HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-13 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 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:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, Kenneth
Pummill, and Jerry Allred
Jack Cleghorn, J. E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin and Jett Cato
Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION
JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLES - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD., S OF ZION RD.
The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for
Ridgewood Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and
Rick Roblee for property located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, south of
Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (proposed rezoning to R-1,
Low Density Residential - R91-23), and contains 26.59 acres with 17 proposed
lots.
Mr. Bunn referred the Commission to his report of December 4, 1991 regarding this
property. He explained there was only one change in the plat -- the location of
the street entering the subdivision. He pointed out that, on the revised plat,
the street going into the subdivision was now located north of Stearns Street
rather than being directly across from Stearns. He recommended approval of the
subdivision subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments;
approval of the plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage construction; a
contract with the developer for the construction of sidewalks along Old Missouri
Road; payment of parks fees; and the granting of a street easement of 25 feet
along the south side of the subdivision (for the eventual extension of Stearns
Street).
Ms. Britton pointed out the reason the plat had been tabled previously was
because the developers never wanted Stearns Street to line up with the
subdivision. She noted there would be a conflicting intersection if Stearns went
to the south of the subdivision. She stated the minimum distance between
intersections should be 150 feet or the streets should line up. She further
stated that, if Stearns went through to Highway 265, it would be offset. She
asked if the corner of Lot 18 would be dedicated so the two streets would line
up.
Mr. Bunn stated that provision had not been made.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained that, should a
street be constructed in the 25 -foot easement, it would be named Stearns.
Ms. Little explained there was also an existing 20 -foot access easement to the
adjoining property from the Knox property, giving access to the Rudco property.
She stated they could better utilize the existing dedicated accesses should
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 2
Stearns Street ever be extended. She further noted there would be 150 feet
between Stearns and Ridgewood Street. She also agreed there would be a jog in
Stearns Street. She explained this was a compromise with the petitioners.
Ms. Britton noted they were giving the petitioners what they wanted.
Mr. Jim Phillips explained they had tried for some time to get the subdivision
worked out to everyone's satisfaction. He stated he was requesting the 25 feet
of access easement at the southern boundary of the property be used for roadway
purposes only as opposed to being a convenient access to adjoining property
owners. He noted they had looked at the Master Street Plan prior to purchasing
the land and the Plan had not indicated that Stearns was to be a through street.
Mr. Phillips then requested a waiver of the sidewalk requirements along the east
side of Old Missouri Road. He gave as reasons for his request that they were
voluntary giving land for future street purposes, the terrain was quite steep and
rough, and there was already a sidewalk on the west side of the street.
Mr. Bunn explained the easement would be used for access even though it might not
go on to Highway 265. He further explained it would be useful for circulation
in the area.
Ms. Susan Sissom, 4031 Old Missouri Road, expressed concern regarding drainage.
She stated there was already a problem with the drainage and she was fearful a
subdivision would add to the problem. She also noted there was a drainage ditch
but people were dumping garbage and trash into it. Ms. Sissom also pointed out
the excessive traffic on Old Missouri Road. She explained Old Missouri was not
very wide, was quite hilly and curvy, and motorists exceeded the 25 m.p.h. speed
limit.
Mr. Bunn stated he had discussed the drainage along Old Missouri Road with the
applicant and it was the intent that the drainage be improved on the east side
of Old Missouri Road.
Ms. Little noted Bentwood Lane was in excess of 500 feet in length so it would
require a waiver from the Planning Commission. She further stated she did not
recommend a sidewalk waiver.
Mr. Phillips pointed out that, while he appreciated Ms. Sissom's concerns, the
subdivision was being developed at a much lower density than it could have been.
He stated he did not think the traffic impact of 14 homes would be very great.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and
the granting of a waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-1-0 with Coissioners Suchecki, Nickle, Pummill, and Allred
voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-23
JIM PHILLIPS & RICR ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD., S OF ZION RD.
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R91-23 on property
located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road, presented by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee. The request is to
rezone 25.61 acres from is A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Nickle advised that approval of a rezoning had to be by 5 Planning
Commissioners. He pointed out there were only 5 members present. He asked the
applicant if he preferred to table the rezoning request until the next meeting.
Mr. Phillips requested the item be tabled for two weeks.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to table the rezoning request for two weeks.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
Mr. Bunn noted the approval of the subdivision was subject to the rezoning
because under A-1 zoning the subdivision did not meet city requirements.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Nickle noted that all of the rezonings on the agenda would take 5 affirmative
votes. He asked the applicants if they wished their items heard or preferred to
have the requests tabled for two weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-22
DANNY VILLINES - S SIDE OF MISSION BLVD., W OF CROSSOVER RD.
The next item on the agenda was a request for rezoning property located on the
south side of Mission Boulevard, west of Crossover, presented by Danny Villines.
The request is to rezone 3.11 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
Me. Little explained the subject tract was currently vacant land which was
adjacent to Park Place Subdivision. She pointed out that to the east was
Johnson's Motor Service, which had a single-family home located to the rear of
the business; to the north, across Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard), land was
vacant extending to the east; to the north and immediately west, land had been
developed as duplexes.
Me. Little further explained that review of the zoning map showed a very clear
pattern of development, substantiated by actual growth patterns in the area. She
noted areas to the west were growing residentially, with intervening buffering
areas of residential office uses, progressing to the east and the major
intersection of C-1, followed by C-2 properties. She advised the Commission the
subject property was currently zoned R-1 and, if it developed in accordance with
that classification, it would not be incompatible with the current uses in the
area. Recognizing that large portions of the areas currently zoned C-1 had
either not developed or had not developed intensively, she noted the potential
for uses incompatible with Bingle -family residential homes did exist.
Ms. Little recommended denial of the requested rezoning. She explained the
classification of C-2 was overly intense and allowed uses highly incompatible
with the surrounding development. She noted staff did not find the current
zoning classification of R-1 incompatible with the current growth patterns;
however, if the land currently zoned C-1 developed intensively, commercial uses
might adversely impact development potential for single-family homes. She
advised the Planning Commission might wish to consider the buffering zone of R -O,
Residential Office, for the subject tract, making the zoning patterns compatible
with current zoning in the area and recognizing the future potential for
additional commercial development which might be incompatible with the current
R-1 classification.
The applicant requested the item be tabled for two weeks.
\'LO
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 4
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to table the request for two weeks.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-23 AND REZONING R92-24
NELSON CURTIS & GLENN OLDHAM - N OF W. 6TH, W OF ONE MILE RD.
The next item was a request for the rezoning of 5.25 acres located on the north
side of West 6th Street, west of One Mile Road, presented by Mike Price on behalf
of Nelson Curtis and Glenn Oldham, from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial; and 1.34 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density
Residential.
MOTION
Upon request by the petitioner, Mr. Allred moved to table this item for two
weeks.
Me. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 1, 2 AND 3
NELSON CURTIS & GLENN OLDHAM - S OF OLD FARMINGTON, W OF ONE MILE RD.
The next item was a request for a lot split of the property previously under
consideration for rezoning, located on the south side of Old Farmington Road,
west of One Mile Road, presented by Mike Price on behalf of Nelson Curtis and
Glenn Oldham.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to table the lot splits for two weeks.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R92-25, R92-26, & R92-27
DR. MAE NETTLESHIP - E OF GREGG, N OF TOWNSHIP
The next three items were requests for rezonings on property located east of
Gregg, north of Township Road; presented by Dave Jorgensen, submitted by Jim
Lindsey on behalf of Dr. Mae Nettleship. Rezoning R92-25 is a request to rezone
51.34 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential; Rezoning
R92-26 is a request to rezone 8.21 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R -O,
Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; and R92-27 is a request to
rezone 19.65 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office.
Ms. Little explained the subject
frontage along Gregg Street but
property, zoned from west to east,
and Township.
She explained Tract A, the northernmost tract, consisted of 51.34 acres and was
currently an undeveloped, wooded area, zoned A-1. She stated the tract abutted
tract of land totaled 79.20 acres and had
not on Township as there was intervening
C-2, I-1, and C-2, between the subject tract
Izl
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 5
other property zoned R-1, R-1.5, and A-1 to the north; and R-2 to the east and
west. She further stated the adjoining parcel to the south was a portion of the
rezoning request and was presently zoned A-1. She noted this parcel represented
approximately 2/3's of the land which was the topic of the rezoning request. She
explained since this property was surrounded on three sides by similarly zoned
properties, a zoning classification of R-2 would be considered to be appropriate.
She also noted a tract this size would be subject to a large scale development
review, requiring review by the Plat Committee, Subdivision Committee and the
Planning Commission prior to development. She stated items which should be
addressed during the development phase of this area were plans for the widening
of Gregg Street, possibly requiring dedication of street right-of-way;
development of Drake Street (as shown on the Master Street Plan) at the northern
boundary of the tract to provide an east -west access from Highway 71B (College
Avenue) to the By -Pace; floodplain considerations along Schull Creek; and the
provision (or maintenance of a portion of the existing trees) for a buffer for
the residential development.
Ms. Little further explained that Tract B, the central and westernmost tract,
consisted of two parcels and a total of 8.21 acres. She stated that, of the two
parcels, the northernmost parcel consisted of 3.99 acres and was being split from
the 51.34 acres (Tract A). She explained the second of the two parcels consisted
of 4.22 acres and was currently zoned R -O. She noted the requested zoning change
was to rezone the two parcels as one with a classification of C-1, neighborhood
commercial. She pointed out the 8.21 acres represented approximately 1/10 of the
subject land. She stated these parcels had frontage on Gregg Street, which had
been discussed for widening and was currently classified as a minor arterial.
She also pointed out land across the street and immediately south of the tract
was currently zoned and partially developed as C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. She
noted if the subject tract was rezoned, it would adjoin C-2 property on the
southern boundary.
Ms. Little then stated Tract C, the easternmost tract, consisted of 19.65 acres
and was currently zoned A-1. She stated this parcel represented approximately
1/4 of the total parcel. She explained this tract did not have frontage (and
none was required) on either Township or Gregg. She advised the Commission this
tract adjoined two other parcels currently zoned R -O to the south and east.
There is also a parcel of approximately 25 acres of R-2 property located to the
northeast. Ms. Little explained that, because of the lack of frontage, the
subject property was not well suited to intense commercial development. She
further stated that, because much of the land around this parcel had already
developed as zoned, R-2, a classification of R -O to provide a buffer from
existing and proposed commercial development was deemed appropriate.
Me. Little recommended approval of the requested rezoning, and commended the
petitioner for addressing the large parcel as a whole, taking into consideration
adjoining properties and their current zones.
Mr. Jorgensen stated he wanted to table this item for two weeks.
Ms. Britton asked if there was a flood plain in the northwest corner of Tract A.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that, according to the flood plain map, it could be slightly
in the flood plain.
Ms. Little requested he verify whether it was in the flood plain before the next
meeting.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to table the rezoning requests.
122.
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE CU92-15 - HOME OCCUPATION, COMMERCIAL KITCHEN & RECEPTIONS
DAVE MERSKY & HARRIETT NEIMAN - 40 CROSSOVER RD.
The next item was a request for a conditional use for a home occupation
(commercial kitchen and receptions) presented by Dave Mersky and Harriett Neiman,
to be located at 40 Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential.
Me. Little explained the house was located east of Crossover Road on a large
wooded tract of land totalling slightly more than three acres. She noted the
drive was currently unpaved, and the house was in need of many repairs. She
explained the petitioners desired to acquire the property, reside on the
premises, and operate a cooking school/reception hall from the dwelling. She
further noted the home was located within a large area of R-1 properties which
was approximately 50% developed.
Ms. Little recommended against the requested conditional use for a home
occupation. She explained there were several contributing factors in her
recommendation: primarily, the petitioners were not current residents of the home
and would be acquiring the property for the dual purpose of establishing both a
business and a residence. She stated the property was not zoned for commercial
business, nor would commercial business be compatible with the surrounding uses.
She noted the term "home occupation" was intended in the zoning ordinance to
permit residents to operate small scale, low intensity businesses from their
residences, primarily as a way of allowing people to start small and then grow
into a commercial use which would then be moved to a more suitable location. She
explained that, in this case, the petitioners actually wanted to acquire the
property to set up this business which was a slightly different matter.
Ms. Little went on to explain the home and surroundings were in a poor state of
repair. She noted staff would look more favorably upon the request if the
petitioners were already residents and the property had already been brought up
to code. She advised the petitioners might wish to take those steps and bring
their request back to the Planning Commission at a later date.
Ms. Neiman stated the home was constructed in 1880 and was in need of repair.
She explained the structure was a two-story farm house on three heavily wooded
acres. She further explained she presently had a catering business and a cooking
school but also needed someplace to hold small, private receptions. She stated
financing was contingent upon receiving approval from the Commission. She
expressed her opinion this type of business was greatly needed in the area and
would also preserve the beauty and charm of the property.
In response to a question from Mr.
20 people at the receptions; that
personal affairs.
Nickle, Ms. Neiman stated there would be 15 -
the receptions would be very small, private,
Ms. Britton stated she understood both the petitioner's idea and the Planning
Director's concerns.
In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little explained a conditional
use was automatically renewed at the end of a year unless a number of complaints
had been received. She stated that, if complaints were received, the conditional
use request would go before the Planning Commission again.
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 7
In response to a question regarding notification of adjacent property owners, Ms.
Neiman stated they had sent notification by certified mail and had called on
residents of the neighborhood. She stated the residents seemed to be in favor
of the request.
Mr. Pummill asked if the applicants were planning on repairing the structure.
Ms. Neiman stated it would have to be repaired before she could move in to the
house. She explained they would be hiring an architect to contribute to the
restoration of the home. She also pointed out the driveway was a circular
driveway so customers would not have to back out on Crossover Road.
Ms. Little advised the Commission and the applicant there were numerous
constraints for a home occupation: approval would take five affirmative votes;
no person may be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing
on the premises; no parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces
may be permitted; no home occupation shall be open to the public earlier than
7:30 a.m. or later than 5:30 p.m., provided the Planning Commission may vary
those restrictions imposed upon a determination that such a variance would not
adversely affect the health, safety, peace, tranquility, or welfare of the
neighborhood in which the home occupation is located. She also noted these
conditions were furnished to the petitioner at the time the application was
completed.
Ms. Neiman stated it was her understanding parking would not be a problem because
the driveway was quite long and they planned to have some parking spaces at the
side of the house. She also requested a waiver to the hours of operation. She
requested she be allowed to be open until 10:00 p.m. She expressed her opinion
that would not disturb anyone because of the trees surrounding the house. She
also pointed out the neighbors were not near to the house and there was no visual
contact with the neighbors.
Mr. Allred asked if there would be bands and entertainment.
Ms. Neiman stated she would not have bands but might have a pianist, or classical
guitar players, etc.
Mr. Allred asked if the house would be brought up to commercial code or
residential code.
Ms. Little stated the city's standards would be the residential code but the
health department would have to approve the structure also in order for the
applicant to be able to serve food to the public.
There was also discussion regarding whether the applicant would have to meet the
fire code. Ms. Little stated other home occupations were not inspected by the
Fire Department.
Bobby McDaniel, a resident of the area, questioned Ms. Neiman regarding the use
of the premises. Ms. Neiman explained her plan for operation of her home
occupation.
Mr. Allred asked if approval of the conditional use would be contingent upon the
house being brought up to code before the home occupation could become effective.
Ms. Little stated the Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the
house was brought up to code and passed final inspection.
Mr. Pummill stated the one argument he kept thinking about was the preservation
of the home. He explained that, in the event there was not an arrangement made
'Zt
•
418
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 8
to preserve the home, it could fall prey to further development. He noted the
subject area was not densely populated.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve the request.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ADAM STREET TOWNHOUSES
GLENN SOWDER - N OF ADAMS, W OF GREGG
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for the
Adam Street Townhouses, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Glenn Sowder for
property located on the north side of Adams Street, west of Gregg Avenue. The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 1.79 acres with
22 units.
Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development would consist of nine townhouses.
He noted there were no significant comments by any of the public utility company
representatives at the plat review meeting other than some easements requested
and agreed to by the owner.
He stated staff had several comments on the proposed development. He explained
the main comments concerned 1) the location of the proposed driveway onto North
Street, 2) the number of driveway cuts onto Adams Street, 3) parking, and 4) the
location of an additional fire hydrant. He stated those questions were resolved
after further consultation between the city staff and developer.
Mr. Bunn explained the Subdivision Committee had discussed several aspects of the
development with the location of the drive onto North Street being the main
topic. He stated the decision was made to allow the driveway as shown. He
further stated the Committee recommended approval of the large scale development
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat
review and subdivision comments; approval of detailed plans for the extension of
water and sewer and drainage plans; approval of a grading plan; placing a fire
hydrant within the complex as required by the Fire Chief; re -orienting the units
that face Adams Street to eliminate excessive curb cuts; payment of parks fees
and construction of sidewalks per city ordinances; and dedication of all required
easements by separate instrument.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, MS. Little explained the larger unit
had been oriented to face the interior street and one of the garages on the
smaller unit had been turned to face the interior street with one driveway
exiting to Adams Street. She noted that reduced the number of curb cuts on Adams
Street from 6 to 2. She explained she believed this was a good compromise.
Mr. Jorgensen stated they concurred with staff comments. He noted the access on
North Street was the best available, considering the location. He pointed out
that, had they moved the access to the west, it would be a steeper grade.
Ms. Little noted that comment had come up as a result of the Traffic
Superintendent's remark that traffic backed up at the subject intersection. She
pointed out the traffic backed up down to the railroad track so relocating the
entrance would not improve the situation. She stated if the traffic was backed
up to that degree, the residents had access to Adams Street.
r
,Zi
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 9
Ms. Britton asked how far the driveway was from the intersection.
Mr. Sowder stated it was 170 feet. He explained there was one lot between the
subject property and the corner and it was 150 feet long, plus a 20 foot parking
area on the developed site.
Ms. Britton asked if there was adjoining property that would be added to the
site.
Mr. Jorgensen explained Mr. Sowder had an option to purchase adjoining property
at the intersection of North and Gregg Street. He further stated Mr. Sowder had
not decided whether to purchase the property or not.
No. Little pointed out it would be a much smaller site -- approximately 1/2 acre.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development for the Adams Street
Townhouses.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SIMPLE% MOTEL
SIMPLE% MOTEL GROUP - S OF W. 6TH, W OF SHILOH DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development presented
by Tom Hopper on behalf of the Simplex Motel Group for property located south of
west 6th Street, west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial, and contain 2.35 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained this development consisted of an 85 -unit motel. He stated the
main entrance to the motel would be off of Shiloh Drive with a secondary entrance
and exit off a private drive serving the trailer park to the south of the
proposed motel. He noted the acreage involved was 2.35 acres with the north 0.75
acres not directly associated with the motel.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant issues raised at the plat review
meeting other than some easements asked for by the utility companies and agreed
to by the owner. He further stated there had been some discussion on the need
to relocate a portion of sewer line, the location of the dumpster, and the
location of the entrance to the motel off of Shiloh Drive.
He stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting centered mainly
around the fact that the development as presented did not coincide with the
development as described at the time of rezoning. He advised it had been
indicated that the off-site sign was not allowed at the designated location
because of Braums existing sign. He stated there was also a question of whether
access off of Shiloh Drive should be by a permanent access easement.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; the granting of all required easements
by separate instrument; approval of a grading plan and detailed plane for water,
sewer and drainage; and the acquisition of a permanent access easement off of
Shiloh Drive.
Mr. Tom Hopper reminded the Commission they had asked for a rezoning of the
subject property at an earlier meeting. He stated at that time they had not
completed the grading nor drainage plans. He explained they had planned on the
1Z6
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 10
motel being on the front parcel of land but as they got into the grading plan it
became apparent there was a drainage problem on the front parcel. He further
explained that, after they had solved the drainage problem, they planned on
extending the motel to the north but at the present time they planned on
constructing 85 units on the southern tract of property. He assured the
Commission the northern parcel was to be used for expansion of the motel and not
for any other commercial uses.
Mr. Hopper also advised the Commission they had a 40 year lease for the access
easement to Shiloh Drive. He stated that originally there was access from the
trailer park to the motel but, based on recommendations from the plat review
meeting, they had agreed to close that entrance.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper explained there would be
a fence across the south side. He stated they had not wanted to put a fence on
the west side along the private drive. He further stated there were trees along
the drive that could serve as screening.
Me. Britton stated she would like to have a second access to the motel.
Mr. Hopper explained he had discussed the matter with the Fire Chief and had been
assured one access would be adequate since there was a private drive along the
west side.
Mr. 0. A. Cook, an adjacent property owner, asked if the motel was to be a part
of the Park Inn.
Mr. Hopper stated it was a separate motel.
Another property owner in the area asked if the structure would be a quality
motel.
Mr. Hopper assured him the motel was owned by a national chain.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the large scale development subject to staff comments.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - SAVANNA ESTATES, PHASES I & II
MARK FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES - S OF SEILLERN, E OF CROSSOVER
The next item was a request for approval of Phases I and II of Savanna Estates,
presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Buddy Peoples, for
property located on the south side of Skillern Road, east of Crossover Road. The
property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, with Phase I containing 13.35
acres with 22 proposed lots and Phase II containing 27.48 acres with 21 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained most of the utility representatives were somewhat unsure of
easement locations because of the fact that not all of the phases were presented
at the same time. He stated they had been assured by the owners that all
easements required would be furnished.
He noted staff comments included location of fire hydrants, location of
sidewalks, length of the cul-de-sacs, and the need for a street easement to tie
Phase I into future development.
(Z%
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 11
Mr. Bunn noted Subdivision Committee comments centered on future tie-ins to other
development areas. He explained it had been decided that tie-ins to other
property was not needed for Phases I and II, but that additional tie-ins would
be considered for Phase III.
Mr. Bunn recommended approve of the preliminary plats subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of plans for water, sewer, streets, and
drainage; approval of a grading plan for the subdivision; construction of.
sidewalks four feet back from the street curbs; payment of parks fees as called
for by city ordinance; a waiver of the maximum cul-de-sac length; and Property
Owners' Association ownership and maintenance of all median areas.
Mr. Nickle questioned how the problem of paving the roadway to the property had
been solved.
Mr. Bunn explained the County was doing that part that had been in the county
prior to annexation and it would be 2 -inch asphalt (per city standards) but the
width was to county standards. He further noted the City had agreed to widen
Skillern Road on to Old Wire Road to the same width as county standards (30
feet).
Mr. Jorgensen complimented the spirit of cooperation between the city and county
and noted they were to start paving the roadway the following day.
Me. Britton expressed concern regarding the outlet to Skillern Road. She noted
the sight line was horrible coming around the curve.
Mr. Jorgensen pointed out they were reserving Lot 22 and Lot 1 (to be maintained
by the Property Owners Association) which would allow sight line in both
directions.
Ms. Britton stated that a fence on Lot 21 would block the sight line. She
pointed out there was a double "S" curve.
Mr. Jorgensen stated lot 21 could be restricted so there would be no view
obscuring structures or shrubbery.
Me. Little reminded the Commission the Planning Administrator could disallow any
fencing which would be view obscuring for traffic or pedestrian access.
Ms. Britton also expressed concern that in Phase II nothing connected -- that the
phase was all cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Jorgensen explained the next phase would be to the east and would tie in to
a phase which would tie back into Skillern.
Ms. Britton expressed her belief there needed to be another circulation in the
phase in order to eradicate the cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that subject had come up in the Subdivision Meeting and it
had been decided that when the other phases were completed they would address the
issue of circulation.
Ms. Britton stated that, if right-of-way was not dedicated, they would not be
able to tie in to the existing phases.
Mr. Jorgensen pointed out they had dedicated right-of-way in Phase I to tie-in
to the next phase to the east.
�Z b
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 12
Ms. Britton stated she
of the subdivision.
was referring to the cul-de-sac that went to the bottom
Mr. Jorgensen explained it was the wishes of the owner/developer to not tie on
to the south or the east.
Ms. Britton stated she did not feel that was adequate circulation.
Mr. Jorgensen explained Phase II was to be exclusive and there was no desire to
have any tie-ins. He pointed out that another access to Phase II would not
maintain the exclusiveness the owner was trying to obtain.
Mr. Nickle asked if Phase IV (to the west) would be a better location to bring
the roadway out.
Ms. Britton stated she believed it would be.
Mr. Jorgensen stated they could have an
pond and the current route was much more
being redone with natural stone and
subdivision.
access there but it would be below the
attractive. He explained the pond was
would be a feature to enhance the
Me. Britton stated she believed the entrance should be in the middle of the "S"
curve or 200 feet away from it.
Ms. Marie Lih, 3200 Skillern, stated she wanted to be sure the roadway was
widened and that she was not sure 30 feet would be wide enough. She also
expressed concern regarding additional access. She explained that, when the
property was rezoned, she had assumed the property would be compatible with the
existing homes in the area. She stated she did not believe Skillern Road could
handle the type of traffic the subdivision would generate. She also questioned
whether the easements for sewer, water, etc. would affect the existing property
owners.
Mr. Buddy Peoples explained there were three accesses planned for the
subdivision. He further explained they had contemplated developing this area as
a county subdivision but would have had to use septic tanks, making an excess of
50 septic tanks in one area. He stated they had not wanted to take the chance
of ruining the area with one bad septic system. He also pointed out there would
be approximately 150 feet of visibility at the access point.
Ms. Lih suggested larger lots so that there would be less traffic on Skillern
Road.
Mr. Peoples explained that in Phase II the lots would be approximately an acre
in size. He stated an acre -lot within the city limits was a large lot. He
pointed out the smallest lot in the entire subdivision would be approximately 100
x 150 feet, which was still a large lot by city standards.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat for Savanna Estates, Phase I,
subject to staff comments.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion passed Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, and Nickle voting
"yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no".
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 13
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat for Savanna Estates, Phase II,
subject to staff comments.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
Me. Britton expressed her belief right-of-way should be dedicated from the cul-
de-sacs. She pointed out the purpose of cul-de-sacs was to allow for excepted
terrain and this terrain was not excepted.
AMENDED MOTION
He. Britton amended the motion to provide for a right-of-way dedication to extend
the southernmost cul-de-sac.
Mr. Allred pointed out that would just loop the cul-de-sac to come to the same
point of beginning.
Ms. Britton stated it would allow for more circulation in the interior.
Mr. Nickle seconded the amended motion.
The amended motion failed with Commissioners Britton and Nickle voting "yes" and
Commissioners Allred, Suchecki and Pummill voting "no".
The motion carried with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki and Pummill voting "yes"
and Commissioners Nickle and Britton voting "no".
PRELIMINARY PLAT - SHADY ACRES
BMB PROPERTIES - E OF MISSION, W OF KINGS DR., N OF LAKESIDE
The next item was request for approval of a preliminary plat for Shady Acres
presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of BMB Properties, for property located on
the east side of Mission, the west side of Kings Drive, and north of Lakeside.
The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 10 acres with
25 lots proposed.
Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments by any of the utility
company representatives at the Plat Review Meeting. He noted staff had pointed
out possible problems with traffic exiting on Mission Road. He explained Mission
Road carried a great deal of traffic at the present time and, with the existing
traffic signal at North and Mission, it could cause problems, particularly with
the street nearest North Street. He explained it had also been suggested that
all driveways be confined to the interior streets rather than allowing individual
lots access Mission.
Mr. Bunn further explained the Subdivision Committee's discussion had centered
on the access of the lots which fronted on Kings Drive. He noted it had been
decided that no access to Kings Drive would be allowed with the exception of Lot
7. He stated the Committee had recommended approval of the preliminary plat.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan for the subdivision;
approval of water, sewer, streets, and drainage plans; restriction of access to
Mission and Kings Drive as discussed; construction of sidewalks per city
ordinance within the subdivision and adjacent to Mission Boulevard (sidewalks
along Mission should be constructed immediately since no driveways would access
Mission); payment of parks fees per ordinance; and resolution of street names.
1 30
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 14
Ms. Britton stated Lot 11 would have to access Kings Drive or be a tandem lot
since there was only 30 feet of frontage.
Mr. Bunn pointed out there was 70 feet of frontage on a public street (Kings
Drive). He stated the access point did not have to have 70 feet.
Ms. Britton asked why Lot 7 would have access to Kings Drive.
Ms. Little explained the terrain was very steep and there was already an access
easement to Lot 7.
Mr. Bunn explained Lot 7 would not have to access Kings Drive but did have the
option to do so.
Mr. Bunn explained there had been some discussion regarding making a cul-de-sac
to eliminate the drive onto Mission but the Fire Chief had recommended keeping
the intersection.
Ms. Britton noted the line of sight was a far worse problem at the north
intersection than the traffic conflict at the south end.
Mr. Nickle asked if there was a left turn lane planned from Mission onto North
Street.
Mr. Bunn stated there was none that he was aware of.
Mr. Nickle stated there was already a traffic problem at that intersection and
anyone wanting to turn left from this subdivision would have a problem in just
getting across the street. He asked if an access could line up with North
Street.
Mr. Bunn explained the owner did not own property to North Street.
Mr. Nickle suggested moving the main entrance to the subdivision from the
southern street to the northern one.
Ms. Britton pointed out that, as the plans were drawn, lot 1 would be blocked
from turning left due to the island.
Mr. Milholland stated there would be two islands, giving lot 1 adequate room to
back out of the driveway.
Mr. Ed Knight, an adjoining property owner, stated he had not received notice of
the Subdivision meeting until after it had occurred. He agreed with the
Commissioners regarding the heavy traffic at North Street and Mission, pointing
out that traffic was backed up every morning at the intersection. He also noted
there was a drainage problem in the area. He stated he had spoken with a realtor
regarding purchasing the subject property to keep it was it was.
Ms. Little pointed out notification of subdivision committee meetings was a
courtesy but not a requirement.
Mr. Knight stated approval of the subdivision would simply intensify the traffic
problem in the area. He stated other residents of the area were also opposed to
the subdivision.
Ms. Sandra Livingston, 1211 Mission Blvd., stated that one hour a day she could
not get out of her driveway due to the heavy traffic. She expressed concern
regarding the traffic. She also pointed out there was a drainage problem in the
area and specifically on her property.
13(
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July.13, 1992
Page 15
Ms. Britton asked if there was any additional right-of-way along Mission being
required.
Mr. Bunn stated the city already had the right-of-way.
Me. Fran Alexander, whose mother lives in the area, appeared before the
Commission and requested that her mother be notified should access on Kings be
allowed.
Mr. Nickle agreed with the residents that traffic in that area was a problem.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved that, since a number of property owners were not notified in
a timely manner and due to the traffic problems, the preliminary plat be denied.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
Mr. Allred stated the increasing traffic on Mission was a concern but noted there
were subdivisions further east on Mission being approved which dumped traffic on
Mission.
Mr. Pummill stated his problem with this subdivision was not the additional
traffic but its proximity to North Street. He stated the morning traffic in this
area would block both entrances to the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Allred noted there was a problem. He pointed out Mission was a state highway
and asked if there were any plans to improve the signalization at the
intersection.
Mr. Bunn stated he was not aware of any plans.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Milholland pointed out Mission was the only access point to the area.
Ms. Britton stated the beet situation would be for the access to line up with
North Street.
Mr. Milholland stated that would be impossible since the property owner did not
own land to North Street.
The Commission recessed for 10 minutes.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - ASPEN HEIGHTS
MB3 PROPERTIES - S OF MISSION, E OF FOX HUNTERS RD.
The next item was a preliminary plat for Aspen Heights Subdivision presented by
Mel Milholland on behalf of MB3 Properties, for property located south of Mission
and east of Fox Hunters Road. The property is outside the city limits and
contains 71.26 acres with 29 lots proposed.
Mr. Bunn stated it was his understanding the county had approved the subdivision
at their meeting earlier this date. He explained there had been no significant
comments by any of the utility representatives at the plat review meeting. He
noted staff comments concerned the water line sizing, the fire hydrant location,
and the possibility of sidewalks. He noted there was also concern that the
drainage be handled so as not to create problems downstream.
13 a-
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 16
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for the waterline
(8 -inch), streets, and drainage construction; and approval of street and
subdivision names.
He pointed out that, since this property was outside the city limits, there would
not be city sewer and the lots would have to be at least one and one-half acre
in size. He also noted that whether the property was served by the Fayetteville
Fire Department or the Goshen Fire Department depended upon individual contracts
with the city for fire protection.
Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments. He explained the county had
approved the subdivision subject to the streets being constructed to county
standards; that 30 feet of right-of-way be given to county road 75; dedication
of 30 feet of right-of-way from the entrance south along the entire length of lot
29 and from the entrance north along lot 1; to surface half of the roadway of
county road 329 along lot 1; waived the length of the cul-de-sac; and obtain an
off-site right-of-way along county road 75 toward Highway 45.
Mr. Milholland noted they would be changing the names of the subdivision and
streets in order to comply with the requests of 911 Systems.
Ms. Britton noted Lot 12 did not contain 1.5 acres.
Mr. Milholland stated that could be adjusted so it would contain 1.5 acres.
Mr. Bunn stated odors from the sewage treatment plant had been a problem in this
area. He stated both the developer and people purchasing lots needed to be aware
of the problem.
Mr. Pummill suggested a notation be made on the final plat regarding fire
protection.
Mr. Dick Rogers, representing the developers, appeared before the Commission and
explained the subdivision would be a very desirable development. He noted both
the covenants and environmental codes for the area were such that the minimum
size homes would be 2,400 square feet and any out buildings would have to match
the dwelling. He further noted the residents would have to have approval to
remove any tree over 4 inches. He pointed out the streets were designed to go
around the large trees.
Ms. Linda Lilly, an adjoining resident, explained she owned the farm to the north
of the proposed subdivision. She stated she felt pressure with the development
encroaching on the neighborhood. She expressed concern that people would
trespass onto her property and meddle with the livestock. She further stated she
wanted to preserve her family's way of life. She stated the only other access
to the subject property would be through her pasture and she was not in favor of
granting any access across her land.
In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Bunn explained that should a
private developer desire access to Highway 45, he would have to negotiate with
the property owner for it.
Ms. Fran Alexander, 1946 Fox Hunter Road, stated the County Planning Board had
expressed concerns regarding the traffic and the entrance of the subdivision
being close to a dangerous curve. She also noted her land would be downhill from
the subdivision and was concerned regarding the drainage. She stated she
received a great deal of erosion from the land above hers since it was quite
steep in that area. She explained she was also concerned about her pond with 29
septic tanks being on the hill above her land.
X33
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 17
Me. Britton noted the development would be better if the street lined up with the
intersection.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated the city would have
to approve the street, drainage and waterline plans. He further stated the city
did not normally become involved in the approval of the septic tanks; the county
handled the approvals for the septic tanks. He stated the city was, on this
subdivision, adopting the county standards on street width and the grading
ordinance would not apply.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated the subgrade of the
streets would be to city standards but it would be a chip and seal street which
was not to city standards. He further noted that should the property be annexed
into the city, the city would not bring the street up to city standards. ,
Mr. Nickle asked if any analysis had been done on the drainage.
Mr. Milholland stated it had not but he noted that less than 3% of the land would
be covered with roof tope. He noted they would be sure to make sure there was
no further erosion. He also informed the Commission that both the county and Mr.
Bunn had to approve of the drainage plans.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff
recommendations.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT - PROVIDENCE PLACE
GERALD McARTOR - NW CORNER OF SALEM RD. WEST & SALEM RD. NORTH
The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Providence Place
submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Gerald McArtor, for property
located at the northwest corner of Salem Road West and Salem Road North. The
property is outside the city limits and contains 8.01 acres with 5 lots proposed.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments either at the plat review
meeting nor at subdivision committee meeting. He further stated Mr. Jim Selby,
owner of the property across Salem Road to the east, had talked with him and
questioned the capacity of the drainage pipe shown to be crossing the road near
the south end of the development. He stated Mr. Selby had pointed out that the
culvert was undersized and sloped in the wrong direction. He explained Al Harris
of Northwest Engineers had indicated the county would correct the situation.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision comments and correction of the drainage problem as stated above.
Mr. Al Harris stated the county had
He explained they had addressed the
had agreed to grant an easement on
culvert. He further explained the
direct the water toward the natural
approved the subdivision earlier this date.
situation of the culvert and the developer
the north side of Lot 1 to reposition the
developer would be constructing a swale to
drainage.
Mr. Jim Selby stated there was a drainage problem but it appeared the county had
addressed the problem. He asked if there would be covenants setting forth a
minimum size of the houses to be constructed.
L3*r
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 18
Mr. Harris stated the owner was working on covenants at the present time.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained there were not city
requirements that a subdivision have covenants but, if there were covenants, they
needed to be filed with the final plat.
Mr. Allred asked if the Commission could request the houses be compatible with
the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Bunn stated they could encourage that.
Mr. Ross Odom, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the
developer putting in a trailer park. He also asked about covenants for the
proposed subdivision.
Ms. Little explained the city could not require a subdivision to have covenants,
only that if there were covenants they be filed with the final plat. She further
explained that, even if a subdivision had covenants, the city could not enforce
them.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve the final plat and recommend the developer submit
covenants with the final plat.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT - BUTTERFIELD MEADOWS
BMP DEVELOPMENT - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD., N OF ERROL
The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Butterfield Meadows
Subdivision, presented by Northwest Engineers on behalf of BMP Development, for
property located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, north of Errol Street.
The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 17.08 acres with
32 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn explained there were no significant comments at the plat review meeting.
He further stated the Planning Director had requested a meeting with the
developer at the subdivision committee meeting regarding the possibility of
providing bike paths in connection with the project.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the subdivision subject to plat
subdivision committee comments; payment of parks fees per city
construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinance; and
between the City and the developer for the unfinished portion of
improvements, including the installation of street lights.
Ms. Little stated she had met with the developer concerning the installation of
a bike path. She stated there was an additional property owner they would have
to work with because a portion of the land was not owned by the subject
developer. She further stated the developer was amenable to providing an access
for adjacent subdivisions to Butterfield School. She stated they had discussed
starting at the north side of Errol where it intersected with Katherine, going
along the south line of the BMP property line, crossing the strip owned by James
Keenon, and joining Errol.
review and
ordinance;
a contract
the public
Mr. Harris concurred with staff's recommendations. He noted they had started
street work.
1955-
•
•
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 19
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
RUSSELL McCONNELL - 2289 CREERWOOD AVENUE
The next item was a request for approval of a lot split submitted by Russell
McConnell for property located at 2289 Creekwood Avenue. The property is zoned
R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn stated this was a proposed first split of property with the original
tract containing one-half acre and the tract proposed to be split off (Tract A)
containing 8,220 square feet with a 70 foot frontage. He noted the remaining
tract (Tract B) had an existing house and would contain 0.31 acres. He stated
both lots would meet the minimum requirements for R-1 property.
He stated water would have to come from Susan Street. He noted this was very
similar to a lot split approved across the street in 1990. He noted the
protective covenants for the subdivision prohibited the further subdivision of
lots without approval of the architectural control committee but the application
for the lot split did contain the signature of the president of the property
owners association.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the split based on the assumption that the
signature on the application of the president of the property owners association
constituted the proper approval required by the covenant; approval of the
property owners association and the architectural control committee; payment of
one parks fee; and the provision of both sewer and water to Tract A.
Mr. McConnell explained he planned on constructing a single family home on Tract
A. He noted it would be for resale.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the ordinance did
not require the adjoining property owners to be notified of lot splits but the
city did make such notification as a courtesy.
Mr. McConnell explained the area between the homes (23 feet) was similar to other
homes in the area. He presented a drawing of the proposed house.
Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. McConnell had received approval from the Architectural
Control Committee.
Mr. McConnell stated he had done so.
Mr. Bunn stated the city recognized the proposed lot was smaller than other lots
in the subdivision but had assumed by the signature on the application that the
request had gone through the proper procedures as far as the subdivision
covenants were concerned.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
1%
•
•
Planning Commission
July 13, 1992
Page 20
The Motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
RAY RAGSDALE - NE CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR. 6 SALEM RD.
The next item was a request for approval of a lot split at the northeast corner
of Wedington Drive and Salem Road submitted by Ray Ragsdale. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained the original tract contained 5.95 acres and the proposal was
to split the property into two tracts. He further explained Tract A would
contain 2.27 acres with a frontage of 165 feet along Highway 16. Tract B would
contain 3.68 acres and would have frontage on both Salem Road and Highway 16
West.
Mr. Bunn noted water was available to both lots on Highway 16, however, sewer was
not available to either lot and would have to be extended from the north along
Salem Road. He explained that, since further development of either lot would
require a large scale development or further splits, he had not asked for any
improvements at this time. He recommended the split be approved.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split as requested.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
MARY JANE HALEY - 1000 RINGS DRIVE
The next item was a request for approval of a lot split at 1000 Kings Drive
submitted by Jeff Caudle on behalf of Mary Jane Haley. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential.
It was noted neither the petitioner nor her representative were present.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to table the request.
Me. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.