Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 23, 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, Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill, Tam Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Jett Cato, Chuck Nickles Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were considered on the consent agenda: MINUTES The minutes of the August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. FINAL PLAT - TAYLOR ESTATES ESTHER TAYLOR - OFF S. COLLEGE, N OF E 29TH CIRCLE A final plat for Taylor Estates submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Esther Taylor for property located off South College Avenue, north of East 29th Circle. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 11.86 acres with 15 lots. FINAL PLAT - RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION PHILLIPS & ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD., S OF ZION A final plat for Ridgewood Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee for property located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 25.61 acres with 16 lots. FINAL PLAT - DAWN ACRES SAM MATHIAS - SW CORNER OF GREGG & SYCAMORE A final plat for Dawn Acres submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located at the southwest corner of Gregg and Sycamore. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 21.10 acres with 78 lots. FINAL PLAT - WALNUT VIEW ESTATES, PHASE II CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO. - W OF SALEM, N OF BUCKEYE A final plat for Walnut View Estates, Gray on behalf of Castle Development west of Salem Road, north of Buckeye. Low Density Residential, and contains Phase II, submitted by Harry Company for property located The property is zoned R-1, 5.88 acres with 22 lots. FINAL PLAT - PINE VALLEY, PHASE I BMP DEVELOPMENT - OFF POINT WEST, W OF SHILOH A final plat for Pine Valley, Phase I, submitted by Harry Gray behalf of BMP Development for property located off Point West on 304 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 2 Street, west of Shiloh. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.5 acres with 20 lots. Mr. Allred advised there had been opposition to the Taylor Estates plat at the. Subdivision Committee. He recommended that item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. NOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the consent agenda with the exception of Item B, Taylor Estates. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 3 FINAL PLAT - TAYLOR ESTATES ESTHER TAYLOR - OFF S. COLLEGE, N OF E 29TH CIRCLE The next item was a final plat for Taylor Estates submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Esther Taylor for property located off South College Avenue, north of East 29th Circle. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 11.86 acres with 15 lots. Mr. Bunn explained the utility company representatives had no comments on the subdivision plat; it had been indicated all of the easements shown were satisfactory. He advised the only staff comment had related to the setbacks for the tandem lot. He stated there were no other issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further stated Mr. Bill Greenhaw questioned whether the final plat should be approved since the preliminary plat for The Masters Subdivision had been denied at the last Planning Commission meeting in part because of traffic concerns. He advised the Subdivision Committee voted to forward the final plat to the full Planning Commission with staff recommendations for approval. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks (4 feet behind the curb); a notation on the plat that the drive for the tandem lot was private; a notation on the plat that cable service would not be immediately available to the subdivision; execution of a contract with the City for the value of the unfinished public improvements, including sidewalks and street lights; and the filing of subdivision covenants, if any. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn advised the street was a public street but there was a 50 -foot access easement (private drive) to the tandem lot. Mr. Jorgensen stated they concurred with staff comments. Mr. Garrett Martin advised he was an adjoining property owner and had not received notification of the meeting, nor had he received notification of any meetings on the preliminary plat. He stated the notification had gone to a previous owner. He also asked why the number of lots in the subdivision had increased. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Jorgensen advised he had taken the names of the property owners from the courthouse records. He further advised they had shifted lots and added one lot. Mr. Springborn asked if Mr. Martin would like the item to be tabled until he could review the plat further. Mr. Martin stated he had no objections to the plat. Mr. Bill Greenhaw stated he was representing Wright -Pence, Inc., developers of a proposed subdivision known as The Masters. He stated he had no objections to Taylor Estates as platted but was objecting to the approval of the plat based on the Commission's action at the last Planning meeting when they denied the preliminary plat of The Masters. He stated it was his understanding the vote on The Masters was based on the fact that city services in that neighborhood were not adequate to handle the existing development. He further stated the services were either adequate to handle additional development or not. He advised they had said two weeks earlier that it was not adequate but they now were reviewing 306 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 4 a subdivision in the same neighborhood with almost the same number of lots, the same access, etc. He went on to say he believed the Taylor Estates plat should be approved and he believed The Masters plat should also be approved. He noted that if it was good for one it should be good for the other. He informed the Commission they should treat each property owner equally under the law, not preferring one developer over another. He advised that, if they approved Taylor Estates but not The Masters, it would require his client to carry the full burden of whatever was required for additional development in the subject area. He stated that was not fair. He requested Taylor Estates be tabled in order for the same criteria to be applied to both developers. He advised the denial of The Masters plat was under appeal. He again requested Taylor Estates be tabled so the same criteria applied to Taylor Estates would also be applied to The Masters. Mr. Suchecki explained The Masters had been a preliminary plat but Taylor Estates was a final plat. He advised they had approved the preliminary plat for Taylor Estates in either February or March, some months earlier. He further stated Taylor Estates was part of the new development taken into consideration when the City Engineer had performed all of the testing, etc. Mr. Greenhaw stated that might be true but the arguments in the Minutes indicated the people who spoke before the Commission had said the roads were not adequate to handle existing homes. He stated there were no existing homes in the Taylor Estates subdivision. He advised, if the water pressure was not adequate and the streets were not adequate for existing homes, they would be compounding the problem by approving the final plat. He explained he was not saying the streets were not adequate nor was he saying the water pressure was not adequate because he believed they were adequate. He stated that to deny one and approve the other would be favoring one developer over another with no justification. Me. Britton asked if Taylor Estates had not been a replat of another plat. Mr. Bunn stated it was platted over the same area but there never had been a.° subdivision or plat approved on the subject site. He explained he believed a preliminary plat had been approved but when the final plat for Country Club Estates had been approved, the subject area was not a part of the final plat. Mr. Jorgensen explained there were some key differences between the two projects, the first being Taylor Estates was a final plat. He advised they had received approval of the preliminary plat. He explained approval of the preliminary plat signified approval in concept of a project which meant they prepared construction plans for water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, etc. He advised they also did construction stakeouts for the project, took bide from contractors, drew up contract documents, and installed public improvements (water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, etc.). He further stated that, in some situations, some of the lots might have been looked at by prospective buyers and contract sales set up. He further stated the biggest difference was the city had reviewed The Masters based on the capability of the infrastructure to accommodate the development. He pointed out the infrastructure was basically intact on Taylor Estates since the water and sewer were both in place. He explained they were working with an existing sewer. He advised the new subdivision was done along the plan presented in 1973. He stated they had upgraded one of the water lines but the basic infrastructure was in place. Mr. Dallas Wright, 2919 Wright Place, stated the infrastructure was not used until houses were built, the lines tapped into, etc. He further stated that, just because the lines existed, did not mean the infrastructure was being used. He went on to say the issues brought up at the last meeting concerned water • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 5 pressure problems. He advised water pressure problems did not exist until someone took a shower, bathed their children, or washed their car. He further advised that, just because they had a plat or a proposal of existing lot lines, did not mean they solved any of those problems. He further stated another issue that had been brought up at the previous meeting was a hazardous hairpin curve on the single access street. He pointed out that issue had not gone away. He asked they apply the same rules and regulations to all subdivisions and not single out particular developers. He asked they be consistent in their decisions. Mr. Wright further stated he was not opposed to Taylor Estates but did ask they apply the same rules and regulations to it as they had to The Masters. He asked that they not approve the final plat. Mr. Dryden Pence stated there was no guarantee that lots in Taylor Estates would have been sold any soon or faster than in The Masters. He explained that was an issue of the market. He further stated there were no issues, technical in nature, which had been brought up at the last meeting which indicated The Masters was out of compliance with the ordinances and the laws of the community. He pointed out The Masters was quite similar to Taylor Estates with approximately the same number of lots, offering approximately the same number of items. He asked that, since The Masters was in the middle of the appeals process, Taylor Estates be tabled until they were able to bring forward the final issues and arguments and have those matters resolved. He further advised the fundamental concern was not an issue of whether Taylor Estates or Wright -Pence, Inc. (The Masters) was doing anything right or wrong but whether the city services would be there to accommodate the traffic. He asked for consistency, equal treatment under the law and for the final plat to be tabled until the entire issue could be reviewed and resolved. He expressed hope the matter would be resolved equally and fairly. Mr. Springborn stated he could recall the details regarding the infrastructure adequacy but he did not recall whether the same consideration was given to the Taylor Estates at the time of the preliminary plat review. Mr. Bunn explained that, as far as the traffic was concerned, staff had recommended approval of The Masters Subdivision. He stated staff had not believed traffic was a concern for The Masters nor did they believe it was a concern when reviewing Taylor Estates. He advised staff had indicated in its report on The Masters that the water supply system was at approximately 60% capacity. He explained that would have been the case when they considered Taylor Estates and staff would have felt that was sufficient. Mr. Springborn asked if they applied the same criteria at the time Taylor Estates preliminary plat was reviewed, and had staff believed the water supply, sewer, etc. was adequate. Mr. Bunn stated it would have been. Mr. Allred explained both plats had come before the Subdivision Committee and both had been scrutinized by staff, the general public and the Committee, and both had been approved by the Subdivision Committee and forwarded to the full Planning Commission with full approval. He also advised both plats had staff recommendations that they be approved, with the exception on The Masters, that it was Phase I only. He stated both plats went through the same criteria and both plats had the same staff recommendations and Subdivision Committee recommendations. 30?b • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Cato agreed consistency was necessary. He further stated that, for the Commission to conceptionally approve a preliminary plat, and then change their minds on a final plat would be inconsistent with their history. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated she felt sympathetic to the objections but believed Taylor Estates was technically approved some time earlier. She advised the final plat was just a formality and she did not believe they had any choice but to approve it The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-36 DUB DUNAWAY - E OF CHERRY LN, N OF HUNTSVILLE The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Request R93-36 submitted by Dub Dunaway for property located on the east side of Cherry Lane, north of Huntsville Road. The request is to rezone one acre from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had petitioned to rezone the tract from R-1 to R-1.5 in order to subdivide the property into 5 lots and develop four additional single family homes. He advised the Board of Adjustment had granted a variance at their regular meeting on August 16, 1993 to allow each proposed lot to have a width of 59.6 feet instead of 60 feet. He noted the Board of Adjustment's approval was subject to the Planning Commission approving the preliminary plat and the City Council amending the zoning map. He advised the site was surrounded entirely by R-1 zoning with single family residences on the north, south, and west with the property to the east being vacant. He advised there was a 2 1/4 -inch cast iron water line and a 6 -inch sewer line along Cherry Street. He noted Cherry Street was classified as a local street. He stated the applicant was advised that additional improvements to Cherry Street abutting the property and additional improvements to the water line to serve the additional lots would be required at the time of preliminary plat approval. Mr. Conklin stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject property as low density residential. He further stated rezoning of this property would allow the development of single family homes only if the land was subdivided as proposed. He noted single family homes on smaller lots would allow the developer to provide more affordable housing in the area of the city. He recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He reminded the Commission they had, last April, recommended approval for a similar rezoning at the end of Dockery Lane for 1.4 acres from R-1 to R-1.5. Ms. Britton noted the property to the south was more than a duplex. Mr. Conklin agreed the property contained a four-plex. Mr. Cato further noted the property to the south was R-2 rather than R-1. Mr. Conklin agreed that was correct. Mr. Dub Dunaway stated he was available to answer questions. Ms. Opal Roberts, a resident of Cherry Lane, stated it was a very quiet, peaceful street but was very narrow. She further stated she did not understand how four more houses could be built on the tract. She further stated she was opposed. Ms. Britton asked if it would be more amenable to Ms. Roberts if the applicant constructed 2 duplexes rather than 4 single family homes. Ms. Roberts stated it would be a very congested street. She asked where the occupants would park. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant would be required to provide off-street parking. Me. Roberts stated she did not understanding why the developer could not buy some land where he would not be infringing upon other people. 3\D • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 8 Mr. H. D. Osborne, another Cherry Street resident, contended the street was a substandard street, being very narrow. He stated it would become very congested if there were additional buildings. He also advised there were water pressure problems in the area. He stated he was opposed to the rezoning. He informed the Commission the street had originally be constructed for only one house. Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Osborne had attended the Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Osborne stated he had not; that he had not been aware of the meeting. Ms. Britton asked if the development would require a large scale development. Mr. Bunn stated a subdivision would be required. Mr. Suchecki asked what kind of Cherry Street improvements would be required as part of the development. Mr. Bunn explained staff had not looked at the street since a subdivision plat. had not been filed. He advised it was normal to require the improvement of one half of the street to city street standards where the street abutted the subdivision. He stated the applicant would also be required to put in a water line which would provide fire protection for the subdivision. Mr. Nickle asked if the street would be 31 feet in width. Mr. Bunn explained it would be 15 1/2 feet on the applicant's side with curb and gutter and storm drainage. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn stated that, on ordinary city streets, parking was usually allowed if it did not cause interference with traffic flow. He advised it was a decision of the Police Department as to whether to allow parking on a street or not. He further stated off-street parking would be required but that did not mean someone would not park on the street. Mr. Suchecki asked if the planned homes would have garages. Mr. Dunaway advised they would have one -car garages and concrete driveways. Ms. Britton asked if the applicant was including the existing house as part of the subdivision. Mr. Bunn stated he was. Mr. Allred asked if there had been a Bill of Assurance offered that only single family homes would be constructed and not duplexes. Mr. Conklin explained the lot width was family homes could be constructed. Ms. Britton pointed out the applicant subdivision with a duplex on each lot. insufficient for duplexes and only single could come before them with a two lot MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the rezoning subject Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. to staff comments. 50 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-37 JAMES ROGERS - 200 N. FLETCHER The next item was a public hearing for R93-37 submitted by James Rogers for property located at 200 N. Fletcher. The request is rezone .42 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had revised his request. He stated he no longer wanted petitioned for a rezoning but wanted to petition for a conditional use in order to develop a four-plex on the site. He explained the site was developed with one single family home and was surrounded by R-1 zoning to the north, south and east and R-2 zoning to the west. He noted water and sewer were available to the site. He pointed out the surrounding uses were single family homes with the exception of to the west, which was multi -family housing. He stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the property as low density residential. He pointed out the area had developed with a mix of residential uses. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He stated the site was adjacent to property that had developed with multi -family housing and new construction would be an improvement to the area. Me. Britton asked if a lot split would not be required. Mr. Conklin explained there was sufficient frontage and lot area to have more than one principal structure on the lot. Mr. Sickle asked if the notification for rezoning would suffice as notice for the conditional use. Me. Little explained the Planning Commission had, in the past, down graded requests at their meetings. She further stated that if the Commission was concerned about notification, they could table the request to allow for re - advertising. She advised there had been notice in the newspaper and a sign on the property, giving ample opportunity for those interested in the action on the lot to be aware. Me. Britton stated she believed anyone who was interested would be at this meeting. Mr. James Rogers explained he was seeking permission to construct a duplex on Summitt Street. He pointed out he owned the property at 200 North Fletcher and that tract ran through to Summitt. He further advised he would be remodeling the existing house on the property also. Mr. Allred asked if the ingress/egress for the duplex would be from Fletcher or Summitt. Mr. Rogers stated it would be from Summitt. Mr. Dale Holland, a resident of Fletcher, stated the area residents had presented a petition with approximately 50 names opposing the rezoning. He advised the zoning was R-1 but the area did have some multi -family housing. He stated the neighbors wanted to maintain a balance in the neighborhood. He stated he believed all of Summitt contained single family homes. He further stated the neighborhood opposed the rezoning partly because of additional traffic and partly because the Mt. Sequoyah area was an improving area. He advised the neighborhood was becoming more desirable. • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Suchecki stated most of the homes along the east side of Fletcher had back yards extending to Summitt. Mr. Holland stated the neighborhood would prefer the owner construct a single family home on the tract. Mr. Bob Prenger, an adjoining property owner, asked if the applicant could build a four-plex on the property if the conditional use was approved. Mr. Suchecki advised the applicant would have to request a rezoning in order to construct a four-plex. Mr. Prenger wanted to be assured there would be off-street parking. He advised there were numerous children walking and riding bicycles along the street. Mr. Suchecki advised there would be off-street parking. He also noted the traffic would impact only Summitt, not Fletcher. Mr. Randy Salley, 222 Summitt, expressed concern regarding the traffic pointing out there was a stop sign at Fletcher and Spring but none at Summitt. He advised there were numerous people who drove Summitt and he was concerned about the additional traffic and congestion. Ms. Wilmita Holland asked if approval of this conditional use would influence the Commission to allow further conditional uses on adjoining properties. Mr. Suchecki assured her every conditional use was looked at on its own merit and therefore, would not necessarily allow for any others. Me. Holland advised people looked to the City to maintain zoning. Mr. Reynolds asked the size of the subject lot. Ms. Little explained the applicant would have to maintain 2 20 -foot rear setbacks in order to develop along Summitt Street. She advised the applicant owned a lot and a half with 175 feet of frontage on each street and 145 feet deep. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained the applicant could build up to 40 feet from the existing structure. Mr. Allred suggested having one entrance off of Fletcher and one off of Summitt. Mr. Suchecki pointed out there was an old house fronting on Fletcher. Mr. Allred stated the Commission did have the option to require the drive go to each street to maintain the character of the neighborhood. He stated it would also be an attempt to revitalize the area. Me. Mary Ruth Harris, 155 Fletcher, advised there was already a drive from Summitt to Fletcher on the subject property. She stated that, unless the applicant guaranteed that drive would be closed, the duplex residents would have access to Fletcher Street at the "T" intersection. She requested this matter be tabled since the applicant had changed his request from a rezoning to a conditional use. She stated she had always believed a conditional use was for a temporary condition rather than a permanent condition. She also advised many residents at the top of the mountain used Summitt as access to Dickson, stating the traffic could only go to the north or west. Ms. Little explained a conditional use was used when considering home occupations which could be a temporary use. She explained that, in each zoning district, 3)3 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 11 there were certain uses permitted by right and other additional uses which staff could not give approval for and those were called "conditional uses". She stated that in an R-1 district a request for a duplex did have to come to the Planning Commission for a conditional use. Me. Britton expressed concern regarding did not believe any type of multi -family also pointed out there were only single NOTION the topography of the site stating she use was appropriate on the terrain. She family homes along Summitt. Ms. Britton moved to deny the conditional use. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Sickle, Britton, Reynolds, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki, Allred and Cato voting "no". • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-38 TILLMAN & BETTY ADKINS - W OF GARLAND, S OF WEDINGTON The next item was a rezoning request property located on the west side of is to rezone .96 acres from R-0, Commercial. submitted by Tillman and Betty Adkins for Garland, south of Wedington. The request Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop a laundromat facility. He advised the parcel was currently vacant and adjoined Leverett School to the south. He reminded the Commission this was the same tract of land that had been involved in several petitions for rezoning over the last several years. He reviewed the chronology of events with the subject parcel. He noted the zoning to the north. was R -O, to the east R-3, to the south P-1, and to the west R-1. He also reviewed permitted uses in both R -O zoning and C-1 zoning districts. He advised there was a six inch water line along Cleveland and a six inch sewer line along the back of the property. He explained the site had frontage on Garland Avenue and was classified as a minor arterial. Mr. Conklin recommended the Planning Commission weigh the previous actions heavily in deciding appropriate land use for the subject area. Mr. Adkins stated they currently owned the laundromat located in Oak Plaza and wanted to move the laundromat to the subject site. Ms. Adkins stated Me. Parsons (owner of the subject property) had agreed to assist the school to work on the drainage problem. She further noted No. Parsons had donated additional land to the school for the parking of school buses. Mr. Kim Smith stated he was representing the Hall Avenue property owners. He reviewed the history of the subject property and advised they had never opposed the rezoning of the property to R-0 but did oppose it being zoned commercially. He stated there was residential property both behind and across the street from the site. Me. Audrey Peterson, 930 Hall, agreed with Mr. Smith. She asked if the proposed laundromat would sell alcoholic beverages. Mr. Adkins stated it would not. Ms. Adkins assured the Commission the laundromat was family owned, family run and family orientated. Mr. Albert Green, 962 Hall, concurred with Mr. Smith's remarks. He stated one reason for a rezoning was the need for additional land in a certain zoning district to allow for the growth of a city but there was already appropriately zoned land for a laundromat without rezoning the subject tract. He expressed his believe that having commercial property next to an elementary school was not appropriate nor desirable. He contended the laundromat would increase the traffic next to the school and there was already enough of a traffic problem. He also expressed concern the rezoning of the subject tract could result in a domino effect on the remaining lots. He stated he opposed the rezoning request. Mr. Adkins pointed out approximately 75% of their current business used Garland so there would not be a noticeable increase in traffic. He also advised he was willing to give any ingress/egress necessary to be sure there would not be a traffic problem. He also volunteered to leave the back half of the property 3\5 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 13 undeveloped. He advised there were other properties available in the area but they were quite expensive. Ms. Pat Green, 962 Hall, expressed concern for the school children contending there would be more traffic for the children to cope with if the property became commercial. She explained that any children coming from the north or northwest would have to pass by the subject property. She advised offices normally opened after the time the children went to the school and had very little traffic. She stated she did not believe commercial zoning was appropriate next to any school in the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Allred asked if a laundromat would fit into any other zoning district with a conditional use or Bill of Assurance. Mr. Conklin stated it would not. Mr. Adkins stated they also had children and appreciated the neighborhood's concerns. He advised they were community orientated. He stated the slowest business times for a laundromat was when children were going to school and leaving school. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Ms. Little advised there were three lots zoned R -O. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission they had denied a request to rezone the entire tract to commercial uses in 1991. He also pointed out that, regardless of the good intentions of Mr. & Mrs. Adkins, should the property be rezoned to a commercial use, there could be other commercial uses than a laundromat. He advised his beliefs had not changed from 1989, 1990 and 1991 and still would stand against any rezoning; that residential -office was a good compromise. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the rezoning. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Me. Britton stated she was concerned about additional traffic and she did not believe residential -office would cause as much traffic. She further stated she believed the laundromat would have more traffic over a longer period of time. She also stated she believed if the rezoning were approved, it would be spot zoning since there was residential -office adjoining the property, not commercial. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Suchecki, Nickle, Britton, Reynolds, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Pummill and Allred voting "no". 3�� • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING - PARKING WAIVER TIM KLINGER - 226 N SCHOOL The next item was a request for a parking waiver presented by Tim Klinger for property located at 226 N. School Avenue, zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. The request is for a waiver of the required parking spaces. Mr. Conklin stated Mr. Klinger had amended his original request and was now asking only for a waiver of the parking requirements for the existing building. He reminded the Commission that, on June 15, 1993, the City Council approved the sale of the Ozark Mountain Sports Building to Timothy and Christine Klinger. He advised the sale had not included the parking lot that was located on the same tract of land. He stated the City had planned to split the parking lot from the building which would leave the subject structure without any on-site parking. He further advised the City had recognized that any use of the existing building would require a parking waiver by the Planning Commission. He stated that, regardless of the sale price of the building, a parking waiver would be required before any use could be made of the building. He advised the required parking was 22 spaces. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested parking waiver for 22 on-site parking spaces. He advised the applicant was willing to invest in the downtown area of Fayetteville and rehabilitate a structure that was in need of repair. He stated letters from the Walton Arts Center and Carl Collier in favor of the request were included the agenda packets. Mr. Springborn asked why the City had split the parking area off from the building. Ms. Little reviewed the history of the property since purchase by the City and stated there was a multi -tiered parking lot with access to School Street. Mr. Klinger stated his original request was for a waiver for 36 spaces for an expanded building. He advised he had revised the request to 22 spaces without expanding the building. He reminded the Board Carl Collier and Richard Shewmaker had both voiced opposition to the original plan. He stated he was willing to pay the annual assessment to the Dickson Street Improvement District. He advised they had worked closely with Mr. Collier, Mr. Shewmaker and the Walton Arts Center and they were all in favor of the amended request. Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Klinger could improve the existing building. Ms. Conklin stated the building could be improved but not expanded unless he could provide on-site parking for any expansion. NOTION Mr. Springborn stated that, in view of the concession by the application and looking at their recent history of granting waivers in the general area, he he did not believe the request was out of line and was consistent with the way parking was developing in the area. He moved to grant the waiver. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 30 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 15 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT *1 TIM KLINGER - 226 N SCHOOL AVENUE The next item was a request for a lot split submitted by Tim Klinger for property located at 226 North School. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Bunn advised this was a proposed first split of property located at 226 N. School. He stated the total acreage was 0.38 acres and the split would create one lot containing .16 acres (the portion purchased by Tim Klinger) and another containing 0.22 (being retained by the City). He informed the Commission the property had been sold at auction by the City and the split was required to transfer the lot and building. He stated both lots created by the split we e legal under the C-3 zoning district. He recommended the lot split be granted. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 16 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT — STEVE CUMMINGS STEVE CUMMINGS — W OF CROSSOVER, N OF HUNTSVILLE The next item was a large scale development presented by Steve Cummings for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property contains 25 acres with 8 units and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little advised the development consisted of 8 single family units on 25 acres. She explained the intent was to have the property remain under one ownership and rent the single family units. She stated the owner was Steve Cummings who was not represented by an engineer. She noted the item had been reviewed by the plat review committee on July 8, 1993. She stated the utility company representatives had requested several easements in order to serve the development. She further stated staff had commented on the need to provide an additional easement for Highway 265, the need for fire protection for the development, the requirement for paved streets, park fees, and the need for street names. Ms. Little explained that, subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, the City Attorney had advised the city could not ask for additional easement on Highway 265. She advised the city did have the authority to request additional right-of-way under subdivision regulations but not under large scale development regulations. She stated there had been considerable discussion as to whether the city could require the street serving the development to be paved. She advised the developer maintained there was no requirement for paving and that an SB -2 street would suffice. Ms. Little informed the Commission that, at the subdivision committee meeting, she had suggested the additional right-of-way for Highway 265 could possibly be obtained by allowing the private drive for the 8 homes. She stated there had been considerable discussion on whether or not the development met city standards and whether or not the owner should be required to hire an engineer to complete the project. She stated the Subdivision Committee had voted to forward the development to the full Planning Commission with the recommendation that it be denied. Mr. Allred advised the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the development and, since there were no registered engineering drawings to look at, they felt it was not in the city's best interest nor the other developers' interest to recommend approval. He stated they required other developers to have registered drawings and this developer should abide by the same criteria and city ordinances. He stated the Subdivision Committee recommended denial. Steve Cummings stated he was just there as a joke; he was withdrawing any of the requests he had made. He further stated the only request he had made was a private drive. He advised it had all started out as a joke and it would end that way. He stated the Planning Commission was the most important committee in Fayetteville for the next 10 years; they would decide how the town was developed. He asked that a copy of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the easement along Highway 265 be provided to the Planning Commission. He then provided the Commissioners with a copy. Mr. Allred suggested that, since the petitioner had requested the large scale development be withdrawn, they move on with the agenda. • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 17 Mr. Cummings stated he was requesting they discuss the matter for a few minutes.. He advised it was important for the Commissioners to know about the opinion from the City Attorney. He stated in the past the city would take the right-of-way and then grant 100's of variances for a property owner, whatever the developer requested. He stated they needed to look to the future and not keep anything hidden. Ms. Little advised there was no attempt to hide the opinion; there was a statement in the report to the Commission which read: "Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, the City Attorney had advised the city could not ask for additional easement on Highway 265." 9.0 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 18 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SPOT NOT CAR WASH GARY DANDY - SE CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND MARVIN The next item was a large scale development for Spot Not Car Wash presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Gary Dandy for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington and Marvin. The development is on 1.38 acres which is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives on the proposed development. He stated all representatives indicated they would work with the developer to provide service to the lot. He stated staff had commented on the requirement for screening, a tree preservation plan, curb cuts on Highway 16, and drainage. He noted that, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, a sidewalk would be required on Wedington and that the owner had changed one of the curb cuts on Wedington to an entrance only. He stated the Committee voted to forward the large scale development to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; and construction of a sidewalk as required. He advised the conditions of approval as listed were not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements which could 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. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained there would be two curb cuts on Wedington but one of them (the one closest to Marvin) would be an entrance only. Ms. Britton stated she was concerned about the entrance being so close to the corner. She suggested one entry in the middle of the property rather than two with one so close to the corner. Mr. Gray advised they concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Me. Britton stated she did not believe she had received an answer to her question regarding the curb cuts. She pointed out drivers would have to slow up as they approached the entry and, in essence, cause conflict in front of Marvin. She stated she did not understand why one entry/exit in the middle of the property would not be adequate. Mr. Gray advised there was 200 feet of frontage and it was a typical commercial development on a state highway. He further stated the State Highway Department would have to approve any curb cuts. He pointed out they had narrowed the entry only drive. Ms. Britton stated her concern was that the curb cut was so close to Marvin. 3?‘ • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Gray advised he believed most people would exit on Marvin and go to Wedington. He explained staff was concerned that the drive marked would have been used by people exiting, blocking the view of drivers The motion carried unanimously. back north entry only on Marvin. • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 20 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - UNITED WAY HEADQUARTERS UNITED WAY - SW CORNER OF IVEY & HWY 265 The next item was a large scale development for United Way Headquarters presented by Landtech Engineering on behalf of the United Way. The property is located on the southwest corner of Ivey Lane and Highway 265 and contains 2 acres. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting. He noted water for the facility would be furnished by the City of Springdale. He stated staff remarks had included comments on the parking, Highway 265 right- of-way, and landscaping. He further stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the large scale development to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the United Way Large Scale Development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; granting of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for Highway 265; and approval of a grading and drainage plan. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn explained the property was located within the Fayetteville City Limits but was adjacent to Springdale. He stated the water lines served the adjacent property. Marion Williams, Landtech Engineering, concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 21 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION JED DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM, N OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Crystal Springs Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of JED Development for property located on the east side of Salem, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is located outside the city limits and contains 39.9 acres with 115 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission the subdivision had been tabled at the last Planning Commission in order to get further information concerning possible wetlands involved with the development, drainage effects, and traffic. He stated it was his understanding a representative from the Corps of Engineers had reviewed the 40 -acre tract (the first phase of the development) and would make a report to the Commission. He stated the engineers for the developer would have additional information on drainage from the site and how it compared with existing flows considering the entire drainage basin. He stated the proposed development would represent approximately 2 percent of the entire drainage basin. He noted the entire proposed development east of Salem Road (approximately 243 acres) represented 12 percent of the total drainage basin. He advised it appeared the area could be developed without significant impact on total flows. He further stated it would remain for more detailed work to determine just what the impacts were and what could be required to mitigate those effects. Mr. Bunn also informed the Commission the Traffic Division of the City took counts on Salem Road just at the City Limits. He noted the counts indicated the present number of cars per day traveling Salem Road at that point was approximately 570. He advised that total agreed with 1992 traffic counts. He stated it was expected the 115 lots would generate approximately 1,100 cars per day. He went on to say that, after development of the 40 acres under consideration at the present time, the daily volume was expected to be 1670 vehicles with peak hour volume going from approximately 54 vehicles to an estimated 130 vehicles. He advised they had reviewed other streets in Fayetteville with comparable traffic counts such as Old Wire Road, east of Highway 265; Beechwood Avenue, off Highway 180; Hill Avenue; Drake Street; and South Street. He noted existing traffic volume on Mt. Comfort was approximately 4,000 cars per day according to 1992 traffic counts. He stated there were other streets in Fayetteville that handled the same amount of traffic as that proposed on Salem. He noted there was some concern regarding the condition of the pavement. He advised he had spoken with Randy Allen, City Street Superintendent, and he was looking at Mt. Comfort Road for some possible overlays. He noted Mr. Allen had not made a decision about Salem Road. Mr. Bunn further advised that, if the surface condition of either Salem or Mt. Comfort were such that they needed to be overlaid, it would be up to the City to do that. He stated they believed the roads would support the additional traffic. Mr. Nickle asked if the figures were just for the 40 acres under consideration at this meeting. Mr. Bunn stated he had not calculated any additional traffic loading due to the additional acreage. He advised there was another proposed street (per the concept plat) which would tie into Mt. Comfort Road. He stated he was not sure what other connections were proposed. He further stated it would be very difficult to try to calculate the additional loading on Salem Road with the added development. 32* • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 22 Mr. Mel Milholland concurred with staff's traffic report and noted they had also reviewed measurements on major streets through the city. He cited Highway 16 West which was 21 feet wide and Highway 112 was 20 feet wide. He noted they believed the roads would be improved but that they presently were safe. He then presented a map with the drainage basin outlined. He pointed out the double box culvert and claimed the capacity of the culvert was 2500 cfs. He showed the Commission a table listing 2,047 acres in the basin. He pointed out Crystal springs, Phase I, contained 39.9 acres, or approximately 2% of the total area. He advised the potential future development would be approximately 90 percent, with 75 to 100 acres not being developed. He stated he concurred with the staff report that there would be no significant impact on the total flows. Mr. Milholland also advised that an average family generated from 6 to 10 round trips per day. He noted at the present time Mt. Comfort had 4,000 cars using it daily. He stated there were other streets in the area, including some state highways, that had the same width of driving surface carrying much larger traffic volume. He also pointed out the road was straight with no steep hills or sharp curves. He advised he believed they had complied with the requirements set by ordinance and met all city standards. Ms. Britton stated she was concerned that silt could get into the wetlands during construction. She asked what precautions would be taken. Mr. Milholland stated the city did have a grading ordinance which they intended to comply with. Ms. Britton stated the grading ordinance did not address what happened during construction except to require temporary seeding in order to avoid excess silt during construction. She advised she had seen previous developments done by Mr. Milholland but she did not know how involved he would be with the subject development. She noted she had noted on some of his developments bales of hay, detention ponds during construction, etc. Mr. Milholland advised he would do the exact same thing on this development. He advised the contractor would be required to get a permit from the State of Arkansas which required the provisions mentioned by Ms. Britton. Ms. Raye Nilius, Little Rock District Office of the Corps of Engineers, advised she had looked at the 40 acre tract earlier in the day and found there were no wetlands on the 40 acres. She did note, however, there was a small tract of wetlands (approximately 100 feet x 10 feet) on the proposed school site just south of the 40 -acre tract. She advised Mr. Davis would need to bring forth the information regarding other projects in the area. She stated the Corps did not like to piecemeal anything for permits. She further advised there were extensive wetlands along Clabber Creek and around the golf course. She also pointed out a spring which they would need to regulate. She noted there might also be wetlands to the west of the proposed site. She further stated Mr. Davis had informed her he had withdrawn the concept plat and, at this time, only intended on developing the subject 40 acre tract. She stated that, if that was all Mr. Davis was concerned about, it would not be a problem with the Corps; but, if he was going to come up with more development in the area as part of the entire project, they needed to look at it all at the same time. • Ms. Nilas explained they could not issue any permits which would raise flood heights in the floodway. She advised they would have to have calculations 32s • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 23 showing there would be no increase in the flood heights in the floodway as a part of the project. She further noted she had spoken with the flood plain staff of the Corps since there had been a request to look at the school site and part of it was in the floodway. She explained that, if the area was annexed into the city, the City should have some ordinances regarding the floodway. She further stated that, if it was not annexed into the city, the County Judge should be contacted for a floodway variance. Ms. Nilius advised there had been some questions regarding what could be done and what could not be done in wetlands. She explained any project that placed fill in a wetlands required a Section 404 permit from the Corps. She stated in order to obtain such a permit the developer had to show there was no alternative other than placing fill in the wetland to achieve the purpose. She further stated it was possible to get a permit to fill wetlands for the 283 acre project but the developer would have to avoid damage to the eco -system. She explained the Corps would want to see those plans prior to issuing the permit. She advised she had not viewed the entire site but knew there were numerous acres of wetlands. Ms. Britton asked if the developer would be allowed to put fill in the wetlands to construct houses. Ms. Nilius stated there were several levels of permits and each was handled differently. She advised Clabber Creek could, perhaps, be authorized for a nationwide permit. She explained with a nationwide permit the developer could fill from 1 to 10 acres in wetlands if they first showed they had avoided all damage to the eco -system and showed they had to fill for their project. She advised when the Corps looked at the permit applications they shared the information with other state and federal agencies and asked for their comments. She stated those comments assisted the Corps in making their decision as to whether the project would qualify for a nationwide permit or required an. individual permit which required notice to all adjacent property owners. She advised if the developer received a permit, they would have to create, restore or enhance wetlands elsewhere or on site in order to get the permit. Me. Britton stated she understood that, until the developer applied for a permit and the Corps received comments from other agencies, it would be difficult to answer some of her questions but she wanted to know what would occur if the developer expanded the project beyond the 40 acres. She further stated she was concerned that the total project would impact the wetlands through run-off and how it might affect the habitat in the wetland area or increase siltation and fill up the wetlands. She asked if that ruling would not be made until the entire 283 acre tract was turned in. Ms. Nilius stated the Corps could not regulate anything they had not received a request upon. She further stated she had advised Mr. Davis that, if he planned to have other projects associated with Phase I, he needed to apply for everything at once. She again advised the Corps did not piecemeal projects. She stated Mr. Davis contended Phase I was all that he was planning on doing; that it was possible a road might cross the floodway but he believed nothing but Phase I would be done for approximately 2 years. She explained that, if there was nothing in Phase I to regulate, the Corps had no authority on the rest of the land, other than avoid the wetland areas and not place fill in them. She further advised that, anytime there was ground disturbance on an area with a slight• topography change, there would be sedimentation running down the hill. She explained if the site was stripped bare the sedimentation would be quite bad but the Corps had no authority until the developer applied for a permit. She stated that, once a permit was asked for, the Corps could require certain erosion control methods. 32 I • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 24 Me. Little asked if the Corps did not have the authority to issue a cease and desist order if a developer was disturbing the wetlands. Ms. Nilius stated that was correct. She advised the developer could be liable for extreme penalties. Mr. Springborn asked how much beyond Phase I could the owner develop before requiring a permit. Ms. Nilius showed an aerial photograph of the wetlands in the subject area. Me. Britton asked how close a developer could get to the wetlands without a permit. Me. Nilius stated the Corps did not regulate anything until the developer was in the wetlands. Mr. Springborn asked if it would require a permit for the entire tract when the developer was in the wetlands. Ms. Nilius explained if fill was pushed around in the wetlands or the developer was working next to the wetlands and fill got into the wetlands, the Corps had authority. Mr. Springborn asked if that included the entire undertaking. Ms. Nilius confirmed it did. Mr. Allred asked if the Corps preferred that, with the beginning of Phase II, the developer should present the entire plat and the entire remaining tract be permitted. Me. Nilius stated that was true. She explained that with a nationwide permit a developer was allowed to only fill 1 to 10 acres. She stated numerous permit applications on adjoining tracts from the same developer would offer the possibility of filling more than 10 acres; therefore, the Corps did not want numerous permits. Mr. Allred asked what happened when there were other developers in the same area also needing permits. He asked if the entire area had to go to the Corps at the same time even if it were being developed by different persons. Ms. Nilius stated that, if other people owned tracts along Clabber Creek, it might be unreasonable to assume every project could reviewed at the same time. She went on to Bay that one person, owning a large tract to be developed, should file the application for the entire project. Mr. Allred asked what the Planning Commission could do to assist the Corps with future development in the area. He advised they needed to know how to proceed to insure no wetlands were disturbed. Mr. Nickle asked if the staff had an opportunity to look at the aerial photographs of the wetlands. Ms. Nilius stated they had not reviewed the map. She further stated that, when she completed the delineation on the 283 acres, she would forward a copy to Ms. Little. Upon request Ms. Nilius showed the aerial photograph to the Planning Commission and members of the public. 3a1 Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 25 The Planning Commission took a 15 minute recess. In response to a question from Jim McCord, Ms. Nilius advised a sewer could be constructed through wetlands with a permit. She also noted a house could be constructed with a permit but she could not assure anyone they would get a permit. Mr. Milholland stated he understood that possibility. Mr. Jim McCord stated he was representing Tom Muccio, Wilson Kimbrough and other residents in the area in opposition to the preliminary plat. He advised they had not found out about the meeting until the previous night or there would have been more people present in opposition (by a show of hands, there were approximately 25 people present). He reminded the Commission he and residents of the area had expressed concerns at the previous meeting regarding this development. He advised they were concerned regarding the traffic safety on Salem Road, contending Salem Road was a substandard road. He noted reference had been made to other roads and streets within the city with the same amount of traffic. He advised Salem Road was a double chip and seal with numerous potholes. He stated he did not believe it was relative that there were other standard streets carrying the same amount of traffic. He contended Salem Road could not handle additional traffic. He stated there would be 800 lots in the development because if Phase I was approved, Phases II and III would eventually be developed. He stated it was important the Commission look at the entire development, not just Phase I, in determining whether Phase I should be approved. Mr. McCord summarized his memo, stating the main point was the traffic safety considerations. He also pointed out the developer had petitioned for annexation to the City of Fayetteville for the entire tract of property with the hearing scheduled for September 9 with the County court. He advised the City needed to consider its long term plans for regulating development. He reminded the Commission the City would, in the near future, be considering the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and the staff was considering putting in the ordinance two transition zones from A-1 to R-1. He stated the proposal was larger minimum lot sizes than presently required, a 1.5 acre minimum in one transition zone and a 5 acre minimum in the other transition zone. He requested this matter be tabled until the annexation was accomplished and the new zoning ordinance was adopted so this development would be regulated in accordance with what was being considered for future development. He advised there was all kinds of case law upholding moratoriums on development while a city was considering a new zoning ordinance or new subdivision ordinance. He further stated that, based on comments from the Corps of Engineers representative, he believed no action should be taken on Phase I until the wetlands study of the entire 275 acres was completed. He advised the Corps representative would be in town all week to complete the study. He expressed his belief it would be inappropriate to approve Phase I since the Corps representative had told them she needed to look at the entire area to complete her study. He requested the plat be either disapproved or tabled. Mr. McCord reminded the Commission this item had been previously tabled because Commissioner Nickle had determined the Commission did not have adequate information on several relevant issues. He stated that only part of the information had been provided in the City Engineer's report. He advised the specifics of the condition of Salem Road had not been provided. He reiterated Salem Road was substandard. He further stated the proposed lot sizes were incompatible with the neighborhood. He pointed out there were some smaller homes and mobile homes but the predominate 3a� • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 26 character of the neighborhood, especially to the north and west, were large homes on large acreage. He reminded the Commission they had considered lot size as a relevant issue in determining acceptance of a subdivision plat in previous occasions. Mr. Howard Davis, developer of the project, showed the Commission slides of the area. He stated he believed one of the main issues was whether or not the proposed development was compatible with the proposed neighborhood. He presented slides which included mobile homes, chicken houses, dumps, duplexes, smaller houses/lot sizes, Salem Road and various other roads the same size as Salem Road. He informed the Commission they had submitted covenants for the Commissions review and pointed out gravel driveways, outbuildings in the front or sideyard, as shown in the slides on neighboring properties. He also asked, if the opponents to the proposed subdivision were correct, why tracts containing smaller acreage sold for more money. He gave various examples, citing various houses and lots. He advised the character of a neighborhood had to do with schools, perception, surrounding houses, etc. He further stated they had submitted a portion of the covenants even though the neighboring property owners in opposition had no covenants. Mr. Davis stated they wanted to build nice houses on nice lots. He requested the preliminary plat be approved so the area would be a better place to live. He advised they had offered two different sites for a school together with a 15 -acre park. He stated they wanted to be a good neighbor. He expressed his belief that smaller lots and more common areas made better sense than everyone having 2 acres if they were giving the school 20 acres and the parks 15 acres. He pointed out they were giving away 35 acres next to the 40 acres they were developing. Mr. Springborn asked if the school and park property were included in the initial Phase I. Mr. Davis stated the school property would be on Salem Road, directly south of Phase I. Mr. Al Zaccanti, the adjacent property owner to the east, stated he was in favor of the development. He further stated he believed the direction of growth should be to the west. He advised the only way to grow west was to get sewer lines in the area. He explained the reason there were so many larger lots in the area was because everyone had to have a minimum of 2 acres for septic tanks. He further pointed out the industrial park was to the east and, if the subdivision was not approved, he was fearful his property would be surrounded by industries rather than residences. Mr. Jim Selby, a neighboring resident, expressed concerns regarding the drainage. He advised that, if the Commission did not require the developer to take care of the drainage, they were in serious trouble. He stated the City of Rogers required the developers to take care of drainage problems by requiring retention ponds. He contended they would be putting more water and silt into the wetlands. He expressed his belief the run-off would double if the subdivision was approved. He further contended the worse soil in the country was found near the subject property, stating when Highway 71 was constructed the soil had to be treated for a 2 -foot depth with lime before making a roadway. Mr. Selby also expressed concern regarding the traffic on Salem Road. He stated the traffic count had not been done in the normal manner, contending if the City Engineer had waited until school started, the count would have doubled. He advised the State Highway Department would run a traffic count for the city and 32° 1 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 27 give the average daily traffic on Salem. He stated they could then base the design for the streets on those figures. He further stated the road was full of potholes; that it was a subgrade failure due to the soil. Mr. Jim Rimbrough, 2420 North Salem, explained some of the picture showed properties within the City of Fayetteville, including a condemned house on property adjoining his. He noted he had offered to purchase the adjoining property but the owner would not sell it to him. He advised the neighboring property owners were not against the development but did have some concerns which they would like to have addressed. He further stated he was not sure the proposed development was consistent with the new land use plan and he doubted the Commissioners were familiar with the new plan. He advised there had been some suggestions made to the developer which would make the development satisfactory to the majority of the neighbors. He asked the Commission to delay in making a decision until some of the residents' questions and concerns could be answered. Mr. Kimbrough advised placing the school in a wetlands also concerned him. He stated the newspaper had an article regarding the amount of money necessary for fill before anything could be constructed on the tract. Mr. Tom Muccio, a neighboring resident, stated some of Mr. Davis' comments had been inaccurate. He advised most of the residents had covenants on their properties. He stated the residents had asked Mr. Davis, for some time, for a copy of the proposed covenants but Mr. Davis had been unwilling to meet with them and give them a copy of the covenants. He further stated Mr. Davis had said the tract than the opposing property owners. trailer park was within the City Limits a tract. trailer park was closer to the 40 -acre He advised that was not true, that the considerable distance from the 40 -acre Mr. Muccio further stated the new land use plan had determined there should be a buffer between the large country lots in toward the city. He advised the residents would not be opposed to 1 1/2 acre lots. He contended that, whatever was developed on the subject tract, would set a precedent for the remaining area; there were numerous people setting on large tracts of land waiting to see if this proposal was approved. He stated if the subject subdivision was approved, they had just condemned the entire area to 4 per acre lots rather than a buffer area. Ms. Teresa Martin, a resident of Salem Road, reminded the Commission she had spoken to them at an earlier meeting regarding insurance. She stated she had spoken to the owner of an insurance agency who told her that, if a house was constructed in the flood plain or flood zone, a property owner would not be able to get a normal homeowners policy but it would cost at least double the normal rate. She also expressed concern the residents would be paying high water costs. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough asked that the Commission visit the area. He advised traffic was human behavior, people driving, and he knew something about human behavior since he had taught it for 40 years. He further advised the two things they needed to look for in measurement was reliability and validity. He stated he did not believe what they had heard earlier had either feature. He contended the traffic count did not include all of the people on vacation and a proper sample of the general areas where traffic would be was not done. He stated that measuring traffic to predict traffic was not validity. He explained validity was that when the traffic from the houses on the 40 -acre tract 330 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 28 came by his house, if he could get out of his driveway. He advised he was already having trouble getting out of his driveway. He stated they were talking about validity when they measured the impact of the additional traffic on an individual. He stated none of the figures measured the impact on human beings which he believed should be a concern of the Planning Commission. Me. Sylvia Slagel, 2733 East Salem and a map of the subject area. attracted the current residents to adjoining her home was there on a home was being built. Road, presented the Commission with pictures She explained the country setting was what the area. She also explained the mobile home temporary basis for her to live in while her She also noted that whenever it rained the ground in the area did not absorb water because it was clay. Ms. Slagel also called attention to pictures of Salem Road stating if the school was constructed, there would be even more traffic on Salem Road. She also reminded the Commission Ms. Little had noted there were larger homes to the north of the proposed development than to the south. She advised all of the pictures of the mobile home parks were to the south of the development. She requested they deny the plat as presented and make the developer redraft the development to be more in conjunction with the existing neighborhood. Me. Teresa Martin advised that the houses and utility poles were already on the street on Mt. Comfort Road. She pointed out if the street was widened the houses would have no front yards. She also stated the residents of Bird Haven Subdivision were concerned about the additional traffic flow. She stated the increased traffic would affect their quality of life. Mr. Nickle asked how the new land use plan addressed an area such as the one under consideration. Ms. Little stated the main concept presented in the general plan which would be appropriate for the subject area was the village concept. She explained that concept was that lots should be clustered around the community amenities. She stated the subject development did not offer the transition plan proposed in the land use plan. She went on to explain staff could look for transition even within the 40 -acre tract. She stated there were proposed changes to both the subdivision regulations and zoning regulations but they had not been brought to the Planning Commission at this point. She pointed out there was no guarantee• they would be approved in the present form. She stated she would have some real concerns about using those measures at this time. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained the staff would be taking comments all day long on August 30 and there would be a second presentation of the General Plan to the Planning Commission on September 27. Mr. Reynolds stated at the last meeting he had been concerned about the Corps of Engineers report and annexation. He advised he now felt like the developer had met every city regulation. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Springborn stated his concern at the previous meeting had to do with the Corps of Engineers review and wetlands on the site. He further stated he did not 33� • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 29 get any comfort from the comments from Me. Nilius because she had stated the Corps would not piecemeal the property. He questioned the applicant regarding the land being submitted for both a school and park. He stated it appeared both of those would be piecemeal additions to the present application. He expressed his belief that was not consistent with what the Commission wanted to accomplish -- to get protection for the wetlands. He stated he could not vote for the plat. He further stated he had trouble criticizing people's priorities if they preferred to move into the county where they had a lot of land and a small house, he had no problem with that. He stated if their preference was a big house and a lot of land, he had no problem with that. He further stated if a developer wanted to construct a development which conformed with city requirements, he had no problem with that either but he believed they all needed to be put into perspective. He further noted he would have a problem in voting for something just because, at this particular point in time, it complied with the ordinance and the land use plan. He stated they had, in the mill, new ordinance and a new land use plan. He advised he preferred the entire project be tabled until the Commission had all of the information before them -- compliance with the Corps' request, the new ordinance and land use plan. Ms. Little stated the engineer for the developer did, on May 13, 1993, write the Corps of Engineers a letter submitting the informal plat for the entire tract of property for the Corps review. She advised she did want to make it clear the developer had contacted the Corps in a timely manner and had presented the entire tract. She noted there had been no effort to piecemeal the property. She further stated that, if she understood Ms. Nilius correctly, her references to piecemealing were to piecemealing within wetland areas. In response to questioning from Mr. Springborn, Ms. Little advised she had been employed by the Corps for 8 years and was somewhat familiar with the Corps regulations and requirements. Mr. Tarvin stated the question of the entire development versus a portion of it was confusing to him. He further stated it appeared the intention was to develop the entire area. He further noted he understood Me. Nilius to say that if that was the intention, the Corps would like that presented so she could make a ruling overall. Ms. Little advised Ms. Nilius was in town for the entire week in order to make a determination in accordance with the request in the letter. Mr. Tarvin stated it seemed the developer was attempting to circumvent a regulation. He stated it was his understanding from the letter in May that the developer owned the land and intended to develop it. He further stated the Corps representative had asked that if they intended to develop the land to tell her so she could make an ruling over all. He pointed out at this meeting they were only considering 39 acres but the owner still intended on developing the entire tract. He advised he was having a hard time putting it all together. Mr. Allred stated he believed they were overlooking some of the aspects. He pointed out the subdivision had been approved by the county, this was the second public hearing on the subdivision, and the staff's recommendations were that it be approved. He advised they had an obligation on the Planning Commission to be sure all of the ordinances were followed but they did not have the right to set in judgement as to whether they believed the development was a good one or bad one; they could only follow what was in the ordinances. He further advised he would like to see this property put in the village concept as set out in the proposed land use plan but that would require some limited C-1 commercial in the area to support the development. He stated he did not believe the neighboring property owners would want that. He pointed out the land in the 33a • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 30 growth area would develop and it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to see that it developed according to city ordinances. He also noted the developer had met every ordinance, had said he would do whatever it took to make sure the drainage was correct, there was nothing the city or county had asked that the developer had not complied with. He stated they had even agreed to comply with all of the city standards which the city could not enforce in the county. Ms. Britton stated if the business of the Commission was to simply look at the black and white laws and make a judgment, they would not be there, there would be no reason to have a Commission. She advised there were 9 people on the Commission to make a judgment on a hearing that was brought before the community. She stated that was their job, not to say whether the black and white rules had been complied with. She stated that ruling was up to the planning administrator and were reflected in the recommendation given to the Commission. Mr. Nickle asked if approval of Phase I, in its present format, would preclude any other part of the development from coming under new rules and regulations as they were enacted by the city. He asked if they would be giving up any rights with respect to requiring a different type of development. Ms. Little explained the rules of development were set at the time the preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission. She further stated approval of Phase I would not preclude use of the general land use plan for any future development that came after the land use plan was adopted by the City Council. The motion carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki, Allred, Reynolds, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Britton, Nickle, and Tarvin voting "no". 533 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 31 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HILLSIDE TERRACE H. L. CORNISH - W OF HILLSIDE, E OF CROSSOVER, S OF ZION The next item was a preliminary plat for Hillside Terrace presented by Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of H. L. Cornish for property located on the west side of Hillside, east of Crossover Road, and south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.71 acres with 15 proposed lots with a total of 24 units. Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives had requested additional easements, both on and off-site. He noted staff remarks had included comments on street and drainage improvements and parks fees. He advised the question of the improvements which might be required on Hillside Terrace remained. He further noted the discussion at the Subdivision Committee had centered around the proposal to dedicate the island within the cul-de-sac as parks land in lieu of parks fees. He stated the Subdivision Committee voted to recommend acceptance of the green space offered as fulfilling the parks land requirement as long as the owners maintained it. He further stated the Committee had also voted to forward the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; the granting of off-site easements by separate instrument as required; resolution of the street improvement issue; and either the payment of parks fees or the dedication of parks land. He noted the problems with the street was there was a sub -standard gravel street that was on a greater than 10% grade. He explained the requirement was that the street be concrete but staff believed that would be pointless. He advised staff was struggling on what needed to be done to improve the street. He stated they would work out something with the owner and Randy Allen, Street Superintendent. He noted the conditions of approval were not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed ont he development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other City, State, or Federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended the subdivision develop a property owners association to maintain the center park. He asked if the Commission could approve the plat without the parks board making a determination on the parks land or green space fee. Mr. Bunn stated the procedure was that the parks board made recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred spoke in favor of the park, believing it was a win situation for the residents. Ms. Britton pointed out there could be a problem if a development put in a recreational area in lieu of paying parks fees, but only allowed residents of the development to use it. Mr. Allred stated this park would probably be considered a private park for the residents of the subdivision. Ms. Britton stated they would not be fulfilling the obligation city-wide if it was a private park. 33* • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 32 Ms. Little stated she believed they could allow use by others. She also explained the ordinance read: "No land proposed for dedication of public parks shall be accepted unless the Planning Commission determines, after consultation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, She expressed her belief they would be required to consult with the Parke and Recreation Advisory Board. Mr. Allred suggested approving the subdivision subject to the Parks' action. Mr. Pummill asked if the Parks Board did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation if it would come back before the Commission. Me. Little explained the Planning Commission could not prove consultation without the Parke Board meeting. She further stated that did not preclude the Planning Commission from making a different determination than the Parks Board but the requirement was for consultation between the Boards. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Me. Little explained if the Parks Board did not agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to accept land in lieu of money, the subdivision would have to come back before the Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and the notation that the issue on the parks fees be presented to the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Lumbard, representing the petitioner, advised there were concerns regarding the elope of Hillside Terrace but was hopeful they could build it under 10% grade. Mr. Bunn stated the City might be able to take some of the money the petitioner would have to spend to upgrade one-half of the street and apply it to a longer section. He advised in that case, the street would be less than city standards. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 35 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 33 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BROPHY ADDITION, PHASE I RALPH BROPHY - W OF BROPHY CIRCLE, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a preliminary plat presented by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located west of Brophy Circle, north of Township. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 2.94 acres with 10 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised this tract was technically a re -plat. He stated there had been some additional easements requested by the utility company representatives and agreed to by the owner. He noted one off-site easement had been requested and would have to be granted by a separate instrument. He stated staff remarks had included the need for an additional fire hydrant and street lights. He stated the subdivision committee voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for drainage; and construction of sidewalks and parks fees in accordance with city ordinances. He noted the conditions of approval were not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed ont he development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other City, State, or Federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. Ms. Britton asked if each lot would require an individual grading plan due to the grade of the lots. Mr. Bunn stated it was possible. Mr. Rudasill advised there were at least 3 or 4 lots that would require individual grading permits. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ,3319 • • • Planning Commission August 23, 1993 Page 34 OTHER BUSIBBSS: Me. Little reminded the Planning Commission there would be a special meeting of the Planning Commission on August 30, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. in order to discuss the items they never seemed to have time for, such as the sidewalk ordinance and a discussion of regulation of density with Subdivision Regulations. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 331