HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-26 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 26,
1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Jerry
Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Charles Nickle, Jett Cato and Joe
Tarvin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Cleghorn
Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
Mr. Nickle called the meeting to order and stated he had been informed that the
conditional use and large scale development for M & B Duplexes on the north side
of Sycamore, east of Gregg, had been postponed until the November 9 Commission
meeting.
Ms. Little introduced the new Associate Planner, Tim Conklin.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - OLD WIRE SUBDIVISION
MIKE PENNINGTON - S OF OLD WIRE RD., W OF OAK BAILEY DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Old Wire
Subdivision, presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington, 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 proposed lots.
Ms. Little explained the plat had originally been presented to the Planning
Commission on August 24, 1992. She noted the ownership, at that time, had been
in the name of Sam Mathias and Bud Tomlinson and the engineer had been Landtech,
Inc. She reminded the Commission they had tabled the plat to allow the engineer
and owners to meet with the neighborhood property owners to discuss differences
in lot sizes, access, etc.
Ms. Little further explained the plat was being resubmitted by Milholland
Engineers on behalf of the new owner, Mike Pennington. She stated it was her
understanding they had met with interested property owners in the area, however,
she did not have a report on the results of that meeting.
She stated the City Engineer recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject
to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of plans for water,
sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan;
construction of sidewalks and payments of parks fees in accordance with
ordinances; and resolution of the access issue.
Mr. Milholland introduced Mike Pennington and his attorney, Mr. Stanley. He
explained he had read the minutes of the previous meeting on the subject
subdivision. He stated he and Mr. Pennington had attempted to contact the
adjoining property owners. He advised that, in discussion with the adjoining
property owners, the Mayhans had expressed concern with the increased traffic and
Mr. Tackett had been concerned regarding access to his property. He further
stated he had discussed the matter with Mr. Van Scyoc. He noted Mr. Pennington
had talked with the developer of Creekside Estates Subdivision which adjoined the
c2/6
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 2
property to the south and Mr. Tackett's property to the west. He stated the main
concerns seemed to be traffic flow, size of lots and size of homes on the lots.
He stated Mr. Van Scyoc had been concerned about the runoff. He noted he had
assured Mr. Van Scyoc the runoff would be taken care of and not affect his
property.
Mr. Milholland stated 20 lots was not a large subdivision and, while it would
create some traffic, it would not contribute as much traffic as subdivisions
further out on Old Wire Road. He stated it was his belief the city did have
future plans to widen the road. He further stated Mr. Pennington had covenants
to restrict the minimum house size to 1,600 square feet. He noted that would
meet R-1 zoning regulations.
He further noted the developer of Creekside Estates Subdivision was willing to
work with Mr. Pennington for an easement to the creek for the drainage. He
stated the details of that agreement had not been worked out at this date.
Mr. Milholland noted Mr. Tackett's property joined the subject property at the
southwest corner. He pointed out that, in order to give a 50 foot easement to
Mr. Tackett's property, it would remove one lot. He stated Mr. Pennington had
offered to sell a lot to Mr. Tackett. He further pointed out Mr. Tackett's
property also joined another subdivision. He noted Magnolia became a cul-de-sac
and Mr. Tackett was as close to the cul-de-sac as he would be to the streets in
the proposed development. He stated the terrain was such that the drainage would
go to the southeast and access to the cul-de-sac would be a natural flow of the
runoff. He further stated the cost to Mr. Tackett would be about the same.
Ms. Little asked if Mr. Tackett had frontage on Old Wire Road.
Mr. Milholland stated Mr. Tackett owned a rental house and appeared to have at
least 100 feet of frontage.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Milholland stated there had been
no changes to the plat from the previous meeting.
Mr. Suchecki stated he believed Mr. Tackett had been supposed to be given access
to Magnolia Drive but had never received it.
Mr. Bunn stated the developer of Creekside Estates had originally discussed
access but had then developed the property in tandem lots.
Mr. Nickle read a portion the minutes of the August 24 meeting: "Mr. Bunn
explained the drainage easement between lots 13 and 14 would be where the
drainage was 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." He asked if Mr. Milholland had
considered the drainage.
Mr. Milholland stated their objective was to take the run-off from the northeast
corner of the cul-de-sac to between lots 9 and 10 or 8 and 9 and then across the
back of lot 9 to the corner. He advised that was the point where Creekside
Estates joined Mr. Van Scyoc's property with only 200 feet to the creek.
Ms. Britton stated it would require two different property owners' cooperation
in order to do that.
Mr. Milholland stated that it would only require the cooperation of Creekside
Estates.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 3
Ms Britton stated that, from her drawing, lots 9 and 10 did not touch Creekside
Estates.
Mr. Milholland stated the properties did adjoin each other.
Mr. Nickle asked if they had considered reducing the number of lots to more
closely agree with the width of the lots on Azalea Terrace.
Mr. Milholland stated they had looked at properties in the vicinity, including
those on Azalea. He further stated the size of the lots in the proposed
development were compatible with other lots in the area.
Mr. Pennington presented a copy of the proposed covenants together with a
comparison of lot size with other lots in the area. He stated the lots proposed
in the subject subdivision were larger than the majority of the lots in the area,
including those on Country Way and Azalea. He further advised the covenants
required each home owner to plant at least one tree in the front yard.
Mr. Springborn stated he had been hoping when this subdivision came back before
the Commission an effort would have been made to adjust some of the lots so there
would be access to the Tackett property.
Mr. Suchecki stated some of the concerns of the adjoining property owners
included the size of the lots. He explained the Commission had asked the
previous developers to consider reducing the number of lots.
Mr. Pennington stated he had looked at their request very intensely and tried to
make an adjustment. He explained that, due to the cost of the land involved, the
reduction of the lots would devalue the property as far as the size of the homes.
He further explained they would have to build 1,500 square feet homes in order
to make it feasible. He stated he had looked at Mr. Tackett's property but, in
order to give access, he would have to cut the lot size down to 70 feet in width.
He explained that, in order to give access to the Tackett property, he would lose
a lot valued at $18,000 to $20,000. He stated he did not think that would be
feasible.
Ms. Britton pointed out Creekside Estates had large lots and had not gone
bankrupt.
Mr. Pennington stated the land in Cedar Crest was in a flood plain and therefore
did not have as high a value. He pointed out his development met and, in most
cases, exceeded the R-1 lot requirements.
Mr. Roy Stanley, Mr. Pennington's attorney, stated Mr. Tackett had a significant
amount of frontage on Old Wire Road. He stated Mr. Tackett's property was not
landlocked. He further stated he believed it was a bit much to ask Mr.
Pennington to give up a full lot in order to give access to the Tackett property
since Mr. Tackett already had frontage on Old Wire Road. He did note Mr. Tackett
would have to remove the rental property in order to open a street to the
property he owned. He stated the proposed subdivision met all the subdivision
requirements for the City of Fayetteville. He stated he thought the purpose of
the Planning Commission was to assure that all of the subdivision requirements
had been met and, having been met, the subdivision should be approved.
Me. Britton stated the Commission had more leeway that to just go by the minimum
standards. She explained they wanted subdivisions which would be complimentary
to the surrounding neighborhood. She stated the main concern of the adjoining
property owners was the number of cars using the entryway onto Old Wire Road
where there was a sight problem. She advised Mr. Stanley they had recently
a18
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 4
denied a development on the other side of the street because of the traffic. She
stated they were trying to be fair.
Mr. Stanley stated that, even if a street were cut through to the Tackett
property, it was very unlikely the residents of the subject development would use
any access,to Old Wire Road other than the one shown on the plat.
Ms. Britton stated when this item had been originally discussed they were hoping
for another access all the way through.
In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Bunn explained the minimum
footage for access to the Tackett property would be 50 feet. He stated Mr.
Tackett had 200 feet of frontage on Old Wire Road.
Mr. Tackett explained their home was on that 200 feet and was not moveable.
Mr. Bunn pointed out that, should the home not be located on that tract, there
would be sufficient room to put in a street.
Mr. Cato asked if a waiver would be required for the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Little stated, if the cul-de-sac was over 500 feet in length, they would need
a waiver.
Mr. Dave Tackett, 2800 Old Wire Road, explained they had recently moved back into
their property on Old Wire Road. He informed the Commission he owned
approximately 5 acres and the home (containing 2,400 square feet) had recently
been modernized. He stated the property would become landlocked unless he
received access from the subject tract. He advised the Commission he was to have
received access from the Ferguson Addition (now Creekside Estates) but his access
had been left out of the final plat. He expressed his belief that subdivisions
needed more than one access. He stated he believed there should be access down
to Magnolia Street so all of the traffic would not have to use Old Wire Road.
Ms. Britton pointed out that, if it were feasible for Mr. Tackett to have access
off of Old Wire Road to the five acres, they would be compounding the problem
with multiple cul-de-sacs entering Old Wire Road.
Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, stated he owned 14 acres immediately
adjacent to the subject property. He reminded the Commission he had opposed the
approval of this subdivision at the previous meeting. He stated he appreciated
the concern regarding the size of the lots. He further stated they also needed
to look at the size of the houses on the adjoining lots.
Mr. Van Scyoc also expressed concern regarding the run-off from the subject
property. He pointed out the creek ran through his land. He advised the
Commission the creek was carrying a great deal of water and was coming up higher.
He stated 20 houses would create more water into the creek and feared some of the
water would come onto his land.
Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Tackett how he got to his property at the present time.
Mr. Tackett explained he had frontage on Old Wire Road. He noted there was 28
feet between his property and his neighbor to the south and approximately 50 feet
to the neighbor on the north. He stated the property was narrow on the front but
wide at the back.
• Mr. Tarvin stated he was confused as to why Mr. Tackett's property would be
landlocked. He asked if he was using access through the subject property.
aiq
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Tackett stated he would be surrounded by developed property should this
subdivision be approved. He stated he could only get to the back of his property
by driving along side his house.
Mr. Allred explained he had a physical landlock rather than a legal landlock --
his house blocked access to the property behind it.
Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Tackett did not want to use the lot containing his house
for access to the remainder of his property.
Me. Britton also pointed out that, at some point in the future, the Van Scyoc
property would also develop which would be another addition to the problem.
Mr. Allred agreed that all three tracts would develop. He pointed out the down
side was that, should the Commission deny the development due to the traffic or
drainage, they had destroyed the property values of all three tracts.
Ms. Britton stated she was looking at total circulation for all the pieces of
property.
Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission they had been requiring access to adjoining
property in other developments.
Mr. Suchecki stated the obvious solution
making the lots larger, ending up with 15
the amount of traffic, solve some of the
would be to reduce the number of lots
lots. He explained that would reduce
drainage problem, etc.
Mr. Nickle agreed that would solve the problems as long as there was an easement
for access to the adjoining properties.
Ms. Britton stated she thought that had been their wishes when they had
previously tabled this item.
Barbara Balla, 2833 Old Wire Road, stated the Jehovah Witness Church driveway
would be directly across from the proposed entrance to the subdivision. She
expressed concern about not only the traffic, but the fact that the proposed
entrance was situated between two blind curves. She further stated the adjoining
area contained large lots and she would like to have large lots within the
subdivision for compatibility with the area.
Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that any drainage plan would have to be
approved by the City Engineer. He pointed out that should they extend the street
they would lose more than 50 feet because some of the lots would become corner
lots with larger setbacks.
Mr. Tarvin stated he could understand some of the owners of the larger tracts
being concerned about the smaller lots; however, it seemed the lots were as large
or larger than other lots approved by the Commission. He pointed out the lot
across the road measured 100 feet by 114 feet or 11,400 square feet. He stated
some of the lots within the proposed subdivision measured 70 feet by 180 feet or
12,600 square feet. He further stated he could understand Mr. Tackett wanting
to be able to develop his land. He pointed out that Mr. Tackett must have
planned on having an agreement with the property to the east in order to have
access to his land. He suggested that could be a solution.
He further stated he could understand the Commission wanting an interconnection
with the adjoining properties. He suggested Mr. Tackett could assist in the cost
of the access since it would be in hie favor. He expressed his belief the
Commission could not hold Mr. Pennington responsible for being able to develop
Mr. Tackett's land.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Allred stated it appeared the developer needed to either have larger lots
with larger homes or reduce the size of the lots and reduce the size of the
homes. He stated they needed to determine which would blend with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Nickle stated he did not believe it was the Commission's responsibility to
make sure it was economically feasible for a piece of land to be developed. He
stated they needed to look at all concerns of the surrounding area. He expressed
his opinion that access should be provided to the adjoining property for future
circulation of traffic. He reminded the Commission they had previously had the
same discussion on other subdivisions. He stated he would like to see some
thought given to future street connections.
Ms. Britton stated if they had foresight when they approved Creekside Estates
they would not be having this discussion. She pointed out Magnolia should have
gone on through and provided access to the subject tract.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out the entire area would have to be developed at the same
time in order to know where the streets should be so they would line up. He
stated that would depend on the desires of the owner, the size of lots, the
amount paid for the property and the cost of development.
Mr. Springborn reminded the Commission that, in previous situations regarding
extension of streets, they had turned the matter over to staff to work out an
acceptable street plan with respect to safety (access on Old Wire) and traffic
flow to the area, including undeveloped tracts of land. He stated there had to
be a solution and suggested tabling this matter to let the developer and city
staff work out a street plan.
Mr. Allred stated he believed the developer was asking for direction and did not
think tabling it was not what they wanted. He further stated he would rather
deny the project rather than table it, so the developer would know what they
desired.
Ms. Britton stated, if the matter were tabled, the developer could not bring it
back for a year.
Mr. Allred advised the Commission this tract would probably be developed with 20
smaller lots, which would not address the neighborhood concerns. He stated the
Commission needed to decide how they wanted the matter handled.
Ms. Britton stated she did not feel they had to choose between the two, that they
could have both.
Mr. Allred stated they could not have both from an economical standpoint. He
pointed out this was the second developer trying to do something with the subject
property. He stated they needed to tell the developer whether they wanted larger
lots with only one access or smaller lots with access to the adjoining property.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the development with the requirement for access
to the adjoining property. He pointed out that would take away the need for a
waiver on the cul-de-sac length.
Me. Britton asked if Mr. Springborn meant access to Magnolia.
Mr. Nickle stated he believed he was talking about access to the north.
Mr. Springborn asked which access Mr. Allred had been talking about.
,a�
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Allred stated they needed to make a decision as to what was best for the
community and, if they wanted another ingress/egress point, they needed to be
realistic enough to know the developer would be reducing the lot size. He
pointed out that was not what the surrounding property owners were saying -- they
wanted the larger lots. He asked how to accommodate both the developer and the
neighbors.
Mr. Nickle pointed out the subdivision was exactly the same as previously
presented. He asked how to get larger lots, other than requiring it.
Ms. Britton stated the developer did not have the option to make the lots much
smaller. She pointed out that, on one side, the lots were only 70 feet wide, the
minimum to meet city code. She reminded the Commission that when this item had
been previously tabled, the developer had been informed to come up with a plan
which allowed for access both directions from the subject tract.
Mr. Pennington stated he had no problem in providing access but they were asking
him to give away a lot valued at $18,000 to $20,000 to someone who had property
bordering Old Wire Road.
Mr. Tarvin asked if Ma. Britton was saying access would atop at the Tackett
property or go all the way to Magnolia.
Me. Britton stated she saw no way for access to go all the way to Magnolia now,
since that property had already been developed.
Mr. Tarvin asked how that would help the flow of traffic since the street would
dead-end at Mr. Tackett's property.
Me. Britton stated it would not help the traffic
number of access points entering Old Wire Road in
Mr. Tarvin pointed out Mr. Tackett's house would
Road from hie property.
Ma. Britton stated he could put a driveway down the side of his house with tandem
lots, which would be another outlet onto Old Wire Road. She further stated that,
at some future time, Mr. Van Scyoc's heirs might want to develop his property,
which would be another dead-end cul-de-sac. She asked that they consolidate so
all of the traffic would come out at one place.
Mr. Tarvin stated he thought they should thin the accesses out and put them in
several places.
Me. Britton stated she was hoping that, if there was access to the Van Scyoc
property at some point in the future, the access would go through to Old Wire
Road thereby providing circulation. She pointed out the Tackett property would
be the only cul-de-sac.
Mr. Allred asked if Ms. Britton was requesting an extension the right-of-way to
the property line which, when the property to the north was developed, would be
responsible for making the cul-de-sac a through street.
flow but would simplify the
the future.
block any access to Old Wire
Ms. Britton agreed.
Ms. Little pointed out access to the Van Scyoc property would probably be
preferable since it was a larger tract.
Mr. Allred agreed. He stated there was the potential for more lots on the van
Scyoc property than on the Tackett property. He also pointed out other
aa2
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 8
developments in town where houses were razed in order to give access to the land
behind it.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to a 50 -foot right-of-
way to the northeast, to the Van Scyoc property, and staff comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
It was determined the staff could administratively approve the revisions to the
subdivision. Mr. Allred noted that was included in his motion.
In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Allred stated he was not limiting
the developer to a certain number of lots.
The motion was a tie vote with Commissioners Cato, Tarvin, Pummill, and Allred
voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki, Nickle, Britton, and Springborn voting
"n0".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-33
LYNN KELLY - S OF 15TH ST., E OF S. SCHOOL AVE.
The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-33 requested by Lynn Kelly
for property located on the south side of 15th Street, east of South School
Avenue. The request is to rezone 1.01 acres from R-2, Medium Density
Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial -Heavy Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the subject tract was a small portion of a partially
developed tract located south of 15th Street and also south of the developed City
Property known as Walker Park. She stated to the west and south of the subject
tract was land was currently zoned R-2 (but was the subject of the next item on
the agenda - a request to rezone to I-1). She noted the Fayetteville Industrial
Park was to the east of the subject parcel. She advised the Commission the
subject parcel was a part of a larger tract of three acres under the same
ownership currently zoned I-1. She reminded the Commission they had approved a
large scale development on this property at their last meeting. She explained
that, at the time the large scale development plan had been submitted and heard
by the Planning Commission, it had not been realized the entire parcel was not
zoned I-1. She further explained the rezoning request had been initiated by the
Planning Administrator to correct the oversight and to permit the development of
the property in accordance with the large scale development.
Ms. Little pointed out development patterns in the area
intense commercial and industrial uses south of
residential uses were more concentrated north of 15th
of the 1970 General Land Use Plan showed the expected
was for industrial purposes.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested rezoning to I-1, due to the
anticipated use being in accordance with the General Land Use Plan and the fact
that the subject parcel, under common ownership, comprised one-fourth of an area
proposed for development under an approved large scale development plan.
In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Ms. Little stated the sign giving notice
of the rezoning had been placed on the property and that apparently someone had
taken it.
had concentrated the more
15th Street, while the
Street. She noted review
development of this area
as7
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 9
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend the rezoning.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-34
VONELL DICKEY - S OF 15TH ST., E OF S. SCHOOL AVE.
The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-34 submitted by Charles
Woolley on behalf of Vonell Dickey for property located on the south side of 15th
Street, east of South School Avenue. The request is to rezone 14.98 acres from
R-2, Medium Density Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial -Heavy Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the subject tract was a large tract of undeveloped land
located south of 15th Street and also south of the undeveloped City property
known as Walker Park. She pointed out to the west of this tract was the
Salvation Army property currently zoned C-2 and to the south was additional land
already zoned I-1. She noted the Fayetteville Industrial Park was immediately
to the east. She advised the Commission the subject parcel had approximately 500
feet of frontage along East 15th Street.
Ms. Little pointed out development patterns in the area
intense commercial and industrial uses south of
residential uses were more concentrated north of 15th
of the 1970 General Land Use Plan showed the expected
was for industrial purposes.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested rezoning of I-1, due to the
anticipated use being in accordance with the General Land Use Plan and the fact
that use of the land for industrial purposes would be more compatible with
surrounding development than the current zoning of R-2, Medium Density
Residential.
had concentrated the more
15th Street, while the
Street. She noted review
development of this area
Ms. Britton asked what was covered by heavy commercial -light industrial.
Ms. Little explained it covered cultural and recreational facilities;
agriculture; offices, studios and related services; eating places; trades and
services; gas service stations and drive-in restaurants; warehousing and
wholesale; manufacturing; professional offices; and wholesale bulk petroleum
storage facilities with underground storage tanks. She explained staff did not
have a development plan for this area. She pointed out this would be removing
all of the residential area south of 15th Street.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval of R92-34.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Britton pointed out there would still be one area of R-2 zoning further east
on 15th Street.
0229
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-35
RALPH CARNES - S OF OLD FARMINGTON RD., W OF SHILOH DR.
The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-35 submitted by Truman Yancey
on behalf of Ralph Carnes for property located on the south side of Old
Farmington Road, west of Shiloh Drive. The request is to rezone 3.14 acres from
A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained the subject property fronted on Old Farmington Road and was
currently wooded and undeveloped. She stated there was a drainage divide on the
eastern boundary of the tract which might traverse the parcel at some point. She
explained the acreage on either side of the subject tract had been developed for
use as single-family within the A-1, Agricultural zone. She pointed out the area
to the north was also zoned A-1 and was heavily wooded. She advised that,
according to the plat maps in Planning, the tract was occupied by a portion of
a cemetery and care would have to be taken during development to avoid
disturbance of those sites.
She reminded the Commission the area along Old Farmington Road had been the
subject of three other rezoning requests during 1992. She advised that, in each
case, the request had been for R-2, Medium Density Residential. She stated that,
in one case, the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Board had approved
R-1.5 and in another case, located nearer to developed single-family homes, the
Planning Commission and City Board had approved R-1 zoning.
Ms. Little stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan showed the area to develop as
R-1, Low Density Residential, and the area to the south with frontage on West 6th
Street to develop as R-2, Medium Density Residential. She noted development
patterns along West 6th had been more intense than single-family residential with
much of the area developing commercially. She advised that, due to the more
intense development at the southern boundary, a more intense type of residential
use would also seem appropriate along Old Farmington Road. She pointed out that
Old Farmington Road was narrow, lacking curb and gutter, and was incapable in its
present state to efficiently manage traffic from a variety of intense residential
uses.
Ms. Little recommended the Planning Commission support a rezoning to a
residential classification. She stated she did not, however, support a
classification higher than R-1.5 in order to remain consistent with previous
actions in the same general area. She further noted that, at the time of
development, she believed it would be appropriate to request the developer to
participate in improvements to Old Farmington Road.
Mr. Cato asked if there was just one residence between the R -O zoning and the
subject property.
Ms. Little stated that was correct.
Mr. Yancey explained the property adjoining the subject property on the east was
a combination of R -O and commercial. He further pointed out all of the property
from the subject tract to Shiloh Drive was either R -O or commercial. He stated
there was a proposed motel at the intersection of Shiloh and Old Farmington. He
stated the property directly across the road from the subject tract was zoned
Agricultural. He further noted the cemetery adjoined the subject property but
was not on the property.
Mr. Yancey explained the developer's original plan was to develop 48 units on the
subject tract but R-1.5 zoning would allow only 36 units. He stated he believed
R-2 zoning was a reasonable transition from a commercial area into a residential
� Z S
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 11
area. He noted the rezonings mentioned by Ms.
mile to the west of the subject tract.
He agreed there was a limitation on traffic on Old Farmington Road.
they anticipated the traffic would go to the east rather than the
expressed his belief that Old Farmington Road would be improved and
the property developed.
Me. Little pointed out R-2 zoning would allow the development of 72 units.
Mr. Allred asked if a Bill of Assurance had been offered, limiting the number of
units to 48.
Me. Little stated the developer had not offered a Bill of Assurance.
Mr. Yancey stated they would be agreeable to offering such a document.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Me. Little stated the maximum density
under R -O would be 7 units per acre (less density than R-1.5).
Mr. Cato asked Ms. Little, if the petitioner offered a Bill of Assurance limiting
the development to 48 units, it would change her recommendation.
Me. Little stated it would help. She explained her concern dealt with additional
traffic to Old Farmington Old.
MOTION
Little were approximately one-half
He stated
west. He
widened as
Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval the request of R92-35 with a Bill of
Assurance limiting the tract to 48 units.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
Mr. Nickle asked if the motion included staff comments about Old Farmington Road.
Mr. Pummill stated his motion was subject to staff comments.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ENGINEERING RESOURCES, INC.
ENGINEERING RESOURCES - NE CORNER OF PUMP STATION RD. & LEEPER
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for
Engineering Resources submitted by Chester Dean and Kirby Estee on behalf of
Engineering Resources for property located on the northeast corner of Pump
Station Road and Leeper. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and
contains 10.04 acres.
Me. Little explained the large scale development consisted of a fermentation
plant for waste gases located on 10 acres in the Fayetteville Industrial Park.
She noted there had been no significant comments by the utility company
representatives at the plat review meeting. She advised the staff had comments
on the proposed drive off Leeper Avenue and requested it be moved further form
the intersection of Leeper and Pump Station Road.
Ms. Little stated there had been little discussion at the Subdivision Committee
meeting and the development had been recommended for approval to the full
Planning Commission. She reported staff had recommended the Large Scale
Development be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee
comments.
z2G
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 12
Mr. Estes pointed out the road to the south of the parking lot had been
straightened out in order to met city code requirements. He advised the road to
the pilot plant would have a security fence and would be closed except when the
plant was in use.
Mr. Nickleasked the.purpose of the business.
Dr. Jim Gaddy explained Engineering Resources was a new biotechnical company
which researched and developed the production of fuels and chemicals. He advised
they were presently in the incubator program at the University and had outgrown
their space there and were expanding to a new location. He stated the facility
would consist of an office, a laboratory, and a pilot plant building. He further
stated they anticipated other buildings as they grew.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Dr. Gaddy stated there would be no
manufacturing on site, just research and development.
Mr. Nickle asked if there would be any problem in discharging into the city sewer
system.
Dr. Gaddy stated that would not be a problem; they were presently getting the
necessary permits. He further noted they presently had 20 employees and expected
that to increase to 50 within the next year and a half.
In response to a question from Me. Britton, Ms. Little stated that originally one
of the entrances into the plant was too close to the corner. She stated that
problem had been solved.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Vacation of Vandeventer Street.
Ms. Little stated at the last meeting Mr. Springborn had asked why the vacation
of Vandeventer Street had not come before the Planning Commission. She explained
staff had researched his question and found that city code did require street
closings to come before the Planning Commission and from 1981 to 1983 street
closings did come before the Planning Commission. She stated that code was not
being followed by current practice; however, she felt it would be advisable for
future street closings to come before them. She stated the ordinance further
directed the petition go to the City Clerk's office. She advised the petition
came to the Planning Office and then Planning forwarded it to the City Engineer
for technical comments. She stated street closings would, in the future, come
before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Little advised the Commission she had spoken with both former Planning
Commission Chairman Ernie Jacks and former City Attorney Jim McCord as to why the
procedure was changed. She stated they had told her that, since street closings
were routine, the Board of Directors had to act on them anyway, and there was
adequate time for public input, they turned them solely over to the Board. She
further advised there was a state law which permitted the city board to take
action.
•
072"7
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 1992
Page 13
Me. Little explained the matter of Vandeventer Street would come before the
Planning Commission in 3 to 6 months when the large scale development came before
them.
Mr. Springborn stated it was his understanding that the closing of Vandeventer
was contingent upon..the approval of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Little explained that was the procedure at Section 98 of the City Ordinances
however, there was a state law that designated that power to the City Board.
Board of Sign Appeals:
Me. Little advised the Commission the Board of Sign Appeals had recently heard
a number of cases on signs and found there were a number of items which needed
clarification within the sign ordinance. She explained they had suggested the
appointment of a committee to work on the sign ordinance. She asked for the
Commission's wishes on any changes to the sign ordinance, particularly in the
formation of a committee. She stated she believed it would be appropriate to
have a member of the Planning Commission on such committee.
Mr. Nickle stated if the Commission agreed a member of the Planning Commission
should be on the committee, they could let him know and he would make such an
appointment at the following meeting.
Mr. Pummill pointed out there could be new members on the Planning Commission in
January. He recommended waiting until January before making such appointments.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
•
.2 z8