Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-26 Minutes• • 0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 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: Jana Lynn Britton, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Sickle, Bob Reynolds (arrived late), and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: J. E. Springborn Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others PRELIMINARY PLAT - TBE MASTERS WRIGHT & PENCE - S OF COUNTRY CLUB, E OF S. COLLEGE Mr Suchecki advised the applicants for the subdivision located on the south side of College, had requested the plat be tabled. preliminary plat of The Masters, a Country Club Drive, east of South MOTION Mr. Tarvin move the item be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MINUTES Ms. Britton requested the Minutes of the July 26, 1993 meeting contain Commissioner comments regarding the televising of the meeting. Ms. Langley informed her there was no tape of the July 26, 1993 meeting due to mechanical error. Mo. Britton noted that was bad timing. The minutes were approved as distributed. J • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-33 ROB MERRY -SHIP - S OF ZION RD., W OF OLD MISSOURI RD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-33 submitted by Rob Merry -Ship for property located on the south side of Zion Road, west of Old Missouri Road. The request is to rezone 8.75 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested to rezone the site in order to develop town houses and duplexes. He pointed out to the north was zoned A-1 and contained single family residential, to the east the zoning was R-1 and contained single family residential, to the south the zoning was R-2 with vacant land and multi -family housing, and to the west the zoning was R-1.5 and was vacant. He noted the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the site a medium density residential area. He advised the site had access from Old Missouri Road and Zion Road. He stated both streets were classified as collector streets. He further stated there was a 12 -inch water line and a 10 -inch sewer line along Zion Road. He explained the applicant had been advised that additional right-of-way and off-site improvements to Zion Road and Old Missouri Road might be required as part of subdivision or large scale development approval. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He pointed out the property was adjacent to property that had developed with multi -family housing zoned R-1.5 and R-2. Ms. Britton asked why the applicant had not applied for R-1.5 since he was wanting to develop town houses and duplexes. She asked if he could not use R-1.5 for the development. Mr. Conklin stated the difference between R-1.5 and R-2 was lot size. He advised there was less density under R-1.5 than R-2. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Merry -Ship explained there were some problems on development of the subject land due to a sewer easement that angled across the property. He stated that was why they were requesting R-2 zoning. He further noted that, at this time, they did not know how many units would be constructed. He explained the access off of Old Missouri Road was such that it could not be built on for 3/4 of an acre. Mr. Nickle asked if they were planning on access from Old Missouri Road as well. as Zion Road. Mr. Merry -Ship stated they were. Mr. Bill Carnes, 2295 E. Zion Road, an adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning citing excessive traffic as the reason. He explained there was already heavy traffic and frequent wrecks at the intersection. He advised he lived on the southwest corner of the intersection. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the rezoning from A-1 to R-2, subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Cato, Pummill and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Tarvin voting "no". a • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-34 RONALD & LINDA WALLACE - 2406 OLD WIRE RD The next item was a public hearing on a rezoning request submitted by Jackie Anderson on behalf of Ronald and Linda Wallace for property located at 2406 Old Wire Rd. The request is to rezone 0.406 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential - Office. Mr. Conklin stated the site was located on the northeast corner of Old Wire Road and Township Street. He advised the applicant had requested to rezone a portion of the lot where the house was presently located from R-1 to R -O in order to establish a chiropractic office. He noted the site was entirely surrounded by single family residential development and was located within an R-1 zoning district. He further advised the applicant had submitted a lot split application in order to split off the remaining portion of the lot which was not included in the rezoning request. He pointed out access to the site was from Old Wire Road, a minor arterial, and Township Street, a collector. Mr. Conklin advised the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject site as low density residential. He stated development and zoning in the vicinity had been consistent with the General Land Use Plan designation for low density residential development. He recommended denial of the rezoning request. He stated the site was located within an established single family residential zoning district and commercial uses should not be introduced into such a residential area of Fayetteville. He advised the applicant had offered a bill of assurance limiting the use of the structure to one chiropractic office for one doctor or a single family home. Mr. Jim McCord explained Ron Wallace was a chiropractor and presently lived in Springfield but wanted to move to Fayetteville. He stated the request to rezone was for only one-half of the property. He noted the existing structure was a single family residence. He pointed out that, should Dr. Wallace desire to live on the premises, he could ask for a conditional use permit to have his business in his home. He explained the rezoning was being requested because Dr. Wallace did not intend to live on the premises. He advised Dr. Wallace did realize area residents might be concerned were rezoned. He stated that was which he would covenant that the chiropractor office or a single Assurance would run with the land owners. the surrounding property was zoned R-1 and the regarding possible uses of the property if it why the doctor offered a Bill of Assurance in property would be used only as a one doctor family residence. He advised that Bill of and would bind Dr. Wallace and all successor Mr. McCord stated access to the property would be from the existing driveway on Old Wire Road, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection. He pointed out the intersection was controlled with a stop light. He expressed his belief that a one doctor chiropractor's office would not result in a detectable increase in traffic nor cause a traffic hazard. He advised that, if Dr. Wallace was allowed to convert the structure to an office, he would significantly improvement the exterior appearance of the structure and the grounds. He provided "before and after" photographs of Dr. Wallace's existing office in Springfield which Dr. Wallace had renovated. He advised Dr. Wallace did want to be a good neighbor and he was offering the Bill of Assurance to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Paul Spencer, 2433 Old Wire Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request stating he lived directly across from the property. He pointed out the driveway began at the same point the right turn lane began, and then went around the house the only entrance was through the kitchen because the house was too close to the street in the front. He further advised there had been four different requests to rezone property on an adjoining corner and all four had been denied. He asked why, year after year, someone kept trying to rezone the property on the corner. He pointed out the traffic at that intersection was one of the worst in the city. He recommended any petitioner requesting rezoning be required to have a petition in favor of the rezoning, signed by adjoining property owners, before the property could be rezoned. He explained that would keep him and his neighbors from having to come to meetings year after year to object to the rezoning. Mr. Albert Erbach, 2460 Old Wire Road, an adjacent property owner, advised he had already been run out of one area in Fayetteville because the adjoining properties became commercial. He stated he did not wish to be run out of another area. He pointed out there were scores of vacant buildings in the area which would be adequate for a doctor's office that were properly zoned. He stated he strongly objected to the rezoning. Mr. Suchecki advised the application was for residential -office not commercial zoning. Mr. Erbach stated it was still a commercial enterprise. Ms. Betty Davis, an adjoining property owner, advised she lived on the east side of the subject property. She stated she could not envision changing the zoning when all of the neighbors were happy living in a residential area. She reminded the Commission the residents had begged and borrowed in order to plant trees to make it an enhanced residential area. She stated it was unconscionable that it was the second year the residents had to come to a meeting to ask to retain their residential area. She advised there were so many places in Fayetteville that housed offices and asked why the residents had to come in year after year to protect their neighborhood. She stated they were already inundated with cross town traffic, finding it hard to get out of her driveway. Mr. John May appeared before the Commission and advised his wife owned property on the southwest corner of the intersection, at 2365 Old Wire Road. He stated the noise from the traffic at the intersection made it impossible to live at the intersection. He stated he did not believe the proposed use of the property would affect the rest of the neighborhood. He stated he and his wife were in favor of the rezoning. Mr. McCord advised the applicant would be limiting access from Township. He also noted the physical appearance of the house would be improved and the fence would be removed. Ms. Susan Johnson, a neighborhood resident, stated she had assisted in planting the trees to work on the aesthetics of the street. She further stated she objected to the rezoning and was sure, if she had time to talk to the other residents involved in the tree plantings, they would be present to object also. She advised they wanted more trees, not pavement. Ms. Marilyn Shoffit, the property owner, advised she had purchased the subject tract in 1979 before the extension of Township. She stated she too would like to see the property remain R-1 but the extension of the road had created an unsalable piece of property. She pointed out the house set so close to the corner that the noise from the traffic was too loud to sleep in the house. She • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 5 advised it was no longer an R-1 piece of property. She explained that, if the entrance to Township was blocked, the fence removed and the house remodeled, the neighborhood would end up with a corner tract they could be proud of. She stated that would happen if the rezoning was approved. She further stated the City of Fayetteville had turned her property into an unsalable piece of property as R-1. She advised the traffic at the intersection was one of the highest in the city. Ms. Kate Ellen, a resident of Century Drive, agreed with Ms. Shoffit the noise from the traffic was terrible. She expressed concern regarding having a business in a residential neighborhood. She also stated there were numerous offices spaces available in the same area of town that were in properly zoned areas. She reviewed some of those sites. She advised business people moving into Fayetteville should look for existing space and allow the residents maintain the quality of their residential neighborhoods. Ms. Jackie Anderson, the applicant's realtor, advised there were empty office spaces for rent but the applicant wanted to buy office space not rent it. She stated there was no other place in the area to purchase. Ms. Britton stated that, when the Vision Town meetings were held, a lot of people expressed an interest in having neighborhood pockets of commercial. She further stated she could see the subject site as a conceivably logical location but she did not see a doctor's office as a neighborhood use. She noted that was not something everyone on the block would want to go to. She advised it would attract traffic from all over town and she did not feel that area of town needed any extra traffic. She went on to say that, while the comings and goings of a doctor's office would not significantly impact the traffic in the area, the subject tract was a really bad location to pull out of. She advised increasing the ingress/egress would not make the problem any better, it would just make it worse. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the requested rezoning. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Britton, Nickle, Cato, Pummill, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Allred voting "no". a3� • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 6 PUBLIC HBARING - REZONING R93-35 CHERYL MILLER & GENEVA McFARLAND The next item was a rezoning request submitted by Lee Ward on behalf of Cheryl Miller and Geneva McFarland and represented by Rick Osborne, for property located on the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Shiloh Drive. The request is to rezone 20 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for the rezoning in order to obtain the highest and best use of the property. He pointed out to the north was zoned A-1 and R-1.5 and contained single family homes, to the east was zoned C-2 and contained a hotel, to the south was zoned C-1 and contained commercial uses and vacant land, and to the west was zoned C-2 and contained multi -family uses and vacant land. He advised the site had 558 feet of frontage along Highway 16 West, which was classified as a principal arterial. He noted water and sewer were available to the site. He also stated there was a 10 -inch sewer line located at the north end of Betty Jo Avenue and an 8 -inch water line along Highway 16 West. Mr. Conklin stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject property as Low Density Residential. He noted the site was located on a segment of Highway 16 which had been identified as a roadway that would need to be widened to four lanes in the next 3 - 5 years and was bordered on three sides by commercial zoning. He recommended denial of the requested rezoning, explaining C-2 was not compatible with the single family homes located north of the site. He advised staff would support rezoning approximately 720 feet to the north of Highway 16 West, following the same northern C-2 (east/west) boundary line located directly east of the subject tract of land. He advised that would include approximately 5.79 acres. Mr. Rick Osborne offered a compromise of lining the C-2 request up with the northern boundary of the Holiday Inn property, leaving a 200 foot buffer to the north. Mr. Conklin pointed out the land directly to the north was zoned R-1.5 but was being developed with single family homes. Mr. Osborne stated he believed the C-2 went further north than shown on the map in the agenda packet. Mr. Allred stated there was some land between the Holiday Inn and the apartments which was zoned C-2 but was vacant. He advised that property did belong to the Holiday Inn. Mr. Osborne again offered his compromise stating the northern part of the property could be zoned R-2 or R-1.5. He stated they would prefer R-2. Mr. Conklin advised the property was already R-2. Mr. Allred asked staff their comment on the revised request. Mr. Conklin stated that, without it being scaled off, it would be hard to know how much a buffer there would actually be. Mr. Nickle stated the access would be through C-2 to get to R-2. He asked when the subject property had been zoned R-2. • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Conklin stated he did not know. Mr. Osborne stated it had been zoned R-2 at least 10 years. Mr. Nickle advised that, if they planned on accessing the property from the west, that would create more traffic problems on Salem Road. Mr. Osborne stated that, if the Commission did not think access to the R-2 property should be through the C-2, only the R-2 property would be accessed from the west. He further stated he believed it would be fine to access it through the C-2 property. He noted access would be controlled through large scale development. Mr. Conklin advised if the Commission approved the compromise request, they would have C-2 zoning adjoining R-2 to the west. He explained C-2 did have some commercial uses which might not be appropriate next to R-2. He stated he would be more comfortable staying with staff's original recommendation. Mr. Suchecki noted the owners of the adjoining R-2 apparently had no objection to the rezoning. Mr. Osborne suggested adding a C-1 buffer next to the R-2 and R-1.5. Mr. Conklin agreed C-1 would eliminate some of the commercial uses that might not be compatible with R-2. He stated that would be more appropriate. Mr. Suchecki advised he was uncomfortable with guessing where the north line was for the Holiday Inn. He stated he would hate to approve the rezoning and then have a strip of property that was undevelopable as zoned. He noted he did like the idea of a compromise but would like to know the exact location. Mr. Pummill asked if the applicant had proposed a 200 foot buffer on the west and north. Mr. Osborne pointed out on a drawing his proposed compromise. Mr. Dennis Smith stated he was supportive of Mr. Osborne's compromise plan, extending the C-2 to the north line of the Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Nickle pointed out there was C-2 zoning already on the west. He advised he was uncomfortable with picking arbitrary dimensions and designating it as C-2 or C-1. He stated he was not sure of the impact of access to the R-2 through C-2. He further stated it appeared to him to be a speculative rezoning, that the petitioner was open to anything more than they currently had. Mr. Osborne advised he had just found out there was a road stubbed in from the west to the R-2 site. Ms. Britton stated there was a considerable amount of C-2 zoning at the intersection with the highway. She further stated it was an area they had received continual complaints regarding the high traffic, how it could not be accessed from Salem or Shiloh. She expressed her belief the area had quite adequate opportunity -- neither one of the C -2's had been developed. She stated she did not believe they needed any more ingress/egress -- there was no telling how many curb cuts there would be. She further stated she did not see any reason to rezone the property. She noted it was appropriate the way it was currently zoned with the R-2 having access from Wedington and possibly from Salem. She pointed out that meant it was not a high risk for police and fire protection, and gave good circulation throughout the area. ��0 • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 8 MOTION Me. Britton moved to deny the petition. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Pummill asked which would generate more traffic, R-2 at it's maximum or C-2. Mr. Conklin advised R-2, at it's maximum, was 24 units per acre. He stated there had not been too much R-2 development occurring at 24 units per acre; most of it had been around 6 or 8. He further stated he believed it would depend on the type of commercial use or the type of residential development. He explained some allowed C-2 uses included used car lots, automotive repair, truck repair, car washes, boat sales, etc. He further explained those were the type of commercial uses he was concerned with next to a residential development. He stated the C-1 allowed more neighborhood commercial uses such as bakeries, laundromats, restaurants, etc. He further stated he was not sure about the traffic without knowing the uses. Mr. Pummill stated it appeared to him the compromise would be the least traffic intensive of what they had seen. Mr. Cato asked if the applicant would have to wait a year to request the property be rezoned should the Commission approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Conklin stated he believed that, if the applicant wanted the entire tract of land to be rezoned C-2 and did not want to modify the request, it would constitute a denial and he would have to wait for a year but, if the applicant agreed to have the property rezoned as the Commission desired, there would be no problem if he wanted to come back before the Board. He suggested that could be a part of the motion. Mr. Osborne suggested having a survey done of the property. Mr. Conklin stated he would be more comfortable with a survey showing exactly what the applicant was requesting. He recommended the matter be tabled. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to table the request until the applicant had an opportunity to have a survey done. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Cato, Pummill, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Mr. Reynolds entered the meeting. a?` • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 9 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WILD HAWG GRILL GREG HEGER - W OF RAZORBACK RD., S OF W 6TH The next item was a large scale development for the Wild Hawg Grill submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Greg Heger for property located on the west side of Razorback Road, south of West 6th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial, and contains 3.19 acres. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives other than some additional easements requested and agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks had included comments on the need for a tree preservation plan, the need for a grading and drainage plan for the property, and the need for additional easements along Razorback Road. He stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended forwarding the large scale development to the full Planning Commission. He recommended the large scale development be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; granting of an additional 10 feet of easement off Razorback Road; and construction of a five foot sidewalk in accordance with City of Fayetteville ordinances. Mr. Bunn stated it was likely the State Highway Department would be doing something to Razorback Road in the near future and he would support a Bill of Assurance on the sidewalk until the Highway Department plans were firm. Ms. Britton stated the minutes had mentioned adjusting the south property line to take care of an easement for utilities. She asked if that had been done. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were still in the process of locating the gas line. He explained they were seeking approval of the large scale development subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton asked if it was a good idea to move the property line. Mr. Jorgensen explained the south property line did not coincide with the centerline of the gas easement and staff believed it would be better if the two coincided and the applicant would not have to dedicate more land for an easement. Ms. Britton stated she had also read in the minutes that the same property owner owned property to the south. She expressed concern regarding the amount of frontage, since it was so close to the railroad. She pointed out the sight line would be very poor for someone pulling out of the development. She asked if there could be an access easement granted to the south property so when it was developed there would be through access from one piece of property to the other. Mr. Jorgensen stated the applicants had originally asked him to bring the entire tract through as a large scale development but they currently had no plans for the south tract. He stated it appeared to be logical to split the tract but he could see no problem in providing access. Ms. Britton stated it did bother her to have the ingress/egress at the railroad track. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. NO- • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 10 He. Britton asked if providing access from one tract to the other was included. Mr. Tarvin stated that was a part of staff comments. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Pummill asked how Ms. Britton's comments could be a part of staff comments. Mr. Bunn stated he believed there were similar comments in the plat review meeting. Mr. Jorgensen stated it had not been discussed at plat review but the petitioner had no problem agreeing to an easement. Mr. Pummill stated he was not questioning this particular item but was wondering how it became a staff comment. He asked if this was a precedent for the future. Mr. Nickle stated it was his understanding that was part of the motion. Mr. Tarvin advised his motion was to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Jorgensen advised the petitioner would offer the additional access. Ms. Britton stated that would clarify the matter. • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 11 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTH HILLS CENTER PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES - N OF FDTRALL, W OF NORTH HILLS BLVD The next item was a large scale development for North Hills Center presented by Tom Campbell on behalf of Partners & Associates for property located on the north side of Futrall, east of North Hills Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 4.3 acres. Mr. Bunn advised there were several easements and crossings asked for by the utility company representatives and agreed to by the owners at the Plat Review meeting. He noted staff remarks included comments on the need for a sidewalk, the need for a grading and drainage plan, the requirement for additional right- of-way along Futrall, and the requirement for a tree preservation plan. He advised the Fire Chief recommended sprinkling the buildings, but that is not a requirement. He stated the Subdivision Committee recommended forwarding the large scale development to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; submittal of a tree preservation plan; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; the dedication of additional street easement as requested; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances. Mr. Allred stated they had discussed the parking requirements at the Subdivision Committee meeting but the discussion had never been resolved. He stated the Committee had been concerned they were getting too much parking in the area. He advised there had been no decision made. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant was providing more parking than required under the code. He explained it was the applicant's desire to provide that parking based on experience. Mr. Tom Campbell, representing Partners and Associates, stated this project represented Phase 3 of the North Hills Medical Park. He pointed out it was a combination of retail and medical office facilities, being done in 2 structures. He stated they were planning to provide 129 parking spaces because they had found 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of floor space was insufficient. He noted they would not be investing money in a parking lot if they did not believe it was needed. He also pointed out they had incorporated significant landscaping and would be exceeding the tree replacement requirements. Ms. Britton, looking at the plat, asked about the immense expanse of concrete directly west of the retail facility and the box measuring 7 feet by 38 feet. Mr. Campbell explained it was a covered area for a bank tenant for a drive-thru. Ms. Britton noted the parking to the north, or rear, of that property was cut off which made anyone parking in that facility have to maneuver around in order to get out of the parking. She stated it was a dead end parking lot and, while the Planning Commission had no control over that, it seemed a poor way of doing it. She suggested the bank facility have one way traffic and the two could be integrated. Mr. Campbell stated that was a possibility. He explained they provide as much landscaping and tree preservation as possible. Ms. Britton stated she was concerned about the circulation of the that was not related to trees. were trying to parking lot and • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Cato advised he would be abstaining on this matter. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-1. • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT - REMINGTON PLACE MIKE PARKER - N OF STEARNS, E OF FRONTAGE The next item was a preliminary plat for Remington Place presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Mike Parker for property located on the north side of Stearns, east of Frontage Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 8.84 acres with 14 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained Lot 1 had an existing building on it. He advised the plat did not go through the plat review process, however, the engineer had contacted each utility representative and had satisfied their requests for easements and crossings. He advised staff remarks on the subdivision included comments on the need for extension of Stearns Road across the south side of the subdivision, sidewalks, street names, and the need for a grading and drainage plan. He noted there had been mention of the vacation of the easement for the 16 inch water line. He advised it had not been determined that the 16 inch line could be abandoned at this point and it was possible it would have to remain in place. Mr. Bunn explained drainage to the south would have to take place and should be coordinated with drainage work that was planned on the Mcllroy Bank property. He advised consideration should also be given to the possible requirement to allow for the extension of the proposed street through to the north to tie to future development and eventually to Zion Road. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to utility company comments; construction of sidewalks; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; submittal of a tree preservation plan; extension of Stearns Road in accordance with the Subdivision Committee discussion; and contribution to the improvements to the Joyce Boulevard/Highway 71 intersection. Mr. Nickle asked if there was a storm drainage underground going to the south or would the property have to be drained across Stearns. Mr. Bunn stated he believed there was presently a underground storm drain. He explained on the east side of Mcllroy Bank there had been a drainage problem but Lindsey had put in some private drainage to take care of the drainage problems. He advised it might have to be supplemented. Mr. Harry Gray explained they were developing the property for commercial use. He advised there was a question regarding whether the water line easement could be abandoned. He noted there had been a storm drain pipe installed to alleviate the drainage problem on the east side of the Mcllroy property and the drainage from the subject property would tie into that pipe. He stated they had submitted a tree preservation plan but it was his understanding that, in a commercial subdivision, each individual lot would also have to file a tree preservation plan upon development. He asked for clarification regard the contribution to the improvements to the Joyce Boulevard/Highway 71 intersection. He advised there needed to be clarification on how the charges were made for the improvement of the intersection. Mr. Bunn stated there was a suggested amount discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further noted there was an amount agreed to with the commercial subdivision south of the Mall. He explained he was not sure what that figure had been based on other than an agreement to pay a certain share. He stated he could not say at this point what would be a logical way to come up with • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 14 an amount. He further stated he believed it would be something agreed to by the staff and developer as being fair to both parties. Mr. Suchecki stated there were already a lot of businesses on the subject intersection. He asked how far back from the intersection were new developments charged and were existing businesses also taxed. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know how far back from the intersection they would go and existing commercial establishments would not be asked to pay to improve the intersection. Mr. Suchecki stated this development was quite a distance from Highway 71. Mr. Gray stated they did not mind paying a fair share but did want to know how the amount was arrived at. Mr. Allred stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting the comment had been the cost would be between $5,000 and $15,000. He further stated he believed that amount needed to be narrowed down. He asked if all the other development along Frontage had contributed to the cost of the intersection. He asked when the impact fee had come into being. Mr. Bunn explained staff had requested Clary Development to contribute toward the improvement of the intersection since it would have a large impact upon the intersection. He advised they had not asked for any other contribution in the subject area. He pointed out it was similar to the situation on Salem Road when they negotiated a share of the cost of a future bridge. He explained the City did not have a formal impact fee but believed the ordinances allowed for a contribution toward improvements on a rational nexus basis. He stated there had been a figure arrived at with Clary Development which had been negotiated and, based in part, on how much they were willing to pay toward the intersection. He advised he believed the amount mentioned at subdivision meeting on the subject development had been pro rated based on land area. He further explained they had used land area but then had related it to a subdivision where they did not have a rational nexus basis. Mr. Suchecki asked if it was fair to take the same basis and apply it to the subject tract and give them an amount so they would know their obligations. Mr. Allred pointed out that, had the subdivision come through three months earlier, there would be no fee. He stated there needed to be some definite guidelines. He further stated if they were going to have an impact fee there needed to be an impact boundary. Mr. Suchecki stated they needed to arrive at a formula so charges to developers were not on a hit and miss basis. He further stated it needed to be equitable for all developments. Ms. Britton stated it could conceivably be pro rated based on the distance from the intersection impacted. She also pointed out the unnamed street lined up to the north with Gable Drive. She asked if Gable Drive was developed commercially. Mr. Bunn stated it was. Ms. Britton asked if it would not be logical to expect that the two would be connected at some point in the future and that a right-of-way easement should be left open at the north end of the proposed unnamed street. ;Al • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Suchecki stated Gable Drive was considerably north of the subject development. Ms. Britton stated that having all of the little cul-de-sacs coming in from the north and the south did not make sense to her. She further stated they needed circulation throughout the area. She pointed out someone should not have to pull out if they wanted to go to another commercial establishment in the same neighborhood and impact through the light that was already impacted and through another light that was impacted in order to get to the other commercial area. Mr. Bunn stated the Planning staff did not make that recommendation but he felt it might be reasonable to require an easement for future development. Me. Britton stated if it never happened, the easement could be abandoned in the future; but she felt like it should be there. Mr. Suchecki stated there was no mention of easements on the proposed street to Gable Drive. Me. Britton stated she believed it should be a part of the recommendation of staff. Mr. Bunn stated it was not part of the recommendation but, if Planning staff was willing to make that recommendation, that would be fine, if the Planning Commission wanted to require it. He stated he would support a requirement to have an easement there. Mr. Conklin agreed and stated he would support the easement. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained it was unlikely the street would ever go through to Gable Drive, but it would be quite possible it would extend through to Sheppard Street. He stated that would give another developer the opportunity to tie it on through if they wanted to do so. Mr. Tarvin asked if that would be reasonable to the developer. Mr. Gray stated the property would be developed according to their comments. Mr. Suchecki asked if they had given any thought to an access easement between lots 7 and 8. Mr. Gray stated they could consider it as a possibility. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the street did not line up. Ms. Britton stated it was feasible at some point in time it could be a "U", connect with Frontage, Sheppard, etc. Mr. Gray stated an easement would affect the setback. Mr. Tarvin also pointed out there was a possibility that the adjoining property could develop as a residential area and then they would have commercial traffic going through a residential area. Mr. Nickle pointed out the street going through Bassett Place had access to the north. Mr. Allred expressed concern that, if they connected the street to Gable Drive, it would become a major arterial. • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 16 Me. Britton stated that could be addressed when the north developed but it could never be addressed if there was no right-of-way left open. She explained they would be closing off possibilities as to what could be developed to the north. Mr. Mike Parker pointed out the property He advised the extreme cost of the land and 8 to the north would be detrimental knowing what would develop to the north, a location for an easement. to the north of the site was zoned A-1. and putting an easement through lots 7 to the two lots. He explained that, no it appeared they were randomly picking He also expressed his belief the subject development's impact to the intersection would not be nearly as great as the impact caused by the development to the south of the Mall. He advised that development had 116 acres of development with a $25,000 contribution. He stated this tract was only 8 acres and, to be equitable, their cost would only be $580. He stated they did not mind contributing to the cost of the intersection but did want it to be fair and equitable. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the depth of the subject tract was approximately 680 feet and if that could not be served onto Stearns or Joyce, the City was in trouble. He further noted that currently the only access for the development to the south of the Mall was the subject intersection. He expressed his belief that property stood to impact the intersection much more than the subject tract. Mr. Allred asked if a motion could include that an impact fee be based on the same per square foot/per acre price as what was impacted with Clary Development. He further stated that before this matter was voted on, it needed to be established clearly what the impact fee encompassed. He advised he did not think it was fair to the public to arbitrarily pull a figure out of the air. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and the same per square foot cost assessment be levied as was agreed upon by Clary Development. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Tarvin asked if the motion included the easement. Mr. Bunn stated the staff recommendations did not include an easement. Mr. Allred stated his motion did not include the easement. He further advised he did not think they wanted the streets to connect to make another thoroughfare. Mr. Tarvin expressed his opinion this development had less of an impact on the intersection than the Clary Development project. He stated they had to establish limits. Mr. Allred stated he would like staff to come up with a perimeter to use in the future as a guide, setting out where the impact fee started and ended. Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Allred was talking about a per acre basis. Mr. Allred stated he was talking about dividing the acre into square feet and charging on that basis. Mr. Nickle stated staff must have had some sort of a plan and he believed the Commission should have the benefit of their input before making such a decision. dA- • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 17 Mr. Gray stated the city staff had been trying to implement an impact fee without an ordinance in place. He advised it was to be based on rational nexus. He stated he liked the acreage basis and also suggested it could be based on traffic generations. He agreed there needed to be some basis for the fees but, until there was something in place, they needed to work a figure out with the developers. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Mickley Cato, Reynolds, Pummill, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". as° • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 18 FINAL PLAT - QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II MILLER FAMILY TRUST - S OF APPLEBY, OFF QUAIL CREEK DR. The next item was a final plat for Quail Creek Subdivision, Phase II, submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of the Miller Family Trust, for property located south of Appleby, off of Quail Creek Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 18.01 acres with 43 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained there were no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review Meeting. He noted all of the representatives indicated their lines were already in place. He stated Mr. Calloway, Southwestern Bell Telephone, indicated they needed the easement between Lots 11 and 12 and the future lots 28 and 29 dedicated on a separate easement document. He also noted Mr. Conklin had indicated the plat should show the placement of the sidewalks. He advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended the final plat be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Bunn recommended the final plat be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; dedication, by separate instrument, of the utility easement as requested by Mr. Calloway; payment of parks fees and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; filing of the subdivision covenants, if any; and the execution of a contract with the city for any unfinished improvements, including street lights. Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. as` • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 19 FINAL PLAT - GEORGIAN PLACE TOM BAILEY & TOM PEARSON - NW cORNER OF MELMAR AND LEVERETT The next item was a final plat for Georgian Place submitted by Tom Bailey and Tom Pearson for property located on the northwest corner of Melmar and Leverett. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 5 acres with 48 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the subject plat did not go through either Plat Review meeting or Subdivision Committee; however, the utility companies had been contacted by city staff and none had any comments or need for changes. He further stated the Parks Department had indicated the parks fees would be $10,800. He advised there had not been any construction on this project to date so, in order to allow the final plat to be filed, it would be necessary to execute a contract with the City which would guarantee construction of the required. improvements. He also stated it was his understanding the engineer of record on the project was no longer employed by the owner. He pointed out one of the conditions of the Health Department approval was the requirement for an engineer to do inspection during construction of the water and sewer line. He stated the owners would, therefore, need to hire an engineer to perform that service. He also noted the street construction would require the services of an engineer for inspection during construction and for certification purposes. Mr. Bunn recommended the Final Plat be approved subject to payment of parks fees per city ordinance; execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished improvements, including street lights; resolution of the cost sharing for the widening of Melmar; the filing of the subdivision covenants, if any; and the hiring of an engineer. Mr. Nickle asked if it was normal to file a final plat prior to any construction. Mr. Bunn stated it was not normal but it was allowed under the subdivision ordinances. Ms. Britton stated that, since Melmar was already a street, she thought the developers were responsible for all of the cost of the widening of Melmar. Mr. Bunn explained that, since the developers would be doing all of the widening on their side, the city agreed to share the cost. He further explained the normal requirement was the developer only had to widen a roadway 15 feet on their side but the agreement on this development was to widen the street to 31 feet, all the widening to be done on the developer's side. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. asp • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 20 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-26 - DUPLEX MAX PARKER - 1674 N. GREGG AVENUE The next item was a conditional use requested by Max Parker to allow a duplex within an R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning district. The property is located at 1674 North Gregg Avenue. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested the conditional use in order to convert the existing living space above the garage area into an additional dwelling unit. He advised there were no exterior expansions or additions planned as part of the conversion. He noted lot area, lot width, and parking were adequate on the site for duplex development. He advised the Planning Commission did have the authority to deny a conditional use if it would adversely affect the public interest and if it was not compatible with adjacent property and other properties in the district. Mr. Conklin pointed out that to the north, east and south the surrounding property was zoned R-1 and contained single family homes and to the west was zoned R-3 with a proposed multi -family development. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested conditional use. He explained the site was located within an R-1 zoning district which had developed over the years with single family homes. He stated introduction of a duplex into this area would not be compatible with the adjacent single family development of the area. Mr. Parker explained he had purchased the property as a rental property and it was situated on the corner of Sycamore and Gregg. He stated he was surprised to hear he was in an R-1 zoning district since he had always approached the property from Township and Gregg and passed both commercial areas and multi -family areas. He also pointed out there was an office complex on the other side of the railroad tracks on Sycamore. He reminded the Commission the property had previously been used as a garage. He advised the house was quite large and connected by a breezeway to the garage. He stated the garage was 24 feet by 36 feet with a large living quarters area above the garage. He explained he wanted to convert the area above the garage into a nice apartment and rent it separately from the house. He pointed out this would be good buffer between the residential area and the multi -family area. He expressed his belief this would have minimal impact to the neighboring residents. Mr. Nickle asked if there was sufficient parking space for two living units. Mr. Conklin stated three parking spaces were required and those were available. Mr. Parker stated the conditional use request was for only the existing structures. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Parker stated the stairway to the garage was on the east side of the garage. Ms. Jan Hook, 1657 Vandeventer, an adjoining property owner, stated the neighbors had fought duplexes north of Sycamore, they had fought condominiums, they had fought a high rise apartment complex. She asked if they allowed this duplex if it would not allow the construction of apartments on the same tract. Mr. Suchecki assured her it did not, that the conditional use was only for the existing structures. �5� • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 21 Me. Hook stated there was always the possibility they could come back before the Commission and expressed fear they were setting a precedent. Ms. Britton asked if Ms. over the previous use. Ms. Hook stated she did. the neighborhood. Hook did not feel the duplex would not be an improvement She explained she just wanted to protect the future of Mr. Allred stated if they did not grant the conditional use, the only other use would be a large number of people renting the property as one unit. He asked which was the beat alternative. Ms. Hook stated if it was a family unit it would be wonderful. She also stated she would not care if the property were used as an office as long as there weren't numerous cars there. Mr. Roy Pastche, a neighboring resident, agreed with Ms. Hook. He stated they did not want multi -family housing to go on the empty lot. He advised he would prefer single family homes. Mr. Cato stated it appeared the neighbors did not want to open the area up to duplexes but they did not have any objection to the conditional use provided it was not a springboard into duplexes. He asked Mr. Conklin if that affected staff's recommendation. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had talked to him earlier in the day and had brought up the same point as Mr. Allred that there would be 7 or 8 college students renting the property versus developing it into separate units. He advised he was comfortable, if the neighbors were comfortable, with granting the conditional use for the structure. He stated this was not a justification to develop the property to the south for multi -family dwellings. MOTION Mr. Cato stated he did not view this as opening the door to any future development. He moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, she was assured this was for Lot 9 only. The motion carried unanimously. a5� Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 22 PARKING WAIVER TIM KLINGER - 226 N. SCHOOL The next item was a request from Tim Klinger for a waiver of the required parking spaces for the property located at 226 North School. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Conklin stated that, on June 15, 1993, the City Council approved the sale of the Ozark Mountain Sports Building to Timothy and Christine Klinger. He explained the sale did not include the parking lot located on the same tract of land and it was to be split from the building, leaving the structure without any on-site parking. He advised the City had recognized that any use of the building would require a parking waiver by the Planning Commission. He noted the sale of the building was contingent on the Planning Commission granting the parking waiver for the existing structure. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant proposed to add to the existing building by constructing a second story and building out to the east property line. He noted approximately 4,400 square feet of the first story was planned for offices, eating places, and shopping goods with 2,000 square feet being used for the building's mechanical equipment. He advised another 4,400 square feet on the second story would be used for offices with 2,000 square feet to be developed for 8 parking spaces. He stated access to the second story would be possible because of the change of grade on the site. He advised the applicant had requested a change since he had written the report. He explained the existing building contained 4,300 square feet and the type of commercial uses allowed under C-3 zoning normally required 1 parking space for 200 square feet of floor area, equalling 22 spaces. He noted that, after talking with Mr. Klinger, the proposed expansion on the second story (containing 4,000 square feet) would be devoted entirely to office spaces requiring 1 space for every 500 square feet, equalling 8 parking spaces. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the parking waiver for the on-site parking for the existing building. Mr. Klinger stated the sale and offering acceptance was contingent upon a variance by the Planning Commission. He advised this was the final step in the sale process. Ms. Celia Scott-Silkwood, 221 N. Locust, stated she did not have a problem with the Commission granting the parking waiver. Mr. Richard Shewmaker, a Dickson Street resident, stated he had no problem with the granting of parking variances; that was how Dickson Street would have to be developed since the building was the property. He further stated that if everyone was required to provide parking on Dickson Street, there would be only 4 buildings and the rest would be asphalt. He explained there was a significant effort underway to provide more parking in the Dickson Street area for everyone. He advised he had been informed that, if the variance was not granted, the sale of the building would not occur and the building would revert to public ownership. He stated there was a new city council and he believed they made a mistake on this particular issue. He expressed his belief the building should revert back to the City Council and it could be advertised for sale again. He stated he did not believe they should convert the public property on Dickson Street to private property. He advised they were short on public property. ass • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 23 Mr. Nickle expressed his wish the City would have torn the building down and made parking spaces out of the lot. He advised he had been contacted by other property owners along Dickson Street and some of them felt it was unfair to grant a waiver and would rather see it go back to the City Council to either re advertise it, tear it down for parking, or use it as a public building. Mo. Britton stated she had received a letter from a someone in the Dickson Street Improvement Area which contended that essentially all of the parking places were created for the Art Center. She stated they were giving everyone a variance and were in essence giving the parking spaces away. She expressed her belief they were not supporting the Arts Center and the Improvement District if they gave the variances. Mr. Allred asked if the property participated in the Improvement District, being assessed its pro rata share to create all of the parking. It was determined the property was being assessed. Mr. Klinger stated he did not understand why the questions regarding the properness of the sale or the how the City Council acted in approving the sale would come before the Planning Commission. He stated those issues were taken care of with the City Council. Mr. Suchecki agreed it was not a factor. MOTION Ms. Britton stated she did not feel it was appropriate when the Commission waived the parking requirements for other developments in the past and she did not feet that it was appropriate to waive the parking requirements for the subject facility. She moved to deny the waiver. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-1 with Commissioners Britton, Nickle, Cato, Pummill, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes", Commissioner Allred voting "no", and Commissioner Reynolds abstaining. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 TIM KLINGER - 226 N. SCHOOL AVE. The next item was a request for a lot split presented by Tim Klinger on property located at 226 North School Avenue. It was determined this item was moot due to the previous decision regarding the parking waiver and it should be tabled until the City Council took further action. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to table the item. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 24 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 ELZA & BETTY DRANE - 5191 HUNTSVILLE The next item was a request for a lot split of property located at 5191 Huntsville presented by Elza and Betty Drane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for a first split of a 7.27 acre tract of land off of Highway 16 East. He noted the proposal was to create a 0.66 acre lot which would have 120 feet of frontage on Highway 16 and would be 240 feet deep. He advised each of the lots being created by the split were legal lots within the R-1 zoning regulations. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to the payment of one parks fee and the construction of sidewalks as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. a5� • • Planning Commission July 26, 1993 Page 25 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #3 EIRE ELSASS - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF MISSION BLVD. The next item was a lot split submitted by Kirk Elsass for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Bunn stated this was a request for a third split of property located at the northwest corner of Highway 265 and Highway 45 East. He advised the proposal was to split off approximately 1.5 acres just north of the Mercantile Store on the west side of Highway 265. He noted the previous splits had involved the Mercantile and the Worthen Bank property. He stated utilities were available to the site from Highway 265. He recommended the split be approved subject to the construction of a sidewalk in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan. He also noted that, since this is more than one acre, any requirements for specific development would be imposed at the time of a large scale development submittal and approval. Mr. Reynolds asked if staff knew what would be constructed on the property. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know, that the property was zoned commercially. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Cato, Pummill, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Reynolds voting "no". OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Nickle requested a report from the staff on the impact fees at a future meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.