Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 25, 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, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki,' J. E. Springborn, Jett Cato, and Bob Reynolds Jerry Allred and Chuck Nickle Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others OLD BUSINESS: Sidewalk Ordinance Mr. Conklin explained the City Council, at their regular meeting on September 7, 1993, had tabled this item and referred it back to the Planning Commission to "work out something as not to waste the sidewalk expense" because sidewalks, if installed prior to development, would be damaged or weakened when the homes are constructed. He stated the primary issue that needed to be addressed was the timing of the installation of the sidewalk and who incurred the cost of installation. He noted that currently sidewalks were required at the time the building permit was issued and the cost was absorbed by the individual lot owner. He explained there was. some inequity in the current requirement because the sidewalk served the entire development and only one side of the street was paying for the installation. He further pointed out sidewalks were only being constructed at the time the lot was developed and had created, in some instances, subdivisions with a patchwork of sidewalks when lots were not developed for several years. Mr. Conklin recommended the amendment of the ordinance to require the developer to pay for the sidewalk installation by placing the estimated cost into a City escrow account and entering into a contract which would require the developer to install the sidewalks at the time that one-half of the lots or units in the subdivision had received building permits. He further stated that, after the sidewalk was installed, the developers would be entitled to withdraw the entire contribution made to the escrow account. He noted if, after a period of five years, there had been any development, but the threshold of fifty percent of the total lots had not been achieved, the City would install the sidewalks utilizing the escrow funds. He advised that, in the event the escrow cost of the sidewalk was more than the actual cost of the sidewalk, the developer would be entitled to a refund of the surplus. He also added that, if there had been no development after five years, the developer was entitled to a refund of the total escrow account and a replat of the subdivision or a new large scale developer plan would be required prior to further development. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin advised that, if after 5 years only one home had been constructed in the development, the City would require sidewalks for all of the lots. Ms. Little explained the reason for that stipulation was that if one dwelling had been constructed it was doubtful the development would be replatted and the city would not have another opportunity to have sidewalks installed. Ms. Britton asked what would happen on a lot that was not within a subdivision. itfi • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 2 Ms. Little explained it would be handled as it was now -- a sidewalk would be required as a condition of the building permit was issued. Mr. Allred expressed concern that the developer would be required to pay double for the sidewalks since the money had to be placed in escrow and then the developer also had to install the sidewalk. Ms. Little explained that normally the developer had a contract with a company to put in the sidewalks. She further explained that, at the time the bill was due for the installation of the sidewalks, the contractor would receive the funds from the escrow account. Mr. Allred pointed out that was not what the ordinance said; the ordinance said they could withdraw the money after completion. Me. Little advised that was the intent and the sidewalk contractor would be paid with the escrow funds. Mr. Allred expressed concern there was a grey area involved and suggested the city could install the sidewalks with the funds in escrow. He further stated he believed the ordinance was fine but a few points needed to be clarified. Mr. Suchecki suggested the ordinance could be amended at a later date if they found problems. MOTION Ms. Britton advised she liked the way the ordinance was written and moved to forward it to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. Eck • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Suchecki announced that item no. 4 on the agenda, Rezoning R93-49 submitted by Greg House on behalf of Jean Gibson for property located at 525 Shady Avenue had been withdrawn from the agenda. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT it DAVID LYLE HOLLMAN - 2700 ROSEWOOD DRIVE The next item was regarding settlement of a lawsuit filed `y Obert Undem on behalf of David Lyle Hollman for a lot split on property located at 2700 Rosewood Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission this item had originally come before them as a lot split which had been denied by the Planning Commission. He explained the applicant had then fired a lawsuit against the city and made an offer of settlement to the City Council which consisted of dropping the suit if the city would allow the property to be split. He advised the Council had heard the settlement offer and had sent the matter back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. He stated the Planning Commission had, after reviewing the matter again and having believed the adjoining property owners no longer cared whether the lot was split, recommended settlement of the lawsuit. He advised staff had then received calls from some of the adjoining property owners protesting the lot split. He explained staff had believed the item should come before the Commission again since there were protests. Ms. Little advised staff had received an updated petition in opposition signed by 7 of the area residents. She pointed out where the residents who opposed the lot split lived in relation to the subject tract. Mr. Suchecki advised Mr. Nickle stated he settlement offer. Mr. Bill Raiser had called thought they were to either him stating his opposition. recommend or not recommend the Me. Little advised that was correct. She explained the settlement offer was to drop the law suit if the lot split was allowed. Mr. Obert Undem, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and pointed out of the 7 signatures on the protest petition only 3 were adjoining. He noted one of the people signing the petition lived quite a distance away from the subject property. He further advised the subdivision covenants did not restrict lot splits and there had been a previous lot split within in the subdivision in 1977 (he introduced copies of the dueds). He presented a letter from two adjoining property owners in favor of the lot split. He also submitted a copy of Richards vs. North Little Rock which was similar to this matter. He advised the lot split should be granted as requested and pointed out there was, once again, only one area resident present to speak in opposition. Mr. Suchecki asked if Mr. David Rose had approved the second structure per the subdivision covenants. Mr. Undem advised Mr. Rose had beer however, they had submitted the pla.. •om the community for over 10 years; ;pected approval of the same. Mr. Don White, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Commission to speak in opposition to the lot split. He advised Mr. Undem was attempting to mislead the Commission; there were four adjoining lots and three of those lot owners were in opposition to the lot split. He advised he had been told, when pHerstated chasing he entire neighborhood had asked that his home, there would be no l hemlot es b plitUilt ibe denied inn the order"Ito not allow a smaller home on a smaller lot than the others in the neighborhood. • • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 4 He contended Mr. Hollman had used a bulldozer to remove trees, dug trenches on Saturday. He also pointed out Mr. Hollman had started construction on a second house even though he kiew the neighborhood objected. Mr. Hollman, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and advised none there had not been a bulldozer on his property; that there were 12 trees on the lot over 10 -inches in diameter, 24 trees over 8 -inches in diameter and 23 trees over 4 -inches in diameter. He stated he had adequate room on the lot to construct a second house on the lot and still meet all city building regulations and the subdivision covenants. Me. Little agreed Mr. Hollman was within his rights to construct a second principle residence on his lot since he had adequate frontage and square footage. She further explained that, in order to split the lot, the Planning Commission had to approve the lot split. She reminded the Commission they had previously passed a motion recommending approval of the lot split in order to settle the lawsuit. She advised that, whatever form the current motion took, it needed to reference their previous motion. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Little stated she would prefer the motion relate only to their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the applicant did meet the subdivision covenants. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to accept the settlement offer. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion failed 5-3-1 with Commissioners Pummill, Cato, Suchecki, Sickle and Tarvin voting "no", Commissioners Springborn, Allred and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton abstaining. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend the City Council not accept the settlement offer. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-1 with commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Suchecki, Sickle and Tarvin voting "yea, Commissioners Reynolds end Allred voting "no" and Commissioner. Britton abstaining. Me. Little advised that, when the Commission performed the Subdivision Ordinance review, subdivision covenants might need to be ono of the items of discussion. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 5 CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were considered on the consent agenda: MINUTES The minutes of the October 11, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LAKESIDE VILLAGE APARTMENTS JIM LINDSEY - E OF GREGG, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a large scale development for Lakeside Village Apartments submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, north of Township. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 19.7 acres with 252 units proposed. Ms. Britton requested the Large Scale Development be pulled from the Consent Agenda. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 6 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LAKESIDE VILLAGE APARTMENTS JIM LINDSEY - E OF GREGG, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a large scale development for Lakeside Village Apartments presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, north of Township. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 19.7 acres with 252 units proposed. Mr. Bunn stated the utility representatives asked for various easements and crossings which were agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks included comments on the need for an 8 -inch fire main, parks fees, drainage easements along Skull Creek and Sublet Creek, and the need for off-site improvements for Drake Street and possible easement dedication for Gregg Street. He advised that, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the discussion centered mainly around the need for off-site improvements to Drake Street. He further stated it had been determined that the developer would construct approximately 850 feet of Drake Street (4 lanes) from the east, construct sidewalks in connection with the street construction, and provide for the planned golf course to be public for at least a period of 5 years in lieu of parks fees. The Committee recommended approval of the Large Scale Development with the stipulations listed above. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, street, and drainage construction; approval of a grading plan; construction of Drake Street, as outlined above, with a sidewalk on the south side; dedication of additional right-of-way along Gregg, if required; and either payment of parks fees or approval of the golf course in lieu of parks fees. He noted it was to be specifically understood that the developer was asking that no other off-site improvements to Drake Street or associated bridges would be required by the developer in connection with this Large Scale Development. Me. Little advised she did have a letter from the developer agreeing to the extension of Drake Street and requesting a public golf course in lieu of parks fees. Me. Britton stated the recommendation regarding either payment of parks fees or approval of the golf course in lieu of parks fees was not clear. Mr. Suchecki advised it had to do with the public use of the golf course. Ms. Little agreed. She explained public use of the golf course had been. discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and the term discussed had been 5 years. She stated the letter received from Mr. Lindsey included a statement that he was requesting a waiver of the park fees, on the basis that he intended to build a nine hole golf course and leave it open to the public. Mr. Jim Lindsey presented a master plan for the entire 52 acre tract. He advised he did intend to sell some private memberships to the golf course but it would also be open to the general public. He advised if the parks department was not willing to accept the golf course, he would be happy to pay the parks fees. He advised he believed in the parks fees system. He further stated the golf course would always remain open to the public, there would not be a 5 year time limit. He also explained he was willing to extend Drake Street and in lieu of contributing to associate bridges. He stated he would rather do improvements that would have immediate results rather than contributing one-fourth the cost of a bridge. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 7 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Me. Little advised the plans for Drake Street showed a four -lane road. She also advised the Parks Board would not meet until the following Monday and therefore, staff did not have their recommendation as to whether they wanted parks fees or would approve the golf course in lieu of those fees. There was discussion regarding approving the large scale subject to the decision of the Parke Board. Mr. Sickle stated he appreciated all of the thought that had gone into the development and believed the citizens of the City did need another place to play. golf. He asked if they were obligating the city to improve Gregg Street in any certain length of time. Ms. Little stated that was correct. Mr. Springborn wanted to verify that, upon construction of the levee proposed by Mr. Lindsey, it would be reviewed by city staff and would not create any problems. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development and highly recommended the Parks Department accept Mr. Lindsey's offer in lieu of park fees. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated the city would not be obligated to provide upkeep for the golf course. The motion carried 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 8 PUBLIC BEARING - REZONINGS R93-44 AND R93-45 DANIEL & REBA EPPERLY - 2507 & 2525 MT. COMFORT RD. The next item was a request to rezone property located at 2507 and 2525 Mt. Comfort Road submitted by Daniel and Reba Epperly. R93-44 is a request to rezone 1.33 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-0, Residential -Office. R93-45 is a request to rezone 2.67 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had been using the subject land for his home and green house/garden center operation for over 35 years. He stated the rezoning was being requested to make the garden center a use by right and establish mini -storage use on the site. He advised the I-1 zoning was requested for the southern two-thirds of the property where the garden center and mini - storage would be located. He noted the remainder of the property (the norther one third) was petitioned to be rezoned to R-0. He advised the applicant that large scale development approval would be required prior to development of the site. He reviewed permitted uses under both R-0 and. I-1 zoning district permitted by right. He advised the uses should be considered with regard to their compatibility with surrounding development and zoning. He pointed out to the north the land was zoned A-1 and R-1 and contained a mobile home park, to both the east and west was zoned R-1 and contained single family residences, and to the south was zoned I-1 and contained vacant land. He stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the site as single family residential. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezonings. He explained that, as the greenhouse had existed at the location for many years, the requested I-1 zoning, which made the use legal, should generally be considered compatible with the surrounding area. He pointed out the site adjoined I-1 to the south and -would be compatible with surrounding development. Ms. Britton verified there were single family homes to the west of the subject site. She asked if there would not have to be a buffer. Mr. Conklin agreed there would have to be a buffer. He pointed out the existing greenhouse had been on the site for over 35 years. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. Conklin stated staff had not discussed a Bill of Assurance with the applicant limiting the use. Mr. Tarvin stated he could understand zoning the property to make the greenhouse a legal use, provided that was all that could ever be placed on the property. He further stated he did not see the justification for the mini -storage and the R -O zoning. He asked how staff could recommend that. Mr. Conklin stated he believed I-1 zoning would be compatible with the area, pointing out there was I-1 zoning to the south. He further noted screening would be required when the large scale development was reviewed. He again pointed out the greenhouse had been at that site for over 35 years. Mr. Springborn pointed out the I-1 zoning permitted much heavier uses than greenhouses or mini -storage. He stated he would be more comfortable with some type of assurance that only greenhouses and mini -storage would be located there. Mr. Suchecki stated storage units did not have to be I-1. Mr. Obert Undem, representing the applicant, explained the applicants wanted the zoning brought into conformance with the existing business and establish the right to carry on this type of business in the subject location. He also pointed • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 9 out the wholesale greenhouse products had changed greatly in the industry with much more importing being done from South America. He pointed out there were 11 neighbors to whom notices had been sent and staff had received 7 approvals from those 11 people. He further stated that, while the Epperly's had no plans to further developer the southernmost part of their property, if the adjacent property to the south was developed, it might be good to have the subject property developed in concert with that property. He assured the Commission the property would be developed in a way that would not be disturbing to the aesthetics nor environment. Mr. Springborn asked for assurance that neither manufacturing nor underground bulk storage would occur on the subject tract (as allowed by I-1 zoning). Mr. Undem stated he could not see his client doing either of those things on the subject tract. Ms. Little reminded the Commission any assurances by the applicant had to be made. voluntarily and could not be requested by the Commission. Mr. Epperly advised the tract had been their home for approximately 35 years and could assure them he did not plan on having manufacturing or underground storage on the tract. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Epperly advised they would still have both residential units at the front of the property. He further advised he had no intention of constructing any buildings any closer to Mt. Comfort than where the present buildings were located. Mr. Suchecki asked if the mini storage units would take up the entire greenhouse area. Mr. Epperly presented them with a map showing that portion that would remain greenhouses and that portion that would be mini -storage. Mr. Suchecki explained that he and some of the other Commissioners were concerned that, if they rezoned the property to I-1, they would be opening the area up to a much heavier use than they were comfortable with. Mr. Epperly pointed out that, by the time he constructed the mini storage units, land costs would be prohibitive to remove them and putting something else in their place. He assured the Commission he had no intention of putting anything else on the property. Mr. Suchecki explained the Commission was concerned about the use in the future when Mr. Epperly no longer owned the property. Mr. Epperly offered a covenant stating they would not construct any large warehouses. Mr. Suchecki advised the Bill of Assurance would need to be offered by Mr. Epperly. Me. Britton asked why Mr. Epperly was requesting a zoning change on the property adjacent to Mt. Comfort. Mr. Epperly explained they had no plans to do anything with the R -O property. Mr. Conklin stated the letter filed with the application stated the R -O was requested to provide a buffer between their property and future zone changes to • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 10 the north. He pointed out the property to the north contained a mobile home park. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Epperly advised that, as long as it did not cause a problem for the entrance to the greenhouses and mini storage, the front of the property could remain R-1. Mr. Springborn stated Mr. Epperly had stated his intended use of the land but the Commission would like to have that in writing. Mr. Epperly agreed to provide a Bill of Assurance stating only greenhouses and mini storage would be on the southern part of his property (that portion zoned I-1). Mr. Tarvin stated he would like to see the greenhouse operation be legally zoned and he would like to see a Bill of Assurance that the property would remain I-1 as long as the greenhouses were located on the site but, when the greenhouses were taken out, the zoning would go back to R-1, with no mini storage, and the front of the property would remain R-1. He asked if Mr. Epperly would be willing to not build the mini storage units. Mr. Epperly stated he would not be agreeable to that. Mr. Allred pointed out the greenhouses had been in existence for many years and the street to the west had been developed in the last 3 to 4 years, after the fact of the greenhouses. He expressed his believe that to move a few of the greenhouses and put mini storage in their place would not have a negative impact on anyone in the area. Mr Jim Palmer, 2593 Mt. Comfort, expressed concern regarding his property values should the property be rezoned. He stated he had no objections to the proposed mini storage but was concerned about the I-1 zoning. Mr. Elam Denham, an adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. He advised he owned 265 feet of property to the east of the subject site, that portion adjacent to the area which would be zoned I-1. Mr. Nickle stated he could see no reason to rezone the existing R-1 property since the petitioner had indicated no reason to have it rezoned. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny R93-44 to rezone 1.33 acres from R-1 to R-0. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. Mr. Tarvin asked if there would be a screening requirement if the remaining property was rezoned to I-1 with the understanding it would never be used for anything other than greenhouses and mini storage. Ms. Little stated there would be screening requirements between the I-1 and R-1 properties. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to grant the requested rezoning on the balance of the property from R-1 to I-1 with the acceptance of the Bill of Assurance and staff comments. k31 • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Suchecki, Allred, Sickle, Reynolds, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 12 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOXWOOD ADDITION ATLAS CONSTRUCTION - S OF OLD WIRE RD., E OF AZALEA TERRACE The next item was a preliminary plat for Boxwood Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Atlas Construction for property located on the south side of Old Wire Road, east of Azalea Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 19.38 acres with 55 lots. Mr. Bunn explained the southern part of the development was a re -plat of Creekside Estates and was the portion where a rezoning from A-1 to R-1 had been recently approved by the Commission. He pointed out the development would tie Magnolia Drive through to Old Wire Road and would provide for a connection through to property to the east and to the north to the Tackett property. He advised the utility company representatives requested various crossings and additional easements, which were agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks included comments on parks fees, the need to provide one additional fire hydrant, and street names. He stated other items discussed had included sidewalks, right- of-way on Old Wire Road, the need to show the 100 year flood plain and floodway on the plat, and the location of the existing house in relation to the proposed street. Mr. Bunn further stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting centered mainly around the fact that many of the lots were located in the flood plain and what effect that would have on flooding and drainage problems in the area. He advised there had been several members of the general public at the meeting and concerns had been expressed about lot sizes, drainage, parks land, and possible flooding problems. Mr. Bunn recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; granting of a drainage easement over the floodway of Mud Creek; granting of a bikeway easement as requested; and the granting of additional roadway easement on Old Wire Road. Mr. Harry Gray stated they had no problem in meeting any of the staff requirements. Ms. Little pointed out the existing home on the tract would be made a non- conforming structure by the current alignment of the street. She asked if the home would be moved or the streets would be re -aligned. Mr. Gray explained they would be removing the carport in order to make the house conforming. Me. Britton expressed concern about constructing houses on the lots to the south due to the utility easements, drainage easements, flood plain, etc. Mr. Gray stated it would be close on Lot 24 but the other lots could be built on. Ms. Little stated she also had some concerns regarding building on the lots to the south. Mr. Gray advised he did not see homes being constructed on the south side of the creek. He further stated Mr. Ferguson had been working with the adjacent property owners to the south to find some way to deed those residents the property to the south of the creek. �3i • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 13 Me. Britton asked if there would be public access through the drainage easement. Mr. Gray advised a drainage easement would be provided and it would be a city easement. Me. Britton stated it would appear that would be a good access to the bikeway trail. Mr. Gray explained the Parks Department had requested an easement along the floodway, along Mud Creek. He added he did not have the details of the Parks Department plans. Me. Dorothy Maguire, 2672 Ferguson, showed pictures of the creek area and asked the Commission to consider the number of houses they would be approving and the amount of drainage into the creek. She expressed concern regarding the amount of run-off into the creek caused by the development. She asked the Commission to think about the long term effect of the development. Mr. Nickle asked that the pictures be given to the City Engineer so he would be aware of the problem when reviewing the grading and drainage plans. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, and referred to a statement he had drawn up which had been presented to the Commission. He stated the development, with 28 houses on 7 acres, was not consistent with the surrounding area. He also expressed concern regarding drainage. In response to a question from Mr. Van Scyoc, Mr. Bunn explained the purposes of a drainage easement and a bikeway easement. Ms. Little stated that, in calculating the number of lots on the 7 acres, they were slightly over 4 units per acre. She advised they needed to lose one lot in order to make it conforming. Mr. Gray advised he suspected they would lose a lot in order to make the house conforming. Me. Little stated it was a matter of density. Mr. Gray explained he did not believe they could exceed four units per acre and meet the 8,000 square foot requirement. He stated overall they had 3 unite per acre. Ms. Britton asked if the density had to be figured separately on the two tracts of land. Ms. Little advised that, since there was different ownership on the two tracts of land, staff recommended the density be figured separately. Mr. Gray stated they would meet the density on both tracts. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated all of both tracts were now zoned properly; that the City Council had approved the rezoning request as presented by the property owner at their last meeting. Ms. Britton asked if it was conceivable to require a detention pond on this tract since drainage appeared to be a problem. Mr. Bunn stated staff could look at it but it would be a matter of calculating how the flows got to that point. He explained staff would ask the developer to show them how the 100 year flood plain changed with the subject development. He A'4.° • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 14 pointed out there would be considerable amount of fill required on some of the lots to bring them up to a foot above the flood plain. He stated both the fill and flow would be considered in the calculations on the affect to the flood plain. He further stated he was not convinced that detention would be of any benefit in this case. He explained detention worked better in the upper portion of a basin. Ms. Britton asked that it be considered. Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Bunn also required the developer to show where the 25 and 10 year flood stages would be. Mr. Bunn advised that was a requirement. He pointed out Ms. Maguire's property was located outside the flood plain. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated the drainage and grading plans were approved prior to construction. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. �4k • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 15 PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MEWS ROB MERRY -SHIP - S OF ZION, W OF OLD MISSOURI RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for The Mews submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Rob Merry -Ship for property located on the south side of Zion, west of Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 8.45 acres with 25 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised it was the intent of the owner to construct duplexes and triplexes on the subject property. He stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives, other than the Gas Company representative indicating there were 2 existing off-site easements which should be noted on the plat. He further stated several other easements had been requested and agreed to by the owner. He stated staff remarks included comments on the need for access to Zion Road, additional right-of-way for Old Missouri and Zion Roads, the length of the cul- de-sac, and the need for sidewalks on both Zion Road and Old Missouri Road. He further stated the Subdivision Committee comments centered around whether or not an additional access would be required for this subdivision, whether onto Zion Road or into development property to the east. He advised the Committee voted to send the plat to the full Planning Commission with the stipulation that a second entrance be created for the subdivision. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks on both Old Missouri and Zion Roads; and providing an additional ingress/egress. Ms. Little advised they also needed street names added as a condition of approval. Mr. Tarvin asked if they should not have a copy of the revised plat before they reviewed it for approval. Ms. Little stated staff had requested that. Dave Jorgensen, representing the owner, explained the developer had wished to submit the plat with one access to ensure a "closed" neighborhood. He stated the developer intended to put apartments and duplexes into the subdivision which he would own. He further stated he was in agreement with all staff comments except that they maintain only one access on the project. Mr. Nickle asked how many units were planned. Mr. Jorgensen stated they planned approximately 54 living units. He noted out of the 25 lots they planned duplexes on all of the lots except 21 and 14, which were larger lots and had been reserved for triplexes or 4-plexes. He advised they had looked into another access for the project but found they could not go to the south because of an existing subdivision. He pointed out there was a possibility they could go to the west, however, to bring in a street from the west would not help the property owner to the west because the property already had adequate ingress/egress. He advised, if another access was required, it would be off of Zion Road. He stated that was not the safest area to make an access. He further pointed out that, while the idea of two accesses was good, there were many other areas within Fayetteville that contained more living units than projected by this development, with only one access. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 16 Mr. Jorgensen also requested a waiver in the length of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Little advised the request for the other access was a requirement of the subdivision regulations, not for the convenience of an adjacent development, etc. Mr. Tarvin stated he believed that was one of the problems in the City of Fayetteville was that you couldn't get around since there were no through streets. Mr. Springborn asked if there would be adequate room on Zion Road in the right- of-way to take care of future eventualities. Me. Little advised staff had requested an additional 15 feet of right-of-way, making 80 feet of right-of-way for Zion Road. Mr. Springborn asked how many lanes could be accommodated on Zion Road. Me. Little pointed out Gregg Street had 80 feet of right-of-way and would accommodate 4, possibly 5, lanes. Mr. Bunn advised there would need to be off-site improvements for both Old Missouri and Zion Roads. He stated there had been discussion regarding the taking of right-of-way by a separate instrument and it had been determined it would be satisfactory to have the right-of-way shown on the final plat filed at the courthouse. MOTION Ms. Britton stated she had reviewed the sight lane and topography in the area and saw no reason why there should not be an access. She further advised she believed there should also be access to the west. She moved to table the plat until it was brought to the Commission with the recommended ingress/egress points shown. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Merry -Ship advised he believed the access site on Zion Road would be a. dangerous area. He further stated he did not believe access to the west would improve the situation. He stated he had not been aware that two accesses were required in the code but, they would put another access onto Zion Road if it was required. He further advised they would have to remove additional trees if they had to put in another access. Mr. Springborn advised he, too, had a stated the drivers drove at high speeds. on Zion Road was being considered to be problem with access to Zion Road. He He asked if the additional right-of-way used as a bikeway. Ms. Little explained the right-of-way requested was just for Zion Road and, if it were chosen as one of the bikeway streets, they would have to request additional right-of-way Me. Britton pointed out Mr. Pummill had, on more than one occasion, talked about developers having choices. She advised they also needed to consider the residents of the units, stating they also needed to have choices in the ingress/egress to their property. Mr. Allred expressed his belief that an ingress/egress would be a detriment to the subdivision because people would use that as a cut -through instead of going down to the corner of Old Missouri and Zion Roads. He further stated he believed there should be an access to the west to provide interior circulation. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 17 NOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and the provision of an east -west ingress/egress. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 18 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 HAYLEY & GERALD TOMLINSON - 660 SAMARA CIRCLE The next item was the first lot split of property located at 660 Samara Circle submitted by Hayley and Gerald Tomlinson. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for Woods Subdivision. He stated the proposal tracts, one of 0.39 acres and one of 0.33 a first split of Lot 21 to Waterman was to split a 0.72 acre lot into two acres. He recommended that the split be approved subject to the payment of payment of an additional parks fee and subject to the approval of the Architectural Control Committee in accordance with Subdivision Covenants on file. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Tomlinson advised there were no structures on either lot. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. 0-5 • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 19 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #3 BOB LAWRENCE - 5165 BOB LAWRENCE RD. The next item was a lot split submitted by Bob Lawrence for property located at 5156 Bob Lawrence Road. The property is located outside the city limits. Mr. Bunn explained the original tract contained 5 acres and the applicant was proposing to split of 1.1 acres. He stated it did not appear that water was directly available to either lot and sewer was not available since the lots were located outside the City Limits. He further stated he did not know what other utilities were located in the area. He recommended that the split be approved subject to County approval and with the understanding that the appropriate utilities be made available to both lots. He further stated the area of the lot was less than that required by the city for a septic tank and, therefore, either a specific waiver of the 1.5 acres was required to the split must be modified to show 1.5 acres for the lot being created. Mr. Lawrence advised he did have water available to both lots. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Lawrence would need to submit the perc test to his office. He advised the requirement of 1.5 acres could be waived administratively. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. I0 • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 20 OTHER BUSINESS: Request for Street Name Change, Commerce Drive Ms. Little explained the city had received a request from Superior Industries to change the name of Commerce Drive to Borick Drive in recognition of Mr. Louis Borick, the President and Chairman of the Board of Superior Industries. She further explained this item would also require the approval of the City Council. She stated there was one additional industry on Commerce Drive, Arkansas Western Gas, and they had agreed to the name change. MOTION Mr. Pummill Drive. Mr. Allred The motion moved to approve the street name change from Commerce Drive to Borick seconded the motion. carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission October 25, 1993 Page 21 Land Use Plan: Me. Little reminded the Commission they had agreed to forward the General Plan on to the City Council with the removal of the transportation element with a transportation policy statement to be inserted. She noted all of the Commissioners had received a copy of the policy statement earlier in the day. She further stated she had met with Mr. Springborn and would be making minor editorial changes recommended by him. She advised the plan would be heard by the City Council on November 2. There was discussion regarding how the transportation committee should be appointed and it was determined it would be appointed at a later date. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated she had not, as yet, had the City Attorney review the transportation policy statement but he would do so prior to presentation to City Council. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.