Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-14 Minutes• • • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 14, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, member(' of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 23,1992 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-40 AND LOT SPLIT 41 BAY I. HALEY - W OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., S OF WEDINGTON The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning R92-40 submitted by Barbara Harris on behalf of Bay I. Haley for property located on the west side of Double Springs Road, south of Wedington Drive. The request is to rezone 2 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. In conjunction with the rezoning, the applicant is also requesting a lot split. Mr. Conklin explained the site currently had one single family home and was surrounded by other single family homes to the west, north, and south and vacant land to the east. He noted the applicant was requesting the rezoning in order to place an additional home on the property. He advised the surrounding zoning included a large area of R-1 to the east with A-1 to the north, south, and west. He stated rezoning the property to R-1 would allow the applicant to develop an additional single family home after the lot was split. He further stated rezoning the subject parcel would be consistent with other recent rezoning(' in the general vicinity. Mr. Conklin recommended the Planning Commission approve the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1 since the rezoning would be compatible with other zoning districts and existing land uses in the general vicinity. The petitioner explained the reason for the rezoning request. NOTION Mr. Cato moved to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Little explained the subject tract contained 2.0 acres, more or less, and fronted on Double Springs Road. She advised the proposed lot split would create a new lot containing .35 acres with frontage on Sumter Road. She stated Sumter Road was an existing private drive and acceptance of the drive to meet the 70 - foot frontage requirement was subject to Planning Commission approval under Section 160.114 which reads: "STRUCTURES TO HAVE ACCESS: Every building hereafter erected or moved shall be located on a lot which has frontage on a public street; provided, the Planning Commission shall have the authority to aL19 Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 2 waive this requirement where the property owner provides safe and convenient access for fire protection and sanitation vehicles. All structures shall be so located on lots as to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection, and required off-street parking." She advised water was available from Double Springs Road, sewer existed on the parent tract, and electrical service was available from an existing line at the north end of the proposed tract. Ms. Little stated staff recommended the split be approved provided the 15 -foot easement shown on the plat was granted in fee simple along the area of the original tract (.35 acre), and the Planning Commission accept Sumter Road as adequate access. Ms. Britton asked if the subject property touched Sumter Road. Ms. Little stated the easement for the road did touch the property. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained this could have been considered as a tandem lot but that would have required a conditional use. She noted a conditional use application had not been advertised for the subject tract and the applicant had a builder waiting to start construction on the tract as soon as the rezoning and lot split were approved. She further stated either way would work. Ms. Britton asked why a 25 foot easement could not be given. Ms. Little stated there was the 15 foot easement granted in fee simple title together with the 15 foot easement to the west, making 30 feet for roadway. Mr. Allred asked if greenspace fees were required. Ms. Little stated greenspace fees were required. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split as requested subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Cato, Suchecki, Nickle, Pummill, Springborn and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-41 BMP DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM RD., N OF TIMBERLINE DR. The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Request R92-41, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development, for property located east of Salem Road, north of Timberline Drive. The request is to rezone 38 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the existing use of the site was vacant land, surrounded by single family homes to the south and vacant land to the west, east and north. He noted the subject site was the last remaining parcel zoned A-1 in an area surrounded by R-1, R-1.5, and R-2 zones. He advised the applicant was requesting to rezone 38 acres to R-1.5 in order to construct moderately priced single family homes and duplexes. He noted the site was surrounded by R-2 to the east, R-1 to the north, R-1 to the west and a large portion of R-1.5 to the south, which included small areas of R-1 aro • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 3 and A-1. He pointed out the requested rezoning to R-1.5 would provide a buffer between the more restrictive R-1 zoning west and north of the site and the less restrictive R-2 zoning east of the site. Mr. Conklin stated there was on Sycamore Street however Sycamore did not meet city street standards at this time. He further stated the rezoning of the property was deemed appropriate from a land use standpoint; however, there would be significant impacts on the traffic patterns in the area at the time of development. He advised the applicant would be responsible to provide adequate ingress and egress to the property and would likely be required to install off- site improvements at the time of subdivision. Mr. Conklin recommended the Planning Commission approve the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5 since it would provide a natural extension of the existing R- 1.5 zoning to the south and would also create a buffer between the R-1 zoning to the west and the R-2 zoning to the east. Mr. Harry Gray stated there would also be access to the subject property through the Woodfield Addition by dedicated right-of-way and Walnut View Estates. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray stated there would be from 130 to 150 lots in the proposed subdivision. He noted the majority of the tract would be developed as single family homes with some duplexes at the far east end. He explained they were requesting R-1.5 for the smaller lot size, similar to Woodfield Addition. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Gray's opinion regarding access to 130 to 150 lots. Mr. Gray stated the access provided at the present time was fine. He pointed out the access to the south and also to the east on Sycamore Street. Mr. Cato asked how far east of the Salem right-of-way was the subject tract located. Mr. Gray stated it was approximately 120 feet from Salem Road. He stated it was similar to Walnut View Estates. Mr. Cato asked if eventually there would be a through street from Salem to Shiloh. Mr. Gray explained at the present time of a total of 65 acres. He stated the the subject 38 acres did not have that have access to Shiloh. BMP was requesting rezoning of 38 acres total 65 acres had access to Shiloh but access. He pointed out Sycamore did not Ms. Little explained the City was currently working with the State Highway Department to make that connection. She further noted that the City would be requiring it as a condition of development for any property which touched either street. She stated the City did have a concern that, at the present time the only access area would be to the south. She pointed out this concern should be addressed at the time the land was developed; that staff fully supported the land use classification as residential and found that R-1.5 would work well as a buffer. Mr. Cato pointed out this appeared to be a good area to have a through street from Salem to Shiloh. He asked if Ms. Little saw that as a possibility. Ms. Little stated she would prefer to see Salem extended north to Mt. Comfort. She did, however, point out Hamestring Creek would have to be crossed which would be rather expensive. She stated there was also a creek which would have to be 2S1 • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 4 crossed to the east. which was a less than Mr. Conklin passed on would not like to see She stated Shiloh to the north exited onto Porter Road ideal exit. a comment from Perry Franklin, Traffic Director, that he increased traffic going to Porter Road and Shiloh. Mr. Cato agreed but stated they could not continue to funnel all traffic out to Wedington. Me. Britton asked what type of density they were talking about. She pointed out the density allowed in 1.5 had the potential of being much more populated than Woodfield Addition. She asked if they were willing to extend a Bill of Assurance that the density would not be beyond a certain amount. Mark Marquess, BMP Development, explained he wanted to keep Hamestring Creek as a natural buffer between the R-1.5 and the R-2 to the east. He stated their intention for the density was to not exceed that in Woodfield. He further explained they had looked at duplexes on Sycamore because there were already duplexes backing up to Sycamore, making a 3 or 4 acre buffer. He stated there should not be more than 20 to 25 duplexes at the maximum. He advised the Commission that out of the 38 acres there were 8 to 10 acres that were not usable because they were in the flood plain. He noted they would be making large lots along that area. He stated there would be only 28 to 30 acres of actual development area with approximately 5 lots per acre. Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Marquess would be willing to provide a Bill of Assurance for the density. After discussion, Mr. Marquess stated he would be willing to provide a Bill of Assurance that density would not be more than 5 lots per acre on the whole aggregate of the tract. Stephen Miller stated he had looked at the area and expressed concern this was the only undeveloped area surrounded by residential areas. He advised the developer there was a tree ordinance in the process of being approved and, by the time development on this tract took place, the tree ordinance would be in effect. He stated one of the requirements of the tree ordinance was that the developer keep 25% tree canopy over the tract. He that asked they treat the woods with mercy. Ms. Britton pointed out they had spared numerous trees in Woodfield. Mr. Marquess stated they always tried to save as many trees as they could when developing the land. He further stated they would have liked to dedicate some of the area along Hamestring Creek to the City as a green area in lieu of park fees but he did not believe the City was interested. Michael Andrews, a resident of Woodfield Addition, expressed concern regarding the construction of duplexes and additional traffic. He stated that, if the person purchasing the lot requested the trees be saved, the trees were saved but, if it was not requested, the trees were not saved. NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval the rezoning request subject to staff comments and the density of five lots aggregate per acre. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. a sa • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-42 ROBERT & CYNTHIA MCANARNEY - W OF HILLSIDE TER., S OF VALERIE DR. The next request was a public hearing on Rezoning R92-42 submitted by Robert & Cynthia McAnarney for property located on the west side of Hillside Terrace, south of Valerie Drive. The request is to rezone 3.55 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently vacant and was surrounded by vacant, heavily wooded, land to the north, south, and west and a single family home to the east. He advised the lot currently had 90 feet of frontage and met the requirements for a standard lot under R-1 zoning. He noted water was available to the site and percolation tests had been performed for installation of the septic tank. He stated the applicants had been told the property was zoned R-1 at the time of purchase. He noted the site was surrounded by A-1 zoning the east, south, and west and R-1 and R-2 zoning to the north. He explained the Planning Department staff had suggested to the applicants they seek rezoning because an A-1 lot required 200 feet of frontage on an improved road, whereas an R-1 lot required only 70 feet of frontage. He noted rezoning the property to R-1 would also be compatible with the R-1 and R-2 zones to the north and would result in a more restrictive zoning district than the existing A-1zoning designation. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning since the rezoning would provide a more restrictive zoning classification that would be more compatible with the R-1 zoning north of the site. Mr. Nickle asked if this would require any improvement to Hillside Terrace. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was building only one single-family home on the tract and it would not be subdivided. He explained the reason the rezoning was being requested was so the applicant would not have to improve 200 feet of the roadway. He pointed out R-1 zoning required only 70 feet of frontage. Ms. Little pointed out the applicant had 90 feet of frontage on Hillside Terrace which was chip and seal. She advised the Commission the City had just worked on the road the previous year and, had the applicants been aware of the 200 foot frontage requirement, they would have had the City improve the entire 200 feet. Mr. McAnarney informed the Commission the City had no future plans for the extension of Hillside Terrace beyond the area that was chip and seal. He noted there was a public right-of-way which extended beyond the chip and seal. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PRATT WOODS ADDITION JULIAN ARCHER - OFF HOTS DR., S OF MARKHAM ROAD The next item was presentation of a preliminary plat for Pratt Woods Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Julian Archer for property located off Hotz Drive, south of Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.9 acres with 4 proposed lots. • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Bunn explained Tracts D and A had frontage on Hotz Drive and Tracts B and C were tandem lots. He reminded the Commission the original Pratt Woods plat had been submitted 5 or 6 years ago as a Planned Unit Development and, because of the expense involved in developing the property, nothing was ever constructed. He advised the revision involved reducing the number of lots and eliminating the need for a public street. He noted an identical revision had been submitted to the Planning Commission and approved in June of 1990. He stated several points had been raised during the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee Meetings. He further stated they involved the extension of public sewer to serve all of the lots versus allowing septic tanks on two sites, drainage from the lots, and the potential for further subdivision of the lots. He advised it was the intent of the developer of the subdivision to extend public sewer to each of the lots. He stated the question of drainage from the subdivision had been raised by the public at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He noted some residents downstream were concerned that the development would increase run-off and cause additional drainage problems. He stated it was expected that any increase in run-off from the subject development would be minimal, however, there would be some increase due to the construction of impervious areas (drives, parking areas, and houses). Mr. Bunn also advised the developer would be required to submit drainage plans for the subdivision to the City for approval and whatever increased run-off created by the subdivision would have to be taken into account and provided for by the developer. He noted the developer had agreed to meet with concerned property owners about the drainage at the time plans were developed. He stated there had also been concern regarding the possibility of further subdivision of the lots in the future. He explained the tandem lots (Tracts B and C) could not be further divided because to do so would create "double" tandem lots which were not allowed under the present subdivision regulations. He further noted that, in a similar way, Tracts D and A could not be further subdivided because they would also create "double" tandem lots. He recommended that the intent of the developer not to allow further division of the lots be made explicit on the plat and in the subdivision covenants. He did note the property could be replatted at some time in the future, but that would involve another preliminary plat and would allow for public comment. He advised other Plat Review comments centered around the easements required to serve the property. He stated the developer did agree to all of the requests for easements and they were reflected on the revised plat. He stated the Fire Chief had requested an additional fire hydrant. He pointed out to the Commissioners they had in front of them a letter from the owner asking that he not bear all of the costs of the second fire hydrant. He advised the second fire hydrant was required in order to get coverage on all of the lots. He further advised the Commission there was a requirement that each lot be within 400 feet of a fire hydrant. He stated the owner had requested that he assume only a pro rata share of the cost. He stated it was the City's recommendation that the owner be required to install the hydrant at full cost even though it would serve some other properties. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat for Pratt Woods Addition be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of plans and specifications for water, sewer, and drainage facilities; payment of the required parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; construction of a sidewalk along Hotz Drive; extension of sewer to serve all lots in the subdivision; submittal of a grading plan for the subdivision; and paving of the 259 • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 7 private road. He advised the City felt very strongly that some sort of hard surface should be required since the drive would probably serve all four lots. Mr. Nickle agreed that a hard surface road would be much better for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Bunn stated he believed this was a very good alternative to the density in a normal R-1 development. Mr. Suchecki asked why the developer needed to pay for the entire hydrant since it would be serving other areas. Mr. Bunn explained there were a number of developments where hydrants served more than just one subdivision and he believed it would be appropriate in this case for the developer to pay for the entire hydrant. He pointed out he could not use just half a hydrant. Mr. Springborn stated the City Engineer was correct and the developer providing the hydrant was consistent with previous actions. He noted the City did not have impact fees which would have taken care of this problem. Ms. Britton stated she had assumed the driveways would all access from the private drive. She requested there be a notation on the plat that there would be no access except from the private drive. Mr. Gray pointed out two of the lots met the required frontage. Ms. Britton stated it was a matter of safety. Mr. Gray stated hedid not believe this development would cause a major impact to the neighborhood. He stated he had spoken with Julian Archer earlier in the day and he had requested a waiver on construction of the sidewalk. He noted Mr. Archer would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that the sidewalk would be constructed if and when it was needed. He explained there was a potential purchaser for one of the lots who was present. Mr. Nickle pointed out the residents at the back lot would want city services and, therefore, believed the road should have a hard surface. Mr. Gray stated that was covered by the tandem lot ordinance which provided for a 40 x 60 foot turn -around for the trash truck. Ms. Little stated the requirement was that, if a private drive intersected a paved street, the private drive would be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from said intersection. She further noted that, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 30 x 40 hard surface turn -around had to be provided at the end of the private drive. Mr. Gray stated they could also provide receptacles at the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Leonard Shaffer, the prospective buyer of Tract "C", appeared before the Commission and asked for assurance that the tracts could not be subdivided any further. After discussion, Mr. Bunn explained the subdivision covenants would have to be amended to allow further subdivision and then the Planning Commission would have to approve such subdivision. He stated it could be done, but it was not likely that would happen. 6.255 • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Springborn pointed out that, should the subdivision covenants be drafted so that the PlanningCommission was required to approve further development, it would put more teeth into the covenant. He suggested discussing it with an attorney. Mr. Bunn explained the Planning Commission could properly require that the driveway be paved. He stated that, in his opinion, the driveway should be paved. Ms. Little stated the Planning Department was opposed to the granting of a waiver for construction of the sidewalks. Mr. Allred noted he had believed the drive was to be paved. He stated the matter had not come up at the subdivision committee meeting. Ms. Britton agreed with Mr. Allred and stated she believed it should be paved with at least SB2. Mr. Allred requested the roadway be marked as a private drive so the city would not have to maintain it. After discussion, Ms. Little stated the ordinance required the roadway be paved a minimum of 25 feet. She explained that, to require more than that, would have to be a condition of approval. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat for Pratt Woods Addition subject to written staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. As a matter of clarification, Mr. Pummill stated the motion did not include paving of the private road nor did it include a waiver for sidewalk construction but did include the second fire hydrant. The motion carried unanimously. There was a 15 minute recess. Mr. Nickle left the meeting. FINAL PLAT - WALNUT PARK ADDITION, PHASE III CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO - W OF SALEM, N OF MICA The next Addition, Company, is zoned proposed item was a request for approval of a Phase III, presented by Harry Gray on for property located west of Salem Road, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and lots. final plat for Walnut Park behalf of Castle Development north of Mica. The property contains 6.52 acres with 28 Mr. Bunn explained it was the intent of the developer to construct duplexes on each lot within the subject subdivision. He noted there were no significant comments on the plat either at the Plat Review meeting nor at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to subdivision and plat review comments; execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances; and notation on the plat of the potential to extend Vassar Street at some time in the future. • Mr. Gray stated there would be no duplexes in this subdivision, only single family units. He further stated that notation would be made on the plat. 0756 • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 9 In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Gray stated the sidewalks were not set back from the curb. He explained setting back the sidewalks would be difficult because of the topography. Ms. Britton stated it was a gentle slope and she saw no problem with setting the sidewalk back. Mr. Gray stated the city needed to establish some set guidelines regarding location of sidewalks. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission would be discussing that matter at their next meeting on January 11. Mr. Gray pointed out in this area there was a 6 to 8 percent slope from south to north. Ms. Britton stated she did not believe it would be a problem in setting the sidewalks back in this subdivision. Mr. Bunn pointed out the main problem in setting the sidewalks back was that the lots were generally sold to individual developers who did not match up the sidewalks and grades. Ms. Britton again stated she believed the sidewalks should be set back on this project. She pointed out the possibility that this street could become a through street and the sidewalks along the curb would be dangerous. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - WOODBURY PLACE MID-SODTHERN INTERPRISES, INC. - E OF SALffii, N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Woodbury Place presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Mid -Southern Interprises, Inc., for property located east of Salem Road, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 3.42 acres with 9 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained the proposed lots would be developed as duplexes with a density of 5.2 units per acre. He noted the preliminary plat had been submitted and approved in August of this year. He noted there had been no comments from any of the utility company representatives concerning the proposed easements at the plat review meeting. He advised the Subdivision Committee comments had been about draining of the existing pond. He explained Northwest Engineers had indicated that drainage of the pond was not yet completed. He further noted they had not found a spring during their work. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan which would specifically address the nature and compaction of the fill material; the submittal of additional drainage calculations as requested; construction of sidewalks per city ordinances and the payment of parks fees as required by city ordinance; the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished as7 • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 10 improvements; and the installation of a fire hydrant at the intersection of Mica and Salem Road. Mr. Gray concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - WOODFIELD ADDITION, PHASE III BMP DEVELOPMENT - OFF ANNE ST., N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Woodfield Addition, Phase III, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development, for property located off Anne Street, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 14.33 acres with 62 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments either at the Plat Review or Subdivision Committee meetings. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; sidewalks being set back from the curb for a distance of approximately 4 feet; execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements, including street lights; and filing of subdivision covenants with the City. Mr. Gray pointed out the sidewalks in this subdivision were set back four feet as part of an agreement to allow "rolled" curbs. He requested the Commission review the curbs. He further stated this phase would provide a tie -through to Giles Addition on Anne Street. Mr. Marquess also asked the Commission to review the rolled curbs. He stated he believed the curbs made the subdivision look nicer plus saved the homeowners approximately $200 per curb. NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the final plat for Woodfield Addition, Phase III, subject to staff comments. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES, PHASE III JEFF ALLEN - OFF CARRIAGE WAY, N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Northwest Acres Estates, Phase III, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Jeff Allen, for property located off Carriage Way, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 4.59 acres with 18 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the intent was to construct duplexes on the proposed lots. He noted there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review Meeting. He stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting it had been requested that the sidewalks be set back from the street curb a distance of four feet. 2 C8 • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; placement of the sidewalk 4 feet back from the curb line; and the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements. Mr. Gray concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU92-28 - DUPLEXES BARBARA HARRELSON - E OF STONEBRIDGE RD., N OF WYMAN RD. The next item was a request for a conditional use (CU92-28) to construct duplexes in an R-1, Low Density Residential zone, presented by Barbara Harrelson for property located on the east side of Stonebridge Road, north of Wyman Road. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently undeveloped with adjacent land uses including single family homes to the south and north, vacant land to the east, and a church and single family homes to the west. He noted staff could not identify any other duplexes in the general vicinity of the site. He stated the site was completely surrounded by R-1 zoning with an area of R-2 approximately 500 to 600 feet east of the site. Mr. Conklin recommended the Planning Commission approve the conditional use request to allow the establishment of a duplex within an R-1 zone with the condition that the proposed structure shall be designed to resemble and stay within the character of existing single family homes adjacent to and within the general vicinity of the site. He noted a front elevation drawing and site plan, drawn to scale, of the proposed structure should be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. He explained the Planning Director could determine whether or not the condition of approval had been met and a building permit could be issued after reviewing the submitted drawings. He further explained allowing a duplex in the area, which met the condition of approval, would be compatible with the existing development pattern. He noted all adjacent parcels were developed with medium priced single family homes and a structure that resembled and stayed within the character of adjacent single family development could be compatible within the neighborhood. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Rick Foster, 120 Stonebridge, expressed concern regarding having a duplex on Stonebridge Road because it would set a precedence. He pointed out Stonebridge Road was narrow with deep ravines on both sides and he did not believe it could handle too much more additional traffic. Bill Thorn, a resident on Stonebridge, stated he had purchased additional land on Stonebridge in order to preserve it. He pointed out there were four other lots in the area that were vacant and he did not want to see duplexes on all of those lots. He also expressed concern regarding additional traffic on Stonebridge. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 12 In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin explained the duplex would be owner occupied. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table this matter until the petitioner was present. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. • Mr. Springborn stated he did not see any reason to table this matter since the owner had an opportunity to be present. The motion failed 2-5-0 with Commissioners Allred and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Cleghorn, Cato, Nickle, Pummill, Springborn, and Britton voting "non. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to deny the conditional use. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Cato, Suchecki, Pummill, Springborn, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 VERNON GLENN - 1701 MISSION BLVD The next item was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for a lot split presented by Vernon Glenn for property located at 1701 Mission Boulevard, and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the original tract contained 2.0 acres (Lot 5 of Harter's Fairview Subdivision) and fronted on Mission. He stated the proposal was to create a new 1.6 acre lot (Tract 2) with 100 feet of frontage on Mission Boulevard. He explained this would leave an existing house on the remaining 0.40 acre (Tract 1). He stated water and sewer were available to Tract 2 from Mission Boulevard and other utilities would be available from Mission also. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to the construction of sidewalks along Mission in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan. Ms. Patty Riddle, 1702 Mission, asked what the applicant could build on the property after it had been split. Mr. Cleghorn stated that, at the present time, without further hearings, only a single family home could be constructed on the tract. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated a greenspace fee would be required on the new tract. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2Go • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 13 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 WILLIAM GARRIOTT - W OF VAN HOOSE, S OF HUNTSVILLE RD. The next item was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for a lot split presented by William Garriott for property located on the west side of Van Hoose, south of Huntsville Road. This property is outside the city limits. Mr. Bunn stated the original tract of property contained 5.82 acres and the applicant proposed to split off 5.0 acres, leaving an 0.82 acre tract with an existing trailer house. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to the approval of Washington County and the approval of the septic tank by the Washington County Health Department. Mrs. ,Garriott presented copies of approval from the Washington County Health Department. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 AND #2 GENEVA SWEETSER ESTATE - 2300 OLD WIRE ROAD The next item was a request for waivers of subdivision regulations for two lot splits presented by Truman Yancey on behalf of Geneva Sweetser Estate, for property located at 2300 Old Wire Road and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated this was a proposed split of property located at the northeast corner of Cardinal Drive and Old Wire Road being submitted by the Administrators of the Geneva Sweetser Estate. He noted the proposal was to split the property into three lots. He explained Tract "B" had an existing house on the property and would be 0.36 acres in size; Tract "C" would be 0.30 acres and fronted on Cardinal Drive. He further stated the remaining tract (Tract A) would be 0.34 acre and fronted on Old Wire Road. He advised all of the lots created by the split would met the zoning requirements for R-1, Low Density Residential. He explained all of the utilities with the exception of sewer appeared to be readily accessible to the lots being created. He noted it appeared that the existing house was on a septic tank with a main sewer line located about 90 feet east of the original lot on Cardinal Drive. He explained that, in order to serve all of the lots being created by the splits, the main sewer line would have to be extended about 90 feet to the west along Cardinal Drive, and then must be extended 150 feet north along the east side of Tract "C". He advised the cost of the extensions would be in the range of $5,000 to $6,000. Mr. Bunn stated Old Wire Road was on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and, as such, the city was asking for a 40 foot right-of-way on each side. He advised another 10 foot of street right-of-way was required off of Tract A and Tract B. He advised sidewalks were required along both sides of Old Wire Road according to the Master Sidewalk Plan. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the lot splits subject to the extension of public sewer to serve each lot being created by the split; construction of sidewalks along Old Wire Road in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan and c61 • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 14 city ordinances; dedication of 10 feet of additional street right-of-way adjacent to Old Wire Road on the two lots which face Old Wire Road; extension of whatever other utilities that may be required to serve the lots; and the payment of two parks fees. Mr. Yancey stated the sewer would have to serve all three lots but there were not objections. He further stated he had no objections to any of staff recommendations. He did comment, however, the sidewalks would be 30 feet back from the existing roadway. He stated they preferred to offer a Bill of Assurance that the sidewalks.would be put in at a later date when the roadway was widened. Ms. Britton stated there was not curb and gutter along the roadway. She expressed her belief an appropriate time for installation of the sidewalk would be when the street was widened and curb and gutter installed. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot splits subject to staff comments and acceptance of a Bill of Assurance for sidewalks. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V92-2 MICHAEL CORTIS - 800 BLOCK OF W WALKER The next item was a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation submitted by Pete Estes on behalf of Michael Curtis for property located in the 800 block of West Walker Street. Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Curtis was requesting that the City close that portion of Walker Street that was east of Duncan. He further explained there was an existing house within the right-of-way, and had been there for some time. He advised all utility companies had concurred in the closing with Southwestern Electric Power Company requesting that the west 10 feet of the street be retained as a utility easement. Mr. Bunn stated it was his understanding that the property owner abutting the east end of the street right-of-way had not agreed to the closing as of this date. He pointed out the closing would shut off one access to the property, however, it was his understanding that the property did have access to Highway 16 (15th Street). He noted the City Staff had no objections to the street closing however, he would like to ask for a 20 foot easement be retained rather than the 10 feet requested by SWEPCO. He advised that, because of the fact that not all of the abutting property owners were agreeing to the closing, the Staff could not make the recommendation to close the street. He did, however, recommend that, if the Planning Commission approved the street closing, it be subject to the retention of a utility easement across the western -most 20 feet of said right-of-way. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated the property would be divided equally between the adjoining owners. Peter Estes explained this case involved a house constructed in approximately 1946. He explained Mr. Curtis owned property on both sides of the right-of-way. He further explained Mrs. Tedford owned property which abutted the right-of-way Q262 • • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 15 and refused to sign the petition. He further stated they had no objections to the 20 -foot easement. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of the right-of-way vacation subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V92-3 CAMPBELL SOUP CO - 1300 - 1400 BLOCK OF BROOKS AVE. The next item was a request for a right-of-way vacation presented by Donna Pettus on behalf of Campbell Soup Company for property located in the 1300-1400 block of Brooks Avenue. ' Mr. Bunn explained the Campbell Soup Company was petitioning the City to close a portion of Brooks Avenue located in the Garriott Subdivision to the City of Fayetteville. He further explained the un -opened street was located just north of 15th Street at the Campbell Soup plant. He noted all of the public utilities had indicated no objections to the closing as requested by Campbell Soup. He stated the City had no utilities or other facilities located within the proposed street closing area and had no plans to place facilities there in the future. Mr. Bunn recommended that the un -opened portion of Brooks Avenue nor the 15th Street be closed as requested by Campbell Soup. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Ms. Pettus stated Campbell Soup owned all of the adjoining property to that portion they were requesting be vacated. Ms. Britton stated she did not understand why Campbell's Soup was not abandoning all of the street if they owned all of the adjoining property. Me. Britton stated she viewed the site and found there was a pasture with a double row of pine trees in both directions from 12th Street as far north as it was south. She expressed concern that Campbell's Soup did not own all of the adjoining property. Ms. Pettus assured her Campbell's Soup did own the property. She explained they had an abstract company do a title search for all of the abutting property which showed Campbell's Soup did own all of the adjoining property. Ms. Britton asked if the property owner of Lots 1 through 14, Anderson's Second Addition, had been advised of the proposed closing. Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to close the street between lots 18 and 24. Mr. Allred stated it was his understanding that Anderson's Second Addition was owned by Campbell's Soup. Ms. Britton stated she was talking about that portion of Brooks Avenue that was not being vacated. Ms. Pettus stated the abstract company had stated all adjoining property was owned by Campbell's Soup. a63 • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 16 Mr. Allred stated he owned a house at the end of 12th Street and it was his understanding that the entire parcel was owned by Campbell's Soup. Ms. Pettus explained Campbell's Soup could not get title insurance when they purchased the subject property unless that portion of Brooks Avenue was abandoned. Ms. Britton stated she drove into the south end of Brooks Avenue and made a u - turn in an area approximately the depth of Lot 10 of Garriott's Subdivision. She further stated there was a fence located at approximately the south end of Lot 21. Mr. Cleghorn asked if Campbell's Soup owned all of the adjoining property, it made no difference whether the property was fenced. He stated that, if there was a certified abstract, the ownership was a moot point. Mr. Springborn stated it bother him that there were fences in an area they were considering abandoning. Ms. Britton also expressed concern that, should they abandon the south end of Brooks Avenue, at a later date Campbell's Soup might want to access their property to 12th Street through a residential area. She stated she would object to that but there would be no recourse against it. Mr. Allred explained there was a constant industrial noise from Campbell's Soup and there probably,would be no residential area that close. He stated that would make perfect buffer between Campbell's and the residential area. Ms. Britton stated that was only if the area was left as greenspace. She pointed out they could expand the plant and then have access down 12th Street. Mr. Cleghorn pointed out they had that access at the present time. Ms. Britton stated she would prefer closing all of Brooks Avenue or none of it. Mr. Pummill stated they either needed to approve or disapprove the request by Campbell's Soup. Mr. Springborn asked if staff was satisfied to the ownership of the property. Mr. Bunn stated they were satisfied, that they accepted the certification. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to recommend approval of the right-of-way vacation. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION COVENANTS FOR SEQUOYAH SOUTH SUBDIVISION Me. Little explained Sequoyah South, Phase I was platted and filed as a Planned Unit Development consisting of 26 lots on 5.04 acres with common area comprising 3.84 acres. She further explained that Prestige Properties, a partnership which owns Sequoyah South Subdivision, had requested the original restrictive covenants filed in April, 1983, be amended to provide for apartments rather than condominiums. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 • Page 17 Ms. Little recommended approval of the amended covenants subject to at paragraph 13, removal of "Board of Directors" and substitution of "City Council" in two places; legal agreement that no further development would be allowed upon the subject parcel (i.e., greenspace preservation) and agreement that the Homeowners Association would be responsible for the maintenance of the greenspace; legal agreement that designates Sequoyah Court as a private drive and providing for maintenance of same by the Homeowners Association; incorporation of the former Article 11 into the amended covenants; and rezoning of subject parcel to R-2, Medium Density Residential. She stated Article 11 made the City of Fayetteville the third party beneficiary to the covenants. She pointed out the property was zoned R-1 but the intent of the change in covenants was to change from condominiums to apartments, which would require a change in zoning from R-1 to R-2. She advised the representative for the petitioner had requested the Planning Commission take action on the covenants at this time. She further explained they would delay taking this matter to the City Council until they had time to bring the rezoning petition to the Planning Commission. She advised the Commission needed to decide whether they wished to amend the covenants. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Me. Little explained the third party beneficiary clause allowed the City to go onto private property in order to maintain it and charge the property owners if the property were not properly maintained. Bill Watkins appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. He explained the subdivision had been originally set up as a Planned Unit Development with the property owners association responsible for maintenance. He advised this was a condominium unit which never sold and therefore, the units were being rented similar to apartments. Mr. Cato asked how many units were sold. Mr. Watkins stated he did not believe any units were sold. He explained he represented the two property owners. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Watkins explained this Planned Unit Development had only condominiums. He further explained they were requesting this amendment in order to conform with the covenants. He further stated he would be getting with the City Attorney in order to draw up a contract regarding maintenance of the streets and greenspace. Mr. Springborn asked if this had been cleared through the City Attorney. Ms. Little explained he had reviewed it and passed it on to her for presentation to the Planning Commission. She further explained their main concern had been maintenance of the streets since the City did not want to take over the maintenance. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the covenants on the condition that the property is rezoned and subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1992 Page 18 OTHER BUSINESS: Amendment to Section 98: Me. Little presented the Commissioners with a copy of a draft amendment to Section 98. She explained they would take it up at their next meeting. Remarks by Jack Cleghorn Mr. Cleghorn stated since this was his"h Pllening Commission meeting he wanted to tell everyone on the Commission that he had enjoyed working with them and had enjoyed working with staff. He also praised the news media. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. a“6