Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 22, 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, Jerry Allred, Chuck Nickle, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Jett Cato, and Bob Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others JIM GATTIS - ACCESS MANAGEMENT Ms. Little explained Dr. Gattis was a professor at the University and had timely information in terms of managing traffic. Dr. Gattis reviewed a hand-out entitled "Corridor Preservation" with the Commission. The material encompassed why cities continued to have traffic problems; safety, capacity and function of the roadways; and access management. He contended government had to take action to make the roadways work. He also reviewed which roadways needed to have limited access in order to move traffic. Dr. Gattis presented various charts showing the ratio of accidents went down on access controlled roadways. He advised the City needed to set up controls before development occurred. He further noted there had to be some education by city staff and developers so the developers would know what was expected. Mr. Springborn advised he had numerous questions regarding the material Dr. Gattis had given them but he did not believe this was the time to discuss them. He further stated he would like to talk to Dr. Gattis at another time. Me. Little stated she had been talking with the Highway Department and found left hand turns were prohibited within 500 feet of any hill. She pointed out the standard upon which the Highway Department allowed curb cuts did not allow their staff to take into account that law. She asked if Dr. Gattis had any suggestions for the City in terms of coordinating with the Highway Department to limit the number of curb cuts. Dr. Gattis advised he would need more background information. Mr. Suchecki recommended Randy Allen, Street Superintendent, coordinate in the access management process so much of it would already have been discussed prior to coming before the Planning Commission. Ms. Little asked the Commission if they wanted to study this information further and make a determination whether they wanted to adopt a policy for access management and access control. She further stated this was an item the Transportation Subcommittee could also review. She informed the Commission she had received a directive from the City Council that staff needed to give more consideration to access management and control. Mr. Allred suggested forwarding the document to the Transportation Subcommittee for review. He stated they could then make a recommendation to the full Planning Commission. 4-5k • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1993. CONDITIONAL USE CU93-34 ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST STUDENTS - 979-981 CALIFORNIA A conditional use submitted by Warren Dugas on behalf of the Association of Baptist Students for property located at 979-981 California Boulevard and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is for a Christian student center. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ARKANSAS REGIONAL ATHLETIC CLUB DAN HART - W OF COLT SQUARE DR., S OF TOWNSHIP A large scale development submitted by Audy Lack of Perry Butcher & Associates on behalf of Dan Hart for property located on the west side of Colt Square Drive, south of Township. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.93 acres. VARIANCE TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 JANICE & LLOYD CALDWELL & VENOMA NEWHART - 2574 HOUSTON A first lot split submitted by Janice and Lloyd Caldwell and Venoma Newhart for property located at 2574 Houston Street. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Ms. Britton requested the Lot Split be pulled from the Consent Agenda. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Lot Split. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 437 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 3 VARIANCE TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 JANICE & LLOYD CALDWELL & VENOMA NEWHART - 2574 HOUSTON The next item was a first lot split submitted by Janice and Lloyd Caldwell and Venoma Newhart for property located at 2574 Houston Street. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the original tract was 0.30 acres and the proposal was to split the property into two lots, each containing approximately 0.15 acres. He noted the proposed lots met all of the zoning requirements of the city. He further stated the purpose of the split was to accommodate separate ownerships of a two - unit townhouse. He recommended approval of the split. Ms. Britton stated she had noticed in the agenda package the building outline. She advised that, in R-1.5 a structure with a zero lot line, the opposite side needed a 15 foot setback. She pointed out the drawing showed a setback of 13 feet and suggested the applicant could move the structure slightly and it would then meet the 15 foot setback. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-22 & ANNEXATION JED DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM RD., N OF MT. COMFORT The next item was a request for a rezoning and annexation submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Howard Davis of JED Development for property located on the east side of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The request is to annex 233 acres and rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the Order of Annexation was the confirmation of the Order was signed by the 1993. He stated the developer had proposed Fayetteville School District for an elementary additional 15 acres to the City as a park site. He stated the preliminary plat (a growth area subdivision) for 115 lots had been approved on 39.9 acres of the 233 acres petitioned for annexation and rezoning. He further stated the proposed plat did meet the minimum lot width and area requirements under R-1 zoning. He noted the developer had agreed to meet all applicable city ordinances for urban subdivisions (within City limits) in the development of the growth area subdivision. Mr. Conklin advised to the north of the proposed rezoning was in the county with mixed uses and large lot residential development, to the east was also in the county and contained vacant land, to the west was in the county and was the Razorback Golf Course, and to the south was zoned R-1, containing single family residential development. He stated improvements to the city's water and sewer system would be required by the developer in order to serve the potential development along the entire site. He noted planned extensions of the 36 -inch water line along Deane Solomon Road and the 12 -inch extension along Mount Comfort Road would have to be completed to develop the entire site. He advised that, if the improvements to the water line were not completed, any plans to develop the entire site could not be approved unless the developer completed additional off-site improvements to the water line. He stated adequacy of both water and sewer would have to be addressed as each phase of development occurred. Mr. Conklin further pointed out access to the site was from Salem Road and Raven Road. He noted both streets were classified as local streets. He stated on-site and off-site improvements to Salem Road and Raven Road would be required by the developer through the subdivision process. He reminded the Commission that, as a condition of approval, Crystal Springs Phase I had been required to improve one-half of Salem Road for the portion which adjoined the subject subdivision. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested annexation and rezoning subject to phasing the entire development to planned infrastructure improvements. He pointed out R-1 zoning was the most restrictive residential rezoning and the subject site was adjacent to property already zoned R-1 to the south. Ms. Britton asked the maximum density if the property was annexed in as A-1. Mr. Conklin advised A-1 zoning required 2 acres for each single family home. Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments. issued on October 12, 1993 and County Judge on November 12, to donate 20 acres to the school site and dedicate an Ms. Little pointed out that, while A-1 did require 2 acres per single family dwelling, it also allowed duplexes on a 2 -acre tract (one dwelling per acre). She advised the subject request did not include a 50 acre tract to the west which the original request had included. She asked if there had been a specific reason for omitting that tract. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Milholland stated they had not planned any development on the west side of Salem at this time. Mr. Nickle asked the proposed number of lots on the 233 acres if it was fully developed as residential. Mr. Milholland stated they had not computed the actual number of developable acres. He explained there were a substantial number of acres in the flood plain and the floodway, which he estimated to be 50 to 70 acres. He advised a portion of that property would be given to the City for park lands (approximately 15 acres) which was to the south of the school. He stated there would be approximately 130 to 140 acres which would be developed into single family residences. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Milholland advised the study had been completed by the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Little stated she had received a copy of the report and there was one large 15 acre tract and then several smaller tracts that were flood plain and floodway. Mr. Milholland stated the larger tract (15 acres) was in the floodway. He further stated there was approximately 3 to 4 acres outside the floodway. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised that, if the tract were annexed and rezoned, all of the land would be rezoned to R-1 but those areas in the woodlands and floodway would not be allowed to develop. Mr. Nickle pointed out there could be 500 to 560 units constructed on the tract. Mr. Milholland stated that, with the size of lots they planned to develop, they would be doing good to get three units per acre. Mr. Nickle stated that would be approximately 400 housing units for the subject tract. Me. Britton expressed concerns regarding urban sprawl, pointing out there was still a great deal of land within the City Limits which had not been developed. She reminded the Commission the Land Use consultant had suggested a study to address where they needed to annex land and at what rate they needed to annex land. She stated none of the studies had been done. She also pointed out there would be a tremendous amount of vehicle trips on the county roadways because there were no commercial properties to support the housing. She advised she did not see this as an appropriate time to annex the subject property. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the request for annexation and rezoning. Mr. Springborn stated he also found the request to be at odds with the 2010 Plan. He seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-6-0 with Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Cato, Nickle, Pummill, Reynolds and Suchecki voting "no". Mr. Pummill pointed out it was impractical to have commercial development before any housing was constructed. 4-55 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the request for annexation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Cato, Nickle, Pummill, Reynolds and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Nickle stated that, while R-1 might be the appropriate zoning, he was not sure he had enough information to agree with an R-1 classification for all of the property at this time. He further stated he was not sure what the appropriate percentage or amount of land should be R-1. He asked staff if they had considered any other percentages of A-1 to R-1 for the rezoning. Ms. Little advised they had not looked at it in terms of percentages but had looked at in terms of use. She explained that, once the property was annexed into the City, it would automatically be A-1 unless rezoned. She reminded the Commission that the minimum lot size under A-1 zoning was 2 acres whereas the minimum lot size under R-1 zoning was 8,000 square feet. She also reviewed all uses allowed under A-1 zoning and those allowed under R-1 zoning. She advised the purpose of A-1 zoning was to hold the land for development or use it as farm lands and the purpose of R-1 zoning was to develop low density housing. She noted that, for those reasons, staff believed the R-1 zoning would be more restrictive and more appropriate for the subject tract. Mr. Nickle asked if staff did not assume that, at some point in the future, the developer would come back before the Commission to ask for some commercial zoning on the tract. He asked if it was appropriate to have all of the land zoned R-1 at this time instead of A-1. He explained that, as the property developed, the developer could request the appropriate zoning for specific plans. Ms. Little stated Mr. Nickle had asked a good question. She explained the proposed subdivision had been subject to numerous questions due to the land use plan. She stated the land use plan did recommend mixed uses and it was their hope mixed uses would occur, after revisions to the zoning ordinance, within R-1 zoning. She advised that, should the developer be ready to develop a portion of the property commercial prior to the ordinances being adopted, he would have to request another rezoning. Mr. Pummill pointed out there were many uses allowed under A-1 which might be undesirable for this tract. He further stated it would be very difficult, at this point in time, to anticipate how much commercial use and where it would be located in order to serve 400 to 500 lots. He advised that, as the property developed, they would be able to decide when and where commercial development needed to occur. He advised he did not understand the Commission's reluctance to rezone a tract twice in 12 to 18 months, stating developments and tracts changed. Ms. Britton stated usually commercial development was suggested many years before it occurred. She pointed out they had, in the past, had problems with commercial developments being constructed after housing units. She reminded the Commission 4-519 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 7 of many rezoning hearings with area residents being upset by residential property being rezoned to commercial. She contended they could not develop commercial tracts once the houses were constructed. Mr. Pummill disagreed. Mr. Reynolds requested Mr. Pummill include staff recommendations in his motion. Mr. Pummill agreed. • The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Cato, Sickle, Pummill, Reynolds and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-50 JIM & DANNY WATSON - 2220 E. HUNTSVILLE The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-50 submitted by Jim and Danny Watson for property located at 2220 E. Huntsville Road. The request is to rezone .97 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to I-2, Heavy Industrial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had petitioned for I-2 zoning in order to add on to the existing building. He pointed out that, under Section 160.135, a nonconforming use, such as Mhoon Beef, could not be enlarged or expanded within an R-1 zone. He explained the existing structure on the site had been used as a meat packing plant by Mhoon Beef for over 30 years. He advised I-2 (Unit 23) was the only zone which allowed meat packing as a use by right. He stated the applicant had voluntarily offered a Bill of Assurance restricting the use of the land to only meat packing. He explained this project would not be required to go through Large Scale Development since the addition would not exceed 10,000 square feet. He reviewed surrounding land use and zoning: to the north was vacant land zoned R-1, to the east was developed as single family and zoned R-1, to the south was developed commercially and zoned C-1, and to the west was developed as single family and zoned R-1. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning with the acceptance of the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant restricting the use of the site for meat packing uses only. He pointed out the use had existed on the subject site for over 30 years and the applicant was requesting the rezoning in order to expand the existing operation. Ms. Britton asked if vegetative screening would be required around the subject property. Ms. Conklin explained either vegetation or fencing would be required on three sides (the north, west and east). Mr. Reynolds advised he had discussed the rezoning with the neighbors and they had no objections to the rezoning. He pointed out the business had been located at the site for over 30 years. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-52 MARTIN & BEATRICE GROFF - 1625 N. GILES The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-52 submitted by Martin and Beatrice Groff for property located at 1625 N. Giles. The request is to rezone .37 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently developed with a single family home which had been converted into a duplex. He pointed out duplexes were a use by right in A-1 zoning, but still required a minimum lot area of 2 acres. He explained the applicant wanted to develop a third unit within the existing structure which would require R-2 zoning. He advised no exterior modifications would be made to the existing structure but off-street parking would be required with the development of any additional units. He further advised that all surrounding land uses were single family except to the north and one block to the west where there were duplexes and four-plexes along Florene Street. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning. He stated the current structure was nonconforming with regard to lot size (A-1 zoning required a 2 -acre minimum lot size) and increasing the density permitted under the R-2 zoning for approximately 1/3 of an acre would not be compatible with the surrounding zoning or development. Ms. Britton asked if it would not be appropriate to rezone it to R-1 rather than R-2. Mr. Conklin stated R-1 with a conditional use would make the current use a legal use but the applicant wanted to have a triplex which would not be a legal use under R-1. Mr. Suchecki verified the applicant would not be making any changes to the exterior of the structure. Mr. Martin Groff appeared before the Commission and explained construction had started before he purchased the property. He stated a building permit had been issued but, in order to get an additional electrical meter, it had been necessary to obtain an electrical permit. He further explained that, when he requested the electrical permit, he discovered the property was improperly zoned. He advised there were two bedrooms and a bath upstairs and two bedrooms and a bath downstairs. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Groff stated he had purchased the property approximately 6 months earlier. He further stated a building permit had been issued and construction had already been started. Mr. Conklin advised the building permit had not indicated the intended use was for a triplex. He stated the Inspection Department had discovered the intended use when the applicant applied for an electrical permit. Mr. Nickle asked how the applicant intended to convert the structure to a triplex. Mr. Groff stated he would be adding another bathroom. He advised there were currently two bathrooms and two kitchens and he intended to add one bathroom and one kitchen without making any changes to the exterior. He pointed out there were duplexes and four-plexes on Florene and Anne, with a duplex directly to the north of the subject property. He also advised there was sufficient room for parking for all three apartments. �5q • • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Allred stated he was in favor of renovation since often an entire neighborhood would do a turnaround from one structure being renovated. He further stated he did believe they needed to be careful to not have spot zoning. He recommended rezoning the property to R-1 with a conditional use to allow the existing duplex. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little explained the current use was nonconforming and, if destroyed, the applicant could not reconstruct a duplex. She stated it would be of some economic benefit to the applicant to have the property zoned R-1 with a conditional use for the duplex. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to rezone the property from A-1 to R-1 including a conditional use to allow a duplex. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Springborn, Cato, Nickle, Pummill, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Reynolds voting "no". Afo • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-51 JIM WHEELER - SW CORNER OF HWY 112 & DEANE SOLOMON RD The next item was Rezoning R93-51 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Wheeler for property located on the southwest corner of Highway 112 and Deane Solomon Road. The request is to rezone 8.51 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R- 1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop the 8.51 acres with 8 single family residential lots, noting the following item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for the subject tract of land. He reviewed the surrounding zoning (all A-1 except to the west which is in the county) and land use (single family to the north and south, and vacant to the east and west). He also noted water was available to the site; however, individual septic systems would be required for each lot since the nearest sewer line was 3,500 feet from the proposed subdivision. He pointed out the site did front on Highway 112 (a minor arterial) and Deane Solomon Road (a collector). Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning, pointing out rezoning the subject property for residential use would be compatible with existing development and zoning in the vicinity. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Me. Little stated they had discussed extending Highway 112 to the south to the intersection with Salem Road. She asked why the tract located between Salem Road and the proposed subdivision had been excluded from the subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen advised the owner did not wish to include that tract in the subdivision. Ms. Little advised her question had been prompted by the number of cul-de-sacs in recent subdivisions. She stated this had not been an issue at the Plat Review meeting nor the Subdivision Committee meeting but had come up on the Planning Commission tour of the area. She advised staff believed it was a very worthwhile suggestion. Mr. Jorgensen stated he had not had an opportunity to discuss it with the owner of the property. He pointed out Deane Solomon Road was slightly to the east of Highway 112 and provided a good access. Ms. Britton pointed out the entry to the subdivision was undesirable due to sight problems. She stated if the entry street lined up with Highway 112, there would be good visibility for the intersection. She advised there was no reason, if the street went all the way through to Salem, that the southern portion could not be reserved for the owner of the subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen stated the owner preferred the design as shown. He noted the terrain from the middle of Lot 5 to the south was very steep. Ms. Britton advised the west side of the property was less steep than the middle. She stated she did not feel the terrain demanded a cul-de-sac; there were many streets in Fayetteville much steeper than the proposed street. She expressed her belief Mr. Jorgensen should discuss this matter further with his client. Mr. Allred pointed out they were considering the rezoning, not the subdivision. He suggested continuing the discussion when considering the preliminary plat. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 12 NOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 'Y • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT - LYNN -LEIGH HILL ADDITION JIM WHEELER - SW CORNER OF HWY 112 & DEANE SOLOMON RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Lynn -Leigh Hill Addition submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Wheeler for property located on the southwest corner of Highway 112 and Deane Solomon Road. The property is zoned R-1 (proposed R93-51), Low Density Residential, and contains 8.51 acres with 8 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the utilities at the Plat Review meeting other than several additional easements and some crossings requested and agreed to by the owner. He stated staff remarks included comments on drainage, the need for a preliminary grading plan, street light spacing, lot sizes in relation to the 1.5 acre requirement, and water line sizing. He further noted there had been some discussion as to the entrance into the subdivision as it related to the Deane Solomon Road intersection and the Highway 112 intersection with Howard Nickel Road to the west. Mr. Bunn advised Subdivision Committee comments centered around the size of the lots considering the fact that septic tanks would be required. He stated it had been pointed out that the 1.5 acre requirement could be waived provided the percolation tests indicated something less than the 1.5 acres was adequate. He further stated the Committee voted to recommend 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 detailed plans for water, streets, and drainage; off-site improvements to Deane Solomon Road; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and percolation testa consistent with the proposed lot sizes. Mr. Reynolds advised he believed there would be a dangerous intersection if they did not change the entrance to the subdivision. He recommended access to either the east or to the south. Mr. Wheeler stated he disagreed with Ms. Britton and Mr. Reynolds, advising the further away from the curve the faster the traffic moved. He stated traffic moved fairly slow going around the curve. He further stated they enjoyed the rural setting of the property to the south and did not want a road to be constructed through that property. Mr. Allred pointed out the proposed road would run parallel with Deane Solomon and noted the crest of the hill at the intersection of Deane Solomon and Highway 112. He asked which route would decrease the danger to motorists. There was further discussion regarding the intersection of Deane Solomon Road and Highway 112. Ms. Britton contended the street should line up with the center line of Highway 112 as it went north. Mr. Wheeler once again expressed his opposition to having the street go all the way through his property. Mr. Jorgensen stated it had seemed to be a fairly simple request to rezone 8 acres with 7 or 8 lots but now they were talking about extending a highway along the west boundary line. He further pointed out it had been a surprise since it had not been discussed at plat review or subdivision committee meetings. He advised there was a 15 to 20% grade. *65 • • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 14 Ms. Little asked how difficult it would be to curve the street to the west at the south border of lot 8 leaving a right-of-way to the south. She stated the street would not have to be constructed at this time. Mr. Jorgensen stated it would be possible if the Planning Commission made a recommendation for an easement along the west boundary line for that purpose. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Springborn, Cato, Pummill and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Nickle and Reynolds voting "no". • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-53 R & B VENTURES, INC. - E OF GREGG, N OF SYCAMORE The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-53 submitted by Tom Buysee on behalf of R & B Ventures, Inc. for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, north of Sycamore. The request is to rezone 3.75 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was petitioning for R-2 zoning in order to develop the site as an apartment complex containing 56 units located in six structures. He advised the large scale development for this project was the next item on the agenda. He reviewed the surrounding zoning (R-1 to the north, east and south and I-1 to the west) and surrounding land use (single family to the north, east and south and office to the west). He reminded the Commission R-2 zoning allowed up to a maximum density of 24 units per acre. He informed the Commission the applicant had voluntarily offered a Bill of Assurance limiting the density to 14.74 units per acre (56 units), limiting the location of the structures as shown on the large scale development plan, limiting access only to Gregg Street, and preservation of the trees on-site as shown on the Tree Preservation Plan. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. Mr. Buysee advised their plan was apartment building. He stated they environment of the property with the Commission hear both the rezoning together. to develop the property into a 56 unit had attempted to incorporate the natural plans for an apartment. He requested the request and the Large Scale Development Ms. Little stated that, since a Bill of Assurance had been offered, she would recommend they hear the engineer's report on the Large Scale Development at this time and consider both issues together, as requested by the applicant. She further stated staff would not recommend the rezoning without the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Bunn stated the large scale development for Candlelight Place had been submitted by Albert Skiles on behalf of R & B Ventures, Inc. He advised the project contained 3.75 acres with a 6 -building, 56 unit apartment complex being proposed. Mr. Bunn stated there had been discussion between the developers and the utility companies in regard to exiting easements which had to be protected and the need for additional easements at the plat review meeting. He further noted there were several crossings requested by the utility company representatives and some discussion as to exactly how some of the buildings were to be served. He further stated staff had noted an additional 5 to 15 feet of right-of-way on Gregg Street would be required. He advised the Commission the Fire Chief indicated two hydrants would be required within the development. He further noted sidewalks would be required on both Gregg Street and Sycamore. He stated there had also been a discussion as to how water service would be provided to the development. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee had voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended approval of the Large Scale Development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, and drainage; the dedication of additional • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 16 right-of-way as requested; successful rezoning of the property; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances. Mr. Albert Skiles then presented a slides showing the subject site and surrounding area. He also showed plans for the proposed apartment complex. Ms. Britton stated her only suggestion would be a pedestrian access to Sycamore. Mr. Buysee stated they had a concern with security for the residents of the apartments. Ms. Britton also requested the fence not extend past the building setback line in the front of the property. Mr. Lewis Huntoon, 1618 Forest Heights, presented a petition in opposition containing 34 signatures of area residents. He also presented a letter in opposition. He advised the only people in favor of the development were those that did not live in the neighborhood or those who stood to gain financially. He contended the current state of tranquility would be ruined by the intrusion of a high density, multi -storied apartment complex. He also stated the property to the north of the subject site, owned by Walter Niblock, would become worthless since it was zoned R-1. He pointed out that, if the Niblock property were also to be rezoned, they would have 72 units instead of the proposed 56. Mr. Tom Hinkson, 1659 Forest Heights, reviewed the terrain and natural beauty of the area. He reminded the Commission that a year earlier they had denied a rezoning request in the same general area. He contended there would not be a natural barrier between the proposed apartments and the neighborhood. He expressed concern that most of the trees on the site would be cut down and replaced with concrete. He also cautioned the Commission there was not a guarantee that the applicants would build what they said they would build. Mr. Randy Holder, an adjoining property owner, stated he had nothing against development or progress but did not want the tranquility of his neighborhood ruined by a high density development. He advised he preferred single family homes be constructed on the site. Also speaking in opposition were Tom Rufer, 1674 Forest Heights; Jan Thorp; Richard Day, 1606 Forest Heights; Roy Nastasi, 1631 Vandeventer; Tom Fairbanks, 1765 Woolsey; and Glenda Rufer, 1674 Forest Heights. They expressed concern their property values would go down, additional traffic, and lack of privacy for adjoining residents. Mr. Rudy Hatcher, one of the developers of Forest Heights Subdivision, stated he believed the subject site had a limited number of uses and was not suitable for R-1. He advised he believed the plans for the apartment were excellent and the complex would be an upscale development. He stated he believed the proposal was a good use of controlled growth for the subject property. He stated he still owned several lots in Forest Heights and did not believe this project would affect his property values. Mr. Skiles contended this property was adjacent to a highly commercial area and would never develop under R-1 zoning. He further stated they had done their best to design a development which would not be apparent to the adjacent neighborhood. He pointed out the buildings would be 40 feet below the existing grade of the area to the south. In response to a question from an area neighbor, Mr. Buysee advised the Bill of Assurance spelled out what they were committed to do. He then reviewed the items in the Bill of Assurance. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 17 Mr. Conklin further a 100 foot buffer preservation of the stated Mr. Buysee had indicated they were willing to offer from Sycamore, limited access only to Gregg Street, and trees shown on the tree preservation plan. An audience member asked what guarantees they had that no other property in the area would be developed as apartments. Ms. Little advised they had the guarantee of careful and considerate judgment on the part of the Planning Commission. She also advised all adjoining property owners would receive notification and have the right to come to a public hearing to offer comments. Ms. Ruth Graham advised she did not live in the area but did know the city needed more upscale apartments. She stated she believed this was a very good transition from the congestion on Gregg Street to the single family homes. MOTION Ms. Britton expressed surprise at the neighbors comments stating it appeared to her the developer had been very sensitive the site. She advised it was unrealistic to expect someone to spend $100,000 for a residential home in the subject area considering the traffic along Gregg and the proximity of the developments to the west. She stated that, considering the Bill of Assurance given by the developer, she would move to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Britton, Allred, Springborn, Cato, Pummill and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Sickle and Reynolds voting "no". Mr. Allred noted Sycamore Street was shown as having 80 feet of right-of-way. He asked if it was planned for four lanes. Me. Little advised there was no such plan at this time. MOTION Ms. Britton stated she believed this development was a very worthwhile project, well designed and sensitive to the site. She moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 18 PRELIMINARY PLAT - OWL CREEK MIKE PENNINGTON - E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., S OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a preliminary plat for Owl Creek submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington for property located on the east side of Double Springs Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 10.22 acres with 33 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by either the staff or the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting. He noted the street superintendent had expressed concern over the drainage and asked for some additional drop inlets on the street. He further stated staff had pointed out that improvements to Double Springs Road would be required. He stated there were no additional issues raised at the subdivision committee meeting and the committee voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat 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; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and dedication of additional right-of-way on Double Springs Road, if necessary. Ms. Little reminded the Commission they had previously denied a rezoning request for the subject tract. In response to a question by Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland advised the developer preferred making the 25 -foot setback a utility easement (as shown on the plat) rather than having an easement through lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the north of the flood plain. Ms. Little also advised the name "Denver" could not be used on one of the streets because there was already a Denver Street within the city limits. Mr. John Gooding, an adjoining property owner, asked if there were plans for a stop light on Wedington. Mr. Suchecki advised the developer had no control over a stop light. Ms. Little stated the State Highway Department would make a determination as to placement of stop lights. She expressed her belief there would not be a stop light in the near future at that location because it did not meet the highway department's criteria. Mr. Gooding expressed concern there would be a bottleneck unless something was done on Wedington (Highway 16). Mr. Bay Haley expressed concern there were no sidewalks along Double Springs for the children getting on or off the school bus. Ms. Little advised the developer would be required to widen the street along that portion which adjoined the subject property and install a sidewalk. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 'I� • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 19 PRELIMINARY PLAT - VIEWPOINT ESTATES JOE FRED STARR - E OF GREENVIEW DR., S OF MISSION BLVD The next item was a preliminary plat for Viewpoint Estates submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Joe Fred Starr for property located on the east side of Greenview Drive, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 2.05 acres with 4 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility representatives other than additional easements requested and agreed to by the owner. He stated the Fire Chief had expressed concern regarding the access to the two tandem lots in the event of an emergency. He further stated staff also noted the need for parks fees for the development. He advised that, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, it had been determined the access drives to the tandem lot would be paved. He further stated they also pointed out the need for additional right-of-way on Viewpoint and the need to provide street improvements to Viewpoint. He noted several members of the general public were at the meeting to express concern over the drainage across the area and over the size of lots and houses that were planned. He stated the Subdivision Committee voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, street, and drainage plans; approval of a grading plan, if applicable; payment of parks fees and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; paving of the drives for the tandem lots; and off-site improvements to Viewpoint and the dedication of an additional 5 feet of right-of- way. Ms. Britton asked if, under the tree preservation plan, the developer was not required to plant trees since trees had been removed from the subject tract within the last five years. Ms. Little explained the ordinance was not retroactive. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the improvements to Viewpoint included widening the street to 15 feet on the side adjacent to the development, curb, gutter and storm drainage. Mr. Gray advised he concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato move to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated there had been discussion at the plat review and subdivision committee meetings regarding an access to the east. She advised she believed the Commission should have required the access. Mr. Gray explained the grade at that point was 15 or 20% He pointed out the city discouraged streets in excess of 15%. Ms. Little noted the property to the east did have frontage on Mission. The motion carried 8-0-0. X69 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODLAWN ADDITION BARRY BARER - N OF 24TH, E OF S. SCHOOL The next item was a preliminary plat for Woodlawn Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Barry Baker for property located on the north side of 24th Street, east of South School. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 1.51 acres with 6 proposed lots. Ms. Little reminded the Commission this tract had recently been rezoned and the frontage was on 24th Street. She stated the owner of the subject tract also owned the adjoining property to the north with access to his property through Lot 1. She advised there had been discussion regarding limiting the number of curb cuts to 24th Street, noting there was a downhill slope to the west. She stated she had asked Mr. Gray to prepare a plat showing the staff's request but, due to time constraints, they had not been able to prepare the plat. She further noted Mr. Baker had visited with her and had offered to draw the plat. Mr. Cato asked Ms. Little's recommendation. Ms. Little reviewed the dimensions of the tract and stated the tenants would not be allowed to back onto 24th Street. She noted it would be very simple for the developer to make a one-way street either running east to west or west to east with a paved area of approximately 12.5 feet which would allow backing into the mini -frontage road for access to 24th St. She advised they were asking the developer to pave an additional 20 feet on each lot in length, 12.5 feet wide. Mr. Nickle stated he appreciated the description but would like to see a plat. Ms. Britton suggested having the driveway go between alternate sites with the garages to the rear of the buildings. Ms. Little stated she had discussed that possibility with Mr. Gray but not Mr. Baker. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives other than additional easements requested and agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks included comments on the need for access to the property immediately to the north of the development, the need for a fire hydrant between lots 2 and 3, off-site improvements to 24th Street, the need for a tree preservation plan, and parks fees. He advised the Subdivision Committee discussion centered around the number of accesses to 24th Street and access to the property north of the proposed subdivision. He stated it had been the recommendation of staff that the accesses to 24th Street be restricted to no more than three and that the property to the north be included in the subdivision plat as a tandem lot. He further stated the owner had suggested he could restrict the access as requested if the improvements to 24th Street could be waived but that had not been agreed to by the staff or the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee voted to move the plat forward to the full Planning Commission subject to the resolution of the access issue and other staff comments. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; off-site improvements to 24th Street; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees; and resolution of the access issue (number of accesses to 24th Street). Mr. Gray explained there would only be 13 feet between the edge of the 12 -foot drive and the front of the garage, which was not room to park a vehicle, if they 410 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 21 placed the a private street in front of the residences. He advised the 13 -foot figure came from subtracting 12 feet from the 25 -foot setback. Ms. Britton pointed out the building could be set back further than 25 feet. Ms. Little noted there was a grade change on the property which mean they needed to set the buildings to the front. Mr. Baker advised that, if they changed the accesses to the property, it would change the entire plat. Ms. Little stated it had been her understanding that neither the footprint nor the style and design of the buildings had been decided. She suggested this information might need to be determined in order to make a good decision regarding controlling the traffic. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table this item until access was resolved. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 22 PARKING WAIVER REQUEST RICHARD SHEWIAKER - 603 W. DICKSON The next item was a parking waiver request submitted by Richard Shewmaker for property located at 603 W. Dickson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised Mr. Shewmaker had requested the parking requirement be waived for the basement and the second floor of the subject property in order to develop a restaurant. He explained the structure was originally known as the Polk Furniture Building. He noted the structure had a single family residence on the top floor and a retail clothing store on the first floor and the basement was currently not being utilized. He stated the existing building covered the entire site, leaving no areas for the development of off-street parking. He reminded the Commission parking waivers had been granted by them over the past several years for Shulertown Market Place (Watson Street), Ozark Brewery (Dickson Street), and Ozark Mountain Sports Building (School Street). Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested parking waiver, explaining that granting the parking waiver would be consistent with the recent actions regarding other waivers. He also noted staff would be forming committees to begin work on the zoning and subdivision ordinances at which time other alternatives to parking waivers could be addressed and proposed. Mr. Nickle asked if there was a plan for the parking in the subject area before all of the space was used. Mr. Conklin explained that, when the committees were formed to work on the zoning and subdivision ordinances, they would be reviewing alternatives. He suggested one method they might look at would be to collect a fee in lieu of providing parking. Ms. Little advised there was currently a study being undertaken by the Mayor's office regarding parking. She explained that, prior to her employment, if a building existed, no parking waivers were sought. She stated it was her belief the Commission needed to look at parking and had, therefore, started bringing the waivers to them. She pointed out Dickson Street was growing and improving due to the investment of money. Mr. Springborn stated the Dickson Street Improvement District had undertaken to locate and develop additional parking off of Dickson Street in order to promote the improvement of the area. Mr. Allred stated the Improvement District had just completed a lot approximately one block north of the subject property which would help handle the influx of parking. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission of the request they had heard on a parking waiver for a convention center. He stated they had required that applicant to provide them with alternate parking sites. Ms. Little explained they had wanted to use the public parking spaces as their allotted spaces. She pointed out the ordinance said that, when a change of use occurred, the owner was to provide the parking. She reminded the Commission they had agreed the convention center could use the public parking but only after the hours they were normally utilized (nighttime and weekends). 2 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 23 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised approval of the subject request would be somewhat consistent with the Commission's previous action. There was further discussion regarding other parking waivers granted on Dickson Street. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Shewmaker if he was aware of any future plans for additional parking lots. Mr. Shewmaker advised there had been some discussion regarding an additional lot. He stated they had just completed a lot containing 50 spaces approximately 200 feet from his building. He expressed his belief Dickson Street was an area of density where someone did not go to just one business but went to several. It was also pointed out there would soon be a trolley to serve the area. Mr. Pummill stated he drove on Dickson Street frequently and rarely saw all of the parking spaces full. He also pointed out if they required every business in that area to have the required number of parking spaces, they would have to raze all of the buildings in the area. He stated that, after watching the videos for the new land use plan, he believed they tried to create too much parking. Ms. Britton asked if Dickson Street could not have its own standards for parking as established by the Improvement District. She advised it bothered her to waive a requirement established by ordinance. She asked why they had the ordinance if they were not going to enforce it. Ms. Little advised she would not have a problem with the Improvement District having input, similar to that of the Parks & Recreation Board, but she did not believe it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to give up their authority. She further stated she believed it was the Planning Commission's responsibility. She advised she would be happy to ask the City Attorney for his recommendations on the matter. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Shewmaker advised the assessment made by the Improvement District changed as the assessed value of a structure changed. Mr. Pummill advised the Commission did not consider the market, explaining if customers had to walk a long distance to a store, the store would soon be out of business. He expressed his belief they did not give enough credit to the people on Dickson Street who knew whether they had adequate space for parking. Mr. Nickle stated he agreed but asked about the people who already had businesses on Dickson Street. He asked if there would be an impact on those businesses. MOTION Mr. Cato advised he believed it would be helpful for the Dickson Street Improvement District to make comments or recommendations on requested parking waivers. He further stated he agreed there were not many options open to the applicant in this case since it was an existing building. He moved to waive the off-street parking requirements. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-1 with Commissioners Allred, Springborn, Cato, Nickle, Pummill and Suchecki voting "yes", Commissioner Britton voting "no", and Commissioner Reynolds abstaining. ;143 • • • Planning Commission November 22, 1993 Page 24 STREET NAME CHANGE - A PORTION OF CENTER STREET CYRUS & MARTHA SUTHERLAND AND JANE STEELE - CENTER STREET TO HASKELL HTS. The next item was a request submitted by Cyrus and Martha Sutherland and Mrs. Jane Steele to change a portion of Center Street to Haskell Heights. Ms. Little stated staff research showed there was no reason to not change the name of the street; however, during site review it was pointed out that, at some time in the future, this area of Center Street would connect to that portion of Center Street to the east. She advised it was staff recommendation to change the name to Haskell Heights simply because historically the name had been Haskell Heights. She further stated the residents of that area received their mail at a Haskell Heights address. She noted, however, she did believe it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make it a conditional of approval that, if Center Street was ever extended to this point, the name would revert to Center Street. Mr. Allred asked who would bear the cost of notifying all of the utility companies and the post office. Ms. Little stated the city would make that notification. She advised the main expense would be changing the street sign and that would cost approximately $50.00. She explained 9-1-1 had changed the name from Haskell Heights to Center Street. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the name change as requested with the condition that, should Center Street be extended to this area, the name would revert to Center Street. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Ms. Britton expressed concern that there was a street in the same area named Halsell which could cause confusion for emergency vehicles. Ms. Little explained Halsell was pronounced "Hallzel" which did not sound like Haskell. Mr. Cyrus Sutherland, a resident on the street, advised he did not believe Center Street would ever be extended to this site. The motion carried 8-0-0. OTHER INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS Ms. Little presented the Executive Summary Land Use Plan and a collection of articles on managing growth and mixed uses. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.