Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 26, 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, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Joe Tarvin and Kenneth Pummill Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the April 26, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-19 CEI ENGINEERING - OFF LONGVIEW, W OF NORTH COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-19 for property located off Longview, on the west side of North College Avenue, submitted by CEI Engineering. The request is to rezone 22.03 acres from A-1, Agricultural; R -O, Residential Office; and R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Mr. Conklin advised the Commission the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop a retail commercial development on the entire site. He explained there were a total of 13 recorded parcels involved as part of the rezoning application. He noted the applicant proposed to replat the entire site and consolidate the existing parcels into one large tract of land. He explained that currently the site was developed with six single family homes, Jim Ray Mitsubishi, and Brad's Exxon Station. He noted all existing structures on the site would be demolished and/or removed; no current land uses would remain on the site. He noted the applicant had purchased or had the option to purchase the entire tract. He noted that A-1, R-1, and R -O did not allow commercial development. He further explained the type of commercial uses allowed within C-2 zoning districts included offices, restaurants, hotels, local and regional shopping goods, auto sales, and commercial recreation establishments. He pointed out the adjacent zoning to the north was A-1, C-2, R -O; to the south C-2; to the east C-2 and R -O; and to the west A-1 and R-2. Mr. Conklin explained the adjacent land use included commercial and residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the east and south, and vacant land and residential to the west. He advised access to the site was from North College and would require improvements by the developer as a condition of large scale development approval. He also noted water and sewer were available to the site. He pointed out there was a 6 -inch water line located along North College and a 6 -inch sewer line located within the site. He advised the 1970 Land Use Plan designated the subject property as low density residential; however, development patterns had tended to concentrate commercial uses along Highway 71B and along Hammerschmidt Expressway. He explained that, if the request was approved, it would abut commercial development both to the north and east. 155 • • • Plannigg Commission April 1R, 1993 Page 2 IQ Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He explained the proposed rezoning would not adversely affect adjacent development and would be compatible with surrounding zoning districts. Mr. Mark Westberg, CEI Engineering, appeared before the Commission and introduced Ted Frumpton, representing the client. Ms. Britton asked if the 22 acres was the total amount of property to be developed. Mr. Westberg advised a small portion of the property was already zoned C-2. Mr. Conklin stated the portion already zoned C-2 did have frontage on North College. Me. Britton asked if the project included the A-1 property to the north and west of the subject rezonings. She expressed concern that the only access to the subject property would be from College Avenue. She stated she would like to see some alternate routes for ingress/egress other than College Avenue. She was advised that property was owned by the Washington Regional Medical Center and probably would be developed within the next five years. Mr. Frumpton stated they had conducted meetings with the hospital group and were in the process of negotiating with Washington Regional for an alternate access through North Hills Medical Center to the bypass. He advised they had not completed that negotiation at this time. He presented a plan showing access to the bypass. Mr. Nickle advised there was a significant drainage area going through the subject property. Mr. Springborn expressed concern with one humongous development. development would contribute to believed they could go too far in and this was an example of going they were wiping out a lot of small business He further stated he did not believe this the way the City was growing. He advised he the direction of concentrated shopping centers too far. Mr. Nickle stated his only concern, assuming the drainage was taken care of, was controlled access. Ms. Little advised she had preliminary discussions which indicated they would have traffic signals. She noted that was also being requested by the Fire Chief since there was a fire station in the vicinity that needed some signalization. Ms. Britton pointed out there would be a lot of traffic lights in a row -- Stearns, Rolling Hills, etc. She stated that, if the lights were not synchronized, the traffic would not flow but would be a bottleneck. Ms. Little informed her the City had an application in for a grant to computerize the signalization on College which would greatly aid the traffic flow. Ms. Britton advised she would like to see the motion reflect some restriction on the development if another access was not provided. Mr. Springborn asked if there was a limit to the number of accesses onto College. Me. Little Department. some of the advised that was under the jurisdiction of the State Highway She noted the preliminary plans for this project would eliminate accesses onto College. • • • Planning Commission April %Q, 1993 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to accept the rezoning with staff recommendations and providing an alternate access other than to the east. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Suchecki, Cato, Reynolds, and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioner Springborn voting "no". ISI • • • Planning Commission Aprill�1/4/ 1993 Page 4 /7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDARPOINT SUBDIVISION DOY GILLIHAN - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD., W OF CURTIS AVE The next item was a preliminary plat for Cedarpoint Subdivision submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of Doy Gillihan for property located on the south side of Huntsville Road, west of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 12.91 acres with 37 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised staff had suggested some substantial changes in the layout of the plat to eliminate some "through" lots and to extend Curtis Avenue further to the north instead of constructing the planned cul-de-sac off of the street tying into Huntsville Road. She noted other staff comments had involved the placement of street lights, fire hydrants, and the water line connections. She stated the utility company representatives had asked for some revised easement locations and crossings due to the anticipated changes in the plat layout. Ms. Little explained staff was recommending the preliminary plat be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage plans; submittal and approval of a drainage and grading plan for the subdivision; payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinances; and off-site improvements to Huntsville Road, or a contract for delayed improvements to Huntsville Road. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained Curtis Avenue was currently undeveloped at that point. Mr. Leonard Gabbard stated he would be happy to answer any of their questions. Ms. Little advised she had received a telephone call from the manager of the apartment complex to the south stating they did not want to see Curtis Avenue extended because one unit of the apartments was located to the east of Curtis Avenue. Ms. Judy Eagle, manager of the Southmont Apartments, expressed concern regarding the traffic and the separation of the one unit. She explained the street currently dead ended. She presented a plot plan of the apartment complex and surrounding area. Mr. Conklin advised Curtis Avenue was a platted right-of-way which had never been developed. There was discussion regarding the American Legion ballpark in the area and the traffic generated by the ballgamee. Ms. Britton suggested a cul-de-sac rather than a dead end. Mr. Conklin explained there had originally been another street and cul-de-sac in the proposed subdivision but, the developer had agreed to trade that street and cul-de-sac for the improvement of Curtis Street. He further explained they were using the funds they would have spent on the cul-de-sac to improve Curtis. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. �5� • • • Plann'ng Commission April,, 1993 Page 5 ,vg CONDITIONAL USE cU93-15 (ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USE) TOMMY & LETHA GLENN - 1733 N. CROSSOVER ROAD The next item was a request for a conditional use for accessory residential use submitted by Tommy and Letha Glenn for property located at 1733 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the site currently was developed with two structures, one of which has been lived in by the applicants since 1973. He advised the. applicants had started their wholesale bakery business in the house located behind their residence in September of 1992 and the business had now outgrown the structure. He further explained the applicants now desired to have a wholesale and retail bakery in the house that was closest to the street and live in the other house. He noted the current residential use was allowed to exist within the front structure as a legal nonconforming use, since the use never had been discontinued. He explained the applicants had proposed to develop a paved parking area in the front of the first house if the conditional use was granted. He noted the applicant had been advised that a building permit would be required for any structural changes in either structure including a site plan showing the number of spaces and location of the paved parking area. He pointed out the property to the north and west was vacant, to the south was a church, and to the east was single family homes. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested condition use to allow the establishment of an accessory residential use in a C-1 zoning district. He explained the granting of the conditional use would not adversely affect the public interest and would be compatible with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Mr. Allred pointed out that basically the applicants were just swapping the uses of the two structures. Mr. Reynolds asked if the applicant had agreed to improve the sign. He advised he had a problem with the sign in the front of the structures. Mr. Tommy Glenn stated the current sign was just a temporary sign and he had plans to put up a permanent sign. He further noted it was his intention to pave the parking. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Glenn explained they had not set any hours of operation for the retail. He stated it would probably be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. Mr. Reynolds asked if the upstairs of the front building would be used as a residence. Mr. Glenn assured him it would not be used as a residence. Me. Little advised the applicants were allowed to use the upstairs as a residence, that it was allowed under C-1 zoning. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission April, 1993 Page 6 LOT SPLIT i1 & CONDITIONAL USE C093-16 (TANDEM LOT) ROBERT & SERENA BABCOCK - 834 N. ASH The next item on the agenda was a request for a lot split and a conditional use for a tandem lot on property located at 834 East Ash submitted by Robert and Serena Babcock. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little explained the split and tandem lot being requested at this time was similar in nature to those approved by the Planning Commission in December of 1990. She noted a copy of the memorandums from the previous submittals and minutes from the Planning Commission meetings had been included with their agendas. She explained the changes were (1) the size of the tandem lot had been decreased from 1.44 acres to 0.63 acres, and (2) the front tract had been reduced in size from 0.60 acres to 0.44 acres. She advised the reasons for the reduction was that some of the property on the north end of the original tract had been sold to adjoining neighbors and the front tract was reduced to get more area for the proposed tandem lot. She stated both lots being created by the split met the R-1 requirements for size. She advised there had been considerable comment from the adjoining neighbors when this matter was reviewed in 1990. She stated most of the comments had been concerning drainage and neighborhood disruption. Ms. Little stated staff was presenting the tandem lot and lot split application without recommendation to the Planning Commission. She further stated that, if the split and tandem lot were approved, the staff did request the following conditions: (1) the payment of one parks fee, and (2) the construction of a sidewalk along Ash Street adjacent to both properties. She also pointed out a letter submitted by the petitioner. Mr. Nickle pointed out the went half of lot 3 would be the most impacted by the tandem lot. He asked if those people had been notified. Me. Little assured him they had been notified. Me. Serena Babcock explained the previous owner had received approval of the lot split and tandem lot but had failed to file the deed. She advised two real estate agents, an attorney, and an abstract company had been involved when she purchased the property but none of them had discovered the deed had not been filed. She stated the City Planning Office had discovered the deed had not been filed and advised her to seek a re -approval of the lot split and tandem lot. She further advised there had been no opposition from the neighbors. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Allred, Nickle, Suchecki, Cato and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioner Reynolds voting "no". MOTION Me. Britton moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Allred, Nickle, Suchecki, Cato and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioner Reynolds voting "no". (109 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 7 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 GREENS - ANDERSON ENTERPRISES - 2233 GREEN ACRES ROAD The next item was a request for a lot split submitted by Greene - Anderson Enterprises for property located at 2233 Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little explained this was a request for a first split of property in the Colt Square Subdivision south of Township and west of North College. She noted the original tract was 0.88 acres and the proposal was to split the property to. create one tract of 0.32 acres and another tract of 0.56 acres. She advised both lots would be legal lots and conform to the subdivision and zoning regulations. She further noted it appeared that easements for water and sewer (and perhaps some other utilities) would have to be given off of the lot fronting Green Acres Road together with a permanent access easement for the back property. Ms. Little advised it was the recommendation of the staff that the split be approved subject to the granting of the necessary utility and access easements, both private and public. Mr. Mike Greene stated he was present to answer any questions they might have. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. a • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS: Drainage Problem Ms. Little advised the Commission Mr. Harry Ainsworth had contacted her regarding a drainage problem. She explained he lived in the vicinity of the Pratt Woods Subdivision. She stated he had asked to speak to the Planning Commission regarding his drainage concerns. Mr. Ainsworth explained there was a drainage problem downhill from the property owned by Julian Archer (Pratt Woods Subdivision). He reminded the Commission he had questioned the drainage flow when they had approved the plat for Pratt Woods. He explained he had, a year ago, put in a new retaining wall made of railroad ties between his property and the subdivision. He advised the railroad ties had begun to buckle since the land above had been cleared for utility easements. He stated there was a potential of great harm to his property should the wall collapse. He asked what he should do. Ms. Little explained Mr. Ainsworth had visited her office late that afternoon and she had tried to contact the project engineer, Harry Gray. She stated Mr. Gray was out of his office. She noted she had explained to Mr. Ainsworth that, since the subdivision had been approved, the City could require the developer to do everything he said he would do within the drainage plan but, beyond that, it would be between the property owners. She stated she would try to get Mr. Ainsworth together with Mr. Gray and the City Engineering staff. Mr. Cato requested that, after the meeting with Mr. Gray and Mr. Bunn, Ms. Little keep the Commission advised regarding the disposition of this matter. In response to a comment from Ms. Britton, Me. Little explained there was a new assistant in the Engineering Department who was responsible enforcing the grading ordinance, which included stabilizing the soil. She noted that would be included in the building ordinance. eba • • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1993 Page 9 Sidewalks Ms. Little advised the Planning Office continued to receive requests from people who believed they had extenuating circumstances which would not allow them to install sidewalks. She noted these were not in new developments but in existing areas. She explained that, in speaking with the Mayor regarding this problem, he suggested the Planning Commission set up a Sidewalk Subcommittee to hear the special requests and determine whether a sidewalk would be required. The Planning Commission determined this could be a function of the Subdivision Committee rather than having another subcommittee. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved that sidewalk requests be considered at the regularly scheduled Subdivision Committee meetings. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Drainage Ordinance Ms. Britton stated the City had a grading ordinance but did not have a drainage ordinance. She expressed her belief they needed a drainage ordinance. Ms. Little advised the Engineering Department was working toward that ordinance and she was pleased with the work being done in that area. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.