Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission wan held on Monday, August 10, 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, J. E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, and Jerry Allred Jack Cleghorn and Kenneth Pummill Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES Ms. Britton made a correction to the minutes of July 27, 1992 meeting: on page 6, Mr. Tarvin had stated the applicant could build six duplexes per "acre", not "lot". She also questioned if the rezoning of Item No. 4 was at the same depth as recommended by the Planning Director. She was informed it had been approved per staff recommendations. The minutes were approved as corrected. PUBLIC BEARING - REZONING R92-24 NELSON CURTIS & GLENN OLDHAM - S OF OLD FARMINGTON, W OF ONE MILE The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R92-24 for property 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. The request is to rezone 3.39 acres from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Me. Little reminded the Commission this was the second time this item had come before them. She noted the present request had been reduced from the original request which had been R-2. She also pointed out this request was coupled with a conditional use request to allow duplexes in a R-1 zone. She stated the property was surrounded mainly by residential property. Ms. Little recommended approval of the zoning classification of R-1 and the conditional use request. She advised the width of the lot would only accommodate two duplexes per lot. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained Mr. Price had wanted to put three duplexes per lot but that would require 240 feet of frontage. She stated she had recommended approval of the conditional use with two duplexes per lot. Ms. Britton noted the ordinance read that more than one structure could be placed on a lot as long as the lot could be subdivided into logical lots. She pointed out that, should they build three duplexes on each of the subject tracts, there would be no access to the structure at the back of the lot. Mr. Price stated he would amend his request to two duplexes per lot. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Price stated he would put duplexes side by side. the Mr. Tarvin noted at a previous meeting the surrounding residents objected to duplexes. )51 • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 2 Ms. Little stated the residents did object to duplexes. She then reminded the Commission they had recently approved a rezoning to R-1.5 for the Billy Brown Estate located just to the west of the subject tract fronting on Old Farmington Road. Me. Britton pointed out the property could be subdivided and several units could be placed on the property. Mr. Price stated he was aware of that but the owners did not want to do that. Me. Britton stated this development bothered her. She pointed out the reason for duplexes was in order to allow for flexibility. She further stated she did not believe six duplexes would be appropriate, especially with the neighbors objections. She noted this was a residential area. She also pointed out the roadway was not adequate to handle a great deal of traffic. Mr. Larry Wallace, 3047 West Sandra, expressed his concerns regarding the duplexes as follows: traffic problems, dangerous intersection at Old Farmington and One Mile Road, narrow streets, no sidewalks, and they wanted to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood of single family dwellings. Ms. Britton stated she saw no reason to deny the R-1 zoning but did not think duplexes were appropriate. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the R-1 zoning Mr. Nickle asked if they should consider conditional use. Ms. Little recommended considering them separately. Ms. Britton moved to approve the R-1 zoning. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Price requested the conditional use be tabled. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table the conditional use. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE TO 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 three lot splits submitted by Mike Price on behalf of Nelson Curtis and Glenn Oldham for property located on the south side of Old Farmington Road, west of One Mile Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. and deny the conditional use. the rezoning separately from the Mr. Bunn explained this split would create a total of four lots, one of which would contain 3.6 acres, had recently been rezoned to C-1 and fronted on Highway 62. He further explained the three lots had just been approved for R-1 zoning. )fl • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 3 He noted utilities were generally available on Old Farmington Road but the sewer might have to be extended along Highway 62 to serve the commercial lot. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the splits subject to the splits going before the Plat Review Committee to determine what, if any, easements might be required by the utility companies to serve the property, the extension at this time of utilities to serve all three residential lots; the payment of parks fees for two of the residential lots; dedication of any street right-of-way that might be required to bring Old Farmington right-of-way to a total of 25 feet on the south side; and requirement of the owner to execute a contract with the City or to pay up front the cost of improving one-half of Old Farmington Road to City street standards. Mr. Price stated they had been trying to avoid the street improvement. He requested they vote only on the split of the C-1 property and table the request on the other three lots. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split of Tract #4 which was the commercial portion of the property. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table the request for the other lot splits. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - COWBOY STEAKHOUSE MIKE COLLINS - N OF MILLSAP, W OF COLLEGE The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for the Cowboy Steakhouse, submitted by Albert Skiles on behalf of Mike Collins. The property is located on the north side of Millsap Road, west of College Avenue and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the proposed restaurant was located on 1.4 acres. He pointed out there was quite a bit of discussion regarding parking and shared parking with Chili's for the restaurant at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He explained the representative for the owner had indicated they would talk with Chili's regarding shared parking, however the proposed restaurant did have the required parking spaces. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; granting of the required utility easements by separate instrument; administrative approval of the lot split (he explained the split was done without approval at the time Chili's was constructed and the City was now requiring the split for their records); submittal of a grading and drainage plan; and construction of a five-foot sidewalk. Ms. Britton stated the parking required was 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor space. She pointed out that, while the code required 30 spaces which she did not believe would be adequate, the plan showed far more than required. She recommended angling the parking. • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 4 Ms. Little stated there had been considerable discussion regarding the parking. She pointed out Chili's required approximately 30 spaces but had provided over 100. She also noted there were several present at the meeting who had seen the Chili's parking lot full. She stated she believed the 80 spaces provided was within the ballpark for the amount needed. She further stated that, should the restaurant need more parking, possibly they could share with Chili's. Ms. Britton stated that if one restaurant was full the other one would be full also. She stated Chili's had originally agreed to either reduce their parking or provide alternative surfacing so the lot would percolate. She stated she did not believe they had done either one. It was determined there was no one present to represent the developer. Ms. Britton expressed her belief this item should be tabled since the petitioner was not present. MOTION Mr. Allred stated that, since it was a large scale development; he did not believe the petitioner had to be present. He moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Tarvin, Cato, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no" Me. Britton stated there was a problem in Fayetteville that development repeatedly impacted the site to the point where there was no space for percolation of ground water. She further stated she had believed they had asked for an ordinance to address this problem. She asked the timeframe on the preparation of such an ordinance. Mr. Nickle stated he had believed it was supposed to go with the grading ordinance. He further stated he recalled Chili's agreeing to put either S82 or gravel surface in the back for the RV's so the entire lot would not be paved. Mr. Allred asked if it was not a city ordinance that the lot had to be paved. Ms. Little stated only required parking had to be paved. She further stated she had not been aware of a request for a permeable surface parking ordinance. Ms. Britton stated staff had addressed the matter when the grading ordinance was passed and had determined another ordinance would be needed for the percolation of ground water. She stated she had been under the impression it was to come after the grading ordinance. Mr. Nickle suggested amending the ordinance that additional parking not be paved with a hard surface. Me. Little stated staff would look at it. She stated there was a proposed landscape ordinance which would review parking lots. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the soils in the area were not prone to percolate water. Ms. Britton noted that Rogers required a detention pond for new subdivisions. 160 • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Nickle also pointed out they needed to be careful in this area, they did not want pavement on every square foot from College to North Hills. He suggested staff needed to consider that when drafting the ordinance. PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODBURY PLACE MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC. - E OF SALEM, N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Woodbury Place presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Mid -Southern Enterprises, Inc., for property located on the east side of Salem Road, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 3.43 acres with 9 proposed lots Mr. Bunn stated there were no comments from the utility company representatives at plat review concerning the easements. He noted staff expressed concern regarding drainage through the property. He pointed out the property had a pond on it that was being drained and staff was concerned about the fill necessary in order to construct houses and a street. He stated they were also concerned regarding the possibility of a spring. He noted at Subdivision Committee meeting they discussed drainage concerns and an adjoining property owner requested screening on the street side. He explained screening was not a requirement of the city in this instance and that issue could be brought to the attention of the owner. He stated he had met with Northwest Engineers to discuss the drainage and other concerns. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan which would specifically address the nature and compaction of the fill material to be placed within the subdivision; approval of a drainage plan for the subdivision; approval of water, sewer, and street plans for the subdivision; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and the payment of parks fees as required by city ordinance. Mr. Nickle noted the grading plan in the agenda packet showed a 24 -inch storm drain running across the entire 350 feet from the south to the north. He asked if he had seen anything regarding the impact of draining in a conduit versus the pond. Mr. Bunn stated they had discussed that but had not received any information on the impact downstream. He expressed his opinion there would not be a big impact. He stated he had not seen the drainage calculations. Mr. Allred stated it had been brought up at the subdivision meeting that Lots 1 and 9 were limited to access to Mica Street. Mr. Bunn agreed and stated that should be another condition of approval. Mr. Gray explained there had been concern expressed regarding the pond area and the fill. He stated it would be by engineering fill. He pointed out they had been draining the pond but had two wet months so they had not been able to get into the area. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray stated he did not believe this area would fall into the wetlands. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the development because it was removing a pond. She stated she believed that instead of removing ponds they should be requiring them. • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Gray stated ordinarily a pond that held water year around would not improve the flooding conditions in a peak flood. He pointed out the pond was already basically full of water so it would fill up in the first five minutes and therefore did not reduce the peak flow. He stated a detention pond was dry until a rain and then would hold water. Mr. Springborn stated if the pond held water year around it was being replenished at a rate greater than the evaporation rate. Mr. Gray stated it either was replenished or deep. He noted this pond was deep. He further stated he believed there was a spring. He explained the spring could be taken care of either with a french drain or a spring box. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FIfAL PLAT - RIDGEMONTE ESTATES (FORMERLY ASPEN HEIGHTS) MB PROPERTIES - S OF MISSION, E OF FOX HUNTER'S ROAD The next item was a final plat for Ridgemont? Estates (formerly Aspen Heights) presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of MB Properties, for property located south of Mission, east of Fox Hunter's Road. The property is outside the city limits and contains 71.26 acres with 30 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments on this development either at the Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of water, streets, and drainage plans (with the streets being constructed to city standards but the width to county standards); and the execution of a contract with the developers to insure the construction of the water line. Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 & 2 RONNIE SHERWOOD - NW CORNER OLD WIRE ROAD & OVERCREST The next item was a request for approval of two lot splits submitted by Charles Wooley on behalf of Ronnie Sherwood for property located at the northwest corner of Old Wire Road and Overcrest (2215 Old Wire Road). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the proposal was to split 1.23 acres into three lots -- Tract A containing 0.23 acres, Tract B containing 0.28 acres and Tract C containing 0.72 acres). He stated each of the lots were legal sized lots in an R-1 zone and had all of the utilities available to them. He also pointed out the lot sizes were consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. i� Z • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page .7 Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the splits subject to the granting by separate instrument of any additional easements required by any public utility; the granting of an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way adjacent to Old Wire Road by separate instrument; the execution of a contract with the City which would provide the developers to be responsible for the widening of Old Wire Road to residential street standards; and construction of sidewalks and payment of two parks fees in accordance with city ordinances. Ms. Britton asked if the utility easement between Lots A and B was necessary. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know but there was a possibility it was needed by the utility companies. He pointed out that if it was not needed, it would not be required. He. Britton stated she wanted to give the developer the option that, if the easement was unnecessary, it could be abandoned. Mr. Wooley explained the surveyor had included the easement in case it was necessary. Mr. Bunn pointed out this would not require a plat, that the drawing was for their information. Ms. Britton asked if the additional 10 feet of right-of-way required along Old Wire was already reflected in the dimensions of Lot B. She stated if it was not, she believed the property line between A and B should be adjusted so that the corner lot was larger. Mr. Bunn stated he was sure the line did not reflect the additional right-of-way. After discussion, Mr. Bunn stated the width of the lot would be 88 feet after the city took the 10 feet of right-of-way. He further stated minor lot line adjustments could be made. Mr. John Wiles, 2214 Hummingbird, asked if the houses to be built on the lots would be compatible with the neighborhood. He pointed out that, should small homes be constructed, it would impact his property values. Mr. Wooley explained the lots would be for sale and it would be up to the buyer as to what size of house would be built. He expressed confidence the homes would be comparable size with others in the neighborhood. Mr. Bunn stated he had failed to ask for a restriction of access on Tract B to Overcrest in order to minimize driveways on Old Wire Road. He requested that also be a condition of approval. NOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve lot splits 1 and 2 subject to staff comments and to include restricted access on Tract B to Overcrest. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 ROLAND PHEBUS - 3666 WILSON HOLLOW RD. The next item was a request for approval of a lot split presented by Roland Phebus for property located at 3666 Wilson Hollow Road zoned A-1, Agricultural. 1k3 • • • Planning Commission August 10, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Bunn explained the original tract was 5.58 acres with a proposal to split the property into one tract containing 2.36 acres and the other tract containing 3.22 acres. He stated both lots were legal size lots for A-1 zoning. He further noted water was existing across both of the lots. He pointed out there was no sewer available, however, the lot sizes were sufficient for the installation of septic tanks. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to the dedication, by separate instrument, of 25 feet of street right-of-way along the entire south boundary of the original 5.58 acres. Mr. Nickle asked if they needed to add a condition regarding approval of the septic systems. Mr. Bunn stated the city did not normally do that. He explained the county had approval of the septic system. He noted this property was in the City but the county did have to approve the septic system. He stated they could add that condition. Mr. Phebus explained the property was being purchased by an adjoining property owner. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Flea Market Ordinance Ms. Little stated the City Board had requested her to find a way to regulate outdoor sales activities, sometimes called flea markets. She explained this was the first draft of the proposed ordinance. She further explained that sometimes these people were transient merchants and sometimes local merchants that set up on vacant lots within the city. She stated the City wanted those activities to be located in an indoor setting. Mr. Nickle stated there were several areas within the city limits where people were pulled over to the side of the road selling vegetables and other items. He asked how the proposed ordinance addressed that type of thing. Ms. Little stated the ordinance was aimed at merchants that sold a variety of items. She stated she would have to address the particular category. After discussion it was determined civic activities would be exempted from the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated this ordinance had nothing to do with garage sales. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. (01