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