Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 13, 1992 -in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill Charles Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Jack Cleghorn, and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jett Cato Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1992 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-13 E. H. SONNEMAN - W OF DEANE SOLOMON RD., N OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing on Rezoning R92-13 requested by E. H. Sonneman for property located on the west side of Deane Solomon Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The request is to rezone 5.66 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Ms. Little informed the Commission the subject property was a part of a parent tract of 40 acres which had been rezoned from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, in December 1986. She explained that at that time planning staff had supported the rezoning "...provided it is the intent of the developer to extend water and sewer facilities to the property and to provide fire plugs for fire protection." She also noted the report had further stated, "If these public facilities are not provided then the change to R-1 District is considered premature." Ms. Little explained the current land use on the parcel was vacant. She reported that immediately to the north was the Razorback Park Golf Course; to the east, but widely separated, were two single-family homes on large tracts; land to the south was vacant; and to the west was a well-established mobile home park. Ms. Little stated water was available to the subject property approximately 800 feet away; however, sewer had not been extended. She explained Mr. Sonneman had indicated he intended to subdivide the tract and develop it. She further explained that, without installation of sewer, the area would have to be served by septic tanks, requiring a minimum of 1.5 acres per lot. Ms. Little stated she did not recommend rezoning the subject land to a heavier density use. She explained that although the property had been zoned R-1 for approximately five years, it had not developed and there were no significant supporting developments in the immediate vicinity. She stated there was a need for the issue of extension of sewerage to be resolved both by the city and the developer and, until that issue was resolved, further rezoning was not supported. Mr. Nickle pointed out there was an R-2 immediately to the east. Ms. Little stated there was a house on the property and perhaps an apartment over the garage. sy • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 2 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated sewer was not readily available to the site. He explained there would either have to be a very long gravity sewer built or a pump station constructed. Ms. Britton asked if the intersection of Deane, Porter and Mt. Comfort would be addressed in the transportation study. She stated she could not recommend any development taking place in this area until the intersection was cleared up. Mr. Sonneman stated he would be happy to answer any questions they might have. He explained he had put the water in on the property a number of years ago but did not know when the city planned to put in sewer. He asked when they might get sewer in that area. Mr. Nickle stated the developer would have to put in a pump station. He explained Mr. Sonneman needed to discuss the matter with the City Engineer. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Little stated her comments concerning not recommending a heavier density use related to the lack of sewer for the site. It was determined that the closest sewer was at Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Allred expressed his opinion they did not need to approve developments within the City limits without adequate sewer facilities. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Commissioners Tarvin, Britton, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, Nickle, and Springborn voting "yes" and Commissioner Cleghorn voting "no". FINAL PLAT - TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION MEL MILHOLLAND - N OF MISSION, E OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Timber Crest Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Pennington Development. The property is located on the north side of Mission, east of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 27.52 acres with 58 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn reported the discussion at the plat review meeting concerned a drainage swale planned for the east side of lots 33 through 36. He explained some of the utility companies were concerned that the use of the area as a drainage swale might interfere with its use as a utility easement. He stated Mr Milholland had indicated the swale would be quite shallow and would be carrying very little drainage and erosion would not be a problem. Mr. Bunn also reported the comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting concerned the fact there would not be any ground cover in certain areas for some time. He noted Ms. Britton had suggested that temporary seeding be required. Mr. Bunn recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements; temporary seeding of bare areas; construction of sidewalks; and payment of park fees as required by the City. S"5' • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the subdivision subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - HOUSTON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION HARRY GRAY - E OF PORTER RD., S OF DEANE ST. The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Houston Meadows Subdivision presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Gordon Houston, for property located east of Porter Road and south of Deane Street. The property is zoned R- 2, Medium Density Residential and contains 5.27 acres with 34 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained there were no significant comments by any of the utility companies at the plat review meeting. He noted there had been some easement changes requested and agreed to by the owners. He stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting concerned drainage. He stated the question was whether the drainage from the development would adversely affect the surrounding property. He explained it had been indicated that the subdivision would improve drainage rather than cause additional problems. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; a contract with the City on the unfinished construction; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees. Mr. Gray concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - WOODFIELD ADDITION, PHASE II HARRY GRAY - E OF SALEM RD., N OF WEDINGTON The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Woodfield Addition, Phase II presented by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Wedington. The property is zoned R-1.5, Medium Density Residential, and contains 7.84 acres with 39 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by the utilities on the final plat other than some additional easements requested and agreed to by the owners. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; a contract with the City for the completion of all unfinished improvements in Phase II; payment of parks fees; and construction of sidewalks. MOTION • Ms. Britton moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONCURRENT PLAT - SPRING CREEK NORTH ADDITION HARRY GRAY - N OF MISSION, OFF OF CHARLEE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Spring Creek North Addition (a replat of a portion of Spring Creek), presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Charles Sloan, for property located north of Mission, off of Charlee. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 1.78 acres with 4 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained this was a replat of lots 13 through 15 of Spring Creek Addition. He stated there were no significant comments by the utility companies nor were there any comments by the staff. He noted the construction of the cul- de-sac to the west would allow for future extension of that street. Mr. Bunn recommended the concurrent plat be approved as a final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of plan and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees. Mr. Nickle asked if this replat would tie two subdivisions together. Mr. Bunn stated there was still some development land in between the two subdivisions. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU 92-10 - COFFEE SHOP THOMAS SIEDSCHLAG - 701 N. COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a conditional use for a coffee shop to be located in R -O, Residential Office area presented by Thomas Siedschlag for property located at 701 North College. Ms. Little stated she had not talked with the petitioner on the subject request and, in her report, had stated the property was currently in use as a bakery. She further stated she had talked with several people since she had written her report and found the site might not be a bakery. She asked the petitioner the use of the building. Mr. Siedschlag stated he would be selling pastries but he would not be baking them at the subject location. Ms. Little explained that under the 1970 Zoning Ordinance the subject tract had been designated R -O, Residential Office. She noted it had been the subject of three rezoning attempts in 1972, in 1975, and in 1983. She explained that in June of 1983, the property was rezoned to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance for use as a pizza delivery and western store. She noted that in December of 1983, a new Bill of Assurances was offered for use as a home improvement business. She explained that at the cessation of that business, according to the terms of the • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 5 1983 rezoning, the property reverted to R -O zoning. She stated that in August of 1989, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use for use as a cake shop. Ms. Little explained the petitioner was requesting to use the building as a coffee shop. She further explained that in R -O zoning, the addition of eating places (which consumption of coffee was being considered) was provided for in Use Unit 13. She stated this unit was specifically created "...so that eating places can be located as needed without necessarily introducing other commercial uses." Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested conditional use. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Siedschlag explained their hours of operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Nickle asked if adequate parking would be provided. Ms. Little noted there was adequate parking. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the conditional use. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU 92-11 - TANDEM LOT & LOT SPLIT DALE YOUNGMAN - N OF ZION, E OF CROSSOVER The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a conditional use for a tandem lot located in A-1, Agricultural zoning, presented by Dale Youngman for property located north of Zion Road and east of Crossover Road. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for a tandem lot and a lot split for property owner by John Kesner. He stated the original tract was 20.5 acres and the lot to be split off was 7.7 acres. Mr. Bunn stated the property was located north of Zion Road and east of Crossover Road and was adjacent to the City limits. He further stated the split could have been approved administratively, however, since the lot did not have the proper frontage, it would have to be approved as a tandem lot. He explained it apparently did have some frontage on Zion Road but would still need some access from the adjacent property. He stated he had received a letter from Frank and Mary Grant which pledged the additional access easement. He noted the permanent access easement was conditioned upon the sale of the property to Mr. Youngman. Mr. Bunn explained there was water available on Zion Road but there was no sewer available for the property. He further stated the lot was large enough for septic tank approval. He recommended approval of the tandem lot and lot split subject to the sale of the property to Mr. Youngman. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the property was zoned A-1 and would require a 200 -foot frontage to be a legal frontage lot. Ms. Britton pointed out the boundaries of the property were quite irregular and asked why. SA • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Youngman stated there was a creek running through the property and the boundary line followed the creek. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the tandem lot and the lot split subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE CU92-12 - TANDEM LOT & LOT SPLIT LARRY UPTEGRAFT - S OF MT. COMFORT, W OF SHILOH The next item was discussion of a conditional use request for a tandem lot presented by Larry Uptegraft for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little stated she wanted to bring this matter to the Commission's'attention. She explained Mr. Uptegraft had requested the Planning Department consider allowing the construction of a second home on a tandem lot. She pointed out the ordinance allowed only one single-family home per tandem lot. She also noted the ordinance barred the development of one tandem lot behind another tandem lot. Ms. Little explained she had advised Mr. Uptegraft to seek an additional 25 -foot access to the subject property from Mt. Comfort Road. She further explained this would allow the petitioner to split the property into two four -acre tracts. She stated Mr. Uptegraft had been unable to obtain such access and it was her belief the matter would need to be referred to the City Board since the ordinance prohibited the placement of one tandem lot behind another. She explained it was up to the City Board to make any exceptions to the ordinance. Mr. Allred stated he had received a telephone call from the property owner directly to the north of the subject property. He stated the caller was not opposed to the tandem lot provided an additional easement was not requested or required of him. Me. Little noted she had also received phone calls opposed to the split. She explained this matter would be presented to the Board of Directors on May 5. Ms. Britton asked what would happen to the property behind the lots on Mt. Comfort. She asked if the land would have no access at some future time. Ms. Little stated there was agricultural land behind the lots on Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Bunn stated the property immediately to the west of the subject property was Dr. Harris' airport. He explained the subject property did not cut off any other property from development. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 JOAN WOODY - E OF OAKLAND ZION RD., N OF HWY 45 The next item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for lot split #1 requested by Joan Woody for property located east of Oakland Zion Road and north of Highway 45. This property is outside the City Limits. Mr. Bunn explained this was a proposed split of a 5.98 acre tract into one 3.13 acre tract (Tract "A") and one 2.85 acre tract. He explained both lots would 59 • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 7 front on County Road 83 (Oakland -Zion Road). He stated water was available to both tracts off of County Road 83. He further stated the property was outside of the City limits and therefore would not have sewer available. Mr. Bunn recommended that the split be approved subject to the granting of such road right-of-way as might be required by Washington County. Ms. Britton questioned the fact that the property was outside the City limits but had city water. Mr. Bunn explained the property was in the growth area. He noted there was water both to the east and west of the city for some distance. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated there was no sewer at the location. The petitioner was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the lot splits subject to the granting of such road right-of-way as might be required by Washington County. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Introduction of Regional Planning Member Ms. Little introduced Celia Scott Silkwood with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. Subdivisions Approved in 1991 Ms. Little stated each Commissioner had received a map showing all subdivisions developed within the last year. Ms. Langley explained the maps represented only the concurrent and final plats approved in 1991. She noted there were 18 subdivisions with 305 acres. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Langley stated there were 323 lots within the 18 subdivision. Me. Little stated staff had wanted the Commission to have this information but it would also be used to coordinate with the School System so they would have an idea of where the growth in Fayetteville was occurring. Mr. Nickle recommended a copy of the map be given to the City Board. Land Use Resolution Mr. Springborn explained that during the last three or four years, since the City hired RM Planners for the completion of a new land use plan and the drafting of a new planning ordinance, he had asked on a number of occasions the status. He further explained that, in order to expedite the completion of such plan and ordinance and getting the backing of the City Board, he had drafted a resolution. He proposed the resolution be submitted to the City Board with a recommendation that they adopt the same. 6.0 • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 8 ' Mr. Springborn then read the resolution, as follows: "WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan and the Planning and Associated Ordinances for the City of Fayetteville are over 20 years old and have become inadequate; and WHEREAS, an update for the City land use plan and a new unified city planning ordinance were initiated over three years ago by RM Planners under contract with the City at a substantial cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City has been undertaking stopgap ordinances and making plans to accommodate growth with inadequate reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a team comprised of City Staff, headed by Alett Little, at least two City Directors, and at least two City Planning Commissioners, be immediately designated to formulate a new land use plan and draft a unified planning ordinance making full use of the material currently in the Planning Office files. The target date for completion to be July 1, 1992, to provide subsequent time for public endorsement and Board adoption before year end." He volunteered his time and efforts as needed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Little stated she had recently spoken with Al Raby of RM Planning Group. She stated the City owed approximately $6,000 for the completion of their work on the general plan. She further stated the work on the code of unified ordinances contract had been completed. She explained Mr. Raby had indicated he was very willing to work with the city and to do everything he could to complete the project. Mr. Nickle asked if Ms. Little concurred with the resolution. Ms. Little stated she believed the target date was overly optimistic. She explained the land use studies had been completed two years earlier. She stated she would like to update that information during the summer and use it as the basis for preparing the land use plan. She noted she would also like the opportunity to integrate within the plan both the transportation plan and the recreation master plan that were currently being prepared by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. She stated the time frame set forth in the resolution did not allow sufficient time to incorporate those plans. Ms. Little stated she was planning to hire two planners and had received applications from several well-qualified people who had just completed general plans and could start to work immediately on a general plan for Fayetteville. Mr. Nickle asked if, prior to Ms. Little's appointment as City Planning Director, the City had a time table on the master plan. Me. Little explained the drafts on both the code of ordinances and the general plan had been submitted to the City in draft form in September, 1989. She further explained they needed to update both of those drafts. Mr. Springborn stated he had specifically mentioned "making full use of" which left it open-ended so the staff had the necessary flexibility to do whatever they saw as necessary to complete the plans to their satisfaction. Mr. Allred concurred they needed to complete the plans, however, he did not believe they were qualified, either time -wise or experience -wise, to draft an ordinance. He stated that was not his field of expertise. He stated he would support a resolution to the Board to see if they could re-engage RM Planning Group to finish what they had started. He further stated if RM Planning Group 6l • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 9 could not complete the plan, then they could work together to get the plan completed. Mr. Springborn noted the resolution set out "a team comprised of city staff". He explained that it was his intent to incorporate the legal talent as required in order to accomplish the completion of the plans. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to submit the resolution to the Board with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He noted the City Board could work out the details with the staff. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. He noted Commissioners and two City Directors might help some of the situations. He stated he believed the injection of two Planning because they would be closer to they could be there for input. Mr. Tarvin asked how detailed the land use plan would be. Me. Little explained a general land use plan was supposed to be general. She further explained it was supposed to show areas that would develop in a certain way. She stated they needed to take all things into consideration when they were doing a land use plan but things would change over a period of time. She stated that was why it needed to be kept as a general plan. Mr. Tarvin asked what would happen if the owner did not want his land to be developed as set forth by the general plan. Me. Little explained there would be public hearings before adoption of the plan. She stated this would be the basis for the zoning ordinance. She pointed out that not only was the current plan, done in 1970, out of date it also did not cover all of the areas for which the city was now responsible. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated the draft prepared in 1989 stopped at the existing land use. Mr. Nickle stated he saw no problems in passing the resolution on to the Board for their consideration. He pointed out it showed interest on the part of the Commission to move forward. Ms. Britton pointed out they did have an antiquated land use plan. Mr. Suchecki stated he was concerned with the short time period. He noted two months was not a very long time to put together such a plan. Mr. Springborn again referred to the resolution and noted work had started on this project over three years ago. Ms. Little stated the unified ordinance portion was in much better shape than the general plan portion. Mr. Nickle pointed out the Board would put whatever time frame they wanted. He stated the resolution would just show the Commission felt it was important that the plans be completed. The motion passed unanimously. • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1992 Page 10 Vision Project Mr. Cleghorn asked if there was a deadline yet for the Vision Project. Ms. Little stated she was working on it. She explained it was her total responsibility at this point in time but she needed more time to work on it. She explained there were two problems that needed to be resolved. The first was to separate those items already completed from those still needing to be accomplished. The second was to determine the accurate dollar figure to be assigned to Vision projects. She explained those problems would be both difficult and time-consuming to solve. Mr. Cleghorn asked for a ballpark time frame. Mr. Nickle suggested that at the next meeting she could present them with a time frame. Mr. Springborn noted he had assisted in drawing oil and gas regulations for state boards and commissions to administer the development for oil and gas. He stated they had a team of from 5 to 7 people and in each instance they completed these regulations in six days. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 63