Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 14, 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, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki, J. R. Springborn, Chuck Mickley Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Joe Tarvin and Jett Cato Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the May 24, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R93-28, R93-29, R93-30 & R93-31 DENNIS SMITH & HOWARD & DIXIE CAIN - SE CORNER OLD WIRE & CROSSOVER The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezonings R93-28, R93-29, R93-30, and R93-31 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Dennis Smith (R93-28 and R93-29) and Howard and Dixie Cain (R93-30 and R93-31) for property located at the southeast corner of Old Wire and Crossover Road. Item R93-28 is a request to rezone 1.8 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; item R93-29 is a request to rezone 0.25 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential - Office; Item R93-30 is a request to rezone 3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; and Item R93-31 is a request to rezone 5.3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential - Office. Mr. Harry Gray advised the Commission he would like to table this matter until there was a full Planning Commission. He pointed out two members were absent and a rezoning would take an affirmative vote by five members. Mr. Springborn informed the Commission there had been a special study made on the subject area by Larry Wood in approximately 1985 He stated that, while the Planning Office did not have a copy of that study, Larry Wood did confirm his memory of the study. He stated he was in favor of tabling the matter until they had a copy of that study. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to table the matter. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. /98' • • • Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SOUTHWOODS SUBDIVISION DREW SPURLOCK - W OF HAPPY HOLLOW RD., N OF HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Southwoods Subdivision presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Drew Spurlock. The property is located on the west side of Happy Hollow Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 6.9 acres with 15 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised it was the intent of the owner to ask for a conditional use for duplexes on all of the lots, even though there might be duplexes only on those lots facing Happy Hollow. He stated none of the utility company representatives had any significant comments at the Plat Review meeting other than to request additional easements. He noted there might need to be a relocation of the power line located on the property. He stated staff remarks included comments on the need for a tree preservation plan, additional right-of-way on Happy Hollow Road, drainage, and the maximum street grades. Mr. Bunn noted there had been some discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting on the request for a conditional use for duplexes on the lots, the right- of-way requirement on Happy Hollow Road, and the tree ordinance. He advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended forwarding the plat to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, street, and drainage construction; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the subdivision; dedication of a 40 -foot right-of-way on Happy Hollow Road (from the centerline of the road) in lieu of the requirement to contribute to the widening of Happy Hollow Road to city street standards; payment of parks fees and construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances; and a notation on the plat of the lots which would require a grading plan under the city ordinances. He noted the conditions of approval were not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other city, state, or federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. Mr. Allred, as Chair of the Subdivision Committee, advised they had discussed the conditional use for the duplexes in conjunction with the proposed development to the north. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the conditional use for the duplexes would be heard separately. Ms. Little noted the conditional use request would be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Britton asked what type of notification was used for conditional uses. Ms. Little explained there was a sign on the property and the adjacent property owners were notified by certified letters. Mr. Gray explained the plat was for single family homes with a conditional use scheduled to come before the Commission at their next meeting. Mr. Guy Barnes, 325 Happy Hollow Road, Ron Hollingshead and Albert E. King, adjoining property owners, stated they were opposed to duplexes. In response to comments from Mr. King, Ms. Little explained the notification 89 Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 3 process and who would be notified for the conditional use request. Me. Britton asked if the PUD planned to the north of the subject property touched this property. Me. Little advised it did not. Me. Britton stated that, while the terrain to the west looked very steep, she did not like cul-de-sacs. She pointed out it was feasible that the Taylor property would be developed in the future and there would be reason for an access through between lots 7 and 8. Me. Little explained that had been considered at plat review but the terrain was very steep. Me. Britton pointed out the elevation was not going up and down but with the terrain. She expressed her belief it would be a mistake to not get more access. She stated cul-de-sacs were a security risk as far as police and fire services. Mr. Gray advised it had been a surprise to him that Happy Hollow Road was principal arterial and was planned to be a 4 or 5 lane road. NOTION Me. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat with the condition that right- of-way be dedicated between lots 7 and 8. Mr. Springborn stated he believed that was a good point; there were a lot of cul- de-sacs in Fayetteville. He stated he believed they should take advantage of the potential of tying streets together. He seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Britton, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, and Reynolds voting "no". NOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments, as presented. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Nickle voting "no". ,0 Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 4 FINAL PLAT - WALNUT VIEW ESTATES, PHASE I CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO - E & W SIDE OF SALEM, N OF BUCKEYE The next item was a final plat for Walnut View Estates, Phase I, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Castle Development Company for property located on the east and west sides of Salem Road, north of Buckeye Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 15.49 acres with 58 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the preliminary plat for this subdivision had been approved in June, 1992, and consisted of 80 lots on 21.4 acres. He stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting. He advised staff remarks included comments on the availability of cable service, the applicability of parks fees on the subdivision, and the requirement to pave the stub -out to the west. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended the final plat be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; the execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished public improvements, including street lights, and the paving of the stub -out to the west; payment of parks fees, if found applicable; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with staff comments and city ordinances. He further advised the conditions of approval were not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other city, state, or federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. He explained the reason parks fees might not be found to be applicable was because part of the property in the subject area was covered by donation by Brice Davis for Davie Park. He advised the Parks Department was researching the matter. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little pointed out the location. of the Davis Park property. Mr. Nickle asked if there were plans to develop the property to the north. Mr. Gray advised Phase II would be developed to the north in the near future. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. go/ Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 5 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 JERRY MOYER - 3574 E. ZION ROAD The next item was a request for a first lot split submitted by Jerry Moyer for property located at 3574 East Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. The applicant requested this item be tabled for 2 weeks. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to table the item. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 0? Dot • • • Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 6 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #2 HOYET GREENWOOD ESTATE - SE CORNER OF WEDINGTON & MARVIN The next item was a request for lot split #2 submitted by Kirk Elsass on behalf of the Hoyet Greenwood Estate for property located on the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Martin. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split a 4.09 acre tract into two lots, one containing 1.41 acres with the remaining tract containing 2.68 acres. He noted there was also a question regarding sewer service for this property and that matter would have to be settled before they could have sewer. He recommended approval of the lot split subject to a survey of the property by a surveyor registered within the State of Arkansas. Ms. Britton stated she would like to see an access easement through lot split No. 2 so that someone coming from Maple Manor Apartments would not have to go out onto Wedington to access the center piece of property. Mr. Elsass stated that had already been done. He stated he believed it was a 25 - foot easement. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve lot split #2 subject to staff comments, including an access easement. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ao3 • • • Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 7 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 AND #1 (TWO FIRST SPLITS) PETER HEINZELNANN - 2947 & 2885 HOWARD NICELE ROAD The next item was a request for two lot splits submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Peter Heinzelmann for property located at 2947 and 2885 Howard Nickle Road and is outside the city limits. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for two lot splits within the Hayes Addition, which had been approved in April, 1991. He advised the lots proposed to be split were adjacent to each other and together created a double "tandem lot" situation with a total of 60 feet of access easement for the two back lots. He advised the city's tandem lot ordinance did not apply since the properties were outside the City Limits. He stated that, in both cases, the original lot was approximately 4.2 acres and the lot being split off consisted of 2.04 acres. He stated water was available to all of the lots off of Howard Nickle Road but no sewer was available. He further advised the county had approved both of the splits in May of this year. He recommended approval of both lot splits. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the easement was 30 feet from each property, making it 60 feet wide. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve lot split #1 on Lot 3 subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve lot split #1 on Lot 4 subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission June 14, 1993 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS Televised Planning Commission Meetings Ms. Little advised each Planning Commissioner had received a letter from Shea Crain regarding televising the Planning Commission meetings. She stated she had discussed the matter with Mayor Hanna and it was the Planning Commission's decision as to whether the meetings would be broadcast. Mr. Nickle stated he would like to see a full quorum present before making that decision. Subdivision Lawsuit Ms. Little also pointed out they had received a copy of a case requested by Mr. Springborn. She stated the City Attorney, Jerry Rose, had provided her with a copy of the case. She explained the case dealt with a person who had a subdivision which met the requirements of the subdivision regulations but had been turned down by the Little Rock Planning Commission and ended up in court. Mr. Springborn stated he had also discussed this matter with Mr. Rose and had the benefit of the University professor on land use. He advised both the professor and Mr. Rose agreed the logic and arguments he had set forth had merit. He noted the arguments against it referred to the more conventional interpretation which had a little more merit. He asked the Commission to take that into consideration when they read the case. He advised the subject case made the more conventional interpretation more meritorious. He stated it might be, if the Commission wanted the benefit of Jerry Rose's comments at the time they considered the case, that he did not believe Mr. Rose would be adverse to speaking to them. Ms. Little advised she would ask Mr. Rose to attend the next meeting.