The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-03-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 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: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Bob Reynolds, Jett Cato, and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT- Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Suchecki advised that the applicant for Item No. 6, Rezoning R93-12 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Atlas Construction for property located off Magnolia Drive, north of Country Way, had requested the item be withdrawn. He further advised that the petitioner for item No. 9, a Parking Waiver and Off -Site Parking Approval, had requested the item be tabled. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to table item No. 9. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MINUTES The minutes of the March 8, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R93-13 AND R93-14 RANDALL GARRISON - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF RUPPLE RD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezonings R93-13 and R93-14 for property located on the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Rupple Road submitted by Dennis Smith on behalf of Randall Garrison and represented by Truman Yancey. The request is to rezone 6.75 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential and 41.5 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5 Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained this was a revised application for rezoning. He reminded the Commission the original request had been for R-2 and had been heard by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1993 and then appealed to the City Council. He advised the applicant had withdrawn his appeal to the City Council. He noted the subject request was revised from the original request to closely reflect comments made at the Planning Commission meeting during the January 11, 1993 meeting which had addressed a mix of R-1.5 and R-1. �V� • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 2 advised the applicant had withdrawn his appeal to the City Council. He noted the subject request was revised from the original request to closely reflect comments made at the Planning Commission meeting during the January 11, 1993 meeting which had addressed a mix of R-1.5 and R-1. He reminded the Commission that, at the Planning Commission level, the original request and appeal both requested the entire tract of land be rezoned from R-1 to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) . He advised the new proposal requests 6.75 acres to be rezoned to R-2 and 41.5 acres to be rezoned to R-1.5. He pointed out the proposal designated the eastern portion of the tract (14%) as R-2 and the western portion (86%) as R-1.5. He advised that R-1.5 zoning allowed up to 12 units per acre while R-2 zoning allowed up to 24 units per acre. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently undeveloped with undeveloped land to the north, east and west. He pointed out to the south was Northwest Acres, Phase II and areas of undeveloped land. He further stated the site was currently zoned R-1 with land to the west being R-2 and R-1, to the east was county land and R-2, to the north was county land, and to the south the property was zoned A-1. He reminded the Commission that at their January 11, 1993 meeting, by a vote of 6-3- 0 vote, they had denied the petition and suggested to the applicant that he come back with a compromise of part R-1.5 and part R-1 for the subject area, allowing a transition and buffer area of R-1.5 between R-2 an R-1. Mr. Conklin noted the applicant had come back to the Planning Commission with a compromise in the hope of receiving a favorable recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council to approve the requested rezonings. He advised staff supported the applicant's original request and supported the current request. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the rezoning request. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin advised the area shown as A-1 on the zoning map was agricultural land with one or two farm houses. Mr. Nickle asked if they had considered rezoning any portion of the property as R- 1. Mr. Conklin advised they had reached a compromise that, instead of requesting the entire area as R-2, the applicant was requesting that 41.5 acres be zoned R-1.5. Ms. Britton pointed out there would be nothing left to buffer since there would be no R-1 property left. Mr. Yancey appeared before the Commission and advised that, in the revised request, they tried to consider comments from the Planning Commission and other individuals. He explained the resubmission was an attempt to incorporate those comments. • Ms. Britton reminded the Commission there was no alternate access to this area. She asked if that would occur when a subdivision was brought before them. /05 • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Yancey stated he believed there would be a stubbed street both to the east and west. Ms. Britton asked if there would be any access to Rupple Road or an alternate route to Wedington. Mr. Yancey explained they did not own the property adjoining Rupple or Wedington. Mr. Allred stated this matter should be brought up during either the subdivision or large scale development process rather than the rezoning hearing. Mr. Springborn asked how the staff would handle off-site improvements on this project. Mr. Conklin stated that would be determined at the time the development went through the subdivision process. He advised that, when the applicant came in to develop the land, staff would review access to the subdivision and address those concerns. Mr. Russell Black, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the increase in density in the area. He pointed out there could be 650 units in the subdivision. He stated they had not talked about schools, additional police, etc. He advised the area had very poor drainage and the addition of 650 units would have to be addressed. He stated he would be opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Suchecki advised those concerns would be addressed in the subdivision process. Mr. Millard Goff, an area resident, stated the density and drainage had been considered several times but still had not been taken care of. He asked whose problem it was downstream when the problem had been created upstream. He stated that, if it was their purpose to guarantee a profit to a speculator at the expense of the residents, they had gotten off track. Mr. Conklin stated staff had received a call from Gertrude Cathy, a resident on Wedington Road, objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, an area resident, expressed concern regarding traffic. He further noted they had not had a master plan to study nor to react to as citizens had a right to do. He expressed fear they would be doing spot zoning. O. E. Lutrell, an area resident, and asked they review the traffic situation in the area, the density, and the drainage situation. He advised there had been an extensive study in 1983 of the drainage but only two things recommended in the study had been done -- a culvert had been placed under the highway and there was an extension of the tin whistle in front of Ozark Electric. He further advised there were some very nice homes in the area and he would like to see a corridor of nice homes remain in the area. He pointed out the current property owners were the ones that had paid for the extension of sewer into the area. /o6 • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Lutrell further advised the residents would like to be involved in the plans for the area. Mr. Mike Pehosh, 788 N. 46th Street, expressed concern regarding the drainage and traffic on Wedington Drive. He stated he believed the infrastructure was normally looked at before approving greater density for an area. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Pehosh explained the drainage came across Wedington to his property. He advised his property was approximately 300 feet south of Wedington. He expressed his fear he would have water in his house if the area to the north became more densely populated. Mr. Bunn stated there was a drainage ditch from Highway 16 to the south in line with Rupple Road which had been designed to take the drainage. He advised the area proposed to be rezoned was almost entirely in an area that drained to the north rather than the south. He stated there was a piece of the property on the very south end that drained to the south. He further advised there was a cross drain in Northwest Acres and another one at Rupple Road. Mr. Allred asked if the rezoning request was consistent with the present land use plan. Ms . Little advised the present land use plan was multi -family housing for the subject area. She explained further noted the plan was being altered based on comments from the public. She further explained they had arbitrarily made the decision that 46th Street would be the dividing line with everything to the west would be single- family and everything to the east would be considered for multi -family uses. Mr. Springborn asked if the R-1 in the new plan would be based on the current density. Ms Little stated it was. Mr. Springborn expressed his belief the current R-1 density was a dense development. He advised that, approximately 3 years ago, staff had undertaken to draw a new ordinance to lessen the density for R-1. He further advised he believed the density under R-1 was as far as they should go until they had a new ordinance and land use plan. He stated he had no problem with R-2 to the east of 46th Street. Ms. Little stated in 1991 they had approved building permits for approximately 330 homes and in 1992 they had approved building permits for over 600 homes on the same number of acres. She pointed out the trend was not to construct on large lots. She further explained it was expensive for the developer, expensive for the homeowner, and expensive from the city's standpoint. She advised the city had to extend the water and sewer for all of the larger lots, which meant extending the lines through more land. She further noted the reason there were so many large lots in the area was due to the land being annexed into the city as A-1, Agricultural, land and the minimum lot size was 2 acres. She pointed out the more compatible and environmentally sensitive development was to have the area served by sewer. She advised smaller lots was a more economical use of both city resources and land. • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Springborn stated he appreciated the Planning Director's views but preferred to not get into a discussion the density under the current R-1 and what might come out under a new land use plan prior to the time the plan is completed and submitted to the Commission for review and offered to the public. Mr. Nickle stated he was disappointed the petitioner had not considered any R-1. He expressed his belief the proposal was still too high of a density. Ms. Britton stated she had a problem with the entire development. She stated it was currently R-1 and there was a nucleus of affordable housing in the area. She also pointed out there was no way to disperse the traffic since there was only one access. She further noted she had previously requested an alternative access and she did not believe that would be proposed in the future. She advised that, until they had the new master plan with a lot of public input and hearings, they should not change what was existing. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the petition. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Ms. Little stated the master plan would not show accesses. She explained what they were considering was compatible land use. She noted accesses should be considered at the time the plan for development of the land came before them. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated they needed to consider the two applications separately. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny R93-13. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion and then withdrew his second. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-5-0 with Commissioners Britton and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Springborn, Pummill, Suchecki, Cato, and Reynolds voting "no". MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to deny R93-14. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. • The motion failed 3-5-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Britton and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, Cato and Reynolds voting "no". • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Allred expressed his opinion the applications were consistent with what they were trying to accomplish. He stated it appeared they were making arbitrary decisions when it was convenient rather than going by the plan. He pointed out they had a plan that called for this property to be multi -family. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve R93-14 subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated the plan had not had any hearings and the current plan was that this property was R-1. Ms. Little disagreed, stating the Master Plan called for the subject property to be R-2. Ms. Britton noted the property was currently zoned R-1. Ms. Little replied that a lot of land within the City was not zoned in compliance with the Plan. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, Cato, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Britton and Nickle voting "no. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve R93-13 subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, Cato, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Britton and Nickle voting "no". Ms. Little presented the current land use plan, pointing out the subject area was designated as multi -family housing. joR • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R93-15 AND R93-16 LLOYD POND, ET AL - N OF WEDINGTON, W CARLSBAD TR. The next item was a public hearing for Rezonings R93-15 and R93-16 for property located ont he north side of Wedington Drive, west of Carlsbad Trace, submitted by Truman Yancey on behalf of Lloyd H. Pond, James and Barbara Pond and Westridge Baptist Church. The request is to rezone 50 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, and 25 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised much of the site was currently undeveloped. He stated a 62.5 tract, a part of the total 75 acre being petitioned to be rezoned, had been approved for annexation at the Planning Commission meeting held February 8, 1993. He noted the R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning allowed up to 4 units per acre and the R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, allow up to 12 units per acre for residential use. He pointed out the land to the south was zoned A-1, the land to the north and east was County land and the land to the west was zoned both R-1 and R-2. He further stated the land to the south was residential and the land to the east contained duplexes with the land to the north and west being undeveloped. Mr. Conklin explained city water, sanitation and sewer was adjacent to the site with sufficient capacity to handle the potential development which could occur on the subject tract. He stated there was a 6 -inch water line along Carlsbad Tract and Franciscan Trail and a 6 -inch sewer line along Carlsbad Tract which connected to a 15 -inch line along Mt. Comfort. He stated the 1970 General Plan had designated most of the surrounding area to develop as medium density residential. Mr. Conklin advised access to the site was from Highway 16 West (principal arterial) and from Franciscan Trail (local street). He noted access could also be available from the future development proposed north of Carlsbad Trace. He explained Scott Bennett, Statewide Planning, had indicated to staff that Highway 16 West was at level of service "C" except for the first half mile west of the bypass, which was at level of service "D" . He pointed out the "Final Report: Prioritization of Roadway Improvements" had stated that "this two lane segment (46th Avenue to Shiloh Drive) had an average 1992 ADT of 9,600 and a 2010 ADT of 14,200. Construction of one additional lane in each direction appeared justified from peak hour volume/capacity standpoint, but level of service "E" is not reached until 1995." Mr. Conklin also noted Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, had been conducting traffic counts on a monthly basis and had been forwarding the information to the State Highway Department so they could update their data when analyzing the need for future roadway improvements. • Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning petitions. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Yancey pointed out the division, from north to south, and noted that, on the east side property, they had originally requested R-2 but had modified that request to R-1.5. He advised on the west side would be R-1. He stated he was not sure of the status of the annexation. He asked they affirm their recommendation of annexation. Mr. Conklin advised the annexation would be going to the City Council at their next meeting. Mr. Suchecki asked if approval or disapproval of the rezoning would affect the annexation. Ms. Little stated it would not. She explained they had originally approved the entire tract as R-1. Mr. Allred stated they had just, on the last matter, determined there was an arbitrary line at 46th Street with no multi -family housing being to the west of that line. He further stated he would be hard pressed to vote in favor of this request in view of his comments on the previous matter. Ms. Little reminded the Commission they had, at the previous meeting, made the offer to consider only that portion within the City and Mr. Yancey had stated he wanted them to consider the entire tract or none of it. She pointed out they had not approved any rezoning, that the property was currently A-1. Mr. Conklin advised the annexation had been approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Little recommended the Planning Commission make a decision on both the annexation and the two rezonings, to be absolutely certain. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the annexation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Both Mr. Pehosh and Mr. Lutrell spoke in opposition to the rezoning. They advised the city did not have infrastructure in the area other than the water and sewer. They further noted they had never had any input to any zoning changes for the area. Ms. Little explained the procedure of adopting a new land use plan. Ms. Britton questioned if the land use plan meant that was the current zoning. i�l • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 9 Ms. Little explained it was a 20 year plan, originally formulated in 1970. She pointed out much of the area colored yellow on the map (single family housing) was still zoned agricultural. Ms. Britton stated she was having problems with definitions; that when she took planning classes, land use plans showed what was existing, a master plan was what was proposed, and a zoning map reflected the master plan. Ms. Little explained the existing land use was the basis for formulating the land use plan. She stated the term "plan" implied future. Mr. Cyrus Young stated the Planning Commission legally had to go by the existing plan, not a future plan. He pointed out that approving less density would create urban sprawl. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved that the property remain R-1. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Mr. Allred pointed out the property was currently A-1. Mr. Reynolds stated his motion was to rezone the entire tract to R-1 according to the future plans, subject to Council approval of the annexation. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Yancey requested the Commission state their reason for denial of the request. He stated he wanted to know precisely why they took the action they had. Mr. Reynolds stated they had established a line at 46th Street with single family homes to the west and multi -family housing to the east. He pointed out the subject property was west of 46th Street. Mr. Yancey stated that, when he made the petition, there had been no imaginary line. Mr. Nickle stated he did not believe they had to give a reason for their action. Mr. Yancey stated that, when they rejected his petition, he was entitled to know why. He further stated he believed the ordinance also required them to state the reason. Mr. Suchecki stated the reason they rejected the application was they had decided zoning to the west of 46th Street would be R-1. IIS • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION & REZONING R93-11 HELEN 11. KIRBY - S OF STARR DR., W OF HUNTINGTON DR. The next item was a public hearing for an annexation and rezoning of property located on the south side of Starr Drive, west of Huntington Drive presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Helen R. Kirby. The request is to annex 29.46 acres and rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the tract of land was not within the current City limits and was located in an area that had developed in large parcels for single family homes due to the lack of City sewerage to the area prior to annexation. He further explained that, when the adjoining parcels had been annexed into the City, the owner of the subject parcel did not wish to be included because there was no need to bring City sewer or water to the subject site. He advised the applicant had now submitted a preliminary plat for development of the tract which was the following item on the agenda. He noted the applicant was requesting the annexation due to the need for City water and sewer. He explained the requested R-1 zoning required a minimum of 8,000 square foot lot area and 70 feet of frontage on a public street. He noted the applicant had submitted a preliminary plat for the entire tract of land for 52 lots which would correspond to a density of 1.8 units per acre. He advised that, on the preliminary plat, the average lot size was 24,678 square feet. He pointed out a maximum density of 4 units per acre was allowed under R-1 zoning. Mr. Conklin stated the site was surrounded by A-1 zoning the east and south and R-1 zoning to the west. He explained that zoning the property to R-1 would provide a natural extension of the R-1 zoning directly west of the site. He advised the 1970 General Plan had not addressed -future land use in the subject area; however, the Administrative Draft General Land Use plan did designate surrounding areas to develop with single family residential uses. Mr. Conklin pointed out access to the site was from Starr Drive, a local street. He explained the primary function of a local street was to provide direct access to abutting land and access to higher order systems (2 -lane facility carrying less than 4,000 vehicles per day). He advised Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, had completed a traffic generation analysis for the proposed subdivision which resulted in a 24-hour two-way volume of 497 cars. He further noted Mr. Franklin had also conducted traffic counts on Starr Drive which resulted in about 500 vehicles per day. He stated that, based on the functional classification of the street, development of the tract of land would not exceed the street design capacity. He further advised city staff had determined that water and sewer in the vicinity was available to serve future development of the site. He stated Don Bunn, City Engineer, would discuss in further detail on the next agenda item, the existing sewer and water lines adjacent to the site, their capacity, and how they could be accessed to serve future development for the tract of land. I (� • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Conklin advised staff was still analyzing the existing infrastructure in the general vicinity and would provide a coordinated response with the Fire Chief and City Engineer. He advised staff was forwarding this information to the Planning Commission for their decision on the requested annexation and rezoning. He noted the annexation and rezoning would be subject to "petition" and "order for Annexation" into the City of Fayetteville from Washington County which the applicant would proceed in obtaining if the rezoning and annexation was approved. He reminded the Commission that R-1 zoning was the most restrictive residential zoning and would be adjoining and consistent with the R-1 zoning to the west. Mr. Conklin requested that Item No. 5 be combined with the subject item. PRELIMINARY PLAT - KIRBY'S MILL SUBDIVISION HELEN R. KIRBY - S OF STARR DR., W OF HUNTINGTON The next item was a preliminary plat submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Helen R. Kirby for property located on the south side of Starr Drive, west of Huntington Drive. The property is zoned R-1 (proposed Annexation and R93-11), Low Density Residential, and contains 29.46 acres with 52 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained the subject property was in the process of being annexed into the City of Fayetteville and any approvals of Kirby's Mill Subdivision at this time would need to be subject to the Council's approval of the annexation and rezoning of the property. He further explained that failure of the Council to act favorably on either of those matters would void the approval of the preliminary plat. He pointed out failure to annex the property would make sewer unavailable to the property and changes would have to be made to reflect that. He also noted the failure to rezone from A-1 to R-1 would invalidate the plat since the lot sizes would be too small to meet either the lot size requirements or the frontage requirements for A-1 property. He pointed out there had been several issues raised by the adjoining and nearby property owners, which included (1) the adequacy of Starr Drive to handle the increase in traffic; (2) whether drainage could be taken care of in an acceptable manner; (3) the adequacy of water and sewer facilities to handle the additional demands; and (4) the need for additional green space or parks land in the area. He noted there had also been other concerns expressed by the neighbors involving the size of the lots and homes within the development relative to the existing lot and home sizes immediately to the west. Mr. Bunn stated none of the utility company representatives had any significant comments on the development at the plat review meeting. He noted there had been some additional easements requested by some of the representatives as well as some requests to modify some of the easements as shown. He stated the additions and modifications had been agreed to by the owner. He explained staff comments had included the need to have street lights, the requirement that sidewalks be shown along the exterior lots and along Starr Drive, the single ingress/egress point for the subdivision, the need for a drainage and grading plan, and off-site improvements. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 12 He further stated there had been considerable discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting about whether or not the subdivision met the basic requirements for development within the City. He noted there had been specific discussion on the need for a drainage plan and grading permit, water and sewer service, off-site improvements, and contribution for parks. Mr. Bunn advised other discussion included the size of the lots relative to the proposed R-1 zoning, the size of structures expected, and the future ingress/egress that was being provided to the east. He explained several members of the public spoke with concerns about the adequacy of utilities to serve the development, drainage, the development of parks and the need to provide greenspace, the size of the lots and houses compared to the neighborhood surrounding the development, and the general incompatibility of the subdivision with the surrounding properties. He explained a discussion of some of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting and other concerns raised at a later date were: (1) Drainage: Drainage from the subject property generally went in two directions. He noted most of the water originating on the subdivision property drained naturally to the east and would continue to drain in that direction. He advised the total drainage area involved from Starr Drive west was 35 to 40 acres. He explained the development included approximately 15 acres of that total. He stated the drainage from the street would be directed through an existing pond on- site and would then be routed through an existing channel. He advised 3 acres at the southeast corner of the proposed subdivision appeared to drain to the southeast and would minimally impact the receiving stream. Mr. Bunn advised the 48 -inch storm drain crossing on Starr Drive carried drainage from about 100 acres, 12 acres of which originated within the proposed development. He stated there might be some off-site drainage -requirements of the developer, such as the crossing under Starr Drive or ditch improvements on the property to the north. He further noted that, since the total drainage area of the subdivision (on- site and pass-through acreage) was only 12-15 percent of the total watershed area, the impact on the drainage to the north would be minimal and there was no reason why it could not be handled in a satisfactory manner. He advised a detailed drainage plan and grading plan would be required of the developer prior to any construction taking place. (2) Traffic: Starr Drive is a relatively narrow, hard surface street which came off of Highway 45 and eventually tied with Wyman Road to the south. He explained the hard surface ended shortly after the final turnback to the south. He advised there was minimal formal development to the south on Starr Drive and that Starr Drive from Highway 45 to the east and south of the proposed subdivision was (assuming annexation of the subject property) half within the City and half in the county. Mr. Bunn noted the pavement width as measured by City staff varied from 17 feet to 25 feet with an average width of approximately 19 feet. I/C • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 13 He presented two memorandums from the City of Fayetteville Traffic Division. He explained the first document was a computer-generated trip generation table. He stated the trip generation software was developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and was recently validated for accuracy by traffic counts on Salem Road. He further explained the second memorandum was a summary of traffic counts taken on Starr Drive during the week of March 8, 1993. Mr. Bunn advised the trip generation program indicated that 52 single family residences within the subject development would generate a two-way weekday average of 497 trips per day. He explained the AM peak was estimated to be 38 trips and the PM peak was estimated to be 52 trips. He stated both of the peak trips were two-way counts. He further noted weekend average two-way traffic was estimated to be 530 trips on Saturday and 457 trips on Sunday. He further advised 24-hour traffic counts had been taken on Starr Drive Tuesday through Thursday, March 9th - March llth, 1993. He explained the first two counts had been taken approximately 100 yards south of Highway 45. He pointed out the two-day count averaged 563 trips (two-way). He stated on Thursday they had counted cars at a point south of Cherokee Drive and the result had been a count of 425 two-way trips. Mr. Bunn explained that, after full development of the proposed subdivision, there would be about 1,000 two-way trips on Starr Drive each weekday. He stated an example of another City street that handled that volume of traffic would be Stubblefield Road (900 - 1,000 cars per day, 18 foot average width) . He noted other streets that carry a great deal of traffic and were relatively narrow were portions of Zion Road (20 -foot pavement width, 3,500+ cars per day) and Old Missouri Road (21 -foot width, 1,600+ cars per day). He informed the Commission some citizen comments had been to the effect that Starr Drive was only 14.5 feet wide and that it was necessary to drive off the pavement whenever another car was met. He stated both he and the Traffic Superintendent had driven the road several times of the past couple of weeks and had not experienced that difficulty. He noted he could see where there would be some problems with larger vehicles or trucks. Mr. Bunn further noted that, while the road was relatively narrow, he did not believe the 1,000 cars per day projected after full development of the subdivision was unreasonable and he could not recommend rejection of the subdivision on that basis. He further advised the subdivision ordinances of the City required off-site improvements proportional to the need created by the subdivision. He stated it had been the practice of the Planning Commission in the past to require improvements only to the street abutting the development. He explained that, in this case, the off-site street improvements required would be to bring the south half of Starr Drive up to City standards for a distance of 550 feet. He further explained this improvement would involve widening, curb and gutter, adequate base, and storm drainage. He noted there had been cases in the past when developer money for street improvements had been combined with City and/or County money to improve jl1 • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 14 a longer length of street to some lesser standard. He stated they had not looked at this possibility but would be willing to do so. Mr. Bunn advised the County had indicated they would require a bond to be posted on the County portion of Starr Drive for maintenance from Highway 45 to the end of the development. He explained the bond would be in effect until all of the property in the subdivision was sold. (3) Sewer Service: Sewer service could be made available to all but two of the proposed 52 lots within the subdivision. He explained five of the lots would have to pump to the proposed sewer line and the balance would be served by gravity. He noted Lots 1 and 52 were proposed for on-site disposal systems (septic tanks). He pointed out the lots were large enough to qualify for septic tanks under City Ordinances. He noted the final decision as to whether the soils on those two lots were suitable for septic tank installation would be made by the Washington County Health Department. Mr. Bunn noted there had been several concerns expressed about sewer service in the area. He advised they were (1) whether or not the City's sewer system could adequately handle the 52 proposed lots; (2) whether the developer could, in fact, access the sewer as shown on the preliminary plat; and (3) the viability of septic tanks in the area. He explained that, prior to the new sewage plant construction in 1985 and 1986 and the construction of a parallel outfall line during that same time period, there had been problems with sewer overflows along Starr Drive south of Highway 45. He noted all of those problems had been corrected with the new construction and he felt confident that the existing system would handle the flows from the proposed development. He advised the line which the developer would have to tie into was an 8 -inch line which ran to the north and tied into an existing 24 -inch line. He stated the developer would have to construct an 8 -inch line into the development since that was the minimum size allowed by the City at this time. Mr. Bunn stated the development was expected to generate a peak sewage flow rate of 75 gpm with a 24-hour average of about 15 gallons/minute. He pointed out that, if the developer could not obtain access across the property directly to the west of the development for sewer purposes, then he would have the alternative to construct a lift station at the north end of the development at Starr Drive. He explained the developer could then construct a sewage force main along Starr Drive in public right-of-way to access the gravity sewer. He further explained that would, in all probability, necessitate an increase in the density of development to compensate for the additional cost of the pump station. Mr. Bunn noted that, whether septic tanks were approved for any part of the development, would depend on the approval of the County Health Department. He stated the City would require as many of the lots as possible to be tied to the City's sewer line. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 15 (4) Water Service: The concern was expressed as to whether or not the water system (either the high pressure system or the main pressure system) was capable of adequately serving the subdivision with domestic service and fire flows without a significant loss of service to existing development. Mr. Bunn stated the proposed development would generate an average day demand of 50 gallons per capita per day, or about 6 gallons per minute. He noted the maximum day demand was estimated to be around 18 gallons per minute with a maximum hourly demand of 30 gallons per minute. He stated the requirement for fire flows would be approximately 750 gallons per minute. He explained the elevations within the development ranged from 1430 feet near Starr Drive to 1500 feet at the southwest corner. He stated the lower elevations could be served off of Starr Drive, however, some of the development must be served from the high pressure system to provide minimum working pressures. He further noted the 8 -inch water line on Starr Drive was tied to the 8 -inch line on Highway 45 and was on the "main" pressure plane. He explained the pressure on the system was provided by the pumps at the Beaver Water Plant and by the water storage tanks on Rogers Drive. He stated the hydraulic gradient of the main pressure plane was 1577 feet. He explained that, in the Starr Drive area, the static pressure provided by the plane was around 60 psi. He stated this pressure was considered adequate. He noted it was equivalent to he pressures experienced in the Sequoyah Woods Subdivision along the west side of Starr Drive. He advised the fire flows in Sequoyah Woods were approximately 920 gallons per minute with a 35 psi residual in 1992. Mr. Bunn explained there was a 6 -inch line on Canterbury Circle which was tied to the high pressure system that served the Mt. Sequoyah and Hyland Park areas. He noted pressure on the system was maintained by a 250,000 gallon tank located on the top of Mt. Sequoyah and by pump stations located- at Hyland Park and on Mt. Sequoyah. He advised the Hyland Park station had two high service pumps, each capable of delivering 440 gpm to the system. He noted both pumps running together would deliver 725 gpm. He stated that in recent tests, the two pumps delivered 950 to 1000 gpm. He advised the Mt. Sequoyah station had two high service pumps capable of delivering 925 gallons per minute each. He estimated that 1400 gpm would be available with both pumps running. He explained total delivery to the Mt. Sequoyah high pressure system would be approximately 1650 gallons per minute with one pump running on Mt. Sequoyah and 2 pumps running at Hyland Park. Mr. Bunn stated there had been questions about the ability of the Sequoyah system to deliver the required fire flows at the high locations within the system. He explained that ideally, the Fire Chief would like to have anywhere from 1000 to 1500 gpm for the size and value of housing located in parts of the high pressure system. He stated the improvements that had been made over the past 18 months were projected to provide fire flows under maximum day conditions of 885 to more than 1500 gallons per minute without dropping pressure residuals below 20 psi (minimum allowable) . He noted that, at the intersection of Boston Mountain View and • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 16 Canterbury, the fire flow was projected to be 885 gpm. He also noted higher flows were located on the Mt. Sequoyah side of the system. Mr. Bunn explained City crews tested fire hydrant flows on the Hyland Park side of the system during the week of March 15, 1993 and found that, at the highest point in the system, the flow obtained was 1036 gpm with a residual of 38 psi. He further explained a fire flow of 1310 gpm was obtained at the fire hydrant located at the intersection of Canterbury Circle and Lovers Lane. He stated this was near the point where a tie to the proposed subdivision would be made. He noted the residual at the high point in the system (on Boston Mountain View) was 40 psi. He advised the flow tests staff did in March did not account for the maximum day demands but did represent the system's capability to provide fire flows to the area. Mr. Bunn went on to say the present maximum day demand on the high pressure system was estimated to be approximately 800 gallons per minute and the maximum hourly demands were estimated to be around 1,200 gallons per minute. He explained the system, as designed, was able to pump 1650 gpm which was well above the present maximum day demands and exceeded the maximum hourly demands by 450 gpm. He noted additional demands from the proposed development represented a 2.5 percent increase in existing demands and less than 2 percent of existing capacity. He noted that, at the present time, the Mt. Sequoyah tank was being used primarily to provide stability within the system and was used to supplement the fire flow provided by the high service pumps rather than being the main provider of fire flows. He explained this was particularly true on the Hyland Park side of the system. Mr. Bunn expressed his opinion that the proposed development could be served by the existing water system without a significant deterioration in service to existing customers, whether the service to the subdivision was split between the two pressure planes or whether the service came entirely off the high pressure plane. (5) Parks Land: A concern about the availability of parks lands to serve this development and the kind of parks contributions that should be made had been raised . Mr. Bunn explained city ordinances required new development to contribute to parks in one of two ways -- either a cash contribution made for the development of parks land or the Parks Board could recommend that land be donated in lieu of cash. He further explained the amount of land or cash was spelled out in the ordinance and depended on the number of lots in the subdivision and on the type of development. He noted the Parks Board would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on whether to accept a cash contribution or accept land in lieu of cash. He explained that, in this case, since the Parks Board had not met on this particular development, the Planning Commission had to approve the subdivision contingent on a decision from the Parks Board. 19. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 17 He further noted that it had been normal for the Planning Commission to require off- site improvement to the extent that the developer had to improve one-half of the street adjacent to the subdivision, if it was not up to City standards. He explained that meant half of the street, including the base, the surface, the driving surface, curb and gutter, and drainage had to be addressed by the developer for the length of his development. He further noted that, in some other cases, the city had taken the developer money which would have gone toward that improvement and combined it with City money (and, in some cases, County money) and improved the street to a longer length but to lesser standards. He advised he did not know if this was possible in this development or not. He stated they would look at that possibility. He pointed out the developer only had the obligation to improve half of the street adjacent to the subdivision. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to annexation and rezoning; plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage, submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan prior to any construction; construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances; improvement of one-half of Starr Drive to City Street Standards where it abuts the subdivision; the Parks Board decision to require either a cash contribution or a donation of land; the annexation and rezoning of the subject property; posting of the maintenance bond on Starr Drive as required by the County; and a waiver of the maximum cul-de-sac length. Mr. Milholland pointed out the adjacent property that was in the City Limits was all zoned R-1. He advised he was developing the property at less than 50% of that allowed by R-1 zoning. He further advised the Parks Board had met on the subject property and had a lengthy discussion. He stated he believed another delay was unnecessary and pointed out that approximately 95$ of all subdivisions made cash contribution rather than land. He further stated a cash contribution would be appropriate for this development and believed the Planning Commission should take that action at this meeting. He noted the Parks Board had adequate time to review the property prior to the meeting. He pointed out the land was not centrally located in a way to be usable as parks lands. He further noted the contribution requested by the Parks Board had been $11,700 or 1.3 acres. He stated the land requirement would be an average of three lots at a sale price of $30,000 per lot. He requested they look at this matter closely. Mr. Milholland stated his office had not been contacted by the County regarding the maintenance bond for Starr Drive and he had just found out about the request. He stated he was willing to work with the County but would not agree to put up a maintenance bond to take care of the road until the last lot sold. He explained that could be 10 years away and he did not think it was appropriate to ask for that. He stated they would work with the county and come to an agreement during the construction stage of the subdivision. He pointed out other developments could be developed in the same area and it would be hard to determine whose concrete trucks broke the road. He asked that the City reword that requirement to the developer would work with the County toward an agreement that would meet their satisfaction. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 18 Ms. Britton asked why the entire property was not being annexed. Mr. Milholland explained Ms Kirby portion of it. He further explained He advised the son would be willing Mr. Suchecki stated Mr. Bunn had with the city's for the improvement also be involved. did not own the entire tract; her son owned a the annexation was tied in to the subdivision. to be included in the annexation if necessary. mentioned the developer could pool his money of Starr Drive. He asked if the County would Mr. Bunn explained one-half of Starr Drive was in the County. He further explained it would be quite involved. He further noted he was not sure whether the City or County would have sufficient funding at this point in time. Mr. Suchecki asked Fire Chief Mickey Jackson why he had described the quality of fire protection as satisfactory in one area and adequate in the other. He asked if there was a difference. Mr. Bunn explained the Fire Chief ran a fire flow at the end of Starr Drive to the west of the proposed subdivision which had been approximately 700 gallons per minute. He advised the previous fire flows in Sequoyah Woods Subdivision had also been approximately 700 gallons per minute. Ms Britton asked Mr. Bunn to define satisfactory versus adequate. Chief Jackson stated he had described Starr Road as minimally adequate. He stated they had requested a hydrant be installed at the northern portion of the proposed subdivision to protect both the northern part of the subdivision and some of the surrounding area. He explained he would not have asked for that hydrant to be installed if he had not thought the main was -adequate for use for fire protection. He stated he then found the developer would be bringing the water in from Canterbury, and he had no problems with that; there was satisfactory flow. Mr. Milholland stated that, rather than putting money in a pool for the improvement of Starr Drive the developer preferred improving half of Starr Drive as required by the ordinance. He explained they wanted the improvements done as soon as possible for basic access safety, appearance, and improvement of existing drainage problems . He pointed out Stubblefield Road was of compatible width to Starr Drive, with an average width of 19 feet. Mr. Pummill asked why the City was concerned with the bond requested by the County. He expressed his belief the bond should be negotiated by the developer and the County. Mr. Bunn pointed out half of the road would be in the county. He stated he would like to see the developer work with the county to resolve the situation but he did not know if the Planning Commission was obligated to take care of a request by the County. He advised the City had received a request from a County Judge to make that requirement. He further stated he would accept the idea of an agreement being made between the County and the developer. !V" • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Milholland stated he would work with the County. Ms. Little explained the procedure for dedicating land for parks facilities or paying money in lieu of land. She advised the Planning Commission could not accept land unless they had consulted with the Parks Board. She explained it was within their power to accept money but not land for the green space fees. Richard Ardemagni, 1533 Starr Drive, stated they had consulted an attorney regarding their rights and found their main right was the right to be heard. He noted the area residents were not opposed to the property being developed but were opposed to the way the property was being developed, i.e., the density of the lots. He stated the Planning Commission's responsibility was to protect and safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fayetteville. He further stated the residents were not experts on drainage, street construction, water and sewer requirements, etc. He noted they were experts about their neighborhood, the character and issues affecting their health, safety and welfare. He informed the Commission they had several neighborhood meetings to discuss this. matter and had come up with six issues they wanted to discuss • the character of the neighborhood; water service; sewer service; drainage, and green space. He presented copies of a photo essay of the area. Dr. Michael Rogers, a resident of Canterbury Circle, stated he would discuss the character of the neighborhood. He advised the issue was the most important issue to the residents. He expressed his opinion that the responsibility of the Commission and Council was not to make Fayetteville a great place to live, but to keep it a great place to live. He stated one of the reasons Fayetteville was great was because it allowed individual communities or neighborhoods to exist within the confines of the City. He pointed out the historical district, the Dickson Street area, Park Place, etc. He advised the area around Starr Road was such a place. He stated the area represented a unique blending of what was happening in the county, the pastoral setting, and the more heavily developed neighborhoods in the city proper. He stated that all prior building in the area had taken that into consideration. He pointed out the homes immediately adjacent (on the east, west and south) to the proposed subdivision were built on 4 to 5 acres. He further advised the county homes, directly across to the north, averaged 2,500 square feet and were on 1 1/2 acres. He further stated Gaddy Acres average lot sizes were from 1.5 to 2.3 acres and the homes measured over 3,000 square feet. He further stated that, on Huntington Drive in Huntingon Place (the most density developed area in the neighborhood), the smallest lots were 2/3's of an acre and the plan called for only 25 homes. He explained the existing homes on oversized property served to define the character of the region. Dr. Rogers stated the area was a quiet, peaceful setting; allowed an area on each property for children to play; allowed wild life to coexist with people; and allowed the unique country lifestyle they sought while also allowing them to remain within the city limits. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 20 He stated the current proposal showed from 52 to 60 homes on 29 acres, twice the density of any existing development in the nearby area. He stated that essentially all of the proposed lots were 1/3 acre or smaller which was less than half the size of any lot in area He also pointed out home sizes were proposed to be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. He noted that, on the south side of the tract, the developer would have to clear 2 to 3 acres of a heavily wooded area for building plus clearing for easements. Dr. Rogers also advised the houses would be packed together so closely that the surrounding private property would become the playground areas of the 75-100 children which would live in the proposed development. He stated the proposed project would lower property values of the surrounding property. He advised that 52 to 60 homes would cause an influx of 200 residents packed into one addition which would more than double the population that currently existed in the area. He further pointed out Ms. Kirby's son owed 2.5 acres with a home. He stated they seemed to find that appropriate but have the other tracts, abutting their neighbors, be much smaller. He informed the Commission that what they decided would define the neighborhood forever. He stated their neighborhood deserved the same respect with regard to their lifestyle in the current existing standards that they would show if a developer came to them with an idea to develop an open area in the historic district or other established neighborhoods in the City. He further stated the area residents were willing to work with developers regarding their concerns. He noted the developers had been unwilling to work with them. He asked the Planning Commission instruct the developers to come back with an alternative plan that was in keeping with the. current character of the neighborhood and existing way of life that would allow the developer to make a moderate profit in the process. He reminded the Commissioners the current residents of the area would have to live with their decision long after the developer took his money and went home. Dr. Larry Long asked if the city's water system coverage in the subject area was adequate for a new subdivision. He stated the residents' investigation indicated the subject portion of the water system had already been extended past its limits. He further stated the residents took exception to the city staff's report. He advised it was incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. He directed the Commission's attention to a chart, showing the high pressure plane. He asked if the high pressure or primary pressure plane could provide adequate water service to Kirby Mills in a neighborhood which already suffered from water pressure flow problems. He advised the City staff basically agreed with the residents and read from the City's report: "It is my opinion that the proposed development can be served by the existing water system without significant deterioration in the service to existing customers." He advised the implication was that service would deteriorate. He asked how much deterioration there would be. He asked what city staff meant by "significant deterioration". �a3 • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 21 Dr. Long noted areas residents on Canterbury Circle and Starr Drive continued to complain about water service, especially at peak usage times. He stated several residents have used word "dribble" to describe shower flow. He further noted city staff had indicated Kirby Mills represented only a 2.5% increase in existing demand. He stated he assumed this figure encompassed both the high and primary pressure planes. He advised the high pressure plane would provide 90% of the water to the Kirby property. He asked what percent did it represent relative to the Hyland Park area, the primary source of water. He advised Hyland Park was essentially a pump driven system. He contended the increase in demand on that part of the already overburdened system could be 20% or more. He noted Kirby Mill had two options - take it off of Starr Drive and Canterbury or all off of Canterbury. He advised that Starr Drive was not an option. Dr. Long pointed out the area that was proposed for the subdivision and also the primary pressure plane which would service the low elevations of Kirby Mills. He then pointed out the high pressure plane. He explained there would be a line running across some of the petitioners' properties to Kirby Mills. He noted that, because of topology, Kirby Mills could become a priority feed on the Hyland Park subsystem. He explained that could result in a substantial detriment in service to other users. He contended Kirby Mills would become an "open tap" on an already overburdened system. Dr. Long advised that, in order to assess the fire flow, the Planning Commission had to decide what they were willing to accept. He stated the effect of the decision was too far reaching to be made by a few employees of the city. He advised they believed this was a citizen decision and the Commission was the citizen representatives. He asked if 700 gallons was the standard and, if so, who made that decision. He advised ISO (Insurance Service Organization) guidelines set of 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours, or 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours if shake roofs were in area. He advised there were several shake roofs in the area. He explained that, when the ISO checked flow during grading, they checked at two simultaneously open hydrants. He stated the City was graded on the lowest of the two. He advised that, since Kirby Mills was on a dead end trunk line, the prospects of it passing such a test were nil. He further advised that, in a recent Fayetteville study to improve service in the high pressure plane, the entire study had been based on a 1,500 gallons per minute as a standard. Dr. Long stated they could understand the Fire Department's position. He further stated all they could do was hook up the hose and accept whatever came out. He further stated they did the best they could with what they had. He expressed his believe the Fire Department should be given the tools and water to do the best possible job. He advised that Chief Jackson had been very helpful; that he had not been optimistic about being able to offer protection to some of the residents directly adjacent to the Kirby property. He questioned the fire flow figures in the city staff's report. He advised that, if they had factored in head loss, which was accounting for friction and elevation, the resultant fire flow would be far less than anyone's standard. He further noted the ia� • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 22 city, on the high pressure plain, had cited 1,310 gallons per minute flow on Canterbury. He stated they did not account for maximum demands and he believed it would level off at 800 gallons per minute. He advised the test hydrant was on a loop system. He noted staff should be simulating fire flow down stream, considering friction, head loss and considering it was on a dead end trunk line. He stated the expansion of areas, with minimal fire flow capacity, made the City vulnerable to a downgrade of its fire rating which could mean millions of dollars in increased insurance premium. Dr. Long stated the residents were concerned because the current water system was already overcommitted. He asked if Kirby Mill was approved, who would be responsible for the costs, the City or the developer, of restructuring the city water system to provide adequate service. He informed the Commission the developer had not submitted a water service plan. He further stated the only way the City could justify water service to Kirby Mills would be to lower the standards below that which was considered reasonable and to force further deterioration of water service to existing neighbors. He advised one of the neighbors had been told by a city staff member that Kirby Mills would be the last subdivision or major development to be approved pending further study and upgrading. He asked why they were waiting - - that the system was already substandard. He further asked that Fayetteville progress responsibility within the limits of its infrastructure and within the guidelines of a master plan. Mr. Dan Nichols, a resident of Joe Fred Starr Road, and stated a traffic count had been made on March 2 and they had come up with 606 vehicles per day. He stated it was projected that the traffic flow would increase to approximately 1,150 vehicles per day if the proposed subdivision was approved. He explained it was just an overlay road which was nice for joggers, walkers, bicyclists. He pointed out page 7 of the Photo Essay which showed a view of the edge of the road and the potholes. He advised the sanitation truck had to go off road when meeting another car. He presented a sketch showing the dimensions of the road. He noted the roadway measured from 21 feet to 15 feet in width. He requested that, before something was done down the road, something should be done with the road. He also pointed out drivers could not see pedestrian traffic on the roadway. Dr. David Grambort, an area resident, advised that simple questions, such as the direction the route of the proposed sewer lines, lift station, etc., should be addressed before approval of such a project. He asked what the remaining sewer capacity would be. He asked if there was adequate capacity for future projects? He requested assurance that private property would not be condemned. He also requested assurance there would be no raw sewage spills, as had previously happened in their area, and contamination of area ponds. He wanted to know what the County Health Department said about the area in regard to septic tanks. He also advised the residents were concerned about the cost of the sewer system development -- would the bills be presented to the developer or would the taxpayers be presented with the need for a bond issue in the near future. He stated the residents believed the Commission should have the answers to these questions before the project was approved. • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 23 Thomas Hughes, 1410 Starr Road, expressed concern with the impact the proposed addition would have on storm water runoff. He reviewed previous drainage problems of the area. He contended the development, as proposed, would only increase the magnitude of the initial storm water surges which would result in property damage and possibility create life-threatening situations. He stated the liability would fall onto the shoulders of the taxpayers of the City of Fayetteville. He requested the Commission either table or deny the proposed plat. He also requested that, when the property was developed, the City insist the developer include a surge basin on the south side of Starr Road sufficiently sized to prevent storm water damage to the property owners on the north side of the road. Ms. Nadine Chenault, an adjoining resident, advised Mr. Milholland had proposed gathering the drainage into a pond which drained onto the property to the east. She advised she had talked with Joe Tarvin regarding her concerns on the diversion of the watershed. She stated Mr. Tarvin had told her there would be no problem about the Mud Creek split flow sewer plan because the plan had been designed with the consideration that Mud Creek had a zero water flow. She further stated Mr. Tarvin had noted he would be very concerned if there were additional waters flowing on to her and her neighbors lands and also if silting occurred. She stated they perceived damage due to the increased flow to the pond and spring and asked, if the Commission approved the plan, that they condition it so the residents not have any damage. Roseanne Gonzalez, a resident of Huntington Drive, stated the greenspace for the proposed development had not been planned yet. She advised a group of concerned neighbors had brought their concerns to Parks Board on March 1. She noted the Parks Board had deferred their decision until (1) the annexation question had been decided, and (2) until the Parks board members could view the property. She advised the burden of whether to accept cash in lieu of land had been placed on the Planning Commission. She stated she felt it was of utmost importance to have planned green space. Ms. Gonzalez asked that they visualize the neighborhood and tell the residents where the 100 plus children of Kirby Mills play -- in adjacent fields, ponds, driveways on privately owned property. She stated that would create liability burden for adjoining neighbors. She asked if the children would ride bikes on Starr Drive? She stated they could not afford to double their traffic and double the number of children using Starr Drive as a playground. She asked if they would play in drainage ditches along Starr Drive. She expressed concerned about safety and welfare of the residents of Kirby Mills. She asked what would happen if the residents of Kirby Mills felt the need for and requested a greenspace area after the developer was gone. She asked the Commission to envision the entire area and ask themselves if greenspace would not help the proposed subdivision fit in better with the character of the neighborhood. • Mr. Ardemagni presented a petition signed by the neighbors expressing concern regarding the proposed subdivision, giving the reasons as inconsistency with the �a� • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 24 existing neighborhood and the possibility of placing an unacceptable burden on access routes and utilities. He advised Debbie Beckerdite had attempted to talk to Ben Caston but had been unable to do so. He further stated he had personally talked to Mel Milholland requesting the number of lots in the subdivision be reduced. He stated he had offered to meet with Mr. Milholland to review any such proposal. He stated Mr. Milholland had told him he was not sure if there was an economical way to develop the subject property with fewer lots. He stated that, after research by some of the neighbors, they believed a smaller development with larger lots could make money. He advised they would be willing to share those figures with Mr. Milholland if he so desired. Mr. Ardemagni advised they were aware the City Engineer's office was closing off all new subdivisions after Kirby Mills until they had time to further study the city's infrastructure requirements. He asked that the subject subdivision be included in that decision. He asked that the annexation, rezoning and subdivision not be approved as it was now proposed. He asked that they direct the developer to come back to the Commission and the neighboring residents with a proposed development which was consistent with the neighborhood, i.e., significantly larger lots. He asked if they were there as a member of the Commission to see that the developers in Fayetteville made profit on their developments or were they there to work with the citizens of Fayetteville to protect their health, safety and welfare. Mr. Nelson Driver, 1103 Huntington Drive, stated water pressure was a definite problem in the area. He further stated he had offered to pay to have a fire hydrant installed in front of the Chenault's property but had been told there was not adequate water pressure to do that. Ms. Nancy Long, 1577 Starr Drive, expressed concern regarding the safety on Starr Drive. She advised that it was possible to drive Starr Drive several times without incident but she had driven it thousands of times and believed it to be a very dangerous road. She stated potentially dangerous situations were routine, especially during the spring, summer and fall months when pedestrian traffic was heavy. She explained she was aware City ordinances required off-site improvements in proportion to the need created by the subdivision but they could not double the traffic on such a narrow road and expect the risks to remain the same. She advised the City staff reported conceded "there would be some problem" . She stated she did not want her four year old or five year old to be one of those problems. Mr. Milholland stated he believed it was honorable to have an opportunity to disagree with any type of a development if it were performed in an honorable way. He advised he had sent certified letters notifying the adjoining land owners of both the Subdivision Committee meeting and the subject meeting. • Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Milholland would like to comment on a lift station being used on the subject property. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 25 Mr. Milholland stated Dr. Long had commented at the Subdivision Committee meeting that it would be impossible to get an easement for sanitary sewer across Long's property and others. He further advised he had informed those present at the Subdivision Committee meeting that the entire property could be drained with a lift station at the northwest corner of lot 1 but it would increase the number of lots by four or five. He noted it was apparent there would not be any cooperation from adjoining property owners for an easement so they would have to put in a lift station. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland advised the lift station would be located adjacent to the south right-of-way of Starr Drive on the northwest corner of lot 1. Mr. Suchecki asked if lots 1, 2, 50, 51, and 52 would be further developed. Mr. Milholland stated that was correct. He showed a copy of a proposal and advised staff the adjoining property owners were aware of this possibility. Mr. Suchecki stated there was no access to the high pressure line from Hyland Park to the subject development. He asked if there could be a problem in getting the line to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Bunn advised the developer would have to get the easements. He stated they would not recommend property be condemned for the developer. Nelson Driver urged the Commission to contact Rick Johnson, County Sanitarian, for his view on any additional septic systems in the area. He advised Mr. Johnson was against septic systems in that area because the ground would not perk. Mr. Dick Rogers stated he believed the development was a nice one for Fayetteville and one that was needed. He advised he had personally met with many of the neighboring residents and had been told they did not want to meet with him or Mr. Milholland. Ms. Little stated she had received a hand delivered letter from the Hyland Park Home Owners Association dated March 22, addressed to Mr. Sid Norbash, City Engineering Department. She read the letter, as follows: "Our neighborhood met, as a home owners' association, with a representative of the property owners east of our development. The subject was the proposed subdivision off Joe Fred Starr Road and the impact such a development might have on: (1) existing water pressures and fire fighting capability in our subdivision; and (2) future expansion of the existing water system to permit more development east of Fayetteville. "I related to the association the assurances received from you by telephone, following our earlier office meeting, on Thursday, March 18, 1993. It is my understanding the proposed subdivision will represent 2$ or less of the total water usage in our existing water coverage. I further understand that there should be no discernable loss of water volume or pressure as a result of adding these 50 to 60 proposed homes. Your tests revealed 60 psi at our hydrants with a low of 40 psi under fire flow conditions from the highest fire hydrant, located on Boston Mountain �a� • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 26 View. I understand that with our new line (opened across my property and the Martin property) coupled with the upgrade of pumps on Sequoyah Mountain in Hyland Park, our water pressure will not be adversely affected by increased water usage in this area for at least 4 to 5 years. I also understand that no further large scale developments or subdivisions will be approved on this system pending further study by the City. "After hearing from the representative of the property owners on Joe Fred Starr Road, to the east of us, our association has determined that this is not our fight. We are content to rely upon the representations of our City Government as to the probable impact on this area, and see no reason to oppose development east of Fayetteville. "However, we remain adamant about the prospect of a water tower in our neighborhood and would firmly request that future developments include an obligation on the developer to provide adequate water and sewer facilities for his/her development. We have every reason to believe that water storage facilities and pumping stations, erected at the expense of a developer, would be more than adequate to assure orderly growth with minimal impact on long time users of the system. "We remain vitally interested and concerned about the growth of Fayetteville and its impact upon our living conditions and property. Accordingly, we anticipate that the City will notify us in the future of developments that might adversely affect our status and permit us the opportunity to review the same and determine our involvement in the process. That would include, I am sure, any future plans that would involve water storage facilities on the top of this mountain. "Sid, I appreciate your assistance, your candor and your cooperation. Rest assured that this association supports the growth of Fayetteville, recognizes the probable growth area to the east, and is in favor of orderly, planned development. We certainly look forward to a continued dialogue with the city and your department in the future." She stated it was signed by Tilden P. Wright, III, President of the Hyland Park Home Owners Association. Ms Britton stated there was a particular piece of property adjacent to the drainage ditch carrying water northward. She stated she assumed that, if the property were developed, the culvert would be increased to accommodate flow and the ditch would be improved. She asked if the city could do that since it was on someone else's property and not in city limits. Mr. Bunn explained it could be done with the proper easements. He further explained this would fall into the same category as any other easement required for the development. He stated that, if an easement were required for development and was not obtainable, the property could not be developed. Ms. Britton asked if the same volume of water could be dealt with by detaining it on the south side of the road in a pond so the flow would not increase • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 27 Mr. Bunn stated that was a possibility but the detailed drainage plans had not been put together He pointed out there were two ponds already in the vicinity, one of which was upstream and one immediately downstream. He advised he did not know if a third pond would contribute to the flow situation but it would be looked at in the preparation of the detailed plan for the drainage. Mr. Nickle asked if existing ordinances gave the Planning Commission discretion to increase the size of the lots to reflect those in adjacent areas. Ms. Little stated the ordinance specified a maximum density but not a minimum density; it was not within their authority to require larger lots. She explained the law was restrictive not prescriptive. Mr. Reynolds asked the city owned any property in the area that could be used for a future park. Ms. Little advised the city owned approximately 13 acres near Highway 45, east of Starr Drive. She stated it was not city park land. Mr. Bunn explained the land could be developed in any way the city wished. Mr. Reynolds asked how far it was from the subject development. Mr. Bunn stated it was adjacent to St. Joseph Cemetery. Mr. Springborn stated several years ago a similar situation arose regarding density of a subdivision. He explained the Commission had rejected the proposed development and it had been appealed to the City Board. He noted the developer offered a less dense development, the Board returned it to the Planning Commission, and it had been approved. He advised it could be handled; it had been handled previously so a precedent had been set. Ms. Little advised the developer had already voluntarily, by platting the land, reduced the maximum density. She noted the developer had several other options, including offering a voluntary Bill of Assurance. She explained the Planning Commission was strictly prohibited from requiring a Bill of Assurance, it was illegal. She also pointed out that the citizens concerned about the green space lived in the County which did not provide for greenspace fees. She explained that, when they looked at subdivisions in the city's growth area, the greenspace ordinance was not enforced. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the annexation, subject to county approval. Ms. Britton asked if the Kirby property (that was not originally described) was included. Mr. Allred stated he was. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 28 Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Britton noted the property was now A-1. She asked if the petitioner had the option of withdrawing the rezoning if they rezoned the property to R-1 and then did not approve the plat. Ms. Little stated it would depend upon the timeframe when the petitioner requested that action. She explained if the rezoning question had been decided by the City Council and had matured 30 days by being filed at the court, the applicant would have to petition for rezoning of the property. She also noted they would be disallowed from doing that for one year. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to rezone the property to R-1, subject to the approval of the annexation. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Britton, Suchecki, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Reynolds and Nickle voting "no". Mr. Nickle stated he believed they had the right to require larger lots and, in this particular case, there had been sufficient evidence submitted that they should require larger lots than those proposed. He stated he would like to see the number of lots in the development reduced. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Nickle suggested half of the density that had been proposed. He then suggested limiting the number of lots to 26. Mr. Springborn stated he did not like to see this come down to a black and white situation where they were trying to tell the developer how many lots he should have. He expressed his belief that, with the representation present, the number of lots was certainly a consideration. He noted the spokesman for the neighborhood group had indicated they were more than willing to work out an acceptable development with the developer. He stated he would like to see that opportunity explored. He suggested that, rather than making a decision at this time, they table the matter until the next meeting to give the residents and developer an opportunity to work this matter out. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to table the preliminary plat. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. /01 • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 29 The motion failed 2-6-0 with Commissioners Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, Mr. Allred asked if they had the right to square foot minimum. % Hugo, born and BrittonandNicvotinklevogti"nyes" and Cato, Reynolds, g "no". require larger lots sizes than the 8,000 Mr. Little explained the regulation allowed the developer, under R-1 zoning, to develop up to four units per acre. She further explained their only other consideration was compatible lot size and compatible development. She noted they were comparing county development (septic tank development) which required a minimum of 2 acres in order to be developed to a subdivision within the City Limits. She advised the large acre homes in the area had been originally developed on septic tanks and that was the reason the acreage is so large in that area. She stated the developer had proposed development of the subdivision with less lots if the City was willing to take a substandard street. She advised she was not willing to take a substandard street; that the City was looking at a substandard street as access to the proposed subdivision. Ms. Little advised the Commission they were placing themselves in legal jeopardy by requiring something they did not have the authority to require. Mr. Cato asked if the subdivision could be denied based on incompatibility of lot sizes. Ms. Little explained the sewer question would be a very big factor in the legal decision if this matter came before the Court. She stated the Commission could take whatever action they believed was the right thing to do but it could be challenged in Court and it would be up to the judge to make the decision. Mr. Allred stated the subdivision met all of the city requirements. Ms. Little advised there were still some details to be worked out. Mr. Allred asked if the subdivision, subject to the details listed in staff reports, met all the requirements. Ms. Little stated the subdivision more than met what the city required at preliminary plat stage. She further stated there were still some areas which required work, detailed plans, which normally occurred after the preliminary plat stage. She explained at preliminary plat stage the developer was given the assurance that provided they could get the easements and make the necessary required improvements, they would receive approval for the final plat. She further stated this freed the developer up to invest more heavily in the development. Mr. Allred expressed his belief there was no ground to compromise on this development and he believed that was unfortunate. He stated the neighboring residents had stated they were not opposed to development of the subject property but he believed they were. He stated he would like to figure out a way to make this development a win situation for the entire city, not just one particular area. He advised they needed to look at the entire area of the eastern side of the city. 139-- • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 30 MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat but limit the number of lots to a maximum of 26. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Mr. Cato asked if they would have legal problems if they limited the number of lots. Mr. Bunn and Ms. Little both advised that, if the motion were challenged by the developer, they could have legal problems. Ms. Britton asked if the developer could not come back with a revised plat should the plat be denied. Ms. Little stated he could. The motion failed 2-6-0 with Commissioners Nickle and Springborn voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Britton, Suchecki, Cato and Reynolds voting "no". MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the subdivision as presented, subject to staff comments. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the preliminary plat as submitted. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Britton, Suchecki, Cato, Reynolds and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred and Pummill voting "no" . X33 • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 31 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HORSESHOE ADDITION RICHARD & JENNIFER BUNDRICK - S OF SYCAMORE, W OF PORTER The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Horseshoe Addition presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Richard and Jennifer Bundrick for property located south of Sycamore, west of Porter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-1.5 (proposed R93-9), Moderate Density Residential, and contains 17.36 acres with 59 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the development was planned to be a combination of single family dwellings and duplexes. He noted the utility company representatives had several requests regarding the location of easements and crossings prior to construction. He advised the owner had agreed to make the changes and crossings as requested. He stated most of the staff comments had concerned the accesses to the subdivision from Sycamore Street, as well as access to Megan Drive to the south. He pointed out the subdivision to the south had been approved subject to an eventual tie to other development to the north and a 50 -foot right-of-way had been provided for that purpose. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee's discussion had also been about what accesses would be required, particularly to the south onto Megan Drive. He noted • the Committee had voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission without a recommendation. • He explained an issue that had not been discussed either in the Plat Review meeting or in the Subdivision Committee meeting was improvements to Sycamore Street. He further explained staff believed the developer should be responsible for improvements to Sycamore Street in an amount equivalent to the cost of improving one-half of Sycamore Street adjacent to Lot 48. He pointed out no actual improvements would take place adjacent to Lot 48 since it was next to the Bypass. He further explained other monies for Sycamore Street improvements would come from Bills of Assurances taken from developers along Sycamore and possibly from the City. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage, and approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances; construction of a street to tie into Megan Drive to the south; and improvements to Sycamore Street as previously discussed. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained he would expect the improvements to Sycamore to be done along with the subdivision development. He further explained the intent was to call the Bills of Assurance the City currently had and actually construct the street. Ms. Little explained there were currently two outstanding Bills of Assurance. • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 32 Mr. Gray stated he concurred with most of the staff comments. He explained the developer had several meetings with the adjoining property owners on Megan Drive. He advised the both the residents and the developer preferred the connection to Megan Drive not be made but, due to safety considerations, understood if the Commission deemed it necessary. Ms. Britton asked if the subject development would be responsible for paving the total connection to Megan. Mr. Gray stated it was his understanding the developer would pay for that portion within the Horseshoe Addition and the remaining portion would be based on rational nexus. He advised in the past that had meant 50$. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments, including the easement on lot 15. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 13( • • • Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 33 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-11 (TANDEM LOT) BILL FUGITT - N OF KANTZ LN , W OF BALL AVE. The next item was a conditional use for a tandem lot submitted by Bill Fugitt, represented by Kim Fugitt, for property located on the north side of Kantz Lane, west of Ball Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the request was for a tandem lot approval on proposed Lot 11C of the Royal Oaks Estates. He explained the lot would be created by the administrative approval of three lot splits being submitted by the owner for the original Lot 11. He stated the administrative decision as to whether to approval of the splits was being delayed until a Planning Commission decision was made on the tandem lot request. He advised the lots to be created by the proposed splits ranged in size from 0.34 acres to 0.55 acres, with the tandem lot being 0.55 acres. He noted the splits did not create lots that were incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood as far as size was concerned, nor did it appear that the proposed tandem lot created a problem. He explained that, because of the common area, there would be a 50 -foot setback on the north and a 30 -foot setback on the east. He noted normal setbacks for tandem lots were 30 feet all around the property. Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission this item had been tabled at their last meeting in order to allow the developer to meet with the Property Owners Association and to verify the common area left in the subdivision met with City requirements for a Planned Unit Development. He advised the remaining common area did met City requirements. He recommended approval of the request. Mr. Bill Fugitt assured the Commission they planned to construct only a single family home on the lots. He stated he had met with the Property Owners Association. Mr. Kevin Wilson, a property owner in Royal Oaks Estates, stated there had been a misunderstanding previously; that none of the residents were opposed to the lot splits nor the tandem lot. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • r Planning Commission March 22, 1993 Page 34 OTHER BUSINESS: Planning Workshop Ms. Little advised the Commission the Planning staff was planning a workshop for the Commission and City Council members on Saturday, March 27 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building. Land Use Plan Ms. Little stated that on April 16 and 17 Al Raby would be in Fayetteville to present the draft of the Land Use Plan. Tree Ordinance Ms. Little stated the Commission had minutes of the Compromise Committee meeting together with a marked up draft. She explained there had been discussion to send the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further action but she had discouraged that. She recommended the Commissioners give any comments to the planning staff, which would be forwarded to the Compromise Committee, or to Fred Vorsanger. 131