Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-22 Minutes• • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 22, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Jett Cato Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the February 8, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-8 CHRIS KING S OF MOORE LANE, W OF SHILOH DRIVE The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-8 for property located south of Moore Lane, west 'of Shiloh Drive presented by Curtis Wray on behalf of Chris King. The request is to rezone .74 acres from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently undeveloped and the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop the site with an electrical contracting business. He stated the properties to the east and southeast were currently developed with a tractor and equipment storage business and paint and body shop. He advised the existing uses did allow outdoor storage of materials and equipment. He stated property to the west was undeveloped industrial land. He explained the proposed use was permitted under Use Unit 21 (Warehousing and Wholesale, Contract Construction Service - Electrical) within I-1 and I-2 districts and was a conditional use within C-2 districts. He pointed out the adjacent zoning: to the south, east and north was C-2 and to the west was I-1. He advised that water and sewer were not adjacent to the subject site. He also explained that, while the 1970 General Plan designated the subject land as open space, the current zoning indicated that open space was no longer the desired land use and that some type of commercial land use was more appropriate. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Conklin stated the site was accessed from Moore Lane (a gravel road) which was designated as a local street. He advised the applicant that a contribution to pave one-half of the street fronting the subject property could be required at the time the building permit was issued. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning. He pointed out that, while the proposed use was compatible with adjacent land uses and potential land uses in the general vicinity, the use could be permitted as a conditional use within the current zone. He explained the land zoned I-1 to the west was the industrial park and was designated for light industrial/research park development. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to have the use by right. He further stated the applicant would also agree to have the use as a conditional use within the C-2 zoning district. Mr. Curtis Wray reminded the Commission he had brought another request to them earlier that was identical to the subject request. He stated that, at that time, he had been directed to apply for I-1 zoning. He stated he had no problems with a conditional use instead of a rezoning. He asked if there were plans to pave Moore Lane within the near future since the applicant was being asked to pay for one-half of such paving. Mr. Conklin explained that normally this requirement would be made at the time of the large scale development but, since this property was not required to go through that process, it was being required as a part of the rezoning/conditional use. In response to a question from Mr. Wray, applicant could submit a Bill of Assurance. the Bill of Assurance should include that, land was not consummated, the land would conditional use. MOTION Ms. Little stated the It was also determined if the purchase of the revert to C-2 with no Mr. Allred moved to grant the conditional use with a Bill of Assurance for an electrical warehouse, subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 55 • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-9 RICHARD & JENNIFER BUNDRICK - S OF SYCAMORE, W OF PORTER RD. The next item was a request for rezoning submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Richard and Jennifer Bundrick for property located south of Sycamore Street, west of Porter Road. The request is to rezone 9.17 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently vacant with "Lifestyles", a care facility for adults with disabilities, located to the north; vacant land adjoining single family homes to the south; Highway 71 Bypass to the west; and single family homes to the east. He also advised there were several multi -family structures located in the general vicinity. He explained the request to rezone was to enable the applicant to develop the area with duplexes. He advised the applicant had acquired an additional 10 acres, zoned R-1, south of the subject site, to develop with single family homes. He explained the preliminary plat for the entire tract of land would be on the next Planning Commission's agenda and would consist of 59 lots. Mr. Conklin stated surrounding zoning was R-1 to the south and east, R-2 to the North, and A-1 to the west. He pointed out the applicant would like to have access onto the site from Porter Road with future connections to Sycamore. He advised there was a 12 - inch water line north of Sycamore on Porter Road, a 6 -inch water and sewer line along Porter Road, and an 8 -inch sewer line along Sycamore Road. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He commended the applicant for the care shown to provide a buffer area between the existing single family development to the south and the proposed duplex developed. Mr. Gray stated they were requesting the area to be rezoned be reduced from 9.17 acres to approximately 6 acres. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray advised they planned 17 duplex lots and 42 single-family lots. Mr. Joe Claud, 2591 Megan Drive, informed the Commission the area residents had been working with the applicant and his engineer to resolve problems regarding placing multi -family housing next to single family housing. He asked that the applicant provide a bill of assurance limiting the number of duplex lots to 17. • Mr. Claud asked the Planning Commission to work harder in getting single family housing on the west side of Fayetteville. 10 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Gray and Mr. Bundrick agreed there would only be 17 duplex lots. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to rezone the property, as amended, to R-1.5 with the limited acreage, contingent upon a Bill of Assurance limiting the construction of duplexes to no more than 17. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the Bill of Assurance would end once the final plat was approved. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-10, CONDITIONAL USE CU93-9, & LOT SPLIT #1 NANCY ROLLER - 1228 51ST AVENUE (E OF 51ST AVE., N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a request to rezone 2.08 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, and for a lot split with a conditional use for a tandem lot on property located at 1228 51st Avenue (east side of 51st Avenue, north of Wedington Drive), requested by Nancy Roller. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was requesting the rezoning in order to split the lot into two parcels. He noted the existing lot was already developed with a large single family home. He stated the site was currently zoned A-1. He explained that, under A-1 zoning, there was a minimum 2 acre parcel size and 200 feet of lot frontage on a public street. He pointed out R-1 zoning only required a minimum 8,000 square foot lot area and 70 feet of frontage on a public street. He stated the applicant had indicated the property would not be developed to the maximum density allowed under R-1 zoning (4 units per acre). He stated the site was entirely surrounded by A-1 zoning with a church to the south, a single family home to the west and vacant property to the east and north. He further advised the Commission there was a 6 -inch water line and a 15 -foot sewer line along 51st Avenue. He noted the applicant had been advised any development on the vacant parcel created would be required to access City water and sewer. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning which would allow the applicant to split the property and develop an additional home. 5t) • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 5 Ms. Nancy Roller explained she wanted to construct another home on the property. Mr. Eugene Nottenkamper, an adjoining property owner, recommended approval of Ms. Roller's request. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend the rezoning from A-1 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. to R-1. Mr. Bunn explained the request was for a first split of Lot 6, Pond Addition, and for tandem lot approval. He advised the lots created by the split conformed to the proposed zoning of R-1. He noted water and sewer were available on County Road 877, as were the other utilities. He stated the structure to be constructed on Tract A would be required to tie on to the water and sanitary sewer. Mr. Bunn recommended the lot split and tandem lot be subject to the construction of a sidewalk in accordance City's Master Sidewalk Plan, the payment of one parks connection to the city water and sewer lines. approved with the fee, and MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU93-8 (BUILDING MATERIALS ESTABLISHMENT) CLARY DEVELOPMENT & DUANE NELSON - S OF JOYCE, W OF SHILOH The next item on the agenda was a conditional use request submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants on behalf of Clary Development and Duane Nelson for property located south of Joyce • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 6 Boulevard, west of Shiloh Drive (lot 3 of Spring Park Subdivision, Phase II). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 13.59 acres. The request is for a building material establishment (National Home Center). Mr. Conklin explained both the final plat and large scale development had been approved by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. He advised all required parking and setbacks had been met as part of the Large Scale Development. He further explained the Planning Department had not been made aware of the nature of the planned business until the filing of the final plat and, therefore, the applicant was unaware of the requirement that a conditional use would be required for National Home Center. He stated the Center had been placed under Use Unit 21 because it would be selling lumber at the subject facility. Mr. Conklin stated the Center would be entirely enclosed with no outdoor storage or sale of merchandise except for an outdoor garden center. He pointed out the applicant had adopted covenants which prohibited display of merchandise in the parking lots or drive areas and had further agreed not to display merchandise in any manner which would impede pedestrian access on the sidewalk. He also advised the applicant had presented an elevation drawing of the proposed building at the last Planning Commission meeting. He reminded the Commission the building had been designed not to look like a typical building material establishment and would provide a loading dock at the rear of the building. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use to allow the establishment of a building material establishment within a C-2 zone. Mr. Brown concurred with the staff recommendation. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve CU93-8. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Reynolds, Tarvin, Nickle and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Ms. Britton noted she was very concerned about the traffic. 59 • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-10 (TANDEM LOT) & LOT SPLIT #2 KENNITH & BRENDA WENTZ - 723 N. 46TH AVENUE The next item was a conditional use for a tandem lot and a lot split submitted by Kennith and Brenda Wentz for property located at 723 North 46th Avenue (the west side of 46th Avenue, south of Wedington Drive). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the request was for a second split and for a tandem lot. He stated the split created lots that conformed with the proposed R-1 zoning. He noted water and sewer were available for both lots and other utilities would be available on 46th Street. Mr. Bunn recommended that both the lot split and the tandem lot be approved subject to the construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City's Master Sidewalk Plan and the payment of one parks fee. Ms. Little noted 46th Street was not on the Master Sidewalk Plan and a sidewalk would not be required. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated they had just rezoned the subject property at the last meeting. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH - 315 W. MAPLE The next item was a large scale development for University Baptist Church presented by Mark Haguewood on behalf of the University 60 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 8 Baptist Church. The property is located at 315 W. Maple and is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the development consisted of the construction of a new sanctuary and the relocation of Vandeventer Street. He noted all of the utility companies had already been contacted by the architects and the relocation of facilities, where necessary, ha already been worked out. He advised the Traffic Superintendent had commented on the need for crosswalks and for handicap access. He stated sidewalks had been discussed as well as the need for a grading and drainage plan. He advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the development after some further discussion of the issues. He pointed out that at least three waivers would have to be given for the project: the minimum distance for a street jog; the right-of- way width; and the minimum distance between streets (West Street and Vandeventer). Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage plans; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks as discussed at the plat review and subdivision committee meetings; and waivers as listed above. He further advised he had been directed to look at the traffic on Maple between Vandeventer and West Streets. He explained he and the Traffic Superintendent had reviewed the site three different times (between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m., 45 minutes at lunch, and between 3:10 and 3:45 p.m. - all on the same day) and observed that relocating the street further west would not make the traffic situation worse. He stated traffic seemed to move quite well. Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee had met twice on the large scale development due to a notification problem. He advised there had been, at the last meeting, some concerns from the neighbors that thought the street was going to be closed. He stated they had assured the neighbors the street would be relocated. He noted there were also traffic concerns and ingress/egress concerns. He stated they had advised the person with the ingress/egress concerns to work with the church to work out the problem. He advised that all of the concerns set out by the neighbors had been addressed. Ms. Britton pointed out there was now sidewalk all of the way to Maple on the west side of the street. She expressed her belief the sidewalk should be replaced when it was relocated. 62l • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Pummill asked if that would not fall under the Master Sidewalk Plan. Ms. Britton stated the sidewalk was there now. Ms. Little explained the Master Sidewalk Plan called for sidewalks only on one side of the street but the older parts of town had sidewalks on both sides of the street. She also pointed out she had included a copy of the minutes of the City Board meeting where they had heard the request for closing of Vandeventer Street. She advised a resident of the Wilson Park area had been in contact with her requesting the new Vandeventer Street would be completed and open before the old Vandeventer Street would be closed. Ms. Britton suggested making the street one-way to the south. Mr. Mark Haguewood stated there had been discussion for the street relocation. He explained the reason they had requested the original Vandeventer be either closed or relocated was because the building had to be located at the site of the present Vandeventer Street. He also noted the blind spot at Maple and Lafayette would be improved; Vandeventer would be widened; and there would be a relocation of utilities. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Haguewood stated they could arrange to provide an entrance for the property owners to the west. Mr. Bill Kaiser, University Baptist Church, stated they had no objections for the property owner to the west having access to the street. Mr. Tarvin asked if there would be any problem in putting in the new street before closing the old one. Mr. Kaiser stated he believed it was possible. He advised the only problem he foresaw was the present site would require extensive dirt work. He stated they would be traveling across the existing street with heavy equipment in order to open the new street. He further stated they could do it if required. Mr. Reynolds asked about drainage for the existing neighbors. Mr. Kaiser stated the corner lot at West and Maple was much lower than the rest of the lots and they planned to build it up. He further stated they were in the process of preparing a drainage plan to present to the City. bg- • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Tarvin questioned the necessity of leaving the old street open until the new street was constructed since West Street was so close. Mr. Pummill stated it was his understanding that West Street would become the natural artery. Mr. Bunn stated currently West Street carried ten times more traffic than Vandeventer. He further stated the only problem they saw when reviewing the traffic was the jog in the street. He explained he was not sure making it a one-way street would take care of that problem. In response to a comment from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Kaiser assured him the parking lot would continue to be open for use by others. He further advised they were constructing sidewalks from Lafayette to Watson Street for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Pummill advised that, at the subdivision meeting, Mr. Kaiser had told them about an arrangement with the Walton Art Center for mutual sharing of parking lots, allowing parishioners to park in the Walton Arts Center lot and taking a shuttle bus to the church. Mr. Tarvin stated sidewalks shown on the plat were on the west side of Vandeventer from Maple Street to the south for approximately half a block. Ms. Britton stated the sidewalk needed to go all the way for the full length of the street. Mr. Haguewood explained on the east side of the street the sidewalk did run the full length of Vandeventer. He further explained there was a retaining wall which needed to be designed and could create a problem with the sidewalk on a portion of the west side. Ms. Britton stated it should be up to Mr. Bunn to make that decision. She pointed out they would have to regrade and cut the street and sidewalks followed the street. Mr. Tarvin stated that, since that portion of property would not be developed at the present time, and the development of that property would facilitate regrading, he believed it would be a good idea to postpone that decision until that property was developed. Ms. Britton stated that piece of property was fully developed, it contained a house. • Ms. Phyliss Head, 402 Ila, asked why the City was considering relocating Vandeventer closer to West Street when West Street was a main traffic artery. She stated it did not make sense. She �3 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 11 added she supported the church in the neighborhood. She expressed her belief that relocating Vandeventer was not within the best interest of the citizens of Fayetteville and they were going out on a limb to go along with the wishes of a special interest group. She asked the Commission to look and see where their loyalties were -- whether they were serving the interests of the citizens of the city or the special interest group. Mr. Tarvin explained they did not have the authority to close streets. He stated they just could make recommendation to the City Council and the decision had already been made. Ms. Head advised this matter had been brought up with a lame duck city council. Mr. Suchecki pointed out this was not a street closing but a street relocation, exchanging a narrow older street with a new wide street. He stated the University Baptist Church had been very cooperative in responding to each request the citizens had made. Ms. Stacey Erickson, 506 Vandeventer, stated there was bad feelings in the neighborhood regarding the relocation of the street. She stated the main problem had not been addressed -- that there were 15 to 20 school children walking to school at Washington. She requested a stop sign on Vandeventer at Maple. She expressed fear the wider street would increase traffic. Mr. Nickle asked if it was reasonable to install a crosswalk on the relocated Vandeventer in line with the sidewalks, on the south side of Maple and also on Lafayette. Mr. Perry Franklin, Traffic Department, stated the developer had indicated he was willing to look at crosswalks complying with ADA requirements. Mr. Pummill expressed his belief that, the further a street was off -set, the more the traffic and speed problem would be relieved. He further noted that, in the future, they would see a lot of the streets in the same area widened. Mr. Bunn stated in the time they had observed the traffic, the traffic coming south on Vandeventer to Maple were turning left on Maple. He advised the relocated Vandeventer would not affect that traffic at all. Mr. Suchecki pointed out the only reason there was a relocation of Vandeventer was because the neighborhood objected to the closing of Vandeventer. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Mark Risk, 409 Ila, expressed concern regarding the relocation. He complained they had not received any notice since they were not adjoining property owners. Ms. Little advised there had been two notifications by publication in the newspaper. Ms. Britton explained the process by which a street is closed or not closed had been changed so that it would go before the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. She further explained this particular street closing had not come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Charlene Lloyd stated she owned 11 pieces of property in the subject area, five of which would be adversely affected by this project. She pointed out one piece of property would have a street in the front, a street in the back, a street on the side, and a parking lot on the other side. She advised the property would have no value. She listed other pieces of property that would be affected, including one that the resident would have to back out onto Vandeventer. She was opposed to the relocation of Vandeventer. Mr. Allred stated it had been his understanding at the Subdivision Committee meeting that Ms. Lloyd had wanted access to the new street. Ms. Lloyd stated he had misunderstood. Mr. Allred stated that allowing the property ingress/egress had been in the Subdivision Committee's recommendation but it could now be waived. Mr. Eric Lloyd also spoke in opposition. He advised the church had changed the plan from the one originally shown. He stated they had not attended any other meetings because they did not realize the church had changed its plans. He further stated none of the neighborhood wanted the project. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Lloyd stated other neighbors wanted the street relocated. He stated they wanted to keep Vandeventer the way it was. Ms. Lloyd stated that, if the church would give some land, they would give some land and the street could be built to Watson. Ms. Little explained that in October the church had requested the street closing but had not been required to present the plans. She further explained this was the large scale development and was the only official submission regarding location of the sanctuary. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Lloyd stated it looked like "bait and switch" to him -- that the City Board had been shown one thing and then something else was presented. Mr. Suchecki explained the only plans presented to the City Council had been those regarding the closing of Vandeventer. Ms. Little pointed out the Board of Directors had approved the relocation of the street contingent upon the Planning Commission's approval of a large scale development plan containing a dedicated right-of-way providing for traffic flow between Maple and Lafayette Streets west of the present Vandeventer Street. Mr. Lloyd alleged the entire development had been set up on a preconceived basis. Upon request of Mr. Springdale, Ms. Little read Ordinance 3646 which vacated and abandoned a portion of Vandeventer Street from Maple to Lafayette as requested by the University Baptist Church. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained screening would not be required between the church property and a residence because the church property was zoned R -O. Mr. Springborn asked if it would be possible to keep the sidewalk consistent with the elevation of the property. Ms. Little explained the street had to come down at an angle in order to intersect with Lafayette and it would not be elevated. She advised the sidewalks would also come down and intersect with Lafayette. Mr. Springborn asked if the elevation could change sooner than the street did. Ms. Little stated that was feasible. Mr. Springborn stated that would make the development more amenable to the elevation of the property of the house. Mr. Reynolds asked if it would be possible for UBC to work with the adjoining property owners and put up screening around the parking lots. Ms. Lloyd stated screening would not help. Mr. Scott Smith, an attorney representing some of the neighboring property owners, expressed his belief the jog caused by the relocation of Vandeventer Street would cause a serious traffic hazard. He also noted the original plan appeared the church would • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 14 just require setback waivers rather than the relocation of the street. He pointed out the current plan also required three different waivers. He recommended physically locating the building on the east side of the existing Vandeventer Street. Mr. Smith stated he believed the Lloyds' concerns were justified in what the project would do to the property at 422 Maple. He pointed out that property would be an island in a sea of asphalt. He asked if they allowed one large property owner to move a street, would they be able to say no when another request came along. He expressed his belief there should be some screening around the property at 422 Maple whether the Lloyds thought they wanted it or not. Ms. Britton stated the Lloyds did not seem to want the screening but she believed it should be done. She pointed out that shrubbery should keep pedestrians from crossing their property from the parking lot to the church. Mr. Kaiser agreed that shrubbery would be good. He stated it had been his understanding that the Lloyds wanted access onto the street so he had not talked to them about screening. Mr. Reynolds suggested leaving that as an option. Mr. Nickle stated he believed there should be some screening on this property. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development subject to the staff comments including plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage plans; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street the entire length of Vandeventer; crosswalks as provided by the Traffic Engineer -- wherever he deems necessary; waivers as requested; and screening on the properties that abut on the R -O zoning. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated she believed the relocation was going to be a traffic hazard but it was not the fault of the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously. 0 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 15 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - 20 E. DICKSON The next item was a large scale development for First Baptist Church submitted by Mark Haguewood on behalf of First Baptist Church. The property is located at 20 E. Dickson and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential -Office. Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of a building expansion and parking lot construction. He advised that, with the exception of the Gas Company, none of the utility representatives had any comments on the development. He noted the power company had not had a chance to review the plat and would get with the developer at a later date. He explained the Gas Company had a line crossing the building area which would have to be relocated. He stated the staff comments had been on the parking lot for the most part. He explained there were certain areas which had not met the code requirements and the question of off-site parking had come up. He stated staff had also discussed the sidewalk width and the landscaping requirements. Mr. Bunn advised all changes that had been required in the development had been made and the Subdivision Committee recommended approval to the full Planning Commission. He also pointed out that a waiver of the minimum distance requirement for off-site parking would be required. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; the submittal of a grading and drainage plan; the construction of a five foot sidewalk; and a waiver for the off-site parking distance requirements. Mr. Gary Jackson explained the sidewalk was existing. He advised they would replace any sidewalk that was damaged by the installation of drives, etc. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 16 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - COLLEGE STREET STORAGE KEATING ENTERPRISES - W OF N COLLEGE, S OF DRAKE ST. The next item was a large scale development for College Street Storage presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located west of North College, south of Drake Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of mini - storage units. He advised there had been no significant comments from any of the utility representatives at plat review meeting. He noted staff comments included the need for more parking or a waiver on the required spaces, the need for a fire hydrant, drainage, site lighting, and screening. He stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee was on site drainage. He advised staff was working with the developer to work out the drainage problems. He added the drainage problems were not just with the subject site but also with adjoining properties (specifically Villa Mobile Home Park). Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of final plans for on site and off site drainage; installation of a fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Chief; and the payment of the necessary parks fees and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances. He stated he had not mentioned it specifically but the developer did need to work out the lighting and also screening, if required. Ms. Little noted screening was required for that portion of the property that abutted residential property. Mr. Allred noted the Subdivision Committee had suggested down lighting rather than regular lighting so it would not reflect into the mobile home park. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He agreed the suggestion regarding the lighting was a good one so the lighting would be directed away from the mobile home park. He also noted they were in agreement regarding the cost-sharing for drainage improvements to the area. He explained he had met with the City Engineering staff at the site and had walked throughout the mobile home park to see what type of drainage problem existed in order to solve the problem. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen stated he had not yet completed the drainage calculations. I9 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 17 Mr. Bunn explained the drainage increased caused by the subject development was probably not going to be significant when compared to the total amount of drainage in the area. Mr. Nickle explained his concern was that the entire area was being built over. He pointed out all areas open for infiltration of water into the ground had been removed. There was discussion regarding putting SB2 between the storage units. Mr. Bunn noted there was another development for mini -storage immediately south of the subject property. He stated that would be included in the review of the drainage problem. He pointed out drainage in this area had been a problem for quite some time. Ms. Britton asked the purpose of the parking spaces at the front of the building. Mr. Jorgensen explained there would be some businesses in the upper level of the front building. He stated the lower level would be storage and the upper level would contain one apartment and some retail establishments. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of the development. She stated she believed the Planning Commission had the authority to require the business be screened from College Avenue. She explained she believed they needed to keep a standard along College Avenue. She recommended planting at least three shade trees. Mr. Jorgensen stated he did not believe that would be a problem. He explained the developer wanted to construct an attractive development. Ms. Little expressed concern regarding overhead power lines. Mr. Pummill asked if it was within their authority to require someone to plant trees. Ms. Britton stated they could demand the property be screened for aesthetic reasons. She stated the power lines would not be up next to the building. Ms. Little stated Gene Housely, manager of the Villa Mobile Home Park, had contacted her expressing his concern about the drainage in the area. She advised he had been very pleased with the project engineer and the city engineer's efforts in working with him in an effort to work on the problem. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 18 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments and the additional screening of three shade trees. Mr. Allred stated he did not believe they had the right to require the additional screening. He stated this looked almost like blackmail; that a developer would agree to it in order to get their development through. He further stated he did not believe they had the authority, until they passed the tree ordinance, to require a developer to do something not required by ordinance. He explained he believed that was inappropriate. Ms. Little advised she would need to research the matter if the Commission was requiring it rather than it being offered by the developer. She stated she would prefer this item be tabled until they had a legal determination unless the developer was volunteering the additional screening. Mr. Jorgensen stated he agreed with Mr. Allred but he would offer the installation of three trees. Mr. Suchecki asked if Ms. Britton wished to amend her motion suggesting landscaping. Ms. Britton explained she was accepting it as an offer on the petitioner's part. Mr. Jorgensen asked if he did not make that offer, would the project be tabled. Mr. Allred stated that was the blackmail he was talking about. Ms. Britton stated she admitted she was blackmailing for the sake of the street. She repeated her motion: She moved to approve the large scale development subject to the assurance from the petitioner that shade trees would be planted. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-6-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Reynolds, Tarvin, and Allred voting "no" and Commissioners Britton and Nickle voting "yes". Ms. Britton noted the City Council had previously required on another storage development that, for aesthetic reasons, the material of the fence on the front of the property would be wood to obstruct the view. Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 19 MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Reynolds, Tarvin, Suchecki, Nickle, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT - PINEVALLEY ADDITION JAMES POTTS - OFF POINT WEST ST., N OF SYCAMORE ST. The next item was a preliminary plat for Pinevalley Addition submitted by BMP Development on behalf of James Potts and represented by Harry Gray. The property is located off Point West Street, north of Sycamore Street, is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 26.5 acres with 65 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives had indicated the need to serve the lots without being in the flood plain area. He explained that, in most cases, this involved placing the utilities in the front. He noted there were some other changes requested and agreed to by the owner. He further stated staff remarks had included comments on access to the subdivision, the possibility of dedicating land for parks instead of paying parks fees, fire hydrant location, street names, drainage problems, and off-site improvements. He advised that, subsequent to the Plat Review meeting, the City staff and developer had come to an agreement on the off-site improvements. He explained the developer would be donating land in lieu of parks fees (as approved by the Parks Board), no improvements to Sycamore Street would be required, and the developer would contribute $49,500 toward the construction of a bridge across the creek on Salem Road. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks four feet behind the curb; contribution to off-site improvements as agreed; granting of a drainage easement within the floodway area of the creek; and contribution of parks land in lieu of cash. Mr. Harry Gray concurred with staff comments. • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 20 Ms. Britton stated in the Plat Review minutes she had noted there had been a suggestion made that right-of-way be dedicated to allow for "A" Street, at some point, to connect with Shiloh. Mr. Gray stated that was on the plat between lots 10 and 11. Ms. Britton suggested an access at the opposite end of the street in the cul-de-sac to the adjoining property. She stated she hated to see this as an isolated development that did not connect to anything else. She also noted she believed there should be another access. Mr. Gray stated Mr. Henbest had contacted him and part of his concern was that he did not want any right-of-way to his property. He explained Mr. Henbest was planning, at some future date, to develop his property into single family homes. He pointed out that, with the right-of-way dedication to Shiloh, it would give a second access to the development. Mark Marquess, BMP Development, explained the contribution of $49,500 would be done on a per lot basis rather than a full cash offering up front. He further explained that, should the City be ready to develop the bridge prior to total development of the property, they would pay the remaining sum. There was discussion regarding a notation on the plat that the lot developer would have to pay the fee. Mr. Marquess expressed his belief that BMP Development would be doing most of the development. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained city staff would collect the fee the same way they collected parks fees. Ms. Britton asked the status of the extension of Shiloh. Ms. Little stated staff realized there had to be a connection to Shiloh. She explained they had originally planned for the development of Sycamore over to Shiloh but they were no longer pursuing that since they were not requiring the developer to pay one-half of the improvement, but had, instead, traded that off for funding toward the bridge on Salem. She explained that, once the Highway Department submitted their final design for the exit ramp into Shiloh, the City could pursue the extension of Shiloh. She advised it was a city responsibility, not the state's. '73 • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Bunn stated the city had very little funding at this point and the timing on the construction of Shiloh would depend upon the sales tax. Ms. Britton asked if the Highway Department realized there was a bad intersection at Mt. Comfort and Shiloh. Ms. Little advised the city was keeping the State current on all development that was occurring. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - TIMBERSIDE SUBDIVISION KEN STAHMAN - E OF CROSSOVER RD., N OF WYMAN RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Timberside Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ken Stahman for property located east of Crossover Road, north of Wyman Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 15.6 acres with 21 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the Gas Company had indicated a total width of 85 feet was required for the gas lines that crossed the property. He noted none of the other utility representatives had any significant comments on the plat. He advised staff remarks included comments on the water line, the length of the cul-de-sac, street lights, and the signing of the entrance. He explained it had been noted there were drainage problems on the site and that, due to the grade of the lots, there would be individual grading plans required for most of the lots in the development. He stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; final approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; waiver of the minimum length of a cul-de-sac; and payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances. 71 • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 22 Ms. Little advised there had been discussion regarding a connection to Stonebridge. She explained that the grade to the east was so substantial that it would not be feasible to make a connection. Mr. Jorgensen agreed with Ms. Little and stated it was not practical. He further advised he did not believe the adjoining owners did not want such an access. Ms. Britton asked about the 40 -foot connection to the highway. Mr. Jorgensen explained he did not know if it really existed. He further explained the legal description showed the 40 -foot easement but the adjoining property owners said it did not exist. He pointed out it did not provide access to the subdivision. Mr. Gene Ward, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding drainage. Mr. Suchecki explained the developer would have to file a drainage plan and have it approved prior to construction. Mr. Mike Alexy, an adjoining property owner, stated the location of the gas line easement was not correct nor was the location of the pond. He asked if they waited until the correct boundaries were established before approving the plat. Mr. Bunn explained he was not aware the boundaries were incorrect. Mr. Jorgensen explained there were various differences between the legal description and the survey. He noted the plat had been drawn from the legal description and the boundary survey was being finalized. He further advised the gas company had located all three gas lines. Mr. Bunn explained the ordinance allowed for minor corrections to the preliminary plat at the final plat stage. Mr. Alexy contended the legal description was incorrect. Mr. Bunn requested Mr. Jorgensen submit a revised plat as soon as the survey work was completed and make contact with Mr. Alexy. Mr. Sam Taylor, 28 North Stonebridge Road, stated the survey was incorrect by 8 to 10 feet. He stated Mr. Jorgensen had told him it would be corrected. MOTION 0 Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. 7, • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 23 Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1, #2 & #3 SYLVIA SWARTZ - 607 N. RAZORBACK ROAD The next item was three lot splits submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Sylvia Swartz for property located at 607 North Razorback Road (the northwest corner of Cardwell and Razorback Road) and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the splits would create three lots of approximately .35 acres each. He stated the remaining tract had an existing house on approximately one-half acre. He advised all of the lots created by the splits were of legal size for R-1 property. He noted Razorback Road, at that point, was a city street and was a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan, requiring an 80 or 100 foot right-of-way. Mr. Bunn recommended the splits be approved subject to the dedication of an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along Tracts 1, 2 and 3; the improvement, or a contract in lieu of improvements, of the west side of Razorback Road to City standards; the payment of parks fees for Tracts 1, 2, and 3; the construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City's Master Sidewalk Plan; and the review of the lot splits by the plat review committee and the dedication of any rights-of-way that the utilities might require. Mr. Gray stated Ms. Swartz would prefer not to make the street improvements as requested by the City. Ms. Swartz explained it was expensive to keep her property up and she had therefore decided to split the property and sell the part she did not need. She stated it was her plan to have three lots with single family homes. She pointed out there was only one house between Cleveland and Maple that had curbs and gutters. She asked why it was so important that she improve the street when no one else had done so. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained the contract was the same as a Bill of Assurance with the owner agreeing to pay the owner's share of the improvement as such time as the City actually made the improvements. He stated the ordinance called for a review of a contract of this type after a five year period. He explained that, after five years, if the improvement was not imminent, the money marked for street construction had to be spent in some way that would benefit the property. He further advised that, if the construction was 7/, • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 24 imminent, the money would continue to be held until the construction took place. Mr. Tarvin asked if they had required the University to improve it's portion of the street. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know. He explained generally buildings on campus did not have to go through the city for permits so he presumed they had not contributed toward the street. Ms. Little explained they had reviewed the site on Planning Commission tour. She stated the question had arisen as to whether the lots were in character with the neighborhood. She advised the. lots to the north were somewhat smaller than the ones to the west, measuring 85 x 190. She stated the lots to the west measured approximately 190 x 190. She pointed out the proposed lots were a little smaller than the other lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Reynolds asked how much frontage there would be on Razorback, excluding the existing home. Ms. Little explained Ms. Swartz was splitting 240 feet into three tracts measuring 80 feet each. She further noted the existing home had 113 feet of frontage. Ms. Britton explained the question during the tour was that the lots were smaller than the existing neighborhood. She suggested a compromise of two lots, making a total of three lots rather than four. There was further discussion regarding the lot size. Mr. Pummill pointed out they were comparing the lots with those on Oliver rather than those fronting on Razorback. Mr. Gray pointed out the houses to the north were older, smaller homes. He stated the tracts were large enough to construct 2,500 to 3,000 square foot homes but he did not think they would sell because of the neighborhood, particularly to the north. Mr. Allred pointed out if the lots got too much larger, purchasers would be requesting conditional uses to construct duplexes. Ms. Swartz stated she wanted to save two black walnut trees on the site. Mr. Tarvin stated that, while he could understand the city requesting the property owner pay for street improvements, he did not think it was fair. He pointed out the university was on the east side and they had not paid for any improvements to the road 77 • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 25 and the property to the north already had existing residences so they would not have to pay for any improvements. In response to a question from that, if the money requested was within 5 to 7 years, the money benefit of the subject property. Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained not spent on street improvements still had to be spent for the Mr. Allred asked the applicant if it would be acceptable to split the property into three lots rather than four and grant a waiver on the off-site improvements as a compromise. Ms. Swartz explained she had planned on selling the two northernmost lots and keeping the lot adjoining her home. Jerry Sipe explained Ms. Swartz had asked him to develop the property. He stated Ms. Swartz had repeatedly told him she wanted to keep the lot which adjoined her existing home. He stated that, if the Commission would waive the street improvement condition, they would request only two lot splits. Mr. Gray stated they would split off two 100 -foot lots to the north. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant lot splits #1 and #2, changing the width from 80 feet to 100 feet per lot, waive the off-street improvement, and subject to all other staff requirements. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PARKING WAIVER THOMAS BAILEY - 401 WATSON STREET The next item was a request for a parking waiver submitted by Thomas Bailey for property located at 401 Watson Street, zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the subject structure had been originally located on a larger tract of land but the City had purchased a portion of the parcel to develop a public parking lot for businesses located along Dickson Street and the Walton Arts Center. He informed the Commission that, on September 5, 1991, the Board of Directors had authorized the credit of 50 off-street parking spaces to meet the parking requirements for any future use of the structure located at 401 Watson Street. He explained the applicant • • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 26 was proposing to establish a mercantile and restaurant within the existing structure. He explained the zoning ordinance required 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area for the proposed use. He noted the structure contained 15,035 square feet and would require 75 off-street parking spaces. He explained there was insufficient room on the property to provide any off-street parking and, if the requested waiver was denied, 5,000 square feet of the building would not be able to be utilized. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested parking waiver. He explained staff believed the applicant should be able to utilize the entire structure. He pointed out the applicant was willing to invest in the subject area of the city which would help in the revitalization of Dickson Street. He also noted the applicant had taken the additional step of working with the University Baptist church in an attempt to arrange joint use of the parking lot. Ms. Britton asked if the improvement district had been notified of this hearing. It was determined notification had been made. Mr. Tarvin advised the church had no problem with the granting of the waiver. Mr. Nickle expressed concern they were allowing everyone to use the parking spaces and they were giving away spaces they did not have. He asked how many parking spaces they waived on the brew pub. Ms. Little stated 100 spaces had been required but that amount had been waived. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the waiver subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated the City and Improvement District had gone to a lot of expense to provide parking areas and she believed it was a mistake to waive the parking requirements. She went on to note the Improvement District had not objected and the Planning Staff had recommended approval. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: %9 to • • Planning Commission February 22, 1993 Page 27 Tree Ordinance Public Hearing Ms. Little reminded the Commission of the special meeting on Wednesday, February 25, for a public hearing on the proposed tree ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.