for improvements to Stonebridge Road across the entire frontage of the original property. Mr. Bunn advised that the requirement for a bond is something different that is requested in the place of a Bill of Assurance for those improvements. A bond will actually be obtained in an amount equal to the estimated value of the improvements. Then, if Stonebridge Road has not been improved in five years, there will be a review of whether or not a bond is needed.. It is possible, at that point, that the bond requirement would be dropped•or carried forward for another period of time. Commissioner Tarvin, Subdivision Committee Chairman, stated that they agree with the City Engineer's report. NOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the conditions set forth by the City Engineer, seconded by Springborn. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn stated that the 50' strip of frontage between the two lots splits done earlier would be included in the improvements. The off-site improvements would be required all the way across the full length of the frontage on Stonebridge Road. Chairman Hanna advised that those first two lots are not included in the subdivision, but off- site improvements along their frontage was a condition of the lot split approval. Dave Jorgensen stated that they were referring to the two lots at the northeast part of the subdivision and the southeast part of the subdivision along Stonebridge Road. He added that he agrees with all the conditions but doesn't know if the developer agrees with the bond requirement. He added that, once the City Engineer comes up with an amount of the bond, he will present it to the developer. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that Mr. Drake had • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 17 intended to develop this subdivision himself, and he requested those two lot splits so that he could develop the rest of the property. At that time, rather than let him do two lot splits and a subsequent subdivision without doing any off-site improvements, the lot splits were conditioned on requiring off-site improvements to Stonebridge Road for that entire length. He noted that the staff felt like they needed something better than a Bill of Assurance because of enforcement problems and the fact that a Bill of Assurance places a lien on the lots within the development. In many cases, the City might be looking at confiscating several lots within a subdivision in order to complete off-site improvements. The bond requirement is an attempt to bind the developer rather than the property within the subdivision. The motion passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CARMEN LIRELY - NE CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR & PORTER RD The ninth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split 111 submitted by Carmen Lirely for property located on the northeast corner of Wedington Drive and Porter Road. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 1.2 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the tract is 1.2 acres and the request is to divide it into one .5 acre lot and one .7 acre lot:''- He advised that there is a house on one of the tracts now. The staff recommends approval of the lot split subject to: 1) payment of required parks fees, 2) a dedication of an additional 10' of right-of-way along Porter Road, 3) construction of a sidewalk on Porter Road in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan, 4) a Bill of Assurance on the sidewalk on Wedington Drive and 5) cooperation with any other utility companies in providing easements that might be required for service of these lots. Carmen Lirely stated that he is representing Lirely Trust that owns this property. He added that the restrictions that the staff has put on this makes this lot split almost prohibited. He added that he had one lot to start with which had no requirements. Now they want a sidewalk put in, him to pay for a park project, and for him to donate land the full length of the property. He noted that this seems like double taxation to him. He stated that he would like to make a recommendation that the staff reports be mailed out to the applicants before Saturday afternoon so that they would have time to check into what costs would be. He noted that the information given to him by the Planning Office stated that a lot split would cost $15.00 for the application, $105.00 for the parks fee, the cost of a survey, and the cost of having an abstract prepared. These conditions make the costs substantially higher. Mr. Merrell stated that the fees Mr. Lirely just mentioned are lower in this city than any other city he has ever dealt with. Mr. Lirely stated that he doesn't live in any other city; he chose to live here. Mr. Bunn advised that to be consistent, instead of a Bill of Assurance as he 3(° • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 18 noted earlier, they would have to require a bond for construction of a sidewalk along Wedington Drive. Carolyn Schmidt stated that she is handling the property in a real estate deal. She noted that they priced the property contingent on the lot split costs being no more than the total of the city costs. The fees, plus the cost of constructing the sidewalk and dedicating more land really changes the situation considerably and presents a problem in marketing properties for citizens. She added that there aren't any sidewalks existing in this area. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that it is required on the Master Sidewalk Plan. He added that he doesn't know if there is any chance of the City building a sidewalk along Wedington Drive. It would be answered, when the Highway Department decides to improve Wedington. Mr. Merrell advised one reason the City has a Master Sidewalk Plan is to provide for sidewalks as the city grows and develops. The Commission has discussed sidewalks in several meetings recently, and the staff is under very heavy pressure from a lot of citizens to do something about the several different kinds of sidewalk problems in this City. He noted that requiring the installation of a sidewalk would be a fairly routine thing in another City with this kind of application, but there seems to be a certain segment of opinion in Fayetteville that this city doesn't need sidewalks. He consented.that Wedington Drive is a collector street with an elementary school and a -park'.', -He advised that citizens, who live on this street, have contacted the City regarding whether the Community Development Program could construct sidewalks there. That proposal had to be rejected, however, because the Community Development Program is primarily for low and moderate income people. In the staff's opinion, sidewalks are important, and a staff committee has been created to study the sidewalk issue. This committee will have a report for the Commission and the Board of Directors at some point later this year. Commissioner Allred stated that there could be a formula to collect for money for sidewalks to be put into an interest bearing account until a sidewalk is needed. At that time, the City would install the sidewalk. Mr. Merrell stated this is the kind of issue that the staff committee will be studying. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he feels sidewalks are a very big asset to a community, but the problem with this case is there isn't any development taking place. It is only a tract of land being split into two lots. He commented that he doesn't see the fairness of making someone pay for a sidewalk that will be used by a lot of other people not having to contribute. A sidewalk improvement program needs to be developed that would cover a lot of areas based on some sort of revenue to finance it. In this way, the sidewalks wouldn't be piece-mealed together. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Bunn advised that there is 40' of right-of-way at that point. He added that they have required additional right-of-way on Wedington Drive prior to this in areas where lot • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 19 splits or development has taken place. Commissioner Tarvin stated that, if Porter Road were to be improved, right-of- way would then be acquired. NOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the lot split without any of the conditions set by the staff. Commissioner Springborn stated, in his opinion, this would be setting a precedent that he wouldn't like to see set in Fayetteville. He added that there have been a number of situations previously, and the Planning Commission has only waived these requirements in one instance. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's preference is for the motion to include the recommended conditions. However, the Commission has the authority to approve this lot split without the conditions with the exception of the parks fee requirement, which is required by ordinance. • AMENDMENT TO THE NOTION Commissioner Tarvin amended his motion to include the payment of the required parks fee as a condition of approval, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 4- 2-0 with Hanna, Allred, Tarvin & Cato voting "yes" and Klingaman h Springborn voting "no". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #3 RANDALL GARRISON - N OF WEDINGTON DRIVE & W OF RUPPLE RD The tenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split /13 submitted by Randall Garrison for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road and zoned A-1, Agricultural. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that the original property contained approximately 90 acres. In 1983, the first split was obtained for a 3 acre tract at the northwest intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. Later a 20 acre tract was split administratively. The property that is proposed to be split off, at this time, is about 3.87 acres. All utilities are available to the site. The staff recommends approval of the third split subject to: 1) payment of the required parks fee and 2) cooperation with the other utility companies to provide whatever easements necessary to serve the property. Mr. Bunn advised that one of the reasons the staff has been requiring cooperation with the other utilities companies to provide easements is to serve the property as a condition on lot splits is that the utilities have had problems in serving the properties in the past. This provides some leverage for the other utilities in obtaining easements to serve the subject property. ��l • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 20 Chairman Hanna stated that he received a call from the neighbor across the road who had been told there was going to a commercial development on this property. Mr. Bunn noted that it would have to be rezoned before it could be developed as commercial. Randall Garrison was not present at the meeting. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to the staff comments, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Hanna, Allred, Springborn, Tarvin & Cato voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no". DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONER SPRINGBORN'S NOTION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING FOUR POINTS CONCERNING APPEALS OF DENIED REZONING PETITIONS: a) Advise of the right to appeal the self -same application to the City Board of Directors. b) Advise of a now option to reduce the scope of the application to a smaller area and/or a less permissive zoning. c) Advise of the same right as the now option by-way-ofa new hearing. d) Advise of a right of applicant or any affected party to appear and request a rehearing of the self -same application based on new, relevant information. Chairman Hanna noted that this isn't anything new, it is just clarification. Commissioner Springborn stated that they always advise a rezoning petitioner, when a rezoning appeal is denied, of their right to appeal to the Board. However, that seems to leave confusion in some cases. To alleviate any confusion, they could advise the petitioner at the meeting of these four points. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, advised that the staff has looked at these four points and doesn't have any problem with them. The first two points could be stated by the Chairman at the meeting after the vote is taken. He noted that the Planning Secretary has started sending correspondence to the individuals after the Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, the staff could advise the petitioners of the last two points in that correspondence. Chairman Hanna stated that it may not be advisable in all cases to advise the petitioner that, upon a denial, he could change his request to a smaller tract of land. He noted that this would invite them to ask for a vote on three or four different requests at the same meeting. He added that they do have the right to come back with different requests but handling it at the same meeting • • • Planning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 21 isn't always advisable. Commissioner Allred stated some applicants might ask for the moon then after the Planning Commission votes on it a half a dozen times, settle on something less. For example, they may first ask for a rezoning of 30 acres, when in essence, they may only want one acre rezoned. Commissioner Springborn withdrew his motion. Mr. Merrell stated that Commissioner Allred has a good point; there is the potential for abuse The staff could handle it by getting in touch with the person and informing them of their rights. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.