HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-09 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November
9, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Jerry
Allred, Jack Cleghorn, and Jett Cato
Chuck Nickle, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the
press and others
Mr. Cleghorn called the meeting to order in Mr. Nickle's absence. He noted there
were only six Commissioners present. He advised the applicants the conditional
use and rezoning petition bothrequired five positive votes in order to be
approved.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 26, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
CONDITIONAL USE C092-26 & LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
JAY BERRYMAN - N OF SYCAMORE, E OF GREGG AVE.
The next item was a request for approval of a conditional use and large scale
development, presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Jay Berryman, for property
located on the north side of Sycamore, east of Gregg Avenue. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 1.5 acres. The request for a
conditional use is to allow five duplexes to be constructed as a large scale
development in R-1 zoning.
Mr. Conklin, Associate Planner, explained the surrounding land uses included to
the south the Forest Heights Subdivision, to the east single family homes, to the
west single family homes, and to the north vacant land and more single family
homes. He noted the existing use of the site currently had one small structure
located on lot 9 with the remainder of the site being undeveloped. He explained
the site's topography sloped downward from Sycamore Street with trees located
throughout the entire site. He noted several larger trees would have to be
removed if the site were to be developed as proposed.
Mr. Conklin pointed out there were very few duplexes and town homes located in
the general vicinity of the project site. He stated duplexes were located on the
southeast corner of Sycamore and Gregg Streets and town homes were located at the
northeast corner of Ash and Gregg Streets. He explained that the general
vicinity was developed in single family homes on large lots. He further
explained duplexes in the subject area would intensify the existing development
pattern in the vicinity; however, the proposed project would be harmonious with
adjacent development and consistent with the low density residential General Plan
Designation.
Mr. Conklin stated staff recommended approval of the conditional use subject to
the conditions of the lot split and a further condition that trees shall be
incorporated into the project when possible, including an undisturbed buffer
around the perimeter of the project.
He further reported the large scale development consisted of five duplexes
located on 1.5 acres owned by Jay Berryman and Mel Milholland. He stated there
had been no significant comments at the Plat Review meeting other than some
easements requested by the utility company representatives and agreed to by the
aa9
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 2
developers. He further noted the Subdivision Committee made no recommendation
on the large scale because there was no one present to represent the owners.
Mr. Conklin stated it was the recommendation of the staff that the Large Scale
Development be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee
comments; approval of the conditional use for duplexes; granting of all easements
by separate instrument, including off-site easements; construction of a turn-
around for the sanitation trucks; and payment of parks fees and construction of
sidewalks per City ordinance.
Mr. Milholland stated they concurred with staff's recommendation. He pointed out
the property had been vacant for quite some time and this would be an improvement
to that area. He noted the subject property was approximately 1 1/2 blocks from
Gregg Street and to the west was commercial property. He further stated the
Hagger property, which contained the existing house, was a part of the property
when they purchased it but had been split off from the subject property. He
explained Ms. Nagger was in favor of the project.
Mr. Dick Rogers pointed out there was multi -family housing a block south of the
subject tract. He presented photographs of homes adjacent to the property and
the proposed duplexes. He stated the duplexes would be 90% brick and could
contain 1,050 square feet together with a one -car garage for each unit He
further stated the adjoining housing was valued from $30,000 to $45,000.
Lewis Huntoon, 1618 Forest Heights, disagreed that putting in five duplexes would
improve the area. He pointed out the land for the Forest Heights Subdivision had
also been vacant for years until the last year when it had been developed as
single family homes. He stated he would like to see the neighborhood continue
as single family homes. He noted the Forest Heights development had set a
precedent for the area.
Tom Rufer, 1674 Forest Heights, and pointed out there were a number of properties
to the south that had not been mentioned. He stated the average investment was
$125,000 to $140,000. He asked if this development set the proposed use for
adjoining lots 5, 6 and 7 in the future. He pointed out that could double the
number of duplexes in the area. He further noted he believed this would degrade
the property values in the area. He pointed out only four houses had been sold
in the Forest Heights Subdivision with a number of tracts still to be developed.
He advised he believed it would be difficult to develop those tracts should the
duplexes be approved. He also pointed out that, when he and his neighbors
invested in their property, they believed all of the surrounding property to be
R-1 property.
Richard Day, 1606 Forest Heights, agreed with Mr. Huntoon and Mr. Rufer. He also
expressed concern regarding additional traffic on Sycamore Street.
Mr. Rogers stated he had not included the Forest Heights Subdivision because none
of the homes directly fronted on Sycamore. He also pointed out there was R-2
housing to the south and west of Forest Heights.
George Faucette appeared before the Commission and explained he and Rudy Hatcher
were the developers of Forest Heights Subdivision. He agreed there were duplexes
to the southwest of the subdivision but advised they were intermixed with single
family homes and there was a natural buffer between the subdivision and duplexes.
He expressed his belief that additional rental property would tend to change the
character of the neighborhood north of Sycamore Street. He stated duplexes would
increase the density of the area from 3 to 4 homes on the 1.5 acres to 10 rental
units.
4230
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 3
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Faucette stated the value of the
homes in Forest Heights at this time was from $117,500 to $144,000. He stated
there were plans to build some in the $150,000 to $175,000 range.
Ms. Little explained they did not have a traffic generation report for this large
scale development. She advised the City's C.I.P. did show a plan to widen
Sycamore from Gregg to the west.
Mr. Day pointed out that on Gregg there was a strip of high density housing but
that it ended on Sycamore Street. He expressed concern the subject development
would bring higher density housing along Sycamore Street.
Tom Hixson, 1659 Forest Heights, stated he had just moved from Dallas into his
home the previous week. He advised they had expressed concern when looking at
the site for their home and had gone to the City to be sure the surrounding
zoning was R-1. He stated they had been assured by several people that the
Planning Commission was very cautious when reviewing requests to change the
zoning. He requested the Commission reject the request.
Mr. Milholland stated he believed the project would be a betterment for the area.
He further pointed out that, wherever a tract was developed, there would be an
increase in traffic. He stated Forest Heights increased the traffic much more
than the duplexes would. He requested the Commission follow the advice of the
Planning Department staff. He stated he was sure staff had taken adjoining
property into consideration prior to making their recommendation.
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Milholland stated the value of the
adjoining resident was $60,000 to $65,000.
Ms. Britton asked if the duplexes were going to be two -bedrooms.
Mr. Milholland stated he could not say. He further stated that with 1,000 square
feet they could be three -bedrooms.
Ms. Little stated the plat showed a maximum of three -bedrooms each.
Mr. Allred asked staff to expand on the statement in the report regarding the
buffer.
Mr. Conklin stated he was concerned about the number of trees on the tract and
wanted to encourage the developer to be sensitive in regard to the trees. He
recommended the developer work with the City Horticulturist in saving a number
of the trees.
Mr. Allred asked if it was staff's recommendation that the entire site be
screened and buffered.
Mr. Conklin explained, if they could retain a buffer of trees around the site,
it would enhance the project. He stated the City did not at the present time
have a landscape ordinance so the developer would have to mutually agree to work
with the City.
Mr. Milholland stated it was his understanding that the trees around the
perimeter of the site and some of the trees on the property would remain.
Me. Britton stated the trees on the site were very large, very mature trees and
their root zone would encompass a very large area. She stated she did not see
any way for Unit 3 to be built without removing most of the trees and then the
street would take out the others. She stated there were no trees on the south
side where they would be needed.
23/
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Springborn stated he had not seen the requirement for screening in a
residential development before.
Ms. Little pointed out the recommendation was not for total screening but was
that the trees be incorporated into the project wherever possible, including an
undisturbed buffer.
Mr. Conklin stated he had been impressed with the number of trees on the site and
had included that comment in the report with the hope that the developer would
agree to, whenever possible, incorporate the trees into the project site. He
stated it was a desirable place to live and was a wooded area. He pointed out
that would be advantageous to both the developer and the surrounding property
owners.
Mr. Huntoon stated it was his understanding that each unit would have a garage.
He further stated that, if the duplexes were to be rented to students, they could
have as many as 30 cars in the development. He stated the garages would take
care of 10 cars and asked what would happen to the other 20. He asked if the
area between unit 5 and Sycamore would be parking.
Mr. Milholland stated it would not.
Mr. Huntoon stated he would hate to see vehicles parked along Sycamore Street.
Ms. Little advised that each unit did have a garage and also a 44 -foot long
driveway for parking. She further advised that only three unrelated persons
could reside in one residence. She also pointed out there was a private street
320 feet long, 25 feet wide, which should be able to handle the overflow. She
pointed out they were automatically assuming the units would be rented by college
students. She stated there was an incredible demand for rental housing in the
City.
Ms. Britton agreed with Mr. Huntoon that there would be at least two automobiles
per unit.
Ms. Little stated the regulations required two parking spaces per unit and the
proposed development did meet those regulations.
Mr. Rudy Hatcher stated he had a problem in not knowing who the developer was and
the number of bedrooms in the units.
Mr. Milholland stated he did not believe that was relative.
Mr. Hatcher explained he believe it was because families would not live in a
three-bedroom, one -bath unit but college students would. He stated if they were
building units that appealed to families, they would have families but if they
were building units that appealed to students, they would have students.
Mr. Milholland stated he would be doing the large scale development plan. He
pointed out they did meet the parking requirements and did not believe that
whether the units were two or three bedroom units was relative. He advised that,
with the expense of land and development, he did not anticipate it being
developed as a junk place but rather nice duplexes.
Ms. Britton asked if the property was being developed for sale.
Mr. Milholland stated he would not be constructing the buildings nor own them.
He advised he would be controlling the access as presented in the large scale
development.
0232
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Faucette stated he was concerned that Mr. Milholland was not the developer.
He pointed out the homes across the street, while modest, were still single-
family homes. He stated it was not in character with the neighborhood. He
further pointed out there was a lot of R-2 property within the city that had not
been developed. He also noted it would be different if the duplexes were going
to be sold to individuals.
Mr. Milholland stated it was his understanding the duplexes could not be sold
separately.
Ms. Little agreed and explained they could not be sold separately because of the
25 foot drive going into the development.
Mr. Allred suggested sending this matter back to the developers to see if they
could come up with a more suitable project. He further stated there was some
merit to the project but it needed more work.
Ms. Britton stated she would prefer to see the property developed so that each
duplex could be individually owned.
Mr. Springborn stated he had a problem of entering into negotiations with the
developer on how it would be developed. He pointed out they had made application
for the conditional use and they should deal with just that application.
NOTION
Mr. Springborn stated he had been watching the area for at least five years and
had found encouraging development taking place. He further stated he believed
they should do everything they could to preserve and upgrade the area. He moved
the application be denied.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-36
HOYET GREENWOOD ESTATE - N OF WEDINGTON DR., W OF RUPPLE RD.
The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning Request R92-36 submitted by Curtis
Wray.and Kirk Elsass on behalf of Hoyet Greenwood Estate for property located on
the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Rupple Road. The request is to rezone
1.76 acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was requesting the rezoning in order to allow
for the establishment of an electrical contracting business. He noted the
property was originally rezoned from A-1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, in 1984. He explained at that time, C-2 zoning was requested for the
entire site, including the portion where the Spe-dee Mart is now constructed.
He advised the applicant had stated at that time C-2 zoning was requested in
order to allow for further expansion of the convenience store without the C-1
restrictions.
Mr. Conklin advised the Planning Commission the stated purpose of C-1 zoning was
"designated to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living
in the surrounding residential areas" and the purpose of C-2 zoning was
"designated especially to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers". He noted that, under Use
Unit 17, the permitted use allowed for electrical repair services to be
established and Use Unit 21 allowed for electrical contracting businesses to be
established. He stated the applicant's intended use of the site would seem to
233
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 6
fall more under Use Unit 21 rather than Use Unit 17. He explained Use Unit 21
was a conditional use under C-2 zoning.
Mr. Conklin stated the existing use of the subject property was vacant land with
the surrounding land uses including a gasoline station and mini -mart, self
storage facility, Wedington House, agricultural land, and a garden nursery. He
noted the adjacent zoning districts included several blocks of C-1 and C-2 zoning
and large areas of A-1, R-1, and R-2. He explained the mini storage on the east
side of Rupple Road, adjacent to the subject site, was rezoned from A-1 to C-2
in 1984 with a bill of assurance offered to the City to use the site only as a
mini storage facility.
He further advised the property zoned C-1 on the northeast corner of Highway 16
West and Rupple Road had been rezoned in 1989. He stated the applicant had
originally requested a C-2 classification but was only granted a C-1 designation.
He explained staff recommendation at that time was for C-1 or C-2 with a Bill of
Assurance that limited its use to a mini storage facility. He advised that
recommendation by staff was based on the belief that C-2 zoning could introduce
land uses that were incompatible with other land use in the vicinity and with the
adopted land use plan.
Mr. Conklin further advised the property zoned C-2 and located on the south side
of Highway 16 West was rezoned from A-1 to C-2 in 1989. He explained the
Planning Commission had denied the application because of concerns regarding
future land uses that were permitted in C-2 zoning districts but, on appeal of
the Board of Directors, the rezoning was approved to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance
offered that limited the site to cold storage use.
He explained the Highway 16 West General Plan Amendment (dated April 5, 1983) had
classified the subject area as Medium Density Residential; however, the nodes at
major intersections had tended to develop commercially and had been consistent
with the General Plan standards for commercial development.
Mr. Conklin stated staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning from C-1
to C-2. He explained denying the application would be consistent with adopted
land use policies and past actions regarding rezonings by the Planning Commission
within the general vicinity. He stated the potential land uses that were
permitted with the C-2 zone would not provide the services that C-1 zoning would
provide to existing and future surrounding residential land uses in the vicinity.
Curtis Wray, representing both the seller and buyer, appeared before the
Commission. He explained the present location of D & C Electric was on West
Sixth Street where the state was widening the street. He stated a portion of the
building would have to be removed due to the widening of the street.
He explained D & C had very few employees and the majority of the employees
worked off-site. He stated D & C Electric was not a big electrical contracting
business and did not do a lot of electrical warehousing. He further stated this
business did not fit in under Use Unit 21.
Mr. Wray pointed out every thoroughfare coming into the city was changing
character. He stated another individual was looking at the same property and
would also require a rezoning. He advised that the property was well within the
node. He explained the current plan was to construct a building behind the Spe
dee Mart for the electrical business, leaving the property to the west of the
Spe-dee Mart for another commercial business, possibly a car wash.
In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. Wray explained the access to the
electrical business would be from Rupple Lane. He pointed out the mini -storage
units, zoned C-2, were directly across the street.
,23y
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Cleghorn asked if a car wash required C-1 or C-2 zoning.
Ms. Little stated she believed a car wash would fit in either category. She
stated a car wash in conjunction with a gasoline service station came under Use
Unit 18 (C-1 and C-2 zoning).
Mr. Gary Adams,"co-owner of D & C Electric,.appeared before the Commission and
stated the business had been located in the same location in the City of
Fayetteville approximately 45 years. He explained the business was being
displaced by the Highway Department and they wanted to stay in the City of
Fayetteville. He advised he could see the subject property from his home
pointing out he would not want to do anything adverse to the area. He further
pointed out the area along Highway 16 was changing, a parcel at a time, to
commercial zoning and named some of the businesses located along the highway.
He further pointed out no one would want to build a home immediately adjacent to
the present Spe-dee Mart.
Mr. Adams advised the Commission the Highway Department would be taking the
office area from the current building. He stated the building was owned by
someone else and his family had decided they would construct their own building.
Me. Little asked who owned the property where D & C Electric was currently
located.
Mr. Adams stated the property was owned by Doyle Shackleford.
Ms. Little asked how much of the property would be removed from the widening of
6th Street.
Mr. Adams stated the front 16 feet of the building would be removed.
Ms. Little advised the Commission that property had been before the Board of
Adjustment and had received a variance for front setbacks so the building could
still be used.
Ms. Britton asked what functions were performed at D & C Electric.
Mr. Adams explained they kept an inventory base on site but they did not
wholesale or warehouse. He further explained they primarily did service calls
and house wiring. He stated he did not believe their business fell under Use
Unit 21.
Ms. Britton asked if they did repair work on site.
Mr. Adams stated they did repair work on small appliances and motors.
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Adams stated they planned to fence
the lot behind the Spe-Dee Mart and construct a building similar to Spe-Dee Mart
or a metal building containing approximately 4,000 square. He stated they would
install whatever type of fencing required by the City. He further noted that,
if it were permissible, they would like to keep two spools of wire and a pipe
rack outside.
Mr. Millard Goff, an area resident, expressed his opinion that no one would
construct homes along Highway 16. He suggested the requested use would be a good
buffer between the highway and the single-family homes.
Mr. Wray stated they would offer a Bill of Assurance that the property would be
used for an electrical business only.
23S
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 8
Mr. Allred asked the length of a node.
Ms. Little stated it was 600 feet in diameter or 300 feet radius from the center
of the intersecting streets.
Mr. Cato asked if staff's recommendation would be changed since only the northern
portion of the property was needed and the applicant offered a Bill of Assurance.
Ms. Little stated her concern dealt with a 4,000 square foot building in the
area.
Mr. Conklin stated that, in researching this matter, previous Planning
Commissions had been very cautious in rezoning property in the area to C-2 in
order to avoid highway strip commercial areas. He stated the Commission needed
to make a decision regarding a land use policy for the subject area -- heavier
commercial area along Highway 16 or neighborhood commercial enterprises. He
advised that in 1983 there had been an amendment to the land use plan for this
area, designating it medium density residential use. He noted that, since that
time, C-1 zoning had been approved along the nodes on Highway 16.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated that, should the
request be approved, the city would require the parking to be paved.
Mr. Allred also expressed concern that the building would be a 4,000 square foot
metal building. He asked if they could require the construction of a building
which would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Me. Little stated that would be a new requirement which had never been required
before.
Mr. Suchecki stated he believed this business had been incorrectly categorized
as Use Unit 21. He explained the business was a small office building with 5 or
6 office employees and the servicemen only coming into the office early in the
morning and late at evening. He pointed out it would not generate heavy traffic
and the building would be hidden from the highway by the Spe-dee Mart. He
further stated some metal buildings could be attractive buildings.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he had always been a strong advocate of maintaining
residential areas. He further stated he had done business with D & C Electric
and he would agree with Mr. Suchecki -- they were not categorized right. He
explained they did not work on site at the business. He stated it was a tough
decision; that the business would not harm the neighborhood but was not it in
line with the plan for Wedington.
Ms. Britton stated she believed this business was Use Unit 21. She further
stated traffic was not a problem nor was she worried about the appearance of the
building from the highway. She explained she believed the adjoining A-1 property
should, in the future, become a residential area but no one would want to put a
house next to such a business. She further stated this particular business would
be more appropriate in an industrial area because they would be wasting a
commercial lot that would service the neighborhood.
Mr. Springborn stated he had mixed feelings regarding this request. He asked why
they would be locating the building on Rupple Road rather than Highway 16.
Mr. Adams stated that, at some future date, they desired to construct a car wash
on Highway 16.
Mr. Springborn stated he would not have a problem with approving it if the
building were located on Highway 16 but was concerned about associating it with
0236
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 9
potential residential development to the north. He pointed out they kept looking
for buffers between commercial development and residential property.
Me. Britton pointed out not only would the property have to be rezoned to C-2 but
it would also require a conditional use in C-2.
Mr. Cato stated he was concerned about rezoning the southern portion of the
property to C-2. He asked if, with the Bill of Assurance for the electrical
business, that would affect the applicant's ability to put a car wash on the
southern portion of the property.
Ms. Little explained they could split off that portion required for the
electrical business.
Mr. Allred expressed his belief this business would have no more impact on the
neighborhood than a C-1 business. He also pointed out that, with the Bill of
Assurance, it would act as a buffer between the convenience store and the
properties to the north.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning and a conditional use for
the north 98 feet by 232 feet with a Bill of Assurance.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
In response to a question from Me. Little, Mr. Allred stated the property
fronting on Highway 16 would remain C-1.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Cato, Springborn, Cleghorn,
and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no".
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LOWE'S HOME CENTER
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS - NW CORNER OF ZION RD. AND HWY 71
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development submitted
by Harry Gray on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers for a home center to be located
at the northeast corner of Zion Road and Highway 71 (North College Avenue). The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 16.35 acres.
Me. Little explained a rezoning to C-2 had been approved by the Planning
Commission and was pending City Council approval and a conditional use for a
building supply center in a C-2 zone had already been approved by the Planning
Commission.
She stated the utility companies indicated that service was available either on
the property or adjacent to the property on Zion Road. She noted several of the
utility company representatives had asked for an easement along the north side
of Zion Road. She further noted one of the utility representatives asked for a
50 -foot easement and staff had questioned the need for an easement that wide;
however, it appeared that, with the sewer line located in that vicinity and the
presence of a high retaining wall, a 35 -foot easement would be necessary..
Me. Little also noted the Fire Chief had recommended a fire hydrant at each of
the two entrances to come off of the 12 -inch water main in Zion Road.
She explained there had been considerable discussion among the staff as to the
required improvements to Zion Road and to its intersection with Highway 718. She
stated that portion of Zion Road adjacent to the Lowe's property was already
constructed to full City street standards and no further improvements could be
a37
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 10
required of the developer. She further stated the City considered the
possibility of widening the street to four lanes at that point as called for in
the Master Street Plan; however, staff believed other street projects took
priority at the present time. She further noted a sidewalk was required on the
east ,side of 71B by the Master Sidewalk Plan; however, the staff recommended the
waiving of the requirement due to the terrain.
Ms. Little advised the Commission staff was recommending Lowe's be responsible
for a portion of the improvements being planned for the intersection of Zion and
Highway 71B. She stated that, at the present time, there were plans being put
together for certain improvements at that intersection which would improve
traffic flow to and from the Mall and Zion Road. She stated the Mall had
indicated a willingness to pay for such improvements, but city staff felt that
Lowe's should pay for the east half of the Zion Road intersection. She noted
discussions between Lowe's and the Mall were taking place on that matter. She
advised staff felt that any reasonable cost sharing solution agreed to by the
parties involved would be satisfactory. She stated it was not the intent of the
City nor of the Highway Department to share in any of the costs.
Ms. Little stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the Large
Scale Development. She stated they had raised the following concerns: 1) the
need to work with the City Horticulturist in the planning of landscaping; 2) the
number of parking spaces in excess of city requirements; and 3) the location of
the retaining wall in relation to Zion Road.
Ms. Little stated staff recommended approval of the large scale development
subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; the granting of all
easements requested by the utility companies by separate instrument; the approval
of a grading and drainage plan; approval of detailed plane for water, sewer and
drainage facilities; coordination with the City's meter foreman, Don Osburn, on
exact location of the water meter and the installation of required backflow
prevention devices; a permit being obtained from the State Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology for the containment of runoff water during
construction; a resolution of the issues involving Lowe's share of the cost of
improvements to the Zion/Highway 71B intersection; the construction of sidewalks
along the north side of Zion Road in accordance with the City's Master Sidewalk
Plan; and relocation of their western -most driveway to eliminate sight distance
problems to the east.
Mr. Springborn stated the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee minutea reflected
concern regarding the retaining wall and the widening of Zion Road.
Ms. Little advised the decision had been made to not widen Zion Road. She
further advised the entrances to Lowe's would be moved. She explained the rule
of thumb for retaining walls was that they could not be closer than 25 feet to
the street. She stated Mr. Bunn had advised that could be waived and that he
would look at it closely during construction.
Mr. Gray pointed out the site plan also showed dedication of 30 feet.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Dowell, the Lowe's
representative, stated the entrance would be approximately 25 feet from the lift
station. He noted that change was not reflected in the plats received by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Dowell explained Lowe's could not commit to the improvement of the
intersection in conjunction with the Mall until they had received approval of the
large scale development. He further stated they did want to make the
improvements to the intersection.
2 33j
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 11
Ms. Britton asked if there was any possibility of putting a few more landscaping
islands in the parking lot.
Mr. Dowell stated he was not in the position to say that Lowe's could do that.
He explained Lowe's required 5.5 parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of
Bales floor.
Ms. Britton pointed out the large island at the northeast corner which was shown
as a paved island. She recommended they not pave it.
NOTION
Mr. dato moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
Ms. Little explained the Master Sidewalk Plan called for a sidewalk along Highway
71B and recommended that requirement be waived.
Mr. Allred agreed.
Ms. Britton pointed out there were people that walked along the highway. She
stated there was a problem to the south of the intersection for pedestrians since
there was not even a shoulder to the road for people to walk on.
Mr. Gray suggested a Bill of Assurance for a sidewalk along the east side at the
call of the City.
Mr. Cato stated he would accept the Bill of Assurance into the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT NO. 1
KEITH SHREVE - S OF SELLERS RD., E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD.
The next item was a request for a waiver to the subdivision regulations for Lot
Split No. 1, requested by Keith Shreve, on the south side of Sellers Road, east
of Double Springs Road and is outside the city limits.
Ms. Little explained the property in question was within the Fayetteville Growth
Area, north of Farmington on County Road 640. She advised the Commission the
original tract contained 98 acres, more or less, and the proposal was to split
off 2 acres. She noted the split had been approved by Washington County.
She stated the tract was large enough, under Fayetteville regulations, for a
septic tank and water was available on the front of the property on County Road
640.
Ms. Little stated it was the recommendation of the staff that the split be
approved.
Mr. Shreve explained he desired the split to build a family home.
NOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
239
•
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1992
Page 12
RAW VACATION V92-1
JULIAN ARCHER - 2000 - 2100 BLOCK OF MARKHAM RD.
The next item was a request for vacation of the road right-of-way located in part
of the 2000 - 2100 block of Markham Road, west of Sang Avenue, requested by
Julian Archer. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained Mr. Archer was petitioning the City to close the western-
most 100 feet of Markham Street. She stated Mr. Archer was the sole owner of
property on all three sides of the length requested to be vacated. She advised
the Commission the utility companies had no objections to the closing. She
stated there were no water or sewer lines within the area proposed to be vacated
and none were anticipated until and unless the Archer property was developed.
Ms. Little stated it was staff's recommendation that the western -most 100 feet
of Markham Street be vacated as requested.
Mr. Cleghorn asked about notification.
Ms. Little stated that any adjacent property owners were notified. She explained
that, in this case, the applicant was the only adjacent property owner. She
further noted the vacation would have to go to the City Council for final
approval.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval of the right-of-way vacation, V92-1.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
ay0