Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 13, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Tom Suchecki, Jett Cato, Chuck Nickles Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Kenneth Pummill and J. E. Springborn Alett Little, 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 regular Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1993, and the special Planning Commission meetings of August 19 and 30, 1993. FINAL PLAT - MISSION HILLS L. GLEN & WINIFRED CLARK_- E OF MISSION, W OF KINGS, N OF LAKESIDE A final plat for Mission Hills submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of L. Glen and Winifred Clark for property located on the east side of Mission, west of Kings Drive, north side of Lakeside Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.7 acres with 23 proposed lots. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. Mr. Suchecki advised that Item 9 B concerning the SWEPCO tower had been removed from the agenda. -5"Y • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-41 BOB WHITFIELD - N OF DRAKE, W OF GREGG The next item was a public hearing for a rezoning submitted by Bob Whitfield for property located on the north side of Drake, west of Gregg Avenue. The request is to rezone 66 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently vacant and the applicant desired the rezoning in order to develop owner occupied multi -family dwellings and offices. He noted the property to the east, west and north was zoned A-1 and the property to the south was owned by the University of Arkansas. He reviewed the uses allowed by right under R -O zoning. He stated the adjacent land uses were the 71 bypass to the north, agricultural land to the south, and vacant/single family property to the east and west. He noted Drake Street was classified as a minor arterial. He advised a frontage road (Appleby Road) would be required as part of any development along the north property line. He stated there was an 8 -inch water line along Drake Street and a 15 -inch sewer line along the bypass. He noted the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject site as low density residential. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning, stating professional offices and multi -family development would be an appropriate and compatible land use in the area. He further stated cluster development should be encouraged. Ms. Britton pointed out there was a block out of the bottom of the property on the zoning map. She asked if that property was also zoned A-1. Mr. Conklin stated that property was also zoned A-1 but did not belong to the applicant. A member of the audience asked what the applicant planned to do with the property. Mr. Suchecki explained the applicant apparently planned to develop the property with offices and multi -family housing. Mr. Whitfield stated he did not have any definite plans. Mr. Suchecki advised that, if the property were rezoned, it would go through different stages at which the public would have opportunity to review the plans and make comments. Mr. Neal Pendergraft advised he was an adjoining property owner to the south and had no objections to the rezoning. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 3�3 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 3 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CEI ENGINEERING (RETAIL STORE) CEI ENGINEERING - S OF JOYCE, W OF SHILOH The next item was a large scale development requested by Mandy Bunch of CEI Engineering for a retail store to be located on the south side of Joyce Boulevard, west of Shiloh Drive. The property contains 24.94 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Me. Little stated the utility company representatives did not have any significant comments on the development, all indicating they would need to work with the developer at the proper time to determine the exact service requirements of the store. She noted easements as shown on the original Spring Park Subdivision were adequate. She stated some crossings and conduits were requested and agreed to by the developer. She advised staff remarks included comments on the service road shown on the west and south side of the property, the need for screening in some cases, and the need to integrate the proposed garden center into the design of the building. She stated Mr. Mel Milholland, representing the adjacent property owner, had commented on the drainage to the south across property owned by his clients. Ms. Little stated there had been discussion regarding an agreement between Clary Development and the applicant. Ms. Little recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; the execution of a written agreement between Clary Development and the owners of the property west of Spring Park on grading and drainage matters; approval of a drainage plan for the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, and drainage for the site; and submittal and approval of a tree preservation plan. Mr. Allred, as Chair of the Subdivision Committee, reported there had been considerable discussion on the present development and how it impacted the a property to the west, particularly as it related to the grade differences at the west end of Joyce Boulevard. He advised it had been indicated the owners of the property to the west and the developers of Spring Park Subdivision had reached. an agreement which would be set forth in writing prior to consideration of the large scale development by the Planning Commission. He noted the agreement would resolve the drainage considerations expressed by Mr. Milholland at the plat review meeting. He further stated other discussion involved the need to construct intersection improvements at the intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Highway 71 to coincide to the completion of the large scale development. Ms. Little advised staff had received the written agreement. Ms. Britton questioned the location of National Home Center in relation to the proposed building. Ms. Little stated this site was to the north and west of National Home Center; that the subdivision minutes had been in error. Mr. Cato asked about the time frame of the extension of Joyce to Gregg. Me. Little stated that was contingent upon the development of the property to the west. She advised the City had included in the Capital Improvements Program some fund for the extension and improvement of Joyce Street to the east. She stated there was a public hearing scheduled for the Capital Improvements Program funds scheduled. 5511 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Nickle expressed concern the improvements at the intersection of Joyce and North College would not be completed prior to the opening of all of the retail establishments. He asked if there was a schedule for the completion of the improvements to the intersection. Ms. Little advised there was not a hard schedule but she had spoken with the developers earlier in the day. She stated the developers had retained an independent consultant to look at the plans to ensure the intersection would be adequate to handle the increased traffic caused by the development. She further noted the city's share for the improvement had been programmed. She further stated staff did expect the intersection to coincide with the opening of the retail establishments. Mr. Nickle asked the role of the State Highway Department in the improvements. Ms. Little stated the Highway Department would participate in the project; they would remove the island and assist the city in installation of the signals. She advised the project was to be coordinated by the developer. Mr. Reynolds asked the time frame for development of the Steele property. Ms. Little stated she could not commit any private property owner to a development time frame but she had several conversations with representatives of the Steel property. She advised they intended to start development as soon as several lots in their south development had been sold. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated it was correct that CMN Properties (owners of the Steele property) would participate in the extension of Joyce to Gregg Street. She advised the city would also participate in the project since they wanted a wider street than normally required. Ms. Britton asked what would happen if the city did not have its share of funding. Ms. Little stated that was always a concern and they tried to budget for these projects. She went on to say a decision would have to be made regarding the development at that time. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained there had been a proposal to the street committee and they had amended the proposal but that amendment did not affect Joyce Street. She reviewed the amended proposal approved by the Street Committee. She went on to say that, in 1994, they had programmed $65,000 for the extension of Joyce to the west. She stated additional monies for the extension were programmed for 1998 in the amount of $800,000. She pointed out the Capital Improvements Program was reviewed each year and could be amended each year. Ms. Little also informed the Commission the Highway Department was looking at a "fly -over" which would provide a direct link to the west from 718. Mr. Nickle asked the time frame for the completion of this project. Ms. Mandy Bunch advised they had scheduled opening for the first quarter in 1995. Mr. Tarvin asked the time frame for the completion of Joyce to Gregg Street. Me. Bunch advised that project was not being completed by her company; that the roadway was in conjunction with the developers of Spring Park Centre and CMN Properties. 55S • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Clary, Clary Development, stated the plans for the roadway would be complete within the next three weeks for that area adjacent to the Spring Park Centre property. He advised that portion of the roadway would be completed well in advance of the opening of the retail development. He further stated that, based on his conversations with CNN Properties, they had deemed it a high priority to extend Joyce and would like to see it done as quickly as possible. Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Clary if he felt comfortable that the improvements to the intersection would take care of any traffic bottleneck. Mr. Clary advised they were comfortable with the improvements they anticipated making. Me. Britton asked who would pay for additional improvements to the intersection if the scheduled improvements were not adequate. Ms. Little explained the improvements proposed by Clary Development would require approval both by the City and by the State prior to the work being undertaken. She stated there might have to be additional negotiations at that point, depending upon the programming. She stated the other option was that, if any of the parties to the agreement had under -estimated the funds necessary to make the improvements, they could seek additional funding from the Highway Department or reprogram funds from another scheduled project. Ms. Britton asked if they could not look to Clary for additional funding. Ms. Little explained that would be difficult because the improvements required by the development were established at the preliminary plat stage. She pointed out the amount of retail space scheduled had remained the same. She advised the impact fee had been based on the acreage in the area, not the uses, because staff did not know the specific uses at the preliminary plat stage. Mr. Tarvin stated he found it interesting that the Commission was so concerned about cul-de-sacs in subdivision but they were considering major retail development on a cul-de-sac. Me. Little stated that was a good point. She did note, however, there was more than one way in and one way out of this development. She stated the developer was providing improvements to Shiloh Drive south as well as to Joyce Street. She advised there were two ways through the development and three accesses to the north. Mr. Tarvin stated he believed the subject area would be a major traffic problem but noted the developer was assuming the responsibility. Ms. Britton stated she did not agree the developer was assuming the responsibility. She advised the City would be the one ending up with the infrastructure that would be unusable. She pointed out that, if they improved Joyce to the east, they would be increasing the number of people coming to the intersection. She stated everyone coming from or going to Springdale had to go through this intersection; everyone wanting to go to 71 Highway had to go through the intersection; everyone wanting to go to the Mall had to go through the intersection or the next one to the north. Ms. Little advised that, once the improvements were made to the intersection there was no way to further improvement it; that everything that could be done to an intersection was being done, short of providing 6 lanes. • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 6 MB. Britton stated she realized that but it did not change the issue that there was basically only one way in and out and everyone had to go through the same intersection. Mr. Reynolds asked if Ms. Little believed the Steele property could be developed by 1995. Ms. Little stated she did not think that was a reasonable assumption. She pointed out the property was zoned A-1 which would require a rezoning for development to take place. She further stated she had seen the plans for the development with a good plan for traffic circulation if it developed as proposed. She explained they were just now getting their determinations from the Corps so there was still quite a bit of engineering work left prior to bringing a plat to the city. Mr. Nickle asked if staff was confident the wetlands issue had been looked at on the current site. Me. Little stated the area had been looked have wetlands present. Mr. Suchecki requested the Commissioners the specific project. Mr. Ed Pilars, vice president and general manager of the Northwest Arkansas Mall, stated this development would affect the Mall more than anyone else in the area. He advised the issue of traffic was at the top of his list and that issue had been addressed with the help of the City by the improvement of the intersection of Zion Road and Highway 71B. He explained they had borrowed traffic counters from the State approximately 6 months earlier and had placed them at all accesses of the Mall. He noted over 70% of that traffic utilized Zion Road and Highway 71B. at and confine the current retail site did not their comments and concerns to He stated they had spotters sitting at the intersection of Joyce and 71B for four weekends to determine where the stress came on the intersection. He advised 43% of the people using the left turn lane did so to U-turn. He stated that was a good indication of where the stress on the intersection came from. He noted there had always been conversations of providing another way on to the Bypass rather than requiring the traffic to make a U-turn. He further advised the State Highway Department plans for the intersection had shown a U-turn lane and a left turn lane. Mr. Pilars stated he believed the improved intersection at Joyce and 71B would be able to handle the traffic load but did believe the left turn lane being used for U-turns did need to be addressed. He also noted the best plan would be a north -south street accessing to Johnson Road. He advised the large retail stores were coming to Fayetteville and everything the city could do to get them within the city limits would be a big win for the city. He stated those types of stores would draw from a 50 to 60 mile radius. He stated he preferred those uses be next door to the Mall rather than a mile away because it built a critical shopping visit on a regional scale. He reviewed the retail trade area for northwest Arkansas and stated it was larger than Reno, Nevada. Mr. Mark Wright, of Development Consultants, representing Clary Development advised one of the issues had been an agreement between the owners of the Steele property and the subject property regarding the grade transition of the west property line and the proposed extension of Joyce Boulevard and drainage considerations on the south side of the property. He stated they had prepared 551 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 7 plans for the grade transition and everyone was now satisfied with those plans. He stated the only thing related to the document which had not been solved at this point in time was the drainage to the south. He advised they were working on that problem and it would be resolved. Mr. Steve Clary expressed his belief there was a traffic problem at Joyce and 71B was the design of the intersection. He pointed out there were other intersections handling much more traffic than this one. He agreed with Mr. Pilars that a 43% U-turn ratio was causing a problem. He advised that if a third left turn lane was needed for the traffic making U-turns, Clary would put that lane in and pay for it. He further advised they were making huge investment and could not afford for there to be traffic problems. He also noted the extension of Joyce to the west was being looked forward to and they had taken that extension to the western border of their property. MOTION Mr. Allred pointed out the city, the state, and the developer were working together to solve the traffic problems. He stated they could ask for nothing more. He moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Cato, Suchecki, Allred, Tarvin and Sickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". 356 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 8 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE SHOP BILL OESTREICH - SW CORNER OF 15TH & HAPPY HOLLOW The next item was a large scale development of the City of Fayetteville to construct a southwest corner of 15th and Happy Hollow. Heavy Industrial. submitted by Bill Oestreich on behalf city shop on property located at the He stated the property was zoned I-2, Ms. Little advised the proposed building would be located at the site of the existing shop and sanitation facility. She noted an additional utility easement was requested which would be 30 feet in width and adjacent to Happy Hollow Road along the east property line. She stated it was agreed to furnish the easement as requested. She further stated the Fire Chief had requested an additional fire hydrant on the site which would be provided. Mr. Allred advised there had been a question at the Subdivision Committee meeting as to whether all property owners had been notified. He stated it appeared one property owner had not been notified as of that date but efforts had been underway at the time to make the notification as required. He advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; granting of an easement off the east side of the property as requested by Southwestern Bell Telephone; proof of notification of all adjacent property owners; and approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site. Ms. Little advised proof of notification had been received. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained staff had requested a sidewalk which would be installed. She stated greenepace fees were not required on any development except residential. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. 354 Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WHITE OAK MANOR RICE TORNATORE - E OF HARVEY DOWELL RD., S OF WYMAN The next item on behalf of Dowell Road, contains 43.9 was a preliminary plat for White Oak Manor submitted by Harry Gray Rick Tornatore for property located on the east side of Harvey - south of Wyman. The property is located outside the city and acres with 27 lots. Ms. Little stated there had been several easements and utility crossings requested by the utility company representatives and agreed to by the owner. She noted it had been indicated that neither the gas company nor the cable company had lines in the area of the subdivision. She advised the Fire Chief had indicated that, because of the lack of fire protection for the area, he would opposite annexation of the property in the future. She further stated Chief Jackson had suggested installing fire hydrants ae tanker fill points and the engineer had indicated he would check into that possibility. Mr. Allred reported the Subdivision Committee had considered the preliminary plat on September 2nd. He noted there had been one adjoining property owner present at the meeting to comment on the development. He stated there had been a question on the cemetery and whether excluding the cemetery from the adjacent lots created lots which were undersized. He advised another question was raised about drainage from the site possibly impacting the adjacent property owner and whether the soils in the subdivision were suitable for septic tanks. He stated it had been noted the engineers would have to submit a drainage plan and the detailed plans for drainage to the city for approval. He explained the property owner had been assured he would be notified at that time and have a chance to comment on the drainage plans. Mr. Allred stated there also had been considerable discussion regarding the advisability of requiring percolation tests prior to the approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission. He noted it had been the final recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the Planning Commission not review the preliminary plat until completion of percolation tests within the subdivision. He advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the plat subject to a decision of the Planning Commission to consider the plat; plat review and. subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, streets, and sewer; and all conditions imposed by the county at the time of their approval. Ms. Little advised it had been determined that percolation testa should be completed prior to approval by the Commission and, if the results of those tests had not been received, the matter should be tabled. Mr. Tarvin asked if staff wanted six inch water mains for this subdivision or for future subdivisions in the county. Ms. Little stated staff would like to have 6 -inch lines on the subject subdivision and all future developments outside the City Limits. Ms. Britton asked if the City Fire Department went outside the City Limits to cover fires. Ms. Little stated they did. She explained it was on an individual contract basis. 310 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Nickle advised it had always been his belief that anything in the Growth Area should come up to City standards. Me. Little agreed with Mr. Nickle and stated in the past they had enforced more stringent regulations for those subdivisions closest to the City Limits. She advised the request for 6 -inch water lines on this development would be an off- site improvement for the developer. Mr. Allred agreed with Commissioner Nickle. He asked if it would take an ordinance change to require development in the Growth Area to meet City standards. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission regulations with the exception of parks reviewing each subdivision in the Growth stated these improvements were covered in had authority to enforce subdivision fees. She advised they had been Area on a case by case basis. She the Suburban Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Britton asked about the grading plan stating she thought the city could not require a grading plan outside the city limits. Ms. Little explained that was because the grading plan was a separate ordinance, not covered by the subdivision regulations. Mr. Gray entered the meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Gray advised the percolation tests would have to be run in conjunction with the County Sanitarian and the results would have to be submitted to the State Health Department. He asked the subdivision be approved subject to the percolation tests. He advised it appeared there could be 2 or 3 lots which would not percolate but testa would be run. Me. Little brought Mr. Gray up to date regarding the discussion requiring suburban subdivisions to meet city standards. Mr. Suchecki explained the Commission had been discussing this matter so that when some of the existing subdivisions in the Growth Area were annexed, the city would not end up with substandard public amenities. Mr. Gray stated he agreed with the Commission. He pointed out that, at some point in the future, however a larger water line would have to be run down Wyman Road and Harvey Dowell Road. He pointed out they still would not have adequate pressure to fight fires even with the six inch line. Mr. Allred asked if they could not approve the plat subject to this matter being worked out between the city engineer and the developer. Mr. Gray stated he believed the Planning Commission did need to make a decision as to whether this would be required in the Growth Area. Ms. Britton stated she did not feel as strongly about requiring curb and gutter since it could be added later. She pointed out fire protection was almost impossible to put in at a later date. Mr. Gray stated subdivision regulations did not require fire protection. Mr. Allred pointed out they could only enforce what was required by the subdivision regulations. Ms. Little stated she had found three areas under urban subdivisions -- sidewalks, fire hydrants, and street lights -- but under suburban subdivisions 3b1 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 11 only water supply and sanitary sewers were addressed. She stated they might not have the authority she had believed they had. She noted this would be addressed in the subdivision regulations up -date. She advised she would be more comfortable if this item was tabled until further research could be done. There was further discussion regarding what could be required under the subdivision ordinance. NOTION Mr. Nickle moved to table this item for further research by staff. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. Mr. Gray advised the developer had also discussed putting in a mobile home park rather than the subdivision on this property. Ser • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 12 FINAL PLAT - HORSESHOE ADDITION C & H LAND & DEVELOPMENT CO. - SW CORNER OF PORTER & SYCAMORE The next item was a final plat for Horseshoe Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of C & B Land & Development Co., Inc., for property located at the southwest corner of Porter and Sycamore. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 17.48 acres with 58 proposed lots. Ms. Little stated there were several additional easements requested at the Plat Review meeting, including one off-site easement along Houston Street coming from Porter Road into the subdivision. She noted staff comments included the need to show the 100 year flood plain on the plat and to confirm the effects of the flood plain by the development. She explained calculations submitted by Northwest Engineers subsequent to the plat review meeting indicated a negligible effect on the two 100 year flood levels. She explained the reason this subdivision had not been placed on the consent agenda was because the developer had made a proposal concerning parks lands and/or fees. She stated she did have the report from the Parks & Recreation Board which recommended accepting .42 acres as a land dedication and $10,800 as a greenspace fee requirement. Mr. Allred stated staff and the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; resolution of the status of the outlot as shown on the plat; granting of the off- site easement as requested by a separate instrument; the execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished public improvements, including street lights; and the filing of subdivision covenants, if any. Mr. Gray stated there was access to the outlot via an access easement along the north side of lot 23. Me. Britton asked if that would not make the outlot a tandem lot. Mr. Bundrick, the developer, advised that was the property donated for parks lands. Ms. Little stated that easement needed to be shown on the plat so it could be used for public access. Me. Britton asked if it would not have to be a 50 -foot easement. Me. Little stated it would not have to be that large if it were to be used for pedestrian or bike access. Me. Britton stated she did not see how the city could have very much use of the land since it was not very big and would be surrounded by privacy fences. Me. Little advised the recommendation made by the Parks Department was subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bundrick stated the Parks Department had chosen to use the lot as a neighborhood park. He stated there was a tremendous amount of young married couples with small children living on Megan Drive and he believed those would be the purchasers of the lots in Horseshoe Addition also. He pointed out those children played on the street at the present time. He informed the Commission Dale Clark had expressed interest in providing a tots type park. He stated he was giving the city the land and $10,800. He stated the money would finance 3)0' • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 13 slides, awing sets, etc. to provide a park for the children in the neighborhood. He advised the easement would be along Lot 48. Ms. Britton pointed out the residents of Megan Drive would have to go all the way through Horseshoe Subdivision to get to the park. She also pointed out there was not enough visual scrutiny allowed. Mr. Bundrick stated his wife would be happy to put their 18 month child in a stroller and take the four year old on a five minute stroll to play in a park. He advised that was what the proposed park was designed for. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the park did not have enough visibility from a perimeter street, stating it was a security risk. Mr. Allred pointed out this was a recommendation from the Parks Department. He advised they must have studied and researched this matter. Mr. Reynolds stated they had been discussing neighborhood parks at the Subdivision meetings. He advised he was in favor of this concept. There was then discussion regarding provision of alternate accesses to the park. Mr. Bundrick stated they had just answered the same questions with the Park Department for the last 20 minutes. He stated part of the initial concern was should there be a paved entrance but Mr. Clark had stated he did not think that would be necessary. Me. Little advised she was talking about a 6 or 8 foot wide asphalt strip so kids could ride their bikes. Mr. Allred suggesting reducing the amount of the greenspace fees by the amount it would cost to asphalt the pathway. Mr. Bundrick advised that from Megan Drive to the area designated for the park was only a 5 minute walk. He stated he had a hard time envisioning that access would be a problem the way it was proposed. Ms. Little stated her point was that, if there was not a way for the public at large to enter the park area, it would be perceived as private space. She stated she was asking for a length of 240 feet to the south and 132 feet to the north (a total of 370 feet) to be paved six feet wide. Mr. Tarvin asked who would maintain the park. Ms. Little stated the city would maintain the park unless the homeowners association was set up to maintain it. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained the Planning Commission had the power to act on the Parks & Recreation's recommendation to the Commission, specifically relating to the land dedication. She quoted "No land proposed for dedication as a public park shall be accepted unless the Planning Commission determines, after consultation with them (the Parke Board), that the physical characteristics of the site..." She explained the Commission would need to determine whether the access and the surroundings made the site suitable for park purposes and that the proposed dedication was consistent with the Fayetteville Parks Plan. She stated they could assume it was consistent with the Plan since the Parks Board had recommended approval of the proposal. She informed the Commission it was their decision as to whether to accept the recommendation or modify the recommendation. • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 14 Mr. Tarvin asked if the expenditure of the $10,800 was also included in their decision. Me. Little stated that was a little bit leas specific in the code. She explained the only reason they were taking any money was because sufficient land had not been provided. She stated she believed the money was also within their discretion since it was money in lieu of land. She advised that, if it took some of the money to make the land suitable, she believed that was proper. Mr. Tarvin asked the purpose of the money. Ma. Little explained it was for parks development within that quadrant of the city. Mr. Tarvin suggested taking some of the money to put a privacy fence around the park lands so the people adjoining the park would have a private back yard. Ms. Little stated she was opposed to public parks having fences that were not easily escapable placed around them. She explained that, if someone was located in a public area and needed to escape rapidly, they should not have to try to climb over a fence. She went on to say their responsibility was more in providing access to the park. She pointed out they were at final plat stage and this was their last opportunity to obtain any easement. Mr. Suchecki asked if the residents of Megan Drive had participated in the Parks Board discussion. Mr. Bundrick stated they had not but he had personally visited with those residents. He informed the Commission he had talked with Lifestyles about donating the land to them with the provision the neighboring residents could use it. He stated Lifestyles did not feel comfortable with the liability of owning the park. He stated Mr. Clark had preferred the property be given to the City rather than Lifestyles. Mr. Tarvin asked how much difficulty it would put on the developer to put a sidewalk access between lots 33 and 34 to give access to the park and also access along the north side of lot 48. He stated that would give two accesses, one north -south and one east -west. Mr. Bundrick stated that, to satisfy the residents of Megan Drive so their property would not be depreciated in value, he had required a minimum of 1,500 square foot homes on the lots. He explained that, by donating the land, he was saving $3,800 in parks fees. He stated he would rather not give the access to the park through the property, that it would be economic suicide. Ms. Little advised the asphalting of $10,800. She explained the east -west portion of a building could be located could be over an easement. She stated the houses. the trail could be deducted from the easement was a utility easement and no on a utility easement but a paved area the trail should not impact the size of Mr. Tarvin explained he was more concerned with what those accesses would do to the property. He asked if they would lose a lot or if any of the lots would be too small. Mr. Allred stated he liked the idea of developing neighborhood parks from the green space fees. He encouraged the Commission to accept the land and use the $10,800 to develop the park, then turn it over to the city to maintain. He pointed out the children in the neighborhood would never use Davis Park, across. the bypass. 314 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 15 Ms. Little stated it was her understanding that was the proposal by the Parks Department. Mr. Bundrick stated that was not necessarily true. He advised Mr. Clark had stated it would take $10,000 to develop this particular park but had not said the $10,800 would be used on this park. Mr. Allred suggested the owner develop the park, just like any other improvement in a subdivision, using the $10,800, and then turn the park over to the city. Mr. Nickle expressed concern that the developer might not have the expertise to construct the park. He advised he believed getting the access to the park lands would be best. Mr. Bundrick informed the Commission they were re -hashing the same items discussed at length at the Parks Board meeting. Mr. Allred expressed concern the park would never be developed unless the owner did the work. Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Bundrick agreed to the donation of the land and the $10,800. Mr. Bundrick stated he did. He advised that economically it made him to donate the land but he believed there should be provisions neighborhood children. He further stated he did not want to salability and attractiveness of three or four lots go construct He stated he did agree with the proposal as the Parke Department had no sense for made for the destroy the such a park. approved it. Me. Little asked if Mr. Bundrick planned on paying the entire $10,800 as a lump sum payment or as the lots were developed. Mr. Bundrick stated he would be willing to pay it however Me. Little would prefer. Ms. Little explained that when the money was paid as the lots were developed, that money was collected by the Planning Department and receipted to the Parke Department quadrant where the property was located. She stated that, unless the developer developed every lot himself, it was typically the property owner of the lot that paid the fee. She also noted that, as the plat was currently shown, the utility easements were not dedicated for public access and could not be used for public access unless it was noted on the plat that the easements were for access and utilities. NOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to acceptance of the outlot for a public park; subject to the acceptance of $10,800, to be earmarked for the development of the park; that the City Park Department earmark the money and that they be the ones to develop the park with the $10,800; subject to the utility easement along the north side of Lot 48 being public accessway; and subject to other staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried with Commissioners Reynolds, Suchecki, Allred, Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Cato and Britton voting "no". 341 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-28 (CHURCH) HAYDEN MCILROY, S OF WEDINGTON, E OF 46TH The next item was a conditional use request for a church submitted by Lynn Farrell on behalf of Hayden Mcilroy, for property located on the south side of Wedington, east of 46th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains 4.5 acres. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently vacant and the applicant had requested a conditional use in order to establish a church. He advised the applicant would be required to go through the large scale development process at which time setbacks, utilities, parking, and other applicable requirements would be addressed. He stated the adjacent land use to the north was multi -family, single family homes to the south and west, and vacant to the east. He advised granting the conditional use would not adversely affect the public interest and would be compatible with the existing land use in the general area. He noted there was general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. He stated the Planning Commission did have the authority to grant the conditional use which complied with all city codes. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use. He explained allowing a church to be established at the subject location would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the general vicinity. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. 311 • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 17 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 KWIR INDUSTRIES - W OF COLLEGE, S OF APPLEBY The next item was a request for a lot split of property located on the west side of College Avenue, south of Appleby Road (2897 N. College Avenue) submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of KWIK Industries, Inc. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Me. Little explained this was a request for a first split of Lot 4 of Hammond Plaza. She stated it was proposed to split off a 0.39 acre tract which would front North College. She stated both tracts being created by the split would be legal lots under the C-2 zoning. She noted utilities were available both off of North College and off of McKee Circle within Hammond Plaza Subdivision. She advised some of the utilities in North College might not be easily accessible and it might be necessary to provide easements for utility access across the remainder of Lot 4 to McKee Drive. She noted that, in reviewing the minutes of the final plat approval of Hammond Plaza, staff had found discussion regarding access to Lot 4 and it was agreed that access to Lot 4 would be from College Street. She further stated there had been discussion as to whether exit to the rear of the lot would be allowed and the Planning Commission had agreed to allow that, stating it could possibly be used as an exit for a fast food business. She pointed out this provided for a through street from College to Appleby. She also noted it had been determined the lot contained over 1 acre and the Planning Commission would have control over it when it was presented as a large scale development. She advised that, if the lot split were approved, the Commission would not see this tract of land as a large scale development. She further stated there had also been discussion regarding sight distance since this tract was at the crest of the hill. She pointed out if the lot split were approved it would provide 2 accesses to College as opposed to one. Mr. Suchecki asked if this would provide an ingress/egress to the south of Hermans. Me. Little stated that was correct. Mr. Nickle asked if it was still the recommendation of staff that the lot split be approved. Ms. Little advised she had reservations recommending approval. There was also discussion regarding the grade at the rear of the property and a radius requirement for curb cuts. Mr. Leonard Gabbard, Landtech Engineering, stated he was present to represent the petitioners. He advised the petitioners would have to meet with the Arkansas Highway Department regarding the curb cuts and obtain a driveway permit. He noted the petitioner would be happy to provide staff with a site plan for review. He stated the petitioner had a similar installation in Springdale on Highway 412. He also pointed out storm drainage had been taken care of at the time Hammond Plaza was platted. Me. Little stated a building permit application was in the office awaiting approval of the lot split showing two 20 -foot drives from College, with no access to the rear of the lot. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the subdivision to the west of the subject tract had a tremendous drainage problem. He advised the present storm drainage system was overloaded. abs • • • Planning Commission September 13, 1993 Page 18 There was further discussion regarding storm drainage. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the lot split. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Cato, Britton, Suchecki, Tarvin and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Allred voting "no". 369