Loading...
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