Loading...
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.