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