Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 13, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Jack Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki, Jerry Allred and Bob Reynolds OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MAYOR FRED HANNA Mayor Hanna appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his appreciation for the time and effort they devoted to the City. He also presented Certificates of Appreciation for those Commissioners whose terms would expire on December 31, 1993: Jett Cato, Joe Tarvin and Jerry Allred and also to Jack Springborn who had resigned his position effective December 31, 1993. CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1993 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CROSSOVER STORAGE GORDON WILKINS & DANNY VILLINES - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION A large scale development submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins and Danny Villines for property located west of Crossover Road, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 2.66 acres. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES ROBERT BRACY - 1901 COMMERCE DRIVE A large scale development submitted by Leonard Messina on behalf of Robert Bracy of Superior Industries for property located at 1901 Commerce Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, with 35.99 acres. FINAL PLAT - STERLING ESTATES STERLING INVESTMENTS, LTD. - W OF HILLSIDE TER., E OF CROSSOVER, S OF ZION A final plat submitted by David Cox of Engineering Services on behalf of Sterling Investments, Ltd. for property located on the west side of Hillside Terrace, east of Crossover, and south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density , and contains 6.85 acres with 15 lots. CONDITIONAL USE CU93-35 & LOT SPLIT #1 RANDY & GRETCHEN HOLIMAN - 4188 W. 6TH ST. A request for a conditional use (for a tandem lot) and lot split submitted by Randy and Gretchen Holiman for property located at 4188 West 6th Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4-16 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-35 CHERYL MILLER & GENEVA McFARLAND - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF SHILOH The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning Request R93-35 submitted by Rick Osborne on behalf of Cheryl Miller and Geneva McFarland for property located on the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Shiloh. The request is to rezone 13.88 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Me. Miller advised her representative was not present and requested this item be moved to the end of the meeting. 411 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-56 ALLEN WHITE - SE CORNER OF CENTER & UNIVERSITY The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-56 submitted by Allen White, for property located on the southeast corner of Center Street and University Avenue. The request is to rezone .25 acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for rezoning in order to construct 5 to 6 residential units. He reviewed the surrounding land use and zoning (R-3 to the north, east and west and C-1 to the south). He stated the applicant had been advised that green space fees would be required at the time of development. He also pointed out there was significant drainage which was accommodated in an underground structure of advanced age. He noted the structure received water from the pond to the west and brought it diagonally across the lot through the underground drainage structure. He stated the City had been unable to determine who originally constructed the drainage structure but he was presenting the information so the Planning Commission and the applicant were aware that the City was not currently responsible for the maintenance of the structures and the owner would be on notice that construction of a building over the structure might require additional support and involve significant liability to the developer. He noted water and sewer were available to the site. He further stated there was a private storm drainage culvert running underneath the property which carried the runoff from the west by way of the pond in front of the apartments. He advised the applicant the Inspection Department would require a engineer's. certification of the structural integrity of the culvert with regard to its ability to handle any proposed development. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning noting the property was surrounded on three sides by R-3 zoning and it would allow additional development of higher density residential use near the University campus. Mr. White advised the drainage culvert had been constructed by Jerry Sweetser in 1972. He also explained the other structure referred to was under the railroad track, not the subject site. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. White stated he planned to construct 5 condominiums. Ms. Britton asked if R-2 would not be sufficient for the applicant's plans. Mr. Conklin advised the plans did not meet the R-2 standards. He also pointed out there was R-3 on three sides of the property. Me. Little stated staff preferred R-3 because, under R-2 zoning, the parking requirement was 1 1/2 spaces per unit but, under R-3, the parking was determined in relation to the number of bedrooms. She pointed out the apartment would attract a large student population and more than 1 1/2 parking spaces per unit would be needed. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0, 1e Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R93-54 AND R93-55 HAROLD JOHNSON - E & W OF SHILOH DR., S OF 15TH The next item was a public hearing on Rezonings R93-54 and R93-55 submitted by Harold Johnson for property located on the east and west sides of Shiloh Drive, south of 15th Street. R93-54 is a request to rezone 11.67 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. R93-55 is a request to rezone 3.46 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had requested rezoning the 11.67 acres from A-1 to R-1 in order to develop the site with 44 residential lots (the maximum density allowed under the current code). He noted Mr. Johnson also owned the adjacent 3.46 acres to the east, petitioned for C-2 zoning. He pointed out the site was heavily wooded and steep. He also noted the surrounding land was zoned A-1 with single family residences constructed both to the north and south, the property to the west being vacant land and the property to the east being the Highway 71 Bypass. He advised the applicant would be financially responsible for extending the required 8 -inch water and sewer lines approximately 1,050 feet to the site. He noted the site had frontage on Shiloh Drive, which was classified as a collector street and was under the jurisdiction of the State Highway Department. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning to R-1 stating that, with improvements to extend water and sewer, the site was appropriate for single family residential development. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned to rezone the 3.46 acres from A-1 to C-2 because he felt that C-2 zoning was the best use of the property due to its location being adjacent to the by-pass and land further north (at Sixth Street) being zoned C-2. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning explaining C-2 allowed uses which would not be compatible with the proposed single family homes to the west. He advised staff would support R-0 zoning at this location because it would allow the applicant the flexibility to mix single and two-family residential uses with office uses on the site which would be more compatible with the proposed residential development to the west. Me. Britton asked the width of the property requested to be rezoned to C-2. She expressed concern it was not wide enough to construct a structure. Mr. Conklin stated he believed it was 100 to 150 feet, possibly 200 feet. Ms. Little advised the tract did need to be sensitively handled since it did front on the By-pass. Mr. Tarvin asked if the plans were to back the houses up to Shiloh Drive. Me. Little stated they were planning to access Shiloh Drive. She advised the developer was planning a loop street in the subdivision. She presented the preliminary plat of the proposed subdivision which would be located on the subject site. In response to a comment from Mr. Allred, Mr. Tarvin explained he had questioned the location of the houses because, if the houses were backed up to Shiloh, they could build a fence and the traffic noise would not have such an impact. Mr. Harry Gray appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. ;29 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve Rezoning R93-54 from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. Mr. Gray pointed out the tract they the land was located between Highway land in the same situation was zoned to him it was a logical use. wished to rezone to C-2 was unique in that 71 and the frontage road. He stated other commercial. He further stated it appeared Mr. Suchecki asked if Mr. Johnson had any plans for the subject tract of land.. Mr. Gray stated they had discussed the possibility of a motel or a convenience store. Mr. Conklin reviewed those items which could be placed in C-2 zoning. Ms. Britton expressed concern about the traffic. She pointed out traffic had to come through an intersection which was already on overload. She asked if impact fees would be assessed with the development of the subject property. Ms. Little explained Shiloh Drive, at this point, was a state maintained road. She stated there could be an impact fee for the extension of the water and sewer lines. Ms. Britton verified the State Highway Department would have to improve the intersection at Highway 62 and Shiloh rather than the city. Mr. Gray disagreed with Ms. Britton's comment about the intersection being on overload, stating he believed it was the best signalized intersection within the city. Mr. Pummill asked if there would not be another signal light to the west. Ms. Little stated the Highway Department was working on changing the alignment of access to the frontage road at the subject intersection. She explained that, at the present time, traffic exiting the highway was required to stop and traffic was backing up on the highway. She stated the Highway Department was attempting to redesign the exit. She also reminded the Commission they had recently just rezoned to R -O the Whitfield property which was between the frontage road and by-pass. Mr. Allred expressed concern that they look at both sides of the By-pass to determine how the Commission wanted it to develop. He recommended they set some. goals and policies and then allow development under that criteria. Mr. Suchecki agreed with Mr. Allred and stated this was the southern entry to the City. Mr. Allred suggested an overlay district with extra landscaping and larger setbacks. He advised that, if they tabled the rezoning request, staff could work on such a district. Mr. Springborn stated Mr. Allred's suggested sounded like an excellent idea. He asked Mr. Gray if a delay would cause the owner any problems. gb • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Gray stated he did not believe a delay would be a problem. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table this item until staff could present a comprehensive plan for the By-pass. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODSIDE ADDITION HAROLD JONES - W OF SHILOH, S OF 15TH The next item was a preliminary plat for Woodside Addition presented by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Harold Johnson for property located on the west side of Shiloh, south of 15th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential (proposed R93-54) and contains 11.67 acres with 44 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been several additional easements and crossings requested by the utility company representatives and agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks included comments on the need for a tree preservation plan, the requirement for an off-site easement for water and sewer and the possibility of upsizing the planned 8 -inch water line to a 12 -inch line, the restriction of access for certain lots to the interior streets of the subdivision, and the need for individual grading permits for certain lots within the subdivision. He noted it had also been indicated that the density of lots were at a maximum and the developer needed to be sure the acreage involved was correct. He advised other issues raised at the subdivision committee meeting included the possibility (not a requirement) that adjacent lots facing Shiloh could share a common driveway onto Shiloh, access to property to the west, and street grades. He stated the 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; the submittal of a grading and drainage plan; the submittal and approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; restriction of access for certain lots to the interior streets as noted at plat review; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; Highway Department approval of driveways onto Shiloh; and installation of street lights along Shiloh Drive. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn advised the Highway Department normally approved the curb cuts. Me. Little advised staff had discussed two units sharing a drive, cutting down the curb cuts from 8 to 4. Mr. Kurt Jones, representing Mr. Johnson, appeared before the Commission and advised them he concurred with staff comments. Ms. Britton stated she did not believe sharing the drives would work well. Mr. Allred explained this tract was slated to be an affordable housing subdivision. He pointed out there would be some cost savings by allowing one drive for every two units. Mr. Tarvin stated he did not believe this area would be very attractive as shown. He advised he would rather Bee the area develop with a screen between the subject property and Shiloh Drive. He further stated he believed the lots were extremely small. He suggested redesigning the plat with the houses backing on Shiloh Drive with a screen between the subdivision and Shiloh. Me. Little stated they had discussed requiring additional streets from Shiloh which would allow the houses to face inward. She stated the only way to control curb cuts onto Shiloh was to require additional streets. Mr. Nickle asked if the Highway Department had not constructed some Bound screens on the east side of the Bypass. y�2 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Bunn stated they had constructed them due to public comment from the subdivision on the east side of the bypass. Mr. Nickle stated he was aware there was a lot of noise generated by the traffic. He further stated he believed Mr. Tarvin's suggestion would help in the control of the noise. Mr. Bunn pointed out the grade was different on the east side; that on the west side the terrain was up hill from the bypass. He noted he was not sure a sound screen would be effective on the west side. Ms. Britton agreed a sound screen would probably not be effective. She advised she would rather see the front of houses than a fence. She pointed out that, with the topography, they would see over the fence. Mr. Allred pointed out there was a buffer strip -- the property on which they had just tabled the rezoning. Ms. Britton advised she was having a problem with this site being suggested for affordable housing due to the topography, pointing out it went straight up a hill. Ms. Little advised they had discussed access to the west and also to the south. She stated the Taylor tract to the south appeared to be blocked from access to Shiloh Drive. She asked the engineer if arrangements had been made for the Taylor property. Mr. Jones advised the Taylor tract wrapped around and did have access. Mr. Nickle noted the tree preservation plan would have to be submitted prior to development. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Conklin stated that, under the. Tree Preservation Ordinance, an R-1 subdivision had to preserve 25% of the canopy. Mr. Tarvin stated that, even if the lots were larger, they would not have to enlarge the houses, which would still make the tract suitable for affordable housing. Ms. Little asked if Mr. Tarvin was suggesting eliminating lots 26 through 35. Mr. Tarvin explained there would have to be stated they could have a row of lots on the Mr. Allred pointed out if they were going to go back through plat review and subdivision have the authority to redesign plats. MOTION a cul-de-sac to the southeast. He east side which would face west. redesign the plat, it would need to committee. He stated they did not Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Tarvin, stating he did not like the design of the plat with the lots having outlets onto Shiloh. He moved to deny the preliminary plat. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Britton, Suchecki, Tarvin, Reynolds and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred and Pummill voting "no". iS3 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SDNBRIDGE CENTER DR. MAE NETTLESHIP - E OF GREGG, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a preliminary plat for Sunbridge Center submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dr. Mae Nettleship for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, north of Township. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R -O, Residential - Office, and contains 40.89 acres with 20 lots. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting other than several additional easements and crossings requested and agreed to by the owner. He stated the major issues raised in connection with this subdivision were (1) the connection of the proposed through street with Villa Boulevard and how such a connection might fit in with plans to improve the Villa Boulevard intersection with Highway 71, and (2) the construction of a cul-de-sac to the south property currently used as residential (west of Nelms) which would facilitate an eventual tie through to Township Road. He advised the basic plat submitted showed a street configuration which did not necessarily resolve or satisfy either of those two issues. He further noted the plat, as presented, represented the desire of the owner to accommodate the New School access and their preferred tie-in point to Villa Boulevard. He advised the agenda packet included an alternate cul-de-sac arrangement which the staff preferred since it allowed for the eventual tie-in of the east cul-de-sac to Township. He explained staff had requested the engineer prepare both alternatives to allow the Planning Commission to visualize the alternatives in reaching their decision. Mr. Bunn pointed out both alternatives showed the street tie-in to Villa at the same location. He noted this was not necessarily the location which staff might prefer, however, they recognized that tying in right at the Villa Boulevard - College intersection was probably not feasible because of its proximity to. Township and because of the difficulties it would create for traffic on Villa trying to access Sunbridge and North College. He explained the staff and the developer had considered several locations for the Planning Commission members' consideration and those locations were marked with spray paint on Villa Boulevard. He noted a big consideration was the tie with Villa Boulevard would be made much less critical if the possibility of a connection to Township, as previously described, were kept open by locating the east cul-de-sac in the alternative site. He stated that, after a discussion of the street related issues, the Subdivision Committee voted to forward a "Phase 1" of the plat, consisting of the west one- half of the original subdivision plat, to the full Planning Commission which would give the developer and staff time to resolve the Villa Boulevard connection issue. He advised that, since that time, the developer had expressed the desire to have the entire plat submitted rather than phase it as the Subdivision Committee had asked. He stated staff had no objection to consideration of the entire tract because of the extensive work done in providing the Planning Commission with the issues relating to circulation necessary to reach an informed opinion. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review comments; approval of the alternate cul-de-sac locations (the one allowing eventual access to Township Road); submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan, particularly addressing the drainage problems on the north side of the property adjacent to the mobile home park; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances; and dedication of additional right-of-way on Gregg Street as required. g4c • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Allred advised some of the engineer's requirements had arisen since the Subdivision Committee meeting and had, therefore, not been discussed. Ms. Britton advised she had gone to Villa Boulevard looking for markings on the roadway which were to show possible accesses from the proposed subdivision. Ms. Little advised there was one proposed access marked. She stated it was shown just to the north of Braums and to the south of Quality Childcare. She pointed out there was some open area between the two businesses which could, in the future, provide access to College. She stated it would have been ideal to connect to Green Acres Road but that connection had been precluded by development to the north. She expressed her belief a connection to Township through the property to the west of Nelms was important in order to provide an alternate access. Mr. Jorgensen explained that, realizing there needed to be a tie-in of streets, specifically to Villa Avenue and eventually to College Avenue, he had meetings with both city staff and the personnel from The New School. He further explained concerns presented by The New School had resulted in a change to the plat. He also pointed out an alternate plan recommended by staff giving access to. Township. He reviewed each plat with the Commission. He advised the personnel of The New School did not want the plat recommended by staff. He advised hie client was in agreement with staff comments with the exception of No. 2 requesting alternate cul-de-sac locations (allowing eventual access to Township Road). He also pointed out the proposed access to Township as recommended by staff had some terrain problems and would also remove the pine tree grove. Mr. Allred asked if the plat would not need to go back to the Plat Review Committee if the recommended changes were made. Ms. Little stated the Plat Review Committee had looked at the plan recommended by staff. Mr. Allred asked if the Commission should table the item until everyone had an opportunity to review all of the plans. Ms. Little stated she believed everyone had reviewed all of the plans. There was also discussion regarding a portion of the subdivision being in the flood plain. Mr. Jorgensen advised people had built in the flood plain before however, Ms. Britton advised the Commission did not want to encourage people to build in the flood plain. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained that, in order to make the connection to College, the Master Street Plan would have to be amended showing the alignment. She further stated that, at the time of development, the developer would have to share in the cost of acquiring the land to enable the connection. Mr. Cato stated he believed access to both College and Township would be beneficial for traffic flow. He asked Mr. Jorgensen if his client would be amenable to the alternate plan. Mr. Jorgensen stated his client was not in favor of the alternate plan but, if it were forced upon them, there could be a better location for the access to Township. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 12 Ms. Little advised there might be an additional way to connect to Township. She stated she felt strongly that the connection was needed. She asked if the connection to the north lined up with the proposed Phase II of Lakeside Apartments. Mr. Jorgensen assured her it would line up. Me. Britton asked if the alternate access could be lined up with Colt Square if the access were moved. Me. Little stated it could not line up with Colt Square due to existing development. Ms. Britton stated she believed the alternative plan, as shown, was the best access to Township. Mr. Springborn stated he had looked at the terrain of the proposed access to Township and agreed with Mr. Jorgensen. He asked if the problem could be alleviated by going either east or west. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was not sure. He advised there was a flatter area to the east, through the parking lot adjacent to The New School property. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen explained the east -west street might have to be re -aligned for access to College, depending on where they determined they wanted the access. He stated that, at the present time, it appeared the street would line up on the north property line of Braums and the south property line of a day care center. He stated it was possible there might be a better location 100 feet to the north. Ms. Little reviewed the possible access to College Avenue from the proposed subdivision. Ms. Britton asked if the Nettleships would have a problem with a slight variation of the east -west street. Mr. Jorgensen assured her they were flexible on that access. Dr. Mae Nettleship advised Township was already an extremely busy street and she did not believe they could put more traffic on the street as it presently existed. Ms. Little explained the State Highway Department had indicated to the City they would make Township a 4 -lane street provided the City acquired the necessary right-of-way. Dr. Nettleship pointed out the proposed access to Township was quite near a narrow bridge which was already a dangerous section of Township. She reviewed the history of the subject property and The New School. She stated one of the prime items in the proposed subdivision was the need for easy access to The New School and assured the Commission they were willing to cooperate but did prefer another access. Ms. Connie Clark, the attorney for The New School, reviewed the facilities and personnel at the school. She advised they had no problem with the blue line plat• but did object to the alternative plat explaining The New School was orientated to the west and the alternate plan would create access problems. She further stated they could not orientate the school to the east without spending a great deal of money to move the playground area. She expressed concerns regarding traffic being adjacent to the school's playground. She also cited aesthetics, • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 13 quality of life and preservation of the grove of pine trees as reasons to deny the alternative plan. Mr. Bill Mandrell, one of the directors of The New School, reviewed the history of the access to the building, explaining they had a large investment in the building. He stated it would be almost impossible to change the orientation of the building to the east. Also speaking in opposition to the alternative plan was Dede Long, President of the Board of Directors of The New School, and Rick McKinney. Ms. Little explained that one of the reasons she had felt it was so important to provide the alternate access was that, at the present time, most of the parents came from the northeast area of Fayetteville, south on College, west on Township, north on Gregg and then east on the private road. She stated she did not feel the connection from Villa to College would occur in the near future. She further stated an access between lots 13, 14 and 15 would allow the school to keep a westerly orientation. Mr. McKinney stated that, in his work with the Chamber Transportation Committee, the widening of Township had been planned for the last 12 years and he believed it would not be done in the near future. Mr. Allred suggested granting an access easement for future construction of a street on lot 11 or 12. He stated if the condemnation proceedings on the lot to the south did not occur the property could revert back to the subdivision. Ms. Little reminded the Commission of previous cases where an easement had been granted but the street had not been built at that time, stating they would have to go through the same negotiations they were presently going through. She stated people did not think of an access easement as a street. She further stated staff was not committed to the access to the south if there was any other feasible way for a connection to Township to be made. Me. Britton also pointed out if the street was constructed at the time the subdivision was developed, the developer would have to pay for the street. She stated that, if the street were constructed at a later date, the city ended up paying for the construction. There was then discussion regarding other areas to place the access to Township rather than the alternative plan. NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to accept the blue line of the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Cato asked if that included staff comment number 2 -- providing an access to Township. Mr. Pummill advised his motion was subject to all staff comments except number 2 but did include the realignment of the unnamed east -west street. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Sickle, Pummill, Suchecki, Springborn, Tarvin, Reynolds, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MASTERS WRIGHT - PENCE, INC. - S OF COUNTRY CLUB, E OF S. COLLEGE The next item was a preliminary plat for The Masters submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Wright -Pence, Inc. for property located south of Country Club Drive, east of South College Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 20.5 acres with 15 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the plat was a revised preliminary plat, reminding the Commission a preliminary plat on the subject property had been submitted to them at their August 9, 1993 meeting. He stated the Commission had denied approval of the plat and the City Council had upheld that denial. He pointed out the revised plat consisted of 15 lots instead of the original 53 lots. He stated there had been no significant comments from any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than some additional easements and street crossings requested and agreed to by the owner. He further stated staff comments included the need for a tree preservation plan, sidewalks, the need for a drainage and grading plan (for the overall subdivision and eventually for lots with grades exceeding 20 percent), and the need for a waiver on the maximum length of the cul-de-sac. He noted other staff comments included the need for additional right-of-way on Country Club Drive, the need for an off-site drainage easement east of lots 12, 13, 14, 8 and 9, and the need to address potential drainage problems connected with Lot 11. Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee discussion consisted mainly of how the proposed settlement offer pending before the City Council would affect the Planning Commission's approval or denial of the development. He further stated it had been agreed the Planning Commission should consider the development on its own merits without regard to any settlement offer which might or might not be approved. He stated it was his understanding the Council had voted to accept the settlement and there would be no additional development in that area until the water system had been improved to the point where additional development could be accommodated. He advised the Committee had voted to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. He noted one additional comment by staff concerned making the intersection of Double Eagle Drive with Fairway Lane a 90 degree angle if possible. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a waiver of the maximum length of a cul-de-sac; submittal and approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; submittal of a grading plan and drainage plan;. construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and a notation on the plat of the lots which would require a grading plan under the city's ordinance; and that no further development on Country Club Hill until the water system had been improved. He advised he had included in their agenda packets the copies of studies on water service, drainage, and traffic which had been previously submitted in connection with the original preliminary plat. Mr. Allred advised the developers had requested a waiver on the placement of the sidewalk, requesting the sidewalk be set back one foot from the curb rather than four feet, due to the terrain. Mr. Cato stated there had been two main issues when they had reviewed this plat in August: the water pressure and access to Country Club Hill via 24th Street which was in poor condition. He further stated it had been his understanding that in August staff had wanted access to the east. Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Pummill stated the area property owners had not wanted the access to the east. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. Bunn stated it would be difficult to provide access to the east due to the terrain. Ms. Britton stated she would like access to the east and suggested it could go between lots 13 and 14, providing a less steep roadway. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the access had been discussed when they had reviewed 53 lots but he did not think the access would be necessary with only 15 lots. Mr. Cato stated he had thought the problem was 24th Street was already overloaded. Me. Little stated staff's main concern was the water pressure. She advised that, with the traffic counts they had found there would be approximately 1250 cars on the road. She stated staff had never told the Commission it was an overloaded road. She further stated staff had recommended approval of only Phase I, consisting of 18 lots. She explained their concern had been regarding water pressure. Mr. Bill Rudasill, WBR Engineering, advised when the original plat had been denied they had investigated an access to the east. He stated the terrain made that access very difficult due to the extreme elopes. He pointed out to the southeast there was some property that was much more level. He stated they did have access to the south so it could be connected at some point in the future when the adjoining property developed. He contended 15 lots would not substantially increase water usage nor would there be an impact on the traffic. Mr. Bill Greenhaw stated the City Council had addressed the issues raised by the. neighboring property owners and they were no longer opposing the revised plat. He also advised his clients did not own any property adjacent to City Lake Road and it would be cost prohibitive to purchase land in order to provide access to City Lake Road. Mr. Jim McCord reiterated Mr. Greenhaw's comments relating to the lawsuit. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated nothing had changed on this development from when they voted on it before other than the density. She explained density was not something they could base their vote upon. She stated she had voted against the plat before because of one access making a giant cul-de-sac on top of Country Club Hill. She also noted she had voted against the preliminary plat because of water pressure problems. She advised neither of those conditions had changed. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Pummill, Suchecki, Springborn, Tarvin, Reynolds and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 16 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 11 WAYNE HINKLE - OFF WYMAN RD, E OF CITY LIMITS The next item was a request by Wayne Hinkle for a first lot split on property located off of Wyman Road just to the east of the City Limits. Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Hinkle was proposing to split off Tract 2 from the remaining property. He stated Tract 2 contained approximately 1.73 acres and contained an existing house. He noted the purpose of the split was to be able to sell the house. He further stated no splits were being requested for Tracts 1, 3, or 4 at this time. He stated all utilities were already in place for the existing house and did recommend approval of the lot split. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the split could not have been done administratively due to the size of the lot. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-35 CHERYL MILLER & GENEVA McFARLAND - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF SHILOH The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning Request R93-35 submitted by Rick Osborne on behalf of Cheryl Miller and Geneva McFarland for property located on the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Shiloh. The request is to rezone 13.88 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had stated the rezoning was being petitioned for in order to be able to obtain the highest and best use of the property. He reminded the Commission this item had been heard at the July 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting and was tabled until the applicant could provide a revised legal description of what was being proposed. He advised the property to the north was zoned R-1.5 and contained single family homes, the property to the south was zoned C-1 and contained commercial uses and some vacant land; the property to both the east and west was zoned C-2 with the property to the east containing a hotel and the property to the west containing multi -family units and vacant land. He further noted the site had 350 feet of frontage on Highway 16 West with the applicant currently owning an additional 717 feet of frontage to the east, which would provide a combined total of 1,067 feet of commercial frontage along the highway. He stated the applicant was advised staff would recommend, as a condition of development, that access be limited onto Highway 16 West and a future access connect to Timberline Drive. He pointed out there was a 10 -inch sewer line located at the north end of Betty Jo Avenue and an 8 -inch water line along Highway 16 West. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning. He explained staff would support rezoning 660 feet back from Highway 16 West to C-1 and an' additional 346 feet to the north to R -O. He pointed out a site plan showing staff's recommendation. He explained the recommendation would rezone approximately 5.3 acres to C-1 and 8.58 acres to R -O. He noted the applicant currently owned the adjoining 11 acres to the east that was zoned C-2. He advised that area had been zoned C-2 for a number of years and had not been developed. He explained staff wished to limit the number of acres zoned C-2 in the absence of development to avoid the appearance of speculative rezoning or inflated land prices which had a detrimental effect on the rest of the City. He went on to explain the combined total of 16.3 acres would support the scale of commercial development which staff would like to encourage to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. He gave as a comparison Evelyn Hills Shopping Center with approximately 15 acres, Westgate and Watson's shopping centers containing 9 acres, and Harps on Garland contained approximately 7 acres. He pointed out the General Land Use Plan identified the existing regional commercial areas which required the larger acreage zoned C-2 and recommended not creating additional regional commercial areas. He advised the subject area was not recommended to develop as a regional commercial center and expressed his belief the recommended rezoning of C-1 should be sufficient to cause neighborhood commercial to develop. There was discussion regarding how much additional property was owned by the applicant. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant owned the adjoining 11 acres to the east which was already zoned C-2. He further explained the applicant had requested rezoning 13.88 acres to C-2 but staff recommendation was to rezone only 5.3 acres to C-1 and the balance to R-0. Mr. Osborne stated in July the staff property to C-2 but had now changed had only been five months since the recommended rezoning only a portion of the their recommendation to C-1. He stated it staff had recommended C-2. • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 18 Mr. Conklin stated staff's previous recommendation had been denial of the request. Mr. Osborne then read from the staff report of the July meeting: "Staff would support rezoning approximately 720 feet to the north of Highway 16 West following the same northern C-2 east -west boundary line located directly east of this. tract, being the Holiday Inn land." Mr. Conklin stated the recommendation had been made prior to a survey and prior to the adoption of the General Land Use Plan as adopted by the City Council. He explained the Land Use Plan set out a policy to create regional commercial areas. He further explained the amount of acreage required for such regional commercial area and the amount of acreage required for a neighborhood commercial development. He pointed out his report contained size comparisons of various neighborhood commercial areas. He further advised he had determined C-1 was the appropriate zoning for the subject tract in order to support neighborhood commercial development, which the General Land Use Plan recommended. Mr. Osborne advised he did not see the logical of having a C-1 tract between two C-2 tracts. Me. Little pointed out the two C-2 tracts had not developed. Mr. Osborne stated the subject tract was the original Val Farm and the heirs had wanted to keep the entire tract together. He advised they could have sold a few acres here and there but had believed it would be better for them and the city to keep the site as one tract rather than have commercial strips similar to North College. He further advised he had believed this meeting had been to bring back the legal description of that portion they were zoning C-2. He stated he had not been aware Planning staff had changed their report until he had received a new report in the mail. He further stated he thought they had reached a compromise to leave the northern 250 feet R-2 and rezone the remainder C-2. He advised they did not want R-0 zoning on the tract. He stated the comparisons given by staff were not applicable; they envisioned a much larger development. He also pointed out the city was supporting growth to the west by spending over a million dollars on extension of the sewer. He stated there were already thousands of people living in the area but the only place to shop in the area was Betty Jo corner, which was not enough. He further advised the Commission if they approved the request there would be sufficient neighborhood commercial services to eliminate the need for the residents to leave the immediate area to do their shopping. Mr. Osborne reviewed the surrounding zoning and noted they were surrounded on three sides by C-2. He further stated he believed this was a perfect place for a shopping area since it did not lend itself to residential development. He contended that, without the additional C-2 zoning, the commercial tract could not be adequately developed. Mr. Conklin explained C-1 was neighborhood commercial. He asked what type of commercial uses were not allowed in C-1 which the applicants needed for the subject tract. Mr. Osborne stated he could not tell him without reviewing the list. Mr. Conklin reviewed uses allowed in C-1. Mr. Osborne explained they could not get a developer to spend thousands of dollars for a development study until they were assured the property would be rezoned. He again stated C-2 would be the perfect mesh with the existing zoning. Ork • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Osborne was envisioning one developer for the entire tract of C-2 zoning. Mr. Osborne stated they were. He further advised a developer had expressed an interest in purchasing the entire tract for development if it were all zoned C-2. Mr. Nickle asked what was planned that could not be covered by C-1 zoning. Mr. Osborne stated the developer had mentioned a branch bank, a dry cleaners, a restaurant. He further stated the developer would not spend money for plans until he was assured he had C-2 zoning. Ms. Little advised she had heard mini -storage as one of the proposed uses. Mr. Conklin reviewed uses allowed in C-2 zoning and explained those uses drew residents from the entire city, not just the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Osborne advised his clients would submit a Bill of Assurance they would not have a mobile home sales on the site. Ms. Britton advised she did not see anything wrong with the way the property wa currently zoned. She further stated she saw no reason to extend the C-2 zoning at the subject location, adding they had been in error in zoning some of the adjoining property C-2. Upon request by Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin listed the uses allowed under C-1. He then reviewed the uses allowed under C-2. Ms. Little pointed out there was existing C-2 on adjacent property which could accommodate some of the C-2 uses, if necessary. Mr. Allred stated he did not have a problem in rezoning the property C-2 since it was between two C-2 tracts but he was concerned with the northern portion. He expressed his belief rezoning the property C-2 instead of C-1 along Wedington would not impact the traffic. Ms. Little advised that, if they rezoned the tract, it would be one of the largest tracts of C-2 zoning within the city. Mr. Conklin advised one of the criteria used for staff recommendation was how large a tract would be needed to encourage neighborhood commercial. Mr. Allred pointed out the subject area was also the area containing the largest residential growth in the city. He asked how they could encourage residential growth but not provide any commercial areas. Mr. Conklin explained he had supported neighborhood commercial. He asked what type of commercial uses, outside of neighborhood commercial, did they want to see at that location. He also asked if they wanted to create a commercial area which brought more people into the subject area; did they want to create another regional shopping center for the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Tarvin stated he did not see anything wrong with creating another regional shopping center. He also noted this was the intersection of two highways (the By-pase and Highway 16) and stated he believed it would be logical to zone the property to C-2. Mr. Allred informed the Commission the first proposal by Al Baby had the subject • area scheduled for a major mall. He stated he believed that was why the 113 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 20 surrounding property had been zoned C-2. He asked the difference in the traffic impact of C-1 versus C-2. He pointed out there would not be a significant decrease in traffic for just the subject tract since C-2 was on both sides of the tract. Ms. Little explained staff believed there was already enough C-2 in the subject area to create some traffic problems. She advised they had talked with the Highway Department regarding the access into the area. She stated the City was committed to extend Shiloh Drive and building a major bridge. She reminded the Commission commercial centers required tremendous expenditure in terms of public monies and developer monies to make sure the traffic concerns were taken care of. She stated the adopted Land Use Plan did not present this site as a regional commercial area, regardless of what was recommended in 1988. Mr. Springborn pointed out there was not a buffer between the residential properties and the commercial properties. He stated he believed the logic would be to let the C-2 properties line up east -west and leave the northern portion R- 2. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Osborne advised the original request had been to rezone the entire tract C-2 but staff recommended the south 720 feet be rezoned C-2; the applicant countered with allowing the C-2 zoning to line up with the Holiday Inn tract. He explained he thought he just needed to present the correct legal descriptions but then had received a new staff report with a different recommendation. Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Osborne's client had a problem with leaving R-2 on the. north side of the subject tract. Mr. Osborne assured him his client was willing to leave a strip of R-2. Mr. Tarvin stated he could understand the arguments that the C-2 should stop even with the adjoining C-2 and he could see the need for buffers but he believed the real question was if the applicant had a plan to develop the property. He stated he could understand they would need more than 660 feet of depth if they planned a shopping center. Mr. Osborne explained the prospective purchaser would not do specific drawings until there was proper zoning. Mr. Nickle noted they had, in the past, done speculative zoning which they should not have done and gave as an example the C-2 property located on the other side of the by-pass. Mr. Osborne stated that site was in the flood plain. Mr. Nickle agreed and stated it should not be zoned C-2. Mr. Conklin advised the depth on most of the shopping centers in Fayetteville were 600 to 700 feet deep. Mr. Osborne contended the developer wanted a tasteful shopping center, not a concrete jungle. Ms. Little asked if the developer had anyone committed to go into the shopping center. 2114 • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Osborne asked how many stores had been committed when the area south of the Mall had been approved. Ms. Little stated none had been committed. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated mini -storage was allowed under C-2 but not C-1. She further stated that use had been specifically mentioned to her for the subject site. Ms. Cheryl Miller, one of the petitioners, advised they did want C-2 zoning and did have a prospective buyer for the entire tract of land. She stated the family would be more than willing to enter into a Bill of Assurance on the property. Mr. Pummill pointed out there was already C-2 property adjoining the subject site and, if the applicant wanted to build storage units, they could build them on that property. He further stated he would not like to see any storage unite but there was already land available for that use. Mr. Osborne stated he doubted they would build storage buildings noting the land was too expensive to waste on that type of use. Mr. Larry Hillian advised this tract had been preserved in one piece especially for the development of the west side of town. He stated the residents on the west side of town needed a shopping center. Mr. Tarvin asked if staff objected to a shopping mall at the subject location. Ms. Little stated that, if they styled a development which was limited in access. to Highway 16 and had a development scheme so all of the buildings were of one type, connected and able to share parking, it would be good for the area and would serve the area very well. She went on to say that was able to be accomplished under C-1 zoning. Mr. Osborne advised they were attempting to have a development as described by Me. Little. Mr. Allred asked if, since the property was all under one ownership, if a large scale development would be required for the entire tract or if the developer could piecemeal the development. He further asked if they could make a restriction that the tract be developed in a unified fashion. Ms. Little explained either a large scale development or a commercial subdivision would be required. She further stated a large scale development would give the Commission the most control as far as uniformity and placement of the buildings. She pointed out the subdivision would allow individual lots to be sold. Mr. Allred asked if the Commission had the authority to require the development to come before them all at one time. Me. Little advised she did not believe they had that authority. Mr. Nickle stated he was uncomfortable development plan. with C-2 zoning without seeing a Mr. Osborne suggested C-2 on the bottom portion of the lot and C-1 at the top of the area. Mr. Suchecki pointed out there was considerable types of zoning mixes on the site to allow the developer to put different types of shops in different zoning areas all within the same development. 4445 • • • Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 22 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request for R93-35. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-7-0 with Commissioners Pummill and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Britton, Suchecki, Springborn, Reynolds, and Cato voting "no". MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to rezone the southernmost strip of property (approximately 660 feet) to C-2 and the northern portion (approximately 346 feet) to C-1. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. Tarvin explained the C-2 zoning would line up with the existing C-2 zoning to the east and the remainder of the tract would be C-1. Ms. Little asked if that would fit the developer's plane for the property. Mr. Osborne stated they would make it work. Mr. Nickle advised he would still like to see a development plan for the property, noting he did not like to speculatively zone property. Mr. Tarvin asked if they could rezone the C-1 property at a later date if the developer showed plans for the property. Ms. Little explained the developer could not re -petition for C-2 zoning for one year. Mr. Allred suggested leaving the northern portion R-2 until after the developer had an opportunity to design his plans. He asked if they could table the rezoning on the northern portion of the property. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Tarvin amended his motion to rezone 350 feet of frontage on Highway 16 for a depth of 660 feet to C-2. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Allred, Pummill, Suchecki, Tarvin and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Nickle, Britton, Springborn and Reynolds voting "no". MOTION Mr.•Allred moved to table any action on the remainder of the tract. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. e e Planning Commission December 13, 1993 Page 23 OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Little stated the Commission had received a letter and pictures of the SWEPCO building constructed on Mt. Sequoyah. She stated the writer's point had been that sometimes what they were told in order to get an item through was not what was constructed. She stated this was based on more than just the SWEPCO building and reminded the Commission of the National Home Center building. She stated the Home Center had been brought to them as a part of the development package of the site to the south of the Mall. She reminded the Commission they had been shown a rendering of a brick building with a tin roof which tied in with the North Hills Medical Center. She stated that was not what had been constructed. She asked for the Commission's direction to the staff as to whether they wanted staff to spend time trying to locate access points for subdivisions and commercial developments in order to provide for traffic circulation. Me. Little informed the Commission staff had spent a great deal of time negotiating with the engineers and their clients. She further stated a great deal of staff time was also spent looking for alternatives to present to the Commission as far as access. She explained it had been staffs' understanding that the Commission wanted to provide good circulation within the City. She pointed out their earlier action on a preliminary plat did not provide good circulation. She stated she did not understand and did not know what the Commission wanted her or the staff to do. She asked for their guidance. Mr. Nickle stated he believed it was important that the City have good access. He further stated he believed the access to Villa was very important and would have preferred to find an access to Township. He stated the access shown to Township had not been acceptable. Mr. Pummill asked if the Parks Board had denied the golf course on the Lindsey property. Ms. Little stated they had denied it. She advised the item would need to come back before the Planning Commission to make a determination whether they wanted to accept the recommendation of the Parks Board. She stated she had recommended the Parks Board and the Planning Commission have a joint meeting so there would be an information flow between the two entities. She advised she would be happy to set up such a meeting if the Commission wanted one. The majority of the Commissioners stated they would like a meeting with the Parks Board regarding the golf course. Ms. Britton advised she had talked with the City Attorney and found a developer had to give total ownership of the land or money. Ms. Little advised there was a provision for waivers in the Subdivision regulations. She explained if the City Council found unnecessary hardship they could waive or vary the requirements of the regulation if the developer met. certain standards. Mr. Allred advised he believed Ms. Little had asked a valid question which had been ignored by the Commission. He reminded the Commission Me. Little had asked for their guidance and direction. He stated he had believed the plat for Sunbridge should have been tabled and been reviewed again by the plat review committee. He further stated he believed there could have been a compromise worked out. Mr. Tarvin agreed with Mr. Allred and apologized for not supporting the staff. He asked what could be done about the appearance of National Home Center. k 1 • Pldnning Commission December 43, 1993 Page 24 c Ms; Little advised nothing could be done. She explained the city did not have debign standards. Mr'. Allred suggested the new chairman could appoint a committee to work on design standards. Mr. Reynolds asked if the SWEPCO building was not supposed to have a fence. Mr. Conklin stated they were to have a fence and it had been required on the building permit. Me. Little advised SWEPCO was to have a certain amount of vegetative cover so the building would look residential in nature. Mr. Conklin stated the building would not receive a final sign -off until the requirements set out by the Planning Commission were met. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.