Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 28, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MUMS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Jett Cato, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle (left early), Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES The minutes of PUBLIC HEARING DENNIS SMITH & Joe Tarvin and Kenneth Pummill Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others the June 14, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. - REZONINGS R93-28, R93-29, R93-30 & R93-31 HOWARD & DI%IE 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-0, 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-0, Residential - Office. Mr. Conklin advised the subject site was currently undeveloped and the applicant desired to develop a neighborhood commercial area on the property closest to the intersection surrounded by a buffer area of residential/office use. He pointed out the adjacent zoning was R-1 to both the north and west and A-1 property to the south and east. He covered the permitted uses in both residential - office and neighborhood commercial zoning. He stated the adjacent land use was vacant to the north, residential to both the south and east and park lands to the west. He noted water and sewer were available to serve the site with an 8 -inch water line along Old Wire Road and a 12 -inch line along Crossover Road. He stated there was an 18 -inch sewer line along the creek and a 24 -inch force main along Crossover Road. He pointed out access to the site was from Highway 265/Crossover Road, a principal arterial, and from Old Wire Road, a collector street. Mr. Conklin advised the 1970 General Land Use Plan had designated the subject property as Low Density Residential, Open Space along the creek, and Medium Density Residential along the eastern border. He stated this intersection was the only major intersection along Crossover Road that did not have any neighborhood commercial zoning. He noted that, establishing neighborhood commercial uses at the intersection of a principal arterial and a collector street would provide a suitable land use that would be compatible with the amount of traffic and noise that was expected once Crossover Road was widened to four lanes. He recommended approval of the requested rezonings. He stated the proposed C-1 zoning would provide the needed neighborhood commercial uses for the existing and planned residential development on the east side of town. He advised that approximately 400 lots had been created on the northeast side of Fayetteville in the past 1 1/2 years. 949 • e Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Harry Gray concurred with staff's comments regarding the increased number of residences in the area. He advised there was a need for commercial zoning. He noted the closest commercial zoning was Highways 265 and 45, which was 1 1/4 mile south and Joyce Street and Highway 265, a mile to the north. He also stated the northwest corner had a sewer lift station. Mr. Charles Pentz, 2880 Crossover Road, asked if anyone had done a traffic count on Highway 265. He advised there had been a vast increase in the traffic on Highway 265 in the last three years. Ms. Alett Little, Planning Director, advised traffic counts had been completed as a part of the Deshazo study in 1992. She noted she did not have that information with her but it was available in her office. Mr. Pentz cited heavy traffic rezoning. He also pointed out He advised Highway 265 had an Ms. Little directed Mr. Pentz of the creek. on Highway 265 as a reason for opposition to the the map showed the creek to be in the wrong place. 80 foot right-of-way at Old Wire Road. to an agenda attachment showing a better location Mr. Pentz explained that commercial zoning and residential -office zoning would have a lot of concrete for parking which would cause more drainage problems. He advised they would have serious water problems on the two-lane bridge. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Pentz advised he objected to all four rezonings. He noted that, when he had purchased his home, he had been told there would be no commercial development in his neighborhood. Mr. Lloyd Boling, 2360 Crossover Road, spoke in opposition to the rezonings citing heavy traffic as one of his reasons for opposition. He advised they should take a cautious approach to piecemealing and spot zoning. He expressed his opinion that Old Wire and Highway 265 was not a major intersection. He stated his neighbor, Murphy Taylor, was also opposed. Dorothy Pentz stated Riley Skillern had not wanted to rezone his property to commercial but was doing it as a favor to Dennis Smith. She spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Little advised the property referenced by Ms. Pentz was R93-29, 0.25 acres, from R-1 to R-0. Mr. Gray advised they would have no problem leaving that tract R-1 but had believed it was logical to rezone it to R -O as a buffer area. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Dennis Smith stated Riley Skillern had signed the petition to rezone the property. He further advised Mr. Skillern's intentions were to leave the subject tract to his daughter after his death. He advised they could leave that property as R-1; that the property they wanted rezoned was that owned by Howard and Dixie Cain. Mr. Danny Wright, a neighboring resident, spoke in opposition to the rezonings. He advised he had been told, upon purchase of hie property, there would be no commercial development north of Highway 45 along Highway 265. He stated they did not need a Speedee Mart or gas station on the corner. He further noted he had heard the State planned on widening Highway 265 and went to talk to Perry Franklin, City Traffic Superintendent. He explained Mr. Franklin had told him the only potential widening of Highway 265 was the area between Highway 16 and Highway 45, but not to the north. He asked the Commission to preserve the neighborhood and disapprove the requests for rezonings. • • • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 3 Mr. James Remby, 2870 Crossover Road, stated he was absolutely opposed to the rezoning. He stated the rezoninge were not needed, there was major commercial development in the area, both to the north and south on Highway 265. He also noted they had been assured, within the last year, there would be no commercial development in their neighborhood. He also stated much of the subject area was flood plain or near flood plain and clearing of the property for commercial purposes would cause 10 to 11 acres of run-off into the creek. He pointed out there was not an integrated development plan for the subject site and expressed fear there would be a hodgepodge of development. Marilyn Remby, 2870 Crossover Road, also spoke in opposition citing existing traffic problems as one of her reasons. She also expressed concern that paving the subject site would cause flooding along the creek. Mr. Lawrence Lewis, 2791 N. Crossover, advised he had counted 1200 cars between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. in front of his house. He stated Highway 265 was a congested highway. Mr. Phil Glenn, 3090 Old Wire Road, spoke in opposition to the rezonings, expressing concern regarding his property values. Mr. Leo VanScyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, agreed with the preceding speakers that the area should remain residential. He recited traffic problems in the area, including wrecks that had occurred. He also told of flooding in the area in the past. Mr. E. S. Lawbaugh, 2916 Old Wire Road, spoke in opposition to the rezonings. He advised a previous Board had stated they wanted the area between Highway 45 and Zion Road free of commercial zones. He also advised that any type of building would interfere with the free flow of Mud Creek. Mr. John Carden, 2913 Old Wire Road, explained that, if the rezoning went through, his 5 acres would increase in value, but he was still opposed to the rezoning. He stated the creek had overflowed within the last 2 years with water standing on Highway 265. He advised 10 acres of pavement would produce over 25,000,000 gallons of water for one inch of rain. He also noted the sewage treatment plant used the same creek. He further stated he would like to see the neighborhood stay like it was. Me. Rita Lee, 3200 Skillern Road, agreed with the previous speakers and pointed out there would be additional traffic on Skillern Road from Savannah Estates. She asked if there was a long term development plan for the subject area or if they should not wait until the long term development plan had been completed before making a decision. She also expressed concern over the neighborhood integrity. She asked what hazards might be created for the creek by the excess run off. Mr. Suchecki explained the developer would have to present and have approved a drainage plan. He noted the long term land use plan was on-going. Ms. Little explained the subject property was covered by the existing land use plan, updated in 1985. She stated the reason staff had recommended approval was because the site was considered to be a major intersection and there were plans for widening of Old Wire Road. Mr. Charles Caldwell, 3837 Skillern Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoninge. He pointed out commercial services were available on Highway 45 and they did not need them on the subject site. �oS illh • • • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Walter Bottje, 3841 E. Skillern, pointed out there were many people opposed to the rezonings. Mr. Nickle stated he had received notification from Mr. Calloway, a property owner immediately to the east, that he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Springborn pointed out this was one of the more attractive areas in the city, with the majority of the lots being "estate -sized". He further stated he would hate to see this area downgraded. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to deny R93-28. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny R93-29. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Me. Britton moved to deny R93-30. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to deny R93-31. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 209 • • • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-32 WASHINGTON COUNTY UNITED WAY - SE CORNER OF IVEY & HIGHWAY 265 The next item was a public hearing on rezoning request R93-32 submitted by Shell Spivey on behalf of the Washington County United Way for property located on the southeast corner of Ivey Lane and Highway 265. The request is to rezone 2 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential -Office. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to allow a new Washington County United Way facility to be located on the subject tract. He advised the property had been part of Lake Fayetteville Park and the sale had been approved by the City Council on June 15, 1993. He pointed out adjacent property to the north was in the county and was vacant; the remaining surrounding property was zoned A-1 and all surrounding tracts were vacant. He also noted sewer was not available to the site and the owners would have to install a septic system. He advised water was also not available tot he tract and would have to be furnished at the expense of the developer. He further noted water might be available from the City of Springdale water system. He pointed out access to the site was from Highway 265, a Principal Arterial, and Ivey Lane, a local street. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Mr. Shell Spivey reviewed the background in forming a joint United Way for all of the communities in Washington County. He noted the new building was needed to house the offices of the Washington County United Way together with a meeting room. He advised the site was an ideal location for the building. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-18 - HOME OCCUPATION (CRAFT & ANTIQUE SALES) DOYLE FAUBUS - 2255 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The next item was a conditional use request to allow a home occupation for craft and antique sales submitted by Doyle Faubus for property located at 2255 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was currently operating a small engine repair business as a conditional use at the subject site and now wanted to establish a craft store in the garage for his wife's crafts. He pointed out Section 160.085 did not allow any additional parking to be developed and did not allow advertising to be placed on the property. He stated the conditional use approval could only be approved up to one year and could be renewed annually (administratively) if there was no opposition or complains received within that year. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use. He stated staff believed the proposed home occupation would not result in any adverse impacts to the adjoining neighbors. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the requested conditional use. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-20 - DUPLEXES DREW SPURLOCK - W OF HAPPY HOLLOW, N OF HUNTSVILLE The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow duplexes in the proposed Southwoods Subdivision presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Drew Spurlock for property located west of Happy Hollow Road, north of Huntsville. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested the conditional use in order to develop duplexes on a 15 lot subdivision located within an R-1 zoning district. He advised each lot of the subdivision met the minimum lot area and width requirements. He pointed out R-1 zoning allowed up to 7 units per acre for duplex development and the applicant's proposed density was 4.35 units per acre. He further advised all adjacent zoning was R-1, Low Density Residential, with the property to the north and south containing single family homes and the property to the east and west being vacant. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the request for the entire subdivision to be approved for duplex development. He did recommend approval of approximately one- half of the lots for duplex development. Mr. Gray advised the petitioner had decided to reduce the number of lots scheduled for duplexes from 15 to 5 (lots 11 through 15). In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Gray explained those lots were the most logical. He pointed out 2 of the lots fronted on Happy Hollow Road and the corner lot could face on either the new street or Happy Hollow. Ms. Britton suggested having the duplex lots up in the development rather than fronting on Happy Hollow. Mr. Gray pointed out Happy Hollow was less desirable for single family homes. Mr. Guy Barnes, 325 Happy Hollow Road, stated he was opposed to the conditional use for duplexes. He stated there were a number of single family homes in the area. Mr. Ron Hollingshead, an adjoining property owner, stated the area residences were single family, owner occupied houses and he would like to see it stay that way. Mr. Gray explained he and the applicant had chosen to attempt getting a conditional use for duplexes rather than requesting a rezoning. Mr. Dan Coody, an adjoining property owner, expressed his opinion that duplexes were out of character for the area. Mr. Drew Spurlock, the applicant, explained he wanted to attempt to have one unit per lot, even though the lots were large, in order to save the wildlife in the area. He also noted the duplexes were to be very large, 2400 square foot structures or an R-1 home of 1,800 square feet. Mr. Gene King, a neighboring resident, spoke in opposition to allowing duplexes in the subdivision. He requested a drainage plan for the proposed subdivision, telling of the run off problems they currently had. Mr. William Barker, 401 Happy Hollow Road, stated he was opposed to the construction of duplexes in the subdivision. �I� Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Bill Rogers, 315 S. Ray, stated he enjoyed the current density of the neighborhood and did not want to see the density increased. MOTION Ms. Britton stated the neighborhood was an attractive one and was owner -occupied. She further stated she would hate to see the neighborhood deteriorate and moved to deny the conditional use. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Britton, Suchecki and Springborn voting "yes" and Commissioner • • Cato, Nickel, Reynolds, Allred voting "no". Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 9 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ALL RENTS ROB WOOD - W OF MCCONNELL, S OF HWY 71 BY-PASS The next item was a large scale development for All Rents submitted by Albert Skiles on behalf of Rob Wood for property located on the west side of McConnell, south of the Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.41 acres. Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of a rental outlet on 3.4 acres. He noted there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives. He stated staff remarks included comments on drainage, setbacks, the need for additional right-of-way, the need for a bill of assurance on widening the street to city standards, and the location of the north drive relative to McConnell Street. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal of a grading and drainage plan for the site; the filing of all easements by separate instrument; screening of the property as called for by city ordinances; and a bill of assurance on the widening of the street. He noted the conditions of approval as listed were not intended to be a full listing of 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. Ms. Little advised the rear of the building would be located 143 feet from the off -ramp of Highway 71. She stated there had been some concern expressed in the past regarding the backs of buildings being shown on the expressway. Mr. Nickle verified there were no trees on the property. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approved the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MCBRIDE DISTRIBUTING BOB MCBRIDE - W OF S SCHOOL, N OF HWY 71 BY-PASS The next item was a large scale development for McBride Distributing presented by Curtis Presley on behalf of Bob McBride for property located on the west side of South School Avenue, north of Highway 71 By-pass. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial and contains 11.61 acres. Mr. Bunn explained the development was a relocation of the McBride Distributing Company. He advised there were no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives present. He stated staff remarks included comments on the access being shown to the north onto the Tyson property, water and sewer service, parking requirements, screening requirements, and the need for a grading and drainage plan. He advised they needed to have additional discussions regarding the sewer service. He further noted at the subdivision committee meeting it had been reported the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property to the south was dedicated to the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce to be used as street right-of-way at some point in the future. He explained the access to the Tyson drive located on the right- of-way was not a problem as far as the staff was concerned. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan; screening as called for by ordinance; construction of a sidewalk in accordance with the city's Master Sidewalk Plan; and a letter of agreement from Tyson's on the use of the driveway. Ms. Little advised the petitioner also was requesting that the area to the north of the new facility not be stripped. She stated there would be parking equal to what they had at their current facility which would be stripped. Mr. Curtis Presley advised the applicant did have an access agreement with Tyson's. He further noted there was a verbal commitment from Joe Fred Starr to allow a sewer line to cross his property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 11 CONCEPT PLAT - THE CLIFFS P.Q.D. BILL UNDERWOOD & JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF HUNTSVILLE The next item was a concept plat for The Cliffs P.U.D. submitted by Tom Hopper on behalf of Bill Underwood and Jim Lindsey. The property is located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 128 acres with 884 proposed units. Mr. Bunn explained the concept plat had not been through the Plat Review Committee in exactly the form that was being submitted at this time. He noted however, the utility company representatives had commented on a similar plan and extensive contacts had been made with the utility company representatives in regard to the plan. He advised the concept plat was for the purpose of getting input from the Planning Commission and from the public prior to the submittal of a preliminary plat at a later date. He explained no action was being requested of the Planning Commission at this time with the exception of approval of requested variances in the setback requirements. Mr. Bunn stated both Mr. Hopper of Crafton & Tull and Mr. Bill Underwood were present to explained the plans more fully and to formally request the setback variances. Mr. Hopper explained and had given much adjoining property advertisement in the Mr. Underwood had purchased the property 18 years earlier thought as to how he wanted to use it. He stated the owners had been notified by both certified mail and newspaper of this meeting. He pointed out they had exceeded the 30% green space required in a PUD. He explained the purpose of a PUD was to protect natural topography features and to allow for clustering of units. He advised they were attempting to save the cliffs located on the property and a lake at the south end of the property. He further explained the development would be a phased development of approximately 150 units for each phase. He pointed out the development was made up of 12-plex and 4-plex unite with the 12-plexes being across the southern border and the 4- plexes being across the northern 2/3's of the property. Mr. Hopper explained they had requested the required 250 foot setback around the perimeter of the development be a varying setback. He pointed out the perimeter setback varied from 400 feet along the north down to 100 feet and back to 150 feet; that along the south it went to 300 feet in places. He explained this would take advantage of the terrain of the development. He also noted the Street Master Plan called for a primary arterial street through the property. He pointed out they had complied with that requirement by a road from the southwest corner (Happy Hollow Road) north and then east to Highway 265. Mr. Hopper stated that, after further discussion with the adjoining property owners, they had come up with Concept No. 9. He explained the differences between No. 8 and No. 9 and presented a copy of No. 9 to the Planning Commission. He reviewed the plat with the Commissioners, pointing out the features including easements, streets and terrain. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper people per unit to be residing in the development. Mr. Nickle asked if there was adequate infrastructure people. advised they expected 2 to support 1800 to 2000 9-6 • • • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Bunn stated there was a main sewer line and a water line along Highway 265. He advised he believed that would be adequate. Me. Britton pointed out one of the pools was located within the easement. Mr. Hopper stated an adjustment would be made. Mr. Reynolds asked about the future expansion plans for Highway 254. Mr. Bunn explained the Highway Department was considering widening 265 to four lanes and were awaiting a letter from the City relating to the acquisition of the right-of-way along Highway 265 prior to starting the detailed plans. He stated it would be his estimate that it would be 1994 or 1995 before it was widened. He asked the applicant how long they estimated it would take to complete the entire project and which portion would be constructed first. Mr. Hopper estimated it would take 6 to 8 years to complete the project, depending upon demand. He further noted they would be starting at the southeast corner. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Hopper explained they had made a study on a similar project and found only 54 school age children in 711 units. Mr. Nickle asked the location of the nearest fire station. Mr. Bunn advised it was just north of the subject development on the west side of the road. Mr. Cato asked why a roadway had not been extended to the adjoining property to the north. Mr. Hopper explained the property owner to the north did not desire any changes to his property. Mr. Cato stated he would like to see other accesses to the north. Mr. Allred pointed out they had just denied five duplexes on a 15 acre tract in. the same neighborhood. Ms. Britton stated the reason for denial was not the population impact; that this development was an entire neighborhood. Dr. DePalma, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern that there was not 30% green space on the development. Mr. Hopper explained they had used Autocad to determine the amount of green space. Mr. Byron Johnson, 390 N. Crossover, advised the traffic situation had continually gotten worse. He further noted he had talked to the State Highway Department and found they did not believe Highway 265 would be widened from Highway 16 to Highway 45 within 7 years, but more likely 10 to 12 years. He also stated there was an 8 -inch sewer main running across his property and there had been several instances when manhole covers had blown off and raw sewage had escaped into his pond. Mr. Dale Garrett, 624 N. Crossover, noted he had purchased his property relying upon representations that the surrounding property would be a residential area. He also explained there was a terrible traffic problem on Highway 265 and he had seen 5 wrecks on the highway between 45 and Lover's Lane. • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 13 Mr. John Beckman, 430 Crossover Road, spoke in opposition to the development citing the heavy traffic along Highway 265. He explained the terrain in that. area was very steep, causing numerous accidents. He pointed out all of the surrounding property were single family homes. He also advised water from the west side came down across his property and any additional run off would cause his property major problems. Ms. Diane Johnson, 390 N. Crossover, stated they had purchased their property with the faith there would be no multi -family housing in their neighborhood. She stated she did not believe the applicants should be allowed to ruin the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Suchecki asked how many units could be put on the 128 acres if it were developed as R-1. Ms. Little advised that under single family homes there could be 4 units per acre and under duplex development, 7 units per acre. She pointed out the Planned Unit Development was proposed at 7 units per acre. Mr. Springborn advised that, at one time, consideration had been given to an east bypass around the city other than 265. He asked the status. Ms. Little stated consideration had been given to such a bypass but there was no fixed date. She noted there had been additional conversation with the Highway Department who now favored such a bypass. She further stated they might postpone the widening of Highway 265 with the construction of such a bypass. Ms. Kelly Johnson, 25 S. Crossover Road, spoke in opposition citing the same reasons as given by her neighbors. She requested the Planning Commission contact the Highway Department and request widening of Crossover to five lanes. Dr. Anthony DePalma, an adjoining property owner to the north, stated he did not oppose Mr. Underwood's use of the property but did not think it was appropriate. He familiarized the Commission with the location of his property in relation to the subject site. He pointed out there was a great deal of wildlife, including deer. He expressed concern that someone would remove portions of his fence, as. they had in the past, and his cattle would wander onto the subject site. He requested the applicant honor the required setbacks along both his south and east fence lines. He expressed his belief that Mr. Underwood had gotten the optimum use of the subject property. He explained that, because of the terrain, Mr. Underwood had a right to maximize his property in terms of the number of dwellings. He advised this development would change the entire character and historical significance of Mt. Sequoyah. Mr. Richard Seddon, an adjoining property owner, advised he would be affected more than any one else by the proposed development. He stated his tract, known as Happy Hollow Farms, was on the historical registry. He explained he had taken care of the subject site for Mr. Underwood and he would love to see it stay just as it was. He further stated that, if he was in Mr. Underwood's place, he would not like to have everybody telling him what to do with the land and how it would impact the neighborhood. He stated he hoped that, at this meeting, they would talk about how well the property would be developed. He expressed his belief the problems with the highway did need to be addressed. He further advised his biggest concern was the drainage but he had been assured that would be addressed. He pointed out that all run off from the top of Mt. Sequoyah to the north and west of the subject property went through his property. Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 14 Mr. Bill Underwood, one of the applicants, reviewed the history of the property. He stated he believed it was time to develop the land, after owning it for 18 years. He stated one of his concerns had been to retain the natural beauty of the land. He explained that, if they did not get the variance from the 250 foot setback, they would have to compress the units more than was shown on the plat. He further explained he would like to have enough trees left between the units that one unit could not see another unit. (Mr. Nickle left the meeting). Mr. Suchecki asked if he had given any thought to constructing single family units. Mr. Underwood stated the original plan had been to construct single family homes on the land but that meant he would lose control of the land. He also noted there was a demand for the suggested units by young executives. He advised it appeared many of the people renting the units would be single with no children. He further advised he believed it would be unfair to restrict the development of his property because there was a traffic problem on Crossover Road. He pointed out he did not create the problem and, while he would like to help solve it, it would not be fair to curtail development until the problem was solved. Ms. Britton asked about mixing the uses in the development. Mr. Underwood stated that might happen. He further stated they had also discussed leasing the land. He explained he wanted to preserve the land. Mr. Suchecki asked if each phase of the development would come before the Planning Commission as a preliminary and final plat. Ms. Little explained further development of the property would require the applicant to bring the action before the Planning Commission. She further explained that, once the PUD was approved, only minor changes could be made to it without coming before the Commission. Mr. Springborn stated he liked the PUD concept but liked the more conventional concept. He pointed out that, if they acted on the variances at the present time, they were blessing the whole concept. He advised he was reluctant to move rapidly on this development subject to the traffic problems on 265. Mr. Allred stated they had been discussing flexibility in the new land use plan. He pointed out that was what the petitioner was requesting in this instance. He agreed that, while the property needed as much buffer as possible, there needed to be some flexibility. He pointed out this would be one of the largest developments they had ever looked at and that it would have a major impact on the area. He stated he would like to do more review of the PUD ordinance before making a decision on the requested variances. Ms. Britton advised she appreciated the quality of the subject property with the topography, lakes, etc. and the way the designer had developed the buildings to the land. She further stated that, while she understood varying the setback, she did feel it got too close to the edge in some of the areas. Ms. Little advised the PUD ordinance called for a 250 foot setback only when a PUD set against another R-1 district. In response to a comment from Ms. Britton, Mr. Hopper stated it was their understanding that pools and tennis courts could be constructed in the setback. 2-0 • • Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Seddon pointed out a street along the southern border of the subject development and asked if the City was going to require that street. Me. Little advised that street was on the Master Street Plan and therefore was a requirement. In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Little explained the 250 foot setback was when the development shared a property line with an R-1 district. She went on to say that in this case it would be to the north, west, and south, but not on Highway 265. She stated the east side would need a standard 25 foot setback. Mr. Seddon asked when the determination would be made as to the location of the road going to the north of his north property line. Me. Little advised the roadway location was determined at the time the preliminary plat was approved. She explained he would receive notification prior to the subdivision committee meeting and the planning commission meeting. Mr. Springborn asked staff to get an update from the Highway Department regarding widening Highway 265 versus pursuing an east bypass. Ms. Little advised she had talked to Bobby Hopper of the Highway Department and he had indicated that, if they committed funds to an eastern bypass route, they would probably not make improvements to Highway 265 as rapidly as earlier planned. Mr. Springborn pointed out an eastern bypass would assist in unloading Highway 265. Ms. Little explained the location had not even preliminary been drawn. Me. Britton expressed concern that the standard of 265 45 was not as good as the area to the north. Me. Seddon requested the four -lane road to the north of away as possible. Ms. Little advised the street was on the Master Street between Highways 16 and their property be as far Plan. Mr. Suchecki explained the present meeting was only to discuss and vote upon a variance to the setbacks. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained that, if the Commission approved the variances requested, it would allow the applicant to proceed with their preliminary design. She advised they would reapprove the variances as a part of the preliminary design approval. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the variances as requested. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Cato, Reynolds, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". Planning Commission June 28, 1993 Page 16 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 41 CAL SHIPLEY fi SCOTT BAILEY - 568 6 574 ROCK CLIFF RD. The next item was a request for Lot Split #1 submitted by Cal Shipley and Scott Bailey for property located at 568 and 574 Rock Cliff Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for a first split of Lot 29 of Hyland Park Subdivision, Phase 3. He advised the intent of the split was to give the owners on each side of the subject lot additional property. He noted the reason this was a lot split rather than a property line adjustment was that there was a strip of common area between lots 28 and 29. He noted the west half of lot 29 would go to lot 30 and be handled as a property line adjustment. He further advised the east of lot 29 would be a stand alone lot belonging to Mr. Shipley. He stated there was no intent on Mr. Shipley's part to develop the lot, rather it was to prevent the development of Lot 29 by anyone else. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved with the explicit understanding of the owner that the lot being created could not be built on under the present zoning regulations. Mr. Cato asked how they could be assured that, at some future date, someone did not try to build on the east half of lot 29. Ms. Little suggested moving the common area to between the two properties. There was discussion regarding the best way to divide the property so that the east half of lot 29 could not be built on. Mr. Cal Shipley, one of the applicants, explained he and Scott Bailey had purchased the lot in order to keep it in it's natural wooded state. He stated there was an actual pathway as the common area but it was rarely used. He further advised there had never been a properly constituted Property Owners Association. Mr. Bunn recommended approving Mr. Allred's suggestion that one deed be drawn up with a statement in the deed referencing the easement. A neighboring property owner expressed concern regarding the ability of the east half of lot 29 to be constructed on. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the a feasible method to join the house on the east half of lot lot split with the condition that staff work out properties together so no one could construct a 29. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. a�'