Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-09 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 9, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J.H. Springborn, Fred Hanna, Gerald Klingaman, Jack ClOkbAcn, J David Ozment and Jett Cato MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin ' OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 1990 were approved as distributed. MT COMFORT AIR PARK John Merrell, Planning Management Director, announced that the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission's consideration of the conditional use request and the preliminary plat of Mt. Comfort Air Park (items 12 & 13 on the agenda) be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting. He advised that this project has been one of the more complex items to come before the Planning Commission. He noted that the staff was unable to attend the demonstration at the property last week, but they did travel to Oklahoma to look at an air park development. He stated that the staff is trying to accumulate as much information on this request as possible. He advised that it has come to the staff's attention that one of the neighboring property owners has alleged that Dr. Harris failed to notify certain surrounding property owners of this meeting. He apologized for any inconvenience that this postponement might cause, but noted that they should not move hastily on this item. Chairman Hanna advised that the staff is still concerned about the safety factor, and they are trying to accumulate more information concerning this aspect. In view of the fact that the staff isn't prepared to give a recommendation at this time, the Planning Commission wouldn't feel comfortable voting on it at this meeting. He noted that the item was tabled at the last meeting and would be left on the table, if that was the consensus of the Commission. Commissioner Springborn advised that he would be reluctant to move forward on these items without a recommendation from the staff. He noted that the Planning Commission doesn't have background and experience in dealing with air park Li; • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 2 proposals. He would like to see all of the facets to this checked into before they make a decision. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table the conditional use request and the preliminary plat for Mt. Comfort Air Park (items 12 & 13 on the agenda) until the next meeting (April 23). This was followed by discussion. A member of the audience asked if this postponement was for the convenience of Dr. Harris. He advised that several people had taken off work to come to this meeting for the second time, and he doesn't think it is fair. Chairman Hanna noted that the staff had originally suggested that they have the public hearing at this meeting but delay the vote, until the staff could get all the information needed concerning the safety. But some of the commissioners felt that they would not want to do that. Responding to questions from Commissioners Springborn & Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell advised that there would be time for proper notification and for the staff to get the information they need before the next meeting. The motion to table was seconded by Commissioner Cleghorn and passed 6-0-0 with Ozment being late to the meeting. Chairman Hanna apologized for any inconvenience this might have caused. He reiterated that the public hearing and the vote on these items will take place at the next meeting. A member of the audience stated that the people in the neighborhood are prepared and will be very long-suffering with the Planning Commission in this matter. REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF REZONING PETITION R89-35 CAROLINE PARSONS - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR & GARLAND AVE The second item on the agenda was a request for a rehearing of the rezoning petition #R89-35 submitted by Caroline Parsons for property located on the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland Avenue containing 4.17 acres. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Chairman Hanna advised that this is a request for a rehearing of the rezoning petition that was denied in December of 1989. According to the rules of the ordinance and the Planning Commission, a denied request can't be reviewed again until after the twelve-month period unless new information is submitted that might have affected the original decision. He noted that the Planning Commission will vote on the rehearing request after hearing the new information. He advised that there will not be a public hearing on this rezoning petition at this meeting. Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 3 Danny Wright, representative of the petitioner, stated that Caroline Parsons is the Trustee of the Hathcock Trust. This trust was established by her father and mother years ago, who originally acquired the property in the early '50's. He stated that the owner of Fuzzy's Restaurant, John Hopkins, contracted to buy the property last year. Mr. Hopkins then brought the rezoning petition to the Planning Commission, and it was denied. However, some of Mrs. Parsons' concerns were not brought to the attention of the Commission at the time. For instance, the owner's development plans for this tract of land were not made known to the Commission. Mr. Wright submitted a plat to some of the Commissioners regarding that proposed development. He advised that the most notable opposition at the meeting in December was the residents and owners of the property on Hall Street, which lies immediately west of the subject property. The other objections were voiced by Winston Simpson on behalf of the school district. His concern was for the safety of the school children who transverse the area. There is a problem on the north end with an area of water runoff that the school district has funneled down into large collector pipes that dump onto the subject property. He advised that they would like for the school district to correct the dumping of the water on the subject property in exchange for some land to be used as a roadway. This land would allow them to construct and operate a loading/unloading area for the students, which would help alleviate the traffic problem. Additionally, there is a dedicated alley on the west side of the subject property. He noted that the map in the agenda packet shows the property as five R-1 lots, which is quite different from the way the'owner would like to have it developed. In consideration of the people who own property on Hall Street, the owners of this property would propose that a permanent greenspace of at least 20' in width be erected and maintained on the west side of their property immediately east of this dedicated alley. Mr. Wright advised that these considerations were not even mentioned at the hearing in December, and this is the basis of their rehearing request. The property is obviously not very suitable for R-1 development. The location of the property seems to indicate that the original request was not totally unreasonable, although it was more broad than the owners purposes of the property. He added that they understand that they must present the same request as was originally submitted, according to the rehearing procedures. They do feel that a rehearing is in order with this case. Margie Moldenhauer stated that Mr. Simpson had reviewed the owners proposed plat and commented that he wasn't really opposed to the rezoning. His concerns were with the children walking to school and the potential for a worse traffic problem She stated that Mr. Simpson had commented that this proposed plat with land given to the school for a roadway was even better than the current situation. Also, the children could walk down the alley instead of walking around the corner making it much safer. Commissioner Allred stated that, if this rehearing were granted, he would like Mr. Simpson to give his views either in person or in writing. Mr. Wright stated that there shouldn't be a problem with that. Mr. Wright advised that the contract with Fuzzy's is expired. In answer to a • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 4 question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Wright stated that they are requesting this petition be reheard as a rezoning of the entire property to C-1, because that was the original request. However, their feeling is that C-1 is more appropriate on the corner and R-0 is more appropriate for remainder. Chairman Hanna advised that they could submit a new request for a less intensive zone on the entire property. A member of the audience stated that he objects to this arrangement simply because the east side of Garland Avenue is a residential area, and he lives there. Chairman Hanna advised that the Commission will only be voting on the request to rehear at this meeting. He added that, if a rehearing is granted, there will be a public hearing later. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, noted that Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "No application for zoning amendments will be considered by the Planning Commission within twelve months from the day of the final disapproval of a proposed amendment unless there is evidence submitted to the Planning Commission which justifies reconsideration." Therefore, the Planning Commission has the power to decide on the rehearing. He added that the question is whether there has been enough evidence presented to justify a rehearing. Commissioner Springborn stated that this was brought-ih 'as a rehearing of the request for C-1 for the entire property but that doesn't seem to be the owner's preference. Mr. Wright stated that they wouldn't refuse a C-1 zoning of the entire tract. But, as a very practical matter, Mrs. Parsons was concerned that her projections for the utilization and dedication of part of this property weren't made known at the earlier hearing. She felt this would have addressed some of the concerns of the neighbors and Mr. Simpson. He added that, as he understands it, they have to come back with the same request. Commissioner Springborn stated that, according to the rules, a petition for C- 1 and R-0 would constitute grounds for a new hearing and not a rehearing. Chairman Hanna stated that, as he sees it, the C-1 portion would be the same. Therefore, the twelve-month period would be required before a request such as that could be reheard, unless new information was presented to justify a rehearing. However, a less intensive zoning request for the entire property would be a new hearing. Mr. Merrell stated that he doesn't know of any prohibition against a rehearing. He added that his understanding from a recent discussion with the City Attorney is that this could be done. The staff feels it is strictly up to the Planning Commission to decide on whether or not to grant a rehearing. Commissioner Springborn noted that there have been proposals in the past where they elected not to grant a rezoning of the entire tract of land. He added that requesting C-1 on only a portion of the tract justifies a new hearing in his opinion. He advised that this is consistent with the last discussion he had with the City Attorney. This is very important to the applicant because, if 1 • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 5 a rehearing is denied under the understanding that there is a twelve-month waiting period, the applicant could not come back and request R-0 on the other portion. Mr. Merrell clarified that, by virtue of the fact that they are requesting a different type zoning for a portion of the property, it is essentially a new request instead of a rehearing. Commissioner Springborn asked, if this were sold to a new party who came in and requested a rezoning for C-1 and R-0, how would it be handled. Mr. Merrell stated that there seems to be some confusion as to what the City Attorney would like to do in this case. He added that the request is for C- 1 on the entire property. Chairman Hanna stated that, since the request is for C-1 on the entire property, what they are discussing is irrelevant in his opinion. Commissioner Springborn noted that, if he is correct, their request for a rehearing would become moot if they really want R-0. He added that they have a plat different from the original request, which they shouldn't be discussing with the C-1 request. He added that, if they are going to change this to R-0, his point is that it becomes moot on the basis of new information. Mr. Wright stated that perhaps he mislead the Commission in handing out the plat, because the purpose was to point out the greenspace on the west side, which the owners intended to dedicate. Also, to show the roadway on the south side, which is for the benefit of the school. He noted that he mentioned the R-0 in passing, because the owners had considered that. He advised that the request is still the same as Mr. Hopkins' rezoning request. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he doesn't want the Planning Commission to get into a situation where the request is changed to fit what the Commission is willing to approve. Commissioner Ozment asked if it is legal to present this as a new request. Mr. Merrell stated that he would prefer to get a written opinion from the City Attorney to clear this up. He advised that, since they have come back with the original request, he would consider it a resubmission. He added that there has been an indication that the applicants might be willing to accept a lesser zoning for a portion of the property. The Commission still has the option to recommend a less intensive zoning, if they agree to hear this (whether it be considered a new hearing or a rehearing). Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he questions the reasons for rehearing. He asked if they are setting a precedence for rezoning petitioners to come back every time a rezoning is denied with more information. He added that, as valid as this may be, they need to be very careful. Commissioner Cato stated that, if he understands it right, they are voting on whether they will rehear the original request to rezone to C-1. He questioned whether a vote against the rehearing for all C-1 would be closing the door on them. Chairman Hanna stated that, when the request was denied in December, they could not bring the same request back to the Planning Commission for a period of twelve months. They could have come back at any time with an R-0 rezoning • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 6 request. He advised that, if the Planning Commission feels the evidence presented is new, relevant and would have made a difference in the Commission's decision at the last hearing, they should vote to rehear it. If the evidence doesn't justify it, they should vote to deny a rehearing, and the petitioners would have to wait the twelve-month period. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to deny the rehearing, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Klingaman, Springborn and Cleghorn voting "yes" and Cato, Hanna, Allred & Ozment voting "no". MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant a rehearing as requested, seconded by Cato :The motion passed 5-2-0 with Cato, Springborn, Hanna, Ozment & Allred voting "yes" and Klingaman & Cleghorn voting "no". Chairman Hanna advised that the petitioners will have to contact Mr. Merrell to see that proper notification is given to the adjoining property owners. The public hearing will be held when the Commission readdresses the rezoning request. Kirk Elsass, of Lindsey & Associates, stated that he a Isorepresents the owners on this property, and he would like to make it known to the public that the proposed plat is available for anyone who wants it, in order to show that the Parsons' are available to work with the surrounding property owners. He noted that anyone who would like to see the plat should contact him. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EMERALD SUBDIVISION DAVE JORGENSEN - N OF WESTVIEW DR, E OF COLLEGE AVE The third item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Emerald Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen & Associates, on behalf of J. B. Hayes for property located on the north side of Westview Drive, east of College Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-0, Residential -Office, containing 5.6 acres with 18 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that all utilities are readily available to the lot. The proposed street is about 630' long and ends with a temporary cul-de- sac. The plan would be to carry that street farther to the north in the future. However, a waiver of the maximum distance for a cul-de-sac will have to be granted. A subdivision (Jim Bow Addition) on this same site was brought before the Planning Con ission several years ago. There were concerns expressed at that time by the neighboring property owners regarding increased traffic on Jimmie Avenue, Karyn Avenue and Township. That subdivision was approved but never constructed. He stated that the staff's recommendation is to approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1) the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; 2) subsequent approval of water, sewer, streets and drainage plans; 3) construction of sidewalks; and 4) the payment of parks fees. He stated LAG Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 7 that this is on a severe slope and special care will have to be taken during the development of the subdivision to prevent erosion and runoff problems. Commissioner Springborn advised that the Subdivision Committee discussed this at considerable length. He noted that the staff had advised that there may not be any place for this street to go through to because the tie -through street to the north isn't recognized by the City. Mr. Bunn stated that Golden Eagle Subdivision ( a commercial subdivision) was planned north of this and was partially constructed with a street going up to a residence. However, the road going up the hill has not been accepted by the City. Dangerous conditions do exist which would have to be remedied before a tie -through could be made. Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen & Associates, advised that they are requesting approval of the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments and the Subdivision Committee comments. He advised that they would be including the temporary cul-de-sac on the north end of this project such that, if the street is not continued within a two-year period, the cul-de-sac would have to be constructed as a permanent cul-de-sac. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the lot widths were for lots along Karyn and Jimmie. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he isn't sure, but the slope on Westview Drive is 16.3% grade. The slope on Township where Jimmie intersects Township is 15.3%. Chairman Hanna asked if lots 9 & 10 are large enough for single-family dwellings. Mr. Jorgensen stated that, on the re -submittal of the plats, they increased the size of the lots to meet the size requirements. Roy Fuller, who lives on Karyn Avenue, stated that he would like clarification on what portion of this is zoned R-0. Chairman Hanna advised that a small portion at the northwest corner of the property is zoned R-0. In answer to a question from Mr. Fuller, Chairman Hanna stated that they are proposing a single-family use which is allowed in the R-0 zoning. He advised that part of the lots would actually be zoned R-0, but each of them would be sold as single-family lots. Mr. Fuller stated that lots 8 through 11 may meet some minimal city requirement, but this neighborhood is not a minimal neighborhood. He advised that the lots in the neighborhood to the south are all 100' lots. There are covenants on the property to the south that specify minimal property sizes. He added that the traffic exiting onto Westview Street is subjecting itself to an extreme hazard during icy conditions. The slope of the hillside may be 20%, but he submits that Westview Street is steeper than 20%. The only reasonable way to develop this would be to exit to the north. He advised that, when he built his home in 1975, Karyn was a deadend street, and the City demanded that Westview be built to eliminate the deadends. The City denied building permits until Westview was constructed, so he waited for three years to build. He submitted • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 8 that the City should require that this street to the north be built before any construction takes place in this development. Ed Harding (of 2485 Karyn Drive) stated that Karyn, Jimmie and Westview weren't built for traffic flow in excess of what they currently have. He stated that he is concerned about more traffic on these streets. Jim Hatfield, of 2790 Golden Eagle Drive, stated that, because of the steepness on Westview Avenue, Emerald Avenue should either be taken on a curve down to Karyn or up to Jimmie to avoid an intersection on that steep slope in the middle of the block. Mr. Merrell stated that the zoning district boundary line running through the property isn't a problem, because single-family houses are permitted in the R- 0. Mr. Jorgensen stated, in response to the possibility of connecting the new street at a better location on to Westview, it is actually slightly steeper on the west end. He stated that this would be no different than where Jimmie ties into Township. Commissioner Springborn advised, that according to the plat, there is about 130' between the contours for the slope which would make the slope just about 207.. Mr. Jorgensen stated that these contours are somewhat approximate. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Jorgensen stated that there aren't any covenants on this property yet, but he anticipates structures similar to what is to the south. Commissioner Klingaman advised that this is an environmentally sensitive area and larger lot sizes would be one way to help stabilize it. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that lots 8, 9, 10 & 11 don't match up with the lots on Jimmie and Karyn. Commissioner Springborn stated that he would prefer to see Lots 8 & 9 as one lot and 10 & 11 as one lot. Mr. Jorgensen stated that it would be an acceptable alternative to combine those lots for two lots instead of four. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved that the preliminary plat be approved with the change as agreed upon (lots 8 & 9 being combined into one lot and 10 & 11 combined into one lot) subject to Plat Review comments and staff comments, seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Ozment stated that they could also require that the driveways on these lots only access to Emerald Avenue. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that it might be better to have the driveway off of lots 10 & 11 at the bottom of the hill and the driveway from lots 8 & 9 at the top of the hill. • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 9 The motion passed 6-1-0 with Cato, Springborn, Hanna, Ozment, Allred & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no". ChairmanHanna announced again that items 12 & 13 concerning the conditional use and the preliminary plat of Mt. Comfort Air Park have been tabled. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PARK PLACE ADDITION - PHASE VIII JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF MISSION BLVD The fourth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Park Place Addition - Phase VIII submitted by Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen & Associates, on behalf of Jim Lindsey. The property is located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Mission Boulevard and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, with 33 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that none of the utility companies had any problem with serving this area. There were questions brought up during the Subdivision Committee meeting regarding the future tie through into the existing Park Place development. He advised that there was a requirement at the time the earlier phases where brought to the Planning Commission that a hard -surface road be constructed to Crossover Road as a condition of approving that development. It was agreed that, when another phase was built, that road should be constructed. However, that other phase was never -constructed and this phase constitutes the next phase being brought to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the question of whether or not that hard -surface road should be constructed now would be one of the points. He added that another point brought up was regarding the streets which are shown as deadends at the edge of the subdivision with plans to take them on through at a later time. He advised that there should be some provision that if the phases in between are not constructed within a reasonable amount of time, permanent cul-de-sacs should be constructed. Commissioner Springborn advised that the Subdivision Committee had no problems with the proposal as shown on the plat. He added that they took due note of the point that Mr. Bunn just made relative to carrying the street through. Dave Jorgensen, of Jorgensen & Associates, stated that their purpose is to get the preliminary plat of Phase VIII approved. He advised that Phases 4 & 5 have already been approved with the stipulation that an emergency service be provided connecting Park Place proper with Crossover Road for various reasons. Subsequently, the Park Place property owners have decided that it may not be a good idea to have this phase connect to the rest of the Park Place development. Jim Lindsey, owner and developer, stated that constructing phases 4, 5 & 6 which are immediately south of the existing Park Place Subdivision would be very costly. In addition, constructing a road out to Crossover Road with major drainage structures would cost a great deal more. He stated that this has prohibited, to a great degree, the development of this property. He gave a brief history of this development stating that it went into the hands of two savings and loan institutions which in turn went into the hands of the Resolution Trust. Therefore, trying to develop this property has been very complicated • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 10 and would involve entering into an agreement with the two institutions and with the Resolution Trust. They would have to come up with a process by which they could sell a certain number of lots therefore exercising their option. In doing that, they need to make sure they have legally complied with the requirements of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindsey stated that the Home Owners Association of Park Place has been a very strong, positive and direct association. He added that the people who live in the subdivision have extreme reservations about the potential of heavy traffic in their subdivision. They are requesting that no through street be developed in their subdivision. He stated that he had talked to Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, who had stated that it could be possible to tie two back to back cul-de- sacs with a paved emergency drive through. There could be an armed barrier if all the fire trucks in that area had access. He noted that he is willing to accommodate the people living in the subdivision and put in two cul-de-sacs back to back with an emergency access to alleviate the problems that would be associated with through traffic from Mission to Crossover Road. He further stated that they need to know the City's position on the issue. Chairman Hanna asked if the people living in this subdivision had been told that this subdivision would not be completed with a connection going all the way through as originally planned. Mr. Lindsey stated that he has never personally stated that. Chairman Hanna advised that he remembers when this was originally presented and there were no objections to a connecting•'street at that time. He stated that it is rather unique that the Planning Commission be asked not to connect streets in a subdivision creating a deadend situation. Commissioner Allred stated that these proposed phases could be replatted and redesigned to make it inconvenient for through traffic. Mike Bradley, President of the Property Owners Association for Park Place Subdivision, stated that he lives at 1828 Cambridge. He stated that they have had two association meetings and discussed this issue thoroughly. He noted that the main topic is the safety of the families and the children of the neighborhoods. The traffic that this would create would be outrageous from Mission to Crossover to beat the stop light. He added that a couple of other concerns are a higher vandalism and theft rate due to a through all the way through the subdivision. He noted that they are asking the Planning Commission to allow streets with cul-de-sacs backing up with an emergency access to divert through traffic. Commissioner Allred stated that he is concerned about the impact on the intersection of Cambridge and Mission with only one ingress/egress for residents from all the proposed phases. Mr. Bradley stated that it will have a large impact, but not as bad as traffic off of Crossover. Commissioner Springborn stated there is the possibility that the through traffic situation wouldn't be overcome by this proposal because of the potential future development of the large area south of Park Place with a connection to Crossover Road. He noted that Cambridge Road is shown continuing south past this • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 11 development. Mr. Bradley stated that either proposal would be a detriment to the neighborhood. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cato, Mr. Bradley stated that it is definitely the consensus of the neighborhood to stop all through traffic with the cul-de-sacs and the barricade between them. Chairman Hanna advised that they are basically voting on Phase VIII of this subdivision, so he isn't sure they should address the connection now. Mr. Lindsey requested that the connection issue be addressed now because the rest of the development will be taking place soon. Mr. Lindsey stated that he knows their request is contrary to positions that have been taken in the past, but they are trying to accommodate the people living int he subdivision. Commissioner Allred advised that with recent development along Mission, there has been much concern by the residents about more traffic on Mission. Therefore, by accommodating this group, they would be jeopardizing the other citizens. • Mr. Lindsey stated that the Property Owners Association's argument was compelling and encouraged him to attempt to present a sensible alternative. Commissioner Springborn stated that the convenience of traffic cutting through could easily be overcome by stop signs within the subdivision. • Chairman Hanna noted that even if the cul-de-sacs are put back to back with an emergency exit through there, it could easily be opened with one word from the Board or Planning Commission if it became a problem. Commissioner Allred requested that the Traffic Superintendent do a traffic impact study to determine what impact this development would have on Mission Boulevard. In the meantime, Mr. Lindsey could get meet with the staff and discuss a better design. He noted that he sympathizes with the neighbors, but what they are requesting would go against good planning. He suggested that this be tabled for that a traffic impact study and redesign. Mr. Lindsey stated that they need to know, at this point, if the two cul-de-sacs back to back would be unacceptable. Commissioner Cato stated that the city staff, Jim Lindsey and Mike Bradley could work together to determine other alternatives. He noted that the heavy traffic would be an unbearable situation for the neighbors. Commissioner Springborn stated that he feels quite strongly that the east/west connection is needed. He added that if an impact study is done, he would like the potential traffic problem developing from the south to be considered as well. Commissioner Klingaman stated there are too many unknowns with this to come up • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 12 with a meaningful traffic count because there is only speculation in relation to development to the south. He added that the Planning Commission needs to decide whether they are going to abandon the policy of having connector streets. He noted that he isn't in favor of an emergency access with a barrier because the punch card may not work in an emergency. Commissioner Ozment stated that he agrees with Commissioner Klingaman regarding traffic counts. They would be informative, but probably not very productive. Chairman Hanna advised that they are considering the preliminary plat for Phase VIII and he doesn't have any objections to that plat. He added that he doesn't have any objection to a cul-de-sac, at this time, but he doesn't know how he will feel when Cambridge is developed farther to the south. He advised that there are some alternatives to slow the traffic down such as four-way stops, traffic bumps and slow speed signs to deter the fast traffic. Mike Bradley stated that if the cul-de-sacs were put in, they could be opened for through traffic later down the road. Also, the developer could design it in a way to deter traffic in the future. Commissioner Cato asked if there would be two accesses to Crossover Road. Mr. Bradley stated that instead of developing the southern access, they could develop the northern access shown on the concept plat. Mr. Lindsey stated that it could be designed to break the flow of traffic. He noted that traffic would find its way through regardless if it is a shorter way. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve development of Phase VIII but extend the time requirement for a through street to any development beyond Phase VIII. Chairman Hanna clarified that when the next phase is brought through, there needs to be an acceptable solution to the problem Mr. Springborn advised that at the present time, no further development can take place until a tie-in street is completed. His motion is that they will extend that stipulation until after Phase VIII. Any development beyond this phase wouldn't be allowed until there is an acceptable solution to the street issue. He noted that phases 4 & 5 have already been approved but it was subject to the tie-in. This would give the developers time to work out the problems. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he would like to suggest an amendment of the motion to consider a cul-de-sac at the edge of this phase on the street accessing Crossover Road and slating the access to Crossover shown farther to the north as the alternate connection route. • Commissioner Springborn stated that he would prefer to leave his motion as stated because that is the way it was submitted. • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 13 undertake a decision on cul-de-sacs and where tie-ins will be. If the developer wants to bring it back with changes, the Planning Commission will consider them. Commissioner Cato stated that it seems that the Planning Commission would be committing them to a straight shot if that street is cut on through and opened up to Crossover. Commissioner Springborn stated that they wouldn't be solving the problem for them. Commissioner Allred commented that it seems the Planning Commission is starting to take on the engineering role with a subdivision and that isn't within their realm of responsibility. It is up to the Association and the developer to work out a solution that is acceptable to the City. The motion was seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NT. COMFORT MEADOWS HOWARD SANDERS - S OF MT. COMFORT RD, W OF HIGHWAY 71 BYPASS The fifth item on the agenda was the preliminary plat of Mt. Comfort Meadows submitted by Harry Gray, of Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Howard Sanders. The property is located on the south side of Mt. Comfort Road, west of the Highway 71 Bypass. It is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 5.73 acres with 19 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the staff recommends -approval of the preliminary plat subject to a) the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; b) a bond for the improvement of one half of Mt. Comfort Road to residential street standards; c) payment of the parks fees; d) subsequent approval of water, sewer, streets and drainage plans; and e) the restriction of access to lots 2 & 18 to Alpine Avenue. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee reviewed this plat and had no problems with it. Harry Gray stated that they might need a waiver of the street length depending on how it is measured. It measures 510' from the center of Mt. Comfort Road to the center of the cul-de-sac. He advised that they had hoped to get approval of a lot split for lots 1 and 19 at this meeting unless they were required to fill out separate applications. He noted that these two lots front on Mt. Comfort Road and all utilities are available to them so they would like to start construction on them immediately. Commissioner Klingaman stated that they could address the lot splits at this meeting to save some time. Mr. Bunn advised that there isn't notification requirement on lot splits, so they could address it at this meeting. Chairman Hanna stated that they would include those lots in the contract for improvements. He explained that Mr. Sanders has $500,000 in bond money approved to build houses, but he has to use it within six months. These lot split approvals would give him a head start. • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 14 NOTION Commissioner Ozment moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review minutes and Subdivision Comments and to approve lot splits on lots 1 and 19 approved subject to payment of parks fees, satisfactory utility easements and filling out the necessary applications, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 1 AND 2 GAYLE GILBRIDE - S OF DEANE ST, E OF LEWIS AVE The sixth item Splits 1 and 2 Gayle Gilbride Avenue. The Residential. on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot submitted by Keith Robbins, of Century 21 Realty, on behalf of for property located south of Deane Street and east of Lewis property contains 1.9 acres and is zoned R-1, Low Density The staff recommendation was to approve the lot splits subject to: 1) Extending the existing sewer line on to the east to serve Tracts B and C, 2) A bond for the improvement of one-half of Deane Street to city standards for a residential street, 3) Construction of sidewalks along Deane Street in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan, 4) Dedication of an additional 15 feet of street right- of-way along Deane Street, and 5) Coordination• with the other utility companies to provide necessary easements. Keith Robbins stated that they have no problem with items 1 and 5 in the staff's recommendations. However, with regard to item 2, they question the justification of the expense of treating this property split as a subdivision, since the two lots would have .61 acres and already have access to Deane Street. He added that it would be cost prohibitive to meet that requirement with only two lots. Also, they would like to question the 15' right-of-way dedication requirement. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the staff's determination, regarding multiple lot splits, is to treat it as a subdivision. He explained that the lot split is a waiver of the requirement to do a preliminary plat, but it isn't necessarily a waiver of the rest of the subdivision requirements. With multiple lots where the intent is clearly to develop for the purpose of selling, the developers should be subject to the subdivision requirements. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that the cost of one half of a city street is probably $30 to $40 per foot and the bond for that would possibly be 3% to 5% per year. He clarified that it would just be for the frontage on their lots (162' frontage) and would be restricted to the two vacant lots. He added that parks fees would be required as a matter of ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Ozment, Mr. Bunn stated that Deane Street is a collector street with 80' to 100' feet of right-of-way required. The additional 15' would give a total of 40' on their side. He explained that • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 15 the bond would be for a five-year period. It could be renewed every year or initially obtained for the five-year period. He advised that, as far as the City is concerned, the initial owner (present owner) would be responsible for the improvements. In response to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Robbins stated that the owner would be willing to dedicate the additional 15' of right-of-way if he didn't have to comply with the street improvement requirement. He added that extending the sewer would be a $1,500 expense in itself. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the lot splits subject to the staff's recommendations with the exception of item 2 regarding a bond for improvements. Also, subject to a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk. This was followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn questioned, if they waive the street improvement requirement, who will pay for those improvements. Mr. Robbins stated that there is an existing house on the property and these two lots would be the last lots to develop along Deane Street. He noted that this street improvement requirement would be penalizing the property owner. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cato and passed 6-1-0 with Cleghorn, Ozment, Allred, Hanna, Klingaman and Cato voting "yes" and Springborn voting "no". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS I1 1 & 2 KENNETH HATFIELD - SE CORNER OF SALEM RD & KENDALL DR The seventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Splits lit & 2 submitted by Kenneth Hatfield for property located on the southeast corner of Salem Road and Kendall Drive. Property is outside the City Limits and contains 8.67 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that the two tracts they are proposing to split off are 1.22 acres each. He added that they have had pert tests done and the Health Department has approved septic tanks. He advised that the City of Fayetteville ordinance requires 1.5 acres per lot in the growth area. The applicant has indicated that they would like to go before the City Board with a request for a waiver of the 1.5 acre requirement. He stated that the most the staff can recommend to the Planning Commission at this point is approval of the lot split contingent on final approval by the City Board of the waiver of the 1.5 acre requirement. He noted that the staff doesn't have any other stipulations on the lot split. Doug Hemingway, of Professional Surveyors, stated that the perc tests were done, and Rick Johnson, of the Washington County Health Department, stated that he feels two ultimate systems can be put on each of the lots. Mr. Johnson felt • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 16 there was no problem with the lot size in relationship to the Health Department. He explained that, when there is an available rural water system, the only time the Health Department requires 1.5 acres is when a well and septic system are to be on the property. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the proposed lot split subject to staff requirements, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT ill KENNETH HATFIELD - N OF SALEM RD, E OF KENDALL DR The eighth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations Lot Split lit submitted by Kenneth Hatfield for property located north of Salem Road and east of Kendall Drive. The property is located outside the City Limits and contains 5 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is a split of lot 7 of Lewis Estates and will divide the lot into two 2.5 acre tracts. The staff recommends approval of the split subject to the payment of the required parks fees and extension of the 2" water line to serve the east lot at some point in the future. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the lot split subject to staff comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 HAROLD HARMON - E OF S SCHOOL, S OF NONNAMAKER DR The ninth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split 111 submitted by Harold Harmon for property located east of South School and south of Nonnamaker Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 7 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there are existing houses on the east and south sides of Nonnamaker Drive and all the property between Nonnamaker Drive and South School Avenue is open land. This open land, which contains approximately 2.5 acres, is the piece of property Mr. Harmon is proposing to split off. It has frontage on South School Avenue. The staff recommends that the lot split be approved subject to the payment of the required parks fee on the R-1 portion of the property and the construction of a sidewalk along South School as called for by the Master Sidewalk Plan. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn advised that the C-2 property fronts South School Avenue and the R-1 property is farther east next to Nonnamaker Drive. • • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 17 MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to grant the lot split subject to the staff's recommendations, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT lit GARTH ROTRAIIEL - ON RIDGLEY DR, S OF MANOR DR The tenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split 111 submitted by Garth Rotramel for property located on Ridgely Drive, south of Manor Drive. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 2 acres. Chairman Hanna announced that this item was withdrawn. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that this lot split couldn't have been approved as submitted. He noted that the applicants will be meeting with the staff later to try and come up with something that is legal. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS U1, 2 & 3 DUB DUNAWAY - SW CORNER OF FOURTH STREET & RAY AVENUE The eleventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot splits 111, 2 & 3 submitted by Dub Dunaway for -property located on the southwest corner of Fourth Street and Ray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains .85 acres. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that this is three splits of property which will create four lots. He added that the staff is looking at this as a subdivision rather than a lot split. All of the utilities and off-site improvements are in place for this property with the exception of sidewalk and possibly some drainage improvements that might be required on the back side of the lot. The lots created by the splits are of legal size and do not represent a zoning problem. The staff recommends approval of the splits subject to: 1) the dedication of an additional 5' of right-of-way along Ray Avenue, 2) the construction of sidewalk along Ray Avenue as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan at the time that building permits are obtained or after five years if there are not building permits requested by whoever owned the property at the time, 3) a review of the plat by the Plat Review or letters from each of the utilities noting that they have no problem with the existing utility easements, 4) payment of the required parks fees as required, and 5) approval of drainage plans if there is any physical drainage required on the site. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Dub Dunaway stated that three of the lots would be 73'x 120' and one would be 85' wide. Mr. Bunn advised that all the lots meet the minimum lot requirements. MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved that the lot splits be granted subject to the staff's • • Planning Commission April 9, 1990 Page 18 comments, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR AND PREL KIIIARY PLAT OF NT. COMFORT AIR PARK FLOYD HARRIS - SE CORNER OF RUFFLE RD AND NT. COMFORT RD Items 12 and 13 were tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE - PROCESSING AND WHOLESALE OF HEALTH PRODUCTS DALE BENEDICT - W SIDE OF SBILOH DR, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The fourteenth item on the agenda was a conditional use request by Bio -tech, Inc. (represented by Dale Benedict) for processing and wholesale of Health Products in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, zoning district. The property is located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, north of Old Farmington Road. Chairman Hanna advised that this property was recently rezoned to C-2. This is basically a housekeeping item that the staff has requested in order to make the use fit the zoning. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 7-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.