Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 14, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickles and Jett Cato OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the September 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF MT. NORD AND WASHINGTON - WILLOW DISTRICTS Tim Klinger, a member of the Historic District Commission, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested the discussion be removed from the agenda. He explained that Arkansas statute required the Historic District Commission to have the Planning Commission comment on the historic significance of proposed and existing historic districts in the city. He stated there were presently two historic districts in Fayetteville - Mt. Nord District and Washington -Willow District. He explained that both districts were designated on the National Register of Historic Places a number of years ago. He stated they had been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer of Arkansas as well as the National Parks Service. He further stated both of those entities designated the areas as historic districts. Mr. Klinger explained the Historic District Commission was in the process of developing a proposed ordinance in connection with the historic districts, both existing and potential historic districts. He further explained the ordinance contained various aspects that they were still working on. He stated parts of the ordinance had caused some questions on behalf of the homeowners in the districts. He explained the Commission desired to continue working on those issues that caused consternation of the homeowners. He explained the Historic District Commission would bring the item back to the Planning Commission at some point in the future. Mr. Allred pointed out there were a number of people in the audience that wished to discuss the item. He suggested that perhaps the residents' comments might be helpful to the Historic District Commission. Mr. Klinger stated they had a working session scheduled on Wednesday, October 16, with several of the homeowners. Mr. Hanna pointed out that this was just a discussion of the historic significance of Mt. Nord and Washington -Willow Districts. He stated there was nothing on the agenda about voting on an ordinance. Mr. Allred stated he personally believed the Planning Commission should hear some of the homeowners' comments. Mr. Springborn suggested a show of hands from those present who desired to make their comments at this time. 2,31 • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 2 Mr. Klinger explained he wanted to make it clear why the Historic District Commission requested to be on the agenda. He stated it had nothing to do with the proposed ordinance. He further stated that issue was not before the Planning Commission. He stated the statute requires that if historic districts are identified in the town, the Planning Commission has to give their blessing. He explained the districts had already been created by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Parks Service. He further explained it was a matter of the Planning Commission recognizing that the districts had been created. Mr. Springborn stated he had wanted to see a show of hands to see if those present desired to speak now or later, when the Historic District Commission brought the item back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ron Bumpass, 435 N. Washington (Washington -Willow District), appeared before the Planning Commission and explained they had been to a few meetings held at private homes. He further explained that several of the property owners had held discussions among themselves regarding the proposed ordinance and guidelines. He stated there were three or four issues evolving their finding that the historic district was significant to the community per state statute. He explained there were certain design guidelines on structure and landmarks. He further explained there were a number of issues that would spin out from the ordinance and guidelines. He stated those present just did not want to miss an opportunity to tell them that fundamentally there were objections the homeowners had to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bumpass presented a letter to the Planning Commission requesting that no action be taken on this matter until the residents had an opportunity to further study the ordinance and have discussions with the Historic District Commission. He explained they had discussed forming a property owners association. He further explained they wanted to submit only to a voluntary set of design guidelines rather than required guidelines. He explained the present meeting and a meeting scheduled for October 29 was in order to get the item on the City Board agenda by November 15 so the ordinance could be passed, published, and in effect by January 1. He stated the property owners were not on that time line. He explained that was too fast. He further explained the ordinance would subject the historical districts and the property owners within those districts to a different set of requirements for any construction than those of all other parts of the city. Mr. Klinger explained he was not speaking about the ordinance, that the ordinance was not an issue before the Commission. He stated the Planning Commission did not participate in approval of the ordinance. He stated the Historic District Commission simply desired a discussion regarding the importance of the two existing districts. He once again asked that the item be removed from the agenda. Mr. Allred stated it was part of the Planning Commission's responsibility to forward this matter to the Board of Directors. He explained it was a two step process - once the Planning Commission recommend the historical significance of the areas, an ordinance would follow. He stated he believed the residents of the area .were concerned because there was an ordinance in the background that would come before the Planning Commission at some point in the future. He asked if the Planning Commission wasn't required to hear this matter, why it had been placed on the agenda. Ms. Bryant stated as a matter of protocol, the staff generally asked for the Planning Commissions' comments on any planning related ordinance. She further stated it was not required, but their comments were appreciated. • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Springborn stated he believed the Planning Commission was premature. He moved to table the item. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - PARADISE VIEW ESTATES PHASE II TOM HOPPER - W OF CROSSOVER RD., S OF JOYCE ST. The next item on the agenda was a request by Tom Hopper on behalf of Lindsey Family Trust for approval of a final plat for Paradise View Estates, Phase II, located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Joyce Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 10.02 acres with 21 lots. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, recommended the final plat be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments, the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished public improvements, construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City ordinances, and the conveyance of the parks land to the city by separate instrument. Mr. Robertson stated he had spoken with Dale Clark regarding the land allocated for a park. He explained Mr. Clark was not aware of where the land was located. Ms. Bryant stated she would have assumed the Parks Division staff would have known about it since they were working with the developer. She suggested the motion should be subject to the approval of the park location by the Parks Board. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the final plat of Paradise View Estates, Phase II, subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments, the execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished public improvements, construction of sidewalks, and the approval by the Parks Board of the location for the conveyance of the park lands to the city. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - WOODFIELD ADDITION HARRY GRAY - E OF SALEM RD., N OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Woodfield Addition, Phase I submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development, Inc. The property is located east of Salem Road and north of Wedington Drive and is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The subject tract contains 11.66 acres with 50 lots. Mr. Bunn explained this is the first phase of three. He stated this subdivision was formerly named Wedington Heights. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to the plat review and subdivision comments, execution of a contract with the city for the uncompleted public improvements, construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees. Mr. Harry Gray reminded the Commission this was the subdivision they had approved for rolled curbs. He stated they had wanted an insertion into the covenants pertaining to not allowing asphalt or concrete to be placed in the gutter 23? • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 4 section. He stated they were waiting to get the covenants back from the attorney. He suggested they make that part of the conditions of approval. He further pointed out there had been discussion regarding landscaping. He stated the developer had agreed to set the sidewalks back at the right-of-way line. He further stated they had discussed landscaping between the right-of-way line and the sidewalk. He suggested a letter from the developer would be in order. Mr. Allred asked if the landscaping could be delayed until each lot was developed as far as the planting of the trees. He suggested that the tree planting be a condition on the building permit. Mr. Gray agreed the trees needed to be planted at the time the house was built. He suggested a letter from the developer assuring the trees would be planted. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat of Woodfield Addition, Phase I, subject to comments made by Mr. Bunn, subject to a covenant prohibiting the filling of the gutter in front of the driveway with asphalt or concrete material, subject to the planting of trees in the strip between the curb and sidewalk at a spacing not to exceed 20 feet. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. Mr. Robertson stated that from a horticultural point of view 20 feet was too close. • In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray stated the lots were 60 to 70 feet, with an 18 to 20 foot wide driveway. Mr. Robertson stated it would depend on the species of tree. He recommended the City Horticulturist make the recommendation, based on species used. Ms. Britton agreed with Mr. Robertson. Mr. Tarvin explained the purpose of the trees was to prohibit parking. He stated he saw trees in the forest closer together than 20 feet. He pointed out that,if the trees were spaced further apart than 20 feet, it would be very easy to park a car in the area. • Ms. Britton pointed out they could pull in between the driveway and tree if there was enough space left in that direction. She recommended leaving it to the discretion of the City Horticulturist to determine species and amount of spacing. Mr. Gray reminded the Board that when this item had been discussed earlier, they had agreed to leave the species, etc. to the City Horticulturist. MOTION Mr. Robertson moved to amend the motion to strike the 20 feet distance and species and distance would be subject to approval by the City Horticulturist or a plan be provided pertaining to particular species. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Mr. Tarvin and Mr. Hanna agreed to the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-19 HAMILTON COSTON - E OF SALEM RD., N OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item on the agenda was a request by Hamilton Coston to rezone 3.32 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential located on the east side of Salem Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road. Ms. Bryant explained Mr. Coston was requesting the rezoning in order to subdivide a 3.32 acre parcel for future residential development. She stated there was one existing single family house was situated on the middle parcel should the lot split be approved. She further stated the surrounding zoning was A-1 on all sides except the south which was R-1. She explained surrounding uses included single family residences, agriculture, and undeveloped tracts. She further explained that,since the northwest quadrant of the city had the most appropriate soil and topography for future growth, she believed growth should be encouraged in that direction. She recommended the rezoning be granted. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-19 - TANDEM LOT SAM OGNIBENE - W OF CREST DR., N OF ROCKWOOD TR The next item on the agenda was a request by Don Conduff on behalf of Sam Ognibene for a conditional use allowing a tandem lot on the west side of Crest Drive, north of Rockwood Trail. The property 'is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the subject property was a part of a replat of Crestwood Addition containing 4.37 acres. He further explained the Board of Directors had recently vacated Westwood Drive at the end of the subdivision at the request of the owner. He stated the intent of that action was to build one single family dwelling on that property. He further stated the property was well suited as far as the regulations of tandem lots - there was quite a slope on the property and a street into the property was not practicable. He explained that, after Westwood Drive was closed, the subject property was then landlocked. He stated that one of the adjoining property owners had agreed to give the owner of the subject tract a permanent access easement of 25 feet which would meet the requirements for a tandem lot. He recommended approval of the conditional use for a tandem lot. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated the driveway would be on the north side of the property. Ms. Baron Collier, a resident of the area, stated she had received a notice regarding this meeting but had not received a notice about the closing of Westwood Drive. She expressed dismay at the closing of the street. Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission had not been involved in the decision regarding the vacation of the street nor the notification of property owners. Mr. Conduff stated all owners of property contiguous to the street were notified. He stated that, according to city records, Ms. Collier did not own any property that was affected by the vacation. 24 • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 6 Mr. John Smith, owner of the property directly to the south of the subject property, asked what type of road would be put in the area. Mr. Bunn stated the city required the driveway to be paved 15 feet back from the street. He further stated he assumed it would be a concrete driveway. Mr. Conduff stated it was his understanding the property owner was planning to asphalt or concrete a driveway from Crest Drive into the residence. In response to a question from Mr. Smith regarding the drainage ditch, Mr. Bunn explained the property owner would have to take care of the drainage during construction phase. He further explained they would not be allowed to block the drainage ditch off. Mr. Conduff explained there would be an open bar ditch to the northernmost part of where it was presently located. Mr. Smith asked how the sewer hookup would be handled. Mr. Bunn stated it was his understanding the sewer line would be brought from the west to serve the subject property. Ms. Britton questioned that there were six existing lots on the subject tract of land. Mr., Conduff explained the Board of Directors deleted all of the property lines at the time of vacation, making one tract of land. Mr. Brad Waddle, a resident of Crest Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not aware of any sewer connections to the west of the property. Mr. Conduff explained there was one access point on the Bob Nickles' property. Mr. Waddle expressed concern regarding sewer and utilities and how they would relate to those residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Allred explained those items would be handled like any other house, having to be approved by city staff. He expressed his belief that this would enhance the neighborhood since there would be only one house rather than six that could have been there. In response to a question from a member of the audience, Mr. Bunn explained that, should the property be approved as a tandem lot, it was limited by ordinance to one single family residence. Mr. Conduff explained that the deed for the access easement limited the property to one single family residence also. Ms. Britton explained that originally there had been six lots but, with the vacation of the street by the Board of Directors, those six lots had been combined into one piece of land. Mr. Conduff again stated the City Board and the notifications necessary for the vacation of Westwood Drive had been done in a proper manner. He explained that all property owners contiguous to Westwood Drive had been notified prior to the Board of Director's consideration. He further stated he had received, with the exception of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, letters from the affected property owners approving of the closing. • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the conditional use for the tandem lot. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-1 with Mr. Nickle abstaining. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 BILL GRADE - S END OF STAGECOACH RD., NW OF OLD WIRE RD. The next item on the agenda was a request for a lot split presented by Bill Graue for property located off the end of Stagecoach Road, northwest of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated Mr. Graue was requesting a lot split and a conditional use for two tandem lots. He further stated the original tract was 1.58 acres and the proposal was to split the property into two tracts, the first being 1/3 of an acre and one tract of 1.14 acres. He stated all utilities were available to serve the two proposed lots. He explained the lots had to be approved as tandem lots because each one would only have 25 feet of frontage on Stagecoach Drive. He recommended approval of the lot split and associated tandem lots subject to the granting of a sewer line easement for an existing sewer line along the east side of the property and the granting of whatever easements might be required by the utility companies to serve the property. Mr. Tarvin asked if the city had any requirements concerning the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of a street. He stated if there was a cul-de-sac there would be no need for a tandem lot. Mr. Bunn stated it would depend on how the lots were laid out. He further stated Stagecoach was an existing street and the city could not require a cul-de-sac at this point. He explained that should the lot split and tandem lots not be approved, Mr. Graue's option would be to put a subdivision on the subject tract and a cul-de-sac would be required. Mr. Tarvin stated it appeared to be awkward without a cul-de-sac. Ms. Britton agreed with Mr. Tarvin. She stated she would rather see an extension of the street with right-of-way going into the property. Mr. Graue explained there was another tract of property that he did not own which was between his property and Old Wire Road. He stated he wanted to build his home on one tract and have another lot left. He explained the sewer line was on the east side of the property and he had given the city an easement for the sewer line across the property. He further stated he would be giving an easement on the north side of the property for the other utilities. He assure the Planning Commission there would never be more than two homes on the subject property. He expressed his belief the home he was building would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Allred explained the concern was there was no turning radius at the end of Stagecoach. Mr. Graue stated the radius was already there. Ms. Britton pointed out that the tract of land was large enough that at some point in time it could be subdivided again. Mr. Graue explained that, unless the piece of property between the subject tract z41 • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 8 and Old Wire Road, the area could never be developed any further that what he was proposing. He explained there was no way to get to the sewer except for two houses unless the sewer line went to Stanton Street, which was not practical. He further stated the neighborhood did not want Stagecoach to go through to Old Wire. Mr. John Allendorfer, the property owner directly to the south of the subject tract, questioned the size of the lot. Mr. Allendorfer was shown a map of the subject tract. Mr. Bill Agra, a resident on Stagecoach, stated the area residents wanted the cul-de-sac to remain as it was. They do not want a through road going from Stagecoach to Old Wire. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Graue explained there was a 50 foot radius at the end of Stagecoach at the present time. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the application for a lot split be approved subject to the granting of a sewer line easement and whatever easements might be required by the utility companies. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the conditional use for tandem lots subject to the granting of a sewer line easement and whatever easements might be required by the utility companies. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 DAVID MIR - S OF HAROLD ST., W OF SHERYL The next item on the agenda was a request for a lot split presented by David Mix for property located south of Harold Street and west of Sheryl. The property is zoned R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Bunn explained the application was to split a 4.89 acre tract of property into two tracts, one consisting of 3.75 acres and the other containing 1.14 acres. He stated access to the property was off of Harold Street. He explained that R -O property did not have any frontage requirements so access is sufficient. He stated the utilities to serve the lots were either on site or on Harold Street. He further stated the 1.14 acre lot did not appear to have direct access to the utilities. He explained that easements for utilities and direct access would have to be provided to serve that piece of property. He recommended the lot split be approved subject to the granting of necessary easements for utilities to Tract A. Mr. Tom Stockland explained the plat to the Commission. He stated utilities went down the middle of Tract A. 242_ • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 9 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding further development of the site, Mr. Bunn explained that R -O zoning did not require any frontage as long as the property was not used as a residential property. He stated further development could occur. Mr. Nickle expressed concern that several other tracts could develop. Mr. Mix explained that Rolling Hills owned the property directly to the south, limiting any development. Mr. Bunn stated there was another access to the property off of Market Addition which could be utilized. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE 91-22 - CHILD CARE FACILITY DAVID MI% - S OF HAROLD ST., W OF SHERYL The next item was a request by David Mix on behalf of James Stockland for a conditional use to allow a child care facility in an R-0, Residential -Office, zone. The property is located south of Harold Street and west of Sheryl. Ms. Bryant explained that Mr. Stockland presently operates Fayetteville Day Care in a,leased building. She stated he was planning on building a 6,000 to 7,000 square foot building and moving the day care business. She further stated the capacity of the structure would handle up to 100 children. The surrounding zoning includes C-2 on the west, R-1 on the north and east, and R -o to the south. A duplex is proposed directly to the south of the subject tract. Ms. Bryant explained that child care facilities were subject to section 160.082 of the zoning ordinance which required a minimum lot area, minimum outdoor play space, and screening. She expressed her belief this was an ideal location for a child care facility because of the location of residential neighborhoods and employment centers nearby. She recommended the conditional use be granted subject to the requirements as set out in the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Allred regarding screening, Ms. Bryant stated the screening could be either vegetation or a wooden fence. Mr. Stockland would need to contact the City Horticulturist for specifications. Mr. Cato asked if the adjoining property owners on Sheryl had been notified. Ms. Bryant stated they had. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the conditional use as requested. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2.43 • • • Planning Commission October 14, 1991 Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS: The Fayetteville Vision Mr. Cleghorn stated he had received an update on the Vision project from the City Manager. He explained all of the preliminary work had been completed, a rough draft was being reviewed and after a final draft is complete, the matter will come before the Planning Commission. Rules and Procedures Mr. Allred asked that any suggested changes to the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Commission needed to be forwarded to Mr. Hanna this week. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 24-4