HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-24 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 24,
1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Kenneth
Pummill Charles Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, and
Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 10, 1992 were
tabled until the tape of the previous meeting was reviewed.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-29
CAROLINE PARSONS - W OF GARLAND, S OF WEDINGTON DR.
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-29 submitted
by Caroline Parsons and represented by Pete Estes and Kirk Elsass for property
located on the west side of Garland Avenue, south of Wedington Drive. The
request is to rezone the property from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O,
Residential -Office.
Ms. Little explained the request for rezoning was for three parcels of land
comprising 2.9 acres located south of the intersection of Highway 112 (Garland
Avenue) and Highway 16W (Wedington Road). She stated these parcels adjoined
tracts four and five under the Hathcock Trust which the petitioner had repeatedly
sought to have rezoned to C-1.
Ms. Little further explained the subject parcels were currently vacant, adjoining
Leverett School to the south. She advised to the east, across Garland Avenue,
the property was zoned R-3 and was occupied by a row of houses. She stated the
subject parcels adjoin two corner lots also under the Hathcock Trust which were
rezoned from R-1 to C-1 by the City Board at the December 3, 1991 meeting. She
noted this rezoning classification was nullified by action of the Board of
Adjustment on January 6, 1992, which by interpretation of Section 160.156(E)
found that a protest petition filed by area residents required a 3/4 vote of the
City Board in order for the rezoning to pass. She explained the City now
maintained that the corner lots were zoned R-1 and had refused to issue a
building permit for construction of a restaurant on that site.
Ms. Little stated the petitioner was now seeking to have tracts one, two, and
three rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential Office. She
explained this classification was designed to provide areas for offices or
residential development and was often used as a buffer zone between areas of
residential development and commercial development.
Me. Little informed the Commission the parcels in question were shown on the
master land use plan as suitable for low density residential development;
however, the surrounding areas had developed more intensively than shown on the
land use plan. She expressed her belief a zoning classification of R -O would not
be incompatible with any of the surrounding development and was judged to be a
ISS
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 2
good classification for subject tracts. She recommended approval of the
requested rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential Office.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little assured him proper
notification had been made to the surrounding property owners.
Mr. Estee reminded the Commission a previous petition had been filed on the
subject tract approximately 1 1/2 years earlier to rezone the property to
commercial. He noted that request had been denied but R-0 had been suggested as
a buffer between the corner property and the school. He also pointed out Ms.
Parson's intended to give 40 feet of the southern part of the property to the
school for their use.
In response to a question from Mr. Springdale, Mr. Estes explained he believed
the decision from the lawsuit on the property to the north of the subject tract
would be issued within a month or two.
Mr. Springborn recommended handling the entire tract at one time, pointing out
if the tract to the north was ruled to be R-1, the petitioner would have to make
another application for rezoning.
Mr. Estes explained the tract to the north was separate and apart from the
subject petition. He noted that originally the owner had requested both tracts
be zoned commercially but that had failed. He stated the Planning Commission
had, at that time, recommended R -O zoning for the subject tract. He explained
he believed the subject tract was more suitable for R-0 zoning than the corner
tract. He further stated the requested rezoning was not contingent upon the
rezoning of the corner tract. He pointed out this tract was no longer suitable
for residential uses.
Mr. Springborn noted that, when the previous petition for rezoning had come
before the Commission, it had contained an agreement to give the school property.
He asked if this rezoning request contained the same agreement.
Mr. Estes explained there had been a contract entered into with the school which
stated that, if the corner lot was zoned commercial, the 40 feet would be given
to the school. He stated Ms. Parsons' desire to give the 40 feet to the school
was not contingent upon the zoning of the corner. He further noted they were
still working on correcting some drainage problems and other items but the
trustee intended to give the school the 40 feet.
Mr. Rudy Moore, representing the Fayetteville School District, appeared before
the Commission to request the rezoning be conditioned upon the ceding of the 40
foot strip to the school district.
Ms. Little stated it was her personal belief the vote to deny the rezoning in
June, 1990, had not been in opposition to the donation.
Mr. Moore stated he wanted the Commission to know the School District concurred
with Mr. Estes' comments.
NOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Mr. Cleghorn asked about the litigation on the property on the corner.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 3
Ms. Little explained the litigation dealt with what was a separation of the
property and whether it required a 3/4's vote.
Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated the rezoning would not having any bearing
upon the judge's decision for the adjacent property.
Mr. Nickle informed the Commission he had contacted Mr. Rose earlier and had been
assured it was proper for the Commission to consider the rezoning request at this
time and not put it off for any legal reason.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Britton left the meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE CU92-17 - STUDENT MINISTRY OFFICE & FACILITY
CHRIST ON CAMPUS - 520 LINDELL
The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow a student ministry
office and facility to be located at 520 Lindell presented by Mike Armstrong on
behalf of Christ on Campus. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained the subject property was in an area of single family and
duplex development used primarily for student housing. She pointed out that
directly across the street was Futrall Hall, a student dormitory. She noted the
property was currently occupied by a two-story home of about 2100 square feet and
to the rear on the same lot, a duplex of approximately 700 square feet. She
advised the current zoning would allow use of the house as a multi -family
dwelling. Me. Little stated location of the property made the site ideal for
campus related activities although parking appeared limited with only four or
five spaces on site. She further noted parking was available on the street and
there were university parking lots nearby.
She advised the petitioner requested Planning Commission approval, under Use Unit
4 - Cultural and Recreational Facilities, to use the large home located on the
property to establish a Christ on Campus office and meeting facility. She also
noted the proposed use of the duplex was for it to remain as a duplex.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested conditional use, provided the
property was inspected and a certificate of occupancy for group use was issued
prior to use as a group meeting place. She further stated the planning staff
would normally require paving of parking for uses under Unit 4 and the decision
was deferred to the Planning Commission. She cautioned the petitioner that under
the Americans with Disabilities Act all facilities must be made equally
accessible to persons with all types of handicaps, requiring at a minimum,
provision of one handicap accessible parking space and wheelchair ramps.
Mr. Nickle stated he was under the impression that parking areas were to be of
a dustless surface.
Mr. Bunn and Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Nickle.
Mr. Armstrong explained the parking area was not paved at the present time but
was a hard gravel surface.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Armstrong explained he had been
before the Planning Commission approximately a year and a half earlier seeking
approval of a conditional use which had been denied. He stated the subject
property was a different tract. He further explained the primary use of the
building would be office space with some meetings to be held with 20 to 30
students. He stated any meetings larger than 20 to 30 people would be held on
'67
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 4
the campus. He pointed out parking was available nearby on campus. He also
noted there were two other ministries on the same block.
Mr. Nickle asked if they would be using the duplex.
Mr. Armstrong stated the duplex would remain as a rental property. He stated
they would pave the parking area and provide handicap access if directed to do
so. He further noted they would have ramps into the building.
Mr. Allred expressed concern that, should the Planning Commission waive the paved
parking area, the City might then be liable for the Disabilities Act.
Ms. Little explained the Americans with Disabilities Act was such a large act and
encompassed so much that the City still did not know what was required.
Ms. Little stated the duplex would need four off-street parking spaces.
Mr. Springborn asked how many people would be occupying the duplexes.
Mr. Armstrong stated one person per side (or unit) because the duplexes were
quite small.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the conditional use with the stipulation that the
parking spaces be paved in accordance with city ordinances and staff comments
(including inspection of the premises).
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLATS - PARR PLACE - PHASE VI, PHASE VII, & PHASE VIII
JIM LINDSEY - S OF MISSION, W OF CROSSOVER C
n.sedk
The next item was a request for approval of three final plats for Park Place,
Phase VI, Phase VII, and Phase VIII, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim
Lindsey. Phase VI is located south of Victoria Lane, west of Crossover Road,
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 11.26 acres with 25 proposed
lots. Phase VII is located east of Cambridge, west of Crossover Road, zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential, and contains 6.31 acres with 11 proposed lots. Phase
VIII is located on the west side of Crossover, south of Mission, zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential, contains 19.32 acres with 41 lots proposed.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by either the utility
company representatives or the staff at the plat review meeting, other than some
requests for variations in the easements shown and some additional easements.
He noted those requests had been approved by the owner. He explained staff had
requested the relocation of a fire hydrant and to have the sidewalk four feet
back from the curb.
Mr. Bunn explained the comments in the Subdivision Committee centered around the
emergency access between Lots 1 and 2 in Phase VIII. He noted this was required
at the time of the Preliminary Plat to provide an access for emergency vehicles
from Phase VII into the original Park Place Addition. He explained the committee
members were concerned about the use of the emergency access by the general
public. He noted the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval Of the three
final plats with the stipulation that consideration be given to requiring the
emergency access to be constructed as a through street once there was evidence
that it was being used as such.
1 b
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Bunn recommended the final plats for Phases VI, VII, and VIII of Park Place
Addition be approved subject to plat review and subdivision comments; resolution
of the emergency access issue in Phase VIII; execution of a contract with the
owner for completion of the unfinished improvements, including the installation
of street lights; and construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees per
ordinance.
Dave Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with staff comments. He noted staff
had specifically asked for the connection between Phases V and VII. He presented
a sketch to shown the connection. He pointed out the street in Phase V ended in
a cul-de-sac with a 50 -foot access and utility easement leading to the east. He
noted on Phase VII there was another 50 -foot access and utility easement which
tied into the one on Phase V. He explained the Planning Commission had requested
this easement when they approved the final plat on Phase V for the express
purpose of being able to access the property in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Jorgensen further explained the Subdivision Committee had recommended that,
when .the emergency access started being used by the general public, the access
would become a street. He noted the Park Place Property Owners Association and
residents of Park Place preferred the connection not be made. He stated they
were currently working on a surfacing that would not appear to be a through
street but would allow access by emergency vehicles. He explained it had been
suggested they put SB2 with a thin layer of sod over the top. He further
explained the access would have to be marked.
Mr. Allred asked if the Fire Chief would have to approve the surfacing and a
barrier, if any.
Mr. Bunn stated he and the fire chief would have to approve the plan for the
access.
Me. Little stated they had just received an additional
Boulevard) in the office which was directly to the east of
She noted the proposed subdivision was a long narrow piece
sac. She stated she had not discussed her recommendation
city engineer but would recommend a street between Park
Mission Boulevard Subdivisions.
subdivision (Mission
Phase Vii, Park Place.
of land with a cul -de -
with the developer or
Place, Phase VII, and
Mr. Allred pointed out that, unless they provided some other means of
ingress/egress to Highway 45, there would be a bottleneck.
Mr. Jorgensen explained the owner of the Park Place property was not aware of the
Mission Boulevard Subdivision and he did not know how receptive the owner would
be to the suggestion. He pointed out the preliminary plat had been approved, the
plans had been approved, and the subdivision was under construction with the sub -
grades cut in and drainage in. He also noted the Property Owners Association of
Park Place owned a buffer zone on the north side of Phase VII (approximately 40-
50 feet wide) which would have to be crossed.
Ms. Little stated it was not really Park Place's problem but the other
subdivision's problem since the tract was very long and narrow with only one
street.
Mr. Jorgensen agreed and stated he suspected the Planning Commission would
recommend an access to the east of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Allred recommended tabling Phase VII until the Planning Commission reviewed
Mission Boulevard Subdivision. He pointed out the subject area was rapidly
developing.
(69
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Springborn questioned whether they could restrict the emergency access to
only emergency vehicles.
Mr. Nickle stated the Commission had already required emergency access at the
preliminary plat stage.
In answer to Mr. Springborn's question, Ms. Little stated they could limit access
to emergency vehicles and had previously done so on other subdivisions.
There was further discussion of connecting Mission Boulevard Subdivision with
Phase VII of Park Place.
Mr. Allred explained the Subdivision Committee had expressed concern that, when
traffic started being bottlenecked at Highway 45, the residents of Park Place
would start using the emergency vehicle access for another route out of the
subdivision. He further explained that was why they had recommended that, should
the emergency vehicle access start being used by the general public, it would
become a public street.
Mr. Nickle pointed out when the Commission had reviewed the preliminary plat a
number of residents from Park Place had been present and objected to a tie -
through with Phase VII and had requested only an emergency access.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he had a problem with approving a through street between
Phases V and VII.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn.
There was further discussion regarding a connection between Phases V and VII.
Mr. Jorgensen stated he believed he could get with the planning staff, the fire
department, the engineer and the Park Place Property Owners Association to come
up with a plan to make the property an emergency access easement. He further
stated he believed it was understood that, if the easement was used very much by
the residents, the matter would come back before the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve Phase VI of Park Place Subdivision subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve Phase VII of Park Place Subdivision subject to
staff comments.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion after ascertaining there would not be a through
street between Phases V and VII without further action by the Planning
Commission.
The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, Nickle,
Springborn, and Cleghorn voting "yes" and Commissioner Cato voting "no".
170
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 7
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve Phase VIII of Park Place Subdivision subject to
staff recommendations.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT - EMERALD SUBDIVISION
J. B. HAYS - N OF TOWNSHIP, OFF WEST VIEW DR.
The next item was a request for
presented by Dave Jorgensen on
of Township, off of West View
Residential, and contains 5.60
approval of a final plat for Emerald Subdivision
behalf of J. B. Hays for property located north
Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
acres with 16 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn explained the preliminary plat for this subdivision came before the
Planning Commission in March, 1990. He stated there had been no significant
comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review
meeting. He noted staff had expressed concern over several issues, including
drainage, length of the dead end street, the erosion of the cut and fill areas,
and the cul-de-sac. He stated the same issues were discussed at the Subdivision
Committee meeting.
Mr. Bunn further stated it had also been noted by staff that the lots were on
slopes greater than 20 percent and therefore would require individual grading
permits.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; a waiver of the maximum length of the dead end
street; a contract with the owner which would insure the completion of the public
improvements, construction of a permanent cul-de-sac in two years if the street
failed to be extended during that time; stabilization of the slopes created by
the cuts and fills; and construction of sidewalks and payments of parks fees as
required by ordinance. He noted the city was presently addressing some drainage
concerns for the area.
Mr. Jorgensen pointed out it was noted on the plat a separate grading permit was
required for each lot prior to construction. He also stated he was requiring
rip -rap to stabilize slopes and the installation of additional curb inlets and
drainage pipe. He further noted some of the area would also be hydro -mulched.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat for Emerald Subdivision subject
to staff comments, including a waiver of the maximum street length.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - MISSION HILLS
ROB MERRYSHIP - E OF MISSION, W OF KINGS DR., N OF LAKESIDE DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Mission Hills
presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Rob Merryship for property'east of
Mission, west of Kings Drive, north of Lakeside Drive. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains 10 acres with 22 lots proposed.
17I
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 8
Mr. Bunn explained this plat was a revision of a preliminary plat submitted as
Shady Acres in June of this year. He noted the Shady Acres plat had consisted
of 26 lots on the 10 acre tract with two access points on Mission Boulevard, one
just north of the North Street intersection and the other one several hundred
feet further north. He stated that plat had been denied because of traffic
considerations.
Mr. Bunn pointed out the subject plat differed from the previous submission in
two ways: the number of lots have been reduced from 25 to 22 and the access to
Mission Boulevard is shown as an emergency access only.
He stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company
representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than requesting additional
easements.
Mr. Bunn stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting had centered
around the emergency entrance near the North Street - Mission intersection. He
explained several options to the emergency entrance were discussion, all of which
involved a physical connection of the street to Mission. He stated the
Subdivision Committee's motion was to recommend the street be connected to
Mission and have the full Planning Commission discuss various options. He
explained the options included variations in street width and signage to prevent
left turns at certain times of the day.
Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of the plans for water, sewer, streets
and drainage; approval of a grading permit application and approval of a drainage
plan; restriction of driveway access to streets within the subdivision with the
exception of Lot 6 which may have access through an existing easement to the
south; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees per ordinance;
immediate construction of sidewalks which do not interfere with future driveways;
and resolution of the emergency access issue.
Mr. Milholland stated he concurred with staff comments. He further explained the
developer preferred a two-way street with restricted left turns and a divided
entrance on the north side. He also pointed out there was a drainage structure
at the southwest corner which went under the highway and would take the run-off
from the south half of the project. He further noted the drainage structure on
the northwest corner would take the run-off from the north half of the project.
He further pointed out the box culvert running under Mission discharged into a
private lake to the west. He presented pictures of the culverts involved.
Mr. Milholland pointed out they had reduced the lot size from the subdivision
plat presented earlier.
Mr. Bob Thompson, 1211 Mission Blvd., expressed concern regarding the drainage
and traffic. He recommended a through street in the subdivision with restricted
left turns.
Mr. Ed Knight, an adjoining property owner, stated he was not opposed to the
subject property being developed but believed there' were specific differences
between this property and property further out on Highway 45. He pointed out
this property was at one of the busiest intersections in the city. He stated he
did have videos of the traffic being backed up at 5:00 p.m. He further expressed
his opinion the drainage had not been adequately reviewed. He recommended no
more than 10 lots in the subdivision. He further noted there were already sewage
problems in the area and expressed concern they would become worse.
Mr. Rob Merryship stated they were sensitive to the traffic problem but felt
there was no problem with the northern entrance to the property. He advised
172
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 9
there was a problem between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. He stated he had sat a video
camera at the entrance and it had shown a back-up of traffic for only six
minutes. He pointed out other areas in town with worse traffic problems.
Mr. Nickle stated he had mentioned earlier a left turn lane at the intersection.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not discussed the matter with Perry Franklin but believed
he was working with the Highway Department for a left turn lane at the
intersection.
Mr. Allred asked how the restricted left turn lane would be enforced.
Mr. Bunn explained he believed it would be self -enforcing however the city would
also enforce it.
Mr. Nickle explained his concern was for the future owners of the lots and their
ability to turn onto Mission.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments with
particular attention to the grading and drainage plan and the street being a full
access two-way street with restrictive signage for left turns.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried with Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, Cato, Allred,
Springborn, and Cleghorn voting "yes" and Commissioner Nickle voting "no".
PRELIMINARY PLAT - OLD WIRE ROAD SUBDIVISION
SAM MATHIAS & BUD TOMLINSON - S OF OLD WIRE RD., W OF OAR BAILEY DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Old Wire Road
Subdivision presented by Leonard Gabbard on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bud
Tomlinson for property located on the south side of Old Wire Road, west of Oak
Bailey Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains
7.32 acres with 20 lots proposed.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility
company representatives at the Plat Review meeting. He noted staff comments
included the location of street lights, sidewalk location, fire hydrant location,
and required street improvements to Old Wire Road.
He advised the Subdivision Committee had believed some right-of-way should be
left'for adjacent properties so future development would be able to connect to
the streets. He stated there had been no staff recommendation on that point and
the Subdivision Committee had voted to send the plat to the full Planning
Commission without recommendation pending resolution of that issue.
Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Dave Tackett, an adjoining property owner, had indicated
he owned property which did not have access to a street even though one had been
promised in connection with another subdivision, but never provided. He
recommended a 50 -foot street right-of-way be left for p ssible development for
both the landlocked property to the west and then for property to the east.
Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and
subdivision comments; approval of plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage;
approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment
of parks fees in accordance with city ordinance; and resolution of the access
issue.
113
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 10
In response to a question
access any where been lots
Mr. Bunn stated the access
18. He further noted they
meeting.
from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated there could be
14 and 17 and lots 8 or 9 to the south.
to the Tackett property was adjacent to lots 17 and
had not discussed this at the Subdivision Committee
Mr. Gabbard asked Ms. Tackett if they had frontage along Old Wire Road.
Ms. Tackett stated their house fronted on Old Wire however there was not enough
room for a street.
Mr. Gabbard pointed out that any street access to the east would have to come out
on old Wire Road. He further advised he doubted anyone would want to go to the
south since there was a flood plain.
Mr. Bunn explained there was already a subdivision to the south and it would not
be practicable to put a roadway to the south.
Mr. Gabbard explained most of the drainage on the subdivision went to the bottom
corner. He pointed out the all-weather stream at that point.
Mr. Tomlinson stated he saw no purpose in extending access to either the east or
west. He further stated the Tackett's did have some frontage on Old Wire Road.
He advised that to the east there were already houses in the woods.
Mr. Gabbard stated the minimum size of houses in the subdivision would be 1,600
square feet.
Me. Barbara Bulla, 2833 Old Wire Road, expressed concern regarding the traffic
the subdivision would create. She pointed out the subdivision would empty onto
Old Wire directly across from the church. She also noted the entrance was
between two blind curves on Old Wire. She asked the Commission to request the
number of lots in the subdivision be reduced. She informed the Commission the
homes in the area were on large lots of at least an acre and the lot size in the
subdivision would not be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
Me. Valerie Reynolds, 2825 Old Wire Road, also expressed concern regarding the
lot size. She advised the smaller lots would affect her property value. She
further requested the number of lots within the subdivision be reduced. Ms.
Reynolds advised the access would be between two blind curves and it was
difficult to see on -coming traffic.
Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, stated he owned the eight acres to the
northeast of the subject tract and six acres to the south. He pointed out most
of the area to the south was in the flood plain. He also requested the developer
reduce the number of lots in the subdivision, suggesting the number of lots be
reduced to 10. He pointed out the flood plain was getting higher due to the
development in the area. He also expressed fear the trees along his property
line would be damaged. He advised further concern regarding drainage on hie
property.
Mr. Van Scyoc pointed out the residents of the subdivision would have to take
their children to school, since the school bus would not pick them up, thus
creating more traffic. He advised there was still a sewer overflow problem in
the area. He also stated he was concerned about the value of the property in the
entire neighborhood if the lots in the subdivision were not comparable in size
to the existing lots. He requested the Commission provide access to Mr. Tackett.
17`1
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 11
Ms. Virginia Russell, 2440 Magnolia, listed as her concerns the drainage, size
of homes proposed, water pressure problems and lot size.
Mr. Gabbard pointed out that, if a right-of-way was granted along the west side,
the street would be longer than 500 feet. He also informed the Commission the
developers of the proposed subdivision had already developed Valley Subdivision
where one of the owners lived. He stated the proposed subdivision would be very
similar to Valley Subdivision. He further explained there would be a 200 feet
sight distance on each side of the proposed intersection with Old Wire Road. He
advised the number of lots to the acre was normal for R-1 requirements.
In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Tackett explained their tract
of land was shaped like a triangle with the narrow portion, which contained the
house, fronted on Old Wire. She further stated they had been promised access to
the 3 1/2 - 4 acres located at the southern part of the property.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the drainage
easement between lots 13 and 14 would be where the drainage would be concentrated
from the subdivision. He further stated he needed further information on how the
drainage got down to the creek. He noted he might require off-site drainage
improvements.
Mr. Suchecki asked if there was a possibility the developers would reduce the
number of lots in the subdivision.
Mr. Gabbard stated that, due to the cost of the property and development, he
could not reduce the number of lots.
Mr. Nickle pointed out the average width of lots on Azalea Terrace was 85 feet
but there were some lots in this subdivision that had the minimum width of 70
feet.
Mr. Suchecki stated he was concerned that the Tackett property had no access.
He further stated he believed the developer should give some consideration to
compromising on the lot size.
Mr. Allred stated Subdivision Committee had requested Mr. Gabbard get with staff
regarding their concerns. He suggested tabling this item to Bee if some
solutions could be worked out.
Mr Nickle asked staff to get together the property owners, including Creekside
Estates.
Ms. Little stated staff could do that in coordination with the developer.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to table this item.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FLEA MARKET ORDINANCE
Ms. Little stated she would like to take the Commissioners' comments in order to
revise the proposed ordinance.
The Commission noted they had given their comments at the last meeting and had
no further remarks.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 12
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VISIONS PROJECT
Me. Little stated the Commission needed to give their comments on the Visions
Project report and their desires as far as passing the report on to the City
Board for any further action.
Mr. Allred stated that, at the initial meeting between Scott Linebaugh, Fred
Vorsanger, John Merrell and himself, the proposed project and what eventually
evolved were totally different. He stated he had believed a broad section of the
community would give the city ideas of what they would like to have. He stated
it appeared the city had gone out, asked the residents what they wanted, and told
them the city would provide it. He explained he believed that was a problem.
He expressed his belief it was to be a goal setting process, not a project. He
further stated they had lost sight that it was a goal setting function rather
than a project function.
Mr. Pummill stated he had a problem with a document that would spend millions of
dollars that supposedly a broad section of the populace had requested. He
further stated he personally knew that was not the case. He advised there were
items in the Visions document that only one or two people had requested. He
further stated he would like to see how many people requested each item.
Ms. Little stated she did not believe those records were available. She further
explained there were no tapes of the meetings and did not believe that type of
information had been kept.
Mr. Pummill noted the meetings were so poorly received by the public that the
same people were attending a number of meetings.
Mr. Nickle stated his comments, made in a public meeting earlier wherein he had
counted the number of committees and boards necessary to accomplish the plan,
pointed out this would be increasing the bureaucracy in the city. He agreed with
Mr. Allred that the Vision Project was to assess the goals of the city, not to
develop projects. He further stated he did not believe they should endorse each
individual item but should take it for what it was worth and pass it on to the
City Board for their action.
Mr. Springborn stated he would second that view..
Mr. Suchecki agreed. He stated the idea to get input from the citizens was not
a bad idea but a lack of participation by the majority of citizens left staff to
develop the plan. He stated staff took the project further than goal setting by
applying a lot of numbers and funding. He expressed his belief a lot of city
hours were involved in something that had not been necessary.
Mr. Cleghorn stated the comments were probably true. He pointed out the Visions
Project was an attempt for the City and citizens to communicate. He stated he
believed the information was invaluable and the report should go to the City
Board. He stated he believed this report should be used to guide the City.
Ms. Little pointed out she believed everyone was familiar with the document and
those items that were worthwhile had been incorporated into the City budget.
Mr. Allred stated that, if there was a downside to the Visions Project, it was
staff had spent over a year working on the project which took time away from the
zoning ordinances and unified land ordinance.
176
•
•
Planning Commission
August 24, 1992
Page 13
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to forward the report to the Board of Directors as an
informational item only, to be considered and adopted at their discretion and
when funds were available.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
117