Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-10 Minuteslv MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 10, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Robert E, Reynolds, Gary R, Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, and Kenneth Pummill MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin t' OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS r' Alett Little advised that the City Council had filled the four vacancies on the' Planning Commission by reappointing Joe Tarvin and Jerry Allred and appointing new members Phyllis Johnson and Gary Head. She noted that the elections for chairperson - < will take place the first meeting in February and advised the current chairperson' would appoint a nominating committee. Chairman Suchecki appointed Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds and Pummill to sit on that committee and asked them to report back at the February 14th meeting at which time they would vote. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING - UPDATE OF PARKS MASTER PLAN (AGENDA ITEM 11-A) '1'•Rs. . Little advised there had been a request to schedule a joint meeting of the ilanning Commission and the Parks & Recreation Board. She stated a meeting had been- . scheduled for February 14th. She explained the date would give the Parks & Recreation Board the opportunity to appoint their new members before the joint meeting. She noted that there were a number of items which would need to, be discussed, including the administration of the greenspace fees and parks fees and the inclusion of neighborhood parka within subdivisions. She advised the Planning Commission could decide whether this item should be discussed and,•preeented as planned at the subject meeting, voted,on and passed onto the City;;Council:or defer.' action until after the joint meeting.,:, In the interest of giving more time to prepare:.g:'for_that discusaion,?Mr,. Suchecki entertained a motion to table the„public.hesrin<until- February`14th:. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table the Public Hearing` -.Update of Parka Master Plan..until'the i .. February 14th meeting. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion, The motion carried 8-0-0. PRESENTATIONS ON FILMING PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Little advised that Woody Charlton had requested he be allowed :topiesent to the Commission another request that. Planning Commission meetings.,be •:filmed on the Government Access Channel. She requested that. Mr. 'Charlton.barticularly address .,.. whether he planned for the meetings to, be broadcast"lige:or filmedfor: broadcast at ' a later date. `_?:Charlton advised that, when the new franchise was signed with Warner Cable, three Pertain channels were turned over'to the City; one of which was the Government Access Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 2 Ob�Channel for government meetings and government information. He noted the other two were a public access channel and an educational channel. He stated they were presently cablecasting City Council meetings, juvenile concerns, environmental concerns, streets, water and sewer, city boards, parks & recreation, cable board and the citizens environmental committee along with other programs on city services. He stated that, in the interest of citizen participation and due to the fact the meetings were already being cablecast on public access (as allowed under the Freedom of Information Act), he believed they should give their approval to cablecast the meeting on the Government Access Channel. He pointed out a much better job of taping could be done because they would have access to the sound system, the sound room and better equipment. He further noted there was absolutely no editorializing. He advised all of the meetings cablecast, with the exception of City Council meetings which is live, were recorded and aired at a later time. He explained that, unless the Planning Commission was interested in being covered live, they would be recorded and aired at a later date. " He addressed some of the concerns which had previously been voiced by some of the Commission members, noting that filming the meeting did not seem to intimidate members of the public. He suggested that, if the public saw the Planning Commission meetings on cable, they would not be discouraged from coming in to speak. He stated another concern had been that the public would come to the meetings to see themselves on television but that also did not seem to be the case because generally people were speaking to the issues. He proposed the Planning Commission consider a six month trial period allowing them to tape the meetings with the Commission making a decision at the end of the trial period. rtichard Drake stated that they would prefer that the Planning Commission be on the 6-overnment Channel because there was better equipment sufficient for filming public meetings. He pointed out that, if the Government Channel had access to the control booth and sound system, the taping would look a lot better. He advised that the Commission would be on television either way, but the Government channel would allow for a better technical production. Mr. Nickle agreed there seemed to be a problem with lighting on the cable channel currently being broadcast. He further stated he had not heard any negative comments regarding the television exposure they had been receiving. NOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the Government Channel televising of the Commission meetings on a temporary or test basis. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. ' The motion carried 6-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Reynolds, Head and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki and Pummill voting "no". j0 A 0 Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 3 ' CONSENT AGENDA It was determined by the Commission that Items F and G on the Consent Agenda needed further discussion and would be dealt with individually. MINUTES Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 1993. FINAL PLAT SOUTHWOODS ADDITION #1 JIM LINDSEY - NW CORNER DREW SPURLOCK - W OF HAPPY HOLLOW RD, N OF 15TH ST A final plat submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Drew Spurlock for property located on the west side of Happy Hollow Road, north of 15th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 6.65 acres with 15 lots. FINAL PLAT - PINE VALLEY, PHASE II BMP DEVELOPMENT - OFF POINT WEST, W OF SHILOH A final plat submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development for property located off Point West, west of Shiloh. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 6.13 acres with 20 lots. CONDITIONAL USE CU94-1 & LOT SPLIT #1 JIM LINDSEY - NW CORNER OF ZION RD & CROSSOVER RD A request for a conditional use for an athletic club and a lot split submitted by Lynn Farrell on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the northwest corner of Zion Road and Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -O. Residential -Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 JULIAN ABRAM - 3011 HOWARD NICKLE ROAD A request for a lot split #1 submitted by Julian Abram for property located at 3011 Howard Nickle Road which is outside the city limits. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the consent agenda items A through E. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. a Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 4 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 NEAL PENDERGRAFT - 2846 N. GARLAND AVENUE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of lot split #1 submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property located at 2846 N. Garland Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn advised the request was to split .37 acre from a .99 acre tract of land adjacent to Garland Avenue near the Highway 71 Bypass, leaving a remaining tract of .62 acres. He advised there was an existing business located on the remaining tract. He pointed out the tract would have frontage to Garland, have water available on Garland, but sewer would have to come from an existing commercial subdivision to the north. He recommended approval of the split subject to the extension of public sewer to the tract from the subdivision to the north; dedication of any easements required to make that extension; construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; a provision for the extension of other utilities to the site; and a dedication of any easements that might be required. Ms. Britton referred to a drawing submitted with the agenda in regard to this lot split showing concern for the proposed building being too close to the property line. Mr. Bunn advised there was a zero building setback on commercial property. Me. Britton noted that the required setbacks depended on the zoning designation on the other side of the property line which in this case is A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Bunn advised both properties were zoned commercial. He explained that, since there was an existing building, the only requirement would be the fire code requirement of a five-foot separation. The staff advised the code read that, in a C-2 zoning district, a 15 foot aide setback was required from the property line when contiguous to a residential district. It was pointed out this tract was contiguous to an agricultural zoning so it would not apply in this case. Mr. Suchecki asked the petitioner to clarify where the proposed building would set on the property. Mr. Pendergraft advised that there were not any set plans. He noted the adjoining property owner to the rear of the subject property, had been adamant that the property would contain a commercial development. There was discussion regarding shifting the building away from the side property line. Mr. Pendergraft advised he believed that could be done. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve this lot split as requested. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Reynolds, Suchecki, Britton and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioner Head "abstaining". Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 5 �,. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 & #2 MADELINE TRIBBLE - N OF 6TH STREET, S OF MITCHELL, W OF LEWIS AVENUE The next item on the agenda was a request for lot splits #1 and #2 submitted by Curtis Wray on behalf of Madeline Tribble for property located north of 6th Street, south of Mitchell Street and west of Lewis Avenue. The property is zoned c-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn advised the original tract was a narrow strip of property containing .92 acres which ran between Mitchell Street and Highway 62. He stated the petitioner wanted to split off a tract on the north, containing .35 acres with frontage on Mitchell Street, together with another .16 acre tract. He advised the second tract appeared to be an isolated piece of property, but the owner's intent was to combine the .16 acre tract with a similar .16 acre tract of land directly to the east for a total of about .32 of an acre with frontage on Lewis Avenue. He pointed out that would leave a .42 acre tract which fronted on Highway 62. Ms. Little advised the northern portion of the subject tract was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and the southern portion was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. She noted the first split would contain R-2 property and the second split would contain the commercial property and would therefore, make the size of the lots correspond to the zoning designation. Mr. Bunn stated that it appeared all of the utilities were available to the site and the staff recommended this item be approved subject to the payment of any parks fees which were applicable and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Wray stated the subject tract was a family parcel which had been split up among several different family members over the years. He noted the tract on the eastern �. side bordering Lewis Avenue was actually owned by four people. He reminded the Commission the tract had been rezoned approximately three years ago. He explained the owners had received an offer on the property from someone who wants to build a commercial building on the commercial property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to accept the lot splits subject to the staff's comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Reynolds, Suchecki, Britton and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioner Head "abstaining". to 5 Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 6 PUBLIC70 HEARING - REZONING R94-1 50)7V P.V79WVHUNTSVILLE RI The next item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning request R94-1 submitted by Tony Pretty for property located at 1397 E. Huntsville Road. The request was to rezone .35 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for a rezoning in order to develop a two -chair beauty salon in the existing structure on the site. Use Unit 12 allows for beauty salons as a use by right in R -O zoning districts. Previous nonconforming uses included a day care facility, a plumbing business, and a restaurant supply company. The applicant purchased this structure 12 to 15 years ago and has since used the building for storage for his current heating and air conditioning business. The applicant has been advised that six paved off-street parking spaces will be required and a sidewalk will be required along Huntsville Road. Adjacent land use and zoning includes single family, R-1 to the north; a duplex, R-2 zoning to the south; vacant land and R-2 zoning to the east and R-2 zoning and vacant land to the west. Mr. Conklin advised that the staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the requested rezoning. He declared this site suitable for the type of commercial uses allowed in R -O zoning referring to a list of those uses allowed by right. A member of the audience, Brian Gray, reiterated that he is planning to operate a two -chair beauty salon at the site. Mr. Nickle moved that the rezoning request(R94-1) from R-2 to R -O be approved in accordance with staff comments. • Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • Planning Commission January 30, 1994 Page 7 is LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LAKESIDE APARTMENTS, PHASE II JIM LINDSEY - E OF GREGG AVE, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Lakeside Apartments, Phase II, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located east of Gregg Avenue and north of Township Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 29.49 acres with 396 units proposed. Mr. Bunn informed the Commission the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting requested some additional easements and crossings which were agreed to by the owner. He noted fire hydrants were requested at specific locations within the development. He further stated the developer had been advised of a need for a grading and drainage plan. He added that the staff recommended approval of this large scale development subject to the Plat Review comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; dedication of the easements on a separate easement plat; submittal of a tree preservation plan; and either land dedication or the payment of parks fees in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission there were certain off-site improvements which were agreed to in connection with the overall development when Phase I of the apartments was approved and constructed. He stated that had included mainly the extension of Drake Street toward Gregg Street. Ms. Britton expressed her concern there was no evidence a tree preservation plan had been submitted. She asked who would approve the plan. Mr. Conklin explained a tree preservation plan was submitted along with the large scale plan and was examined by the staff to insure compliance with the ordinance. Me, Little added that, if the tree preservation plan submitted was not in compliance, the developer was required to resubmit a plan which was in compliance. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission the question of the status of the golf course in this development had been raised at the last meeting. He asked for more information. Dave Jorgensen advised a golf course and recreational area was planned between Phases 1 and 2 of this project and noted Mr, Lindsey had spoken with the Parks & Recreation Board about dedication of other property in lieu of paying parks fees. He added he had spoken to Dale Clark of the Parke Board personally who verified their agreement. He stated a survey had recently been completed on a portion of the property for the purpose of dedication of land. He explained the owner was requesting approval of Phase II subject to an arrangement with the Parks Board for dedicating land to help meet this requirement. He advised parks fees of a certain amount would be paid to make up the difference. Mr. Nickle asked if this would be a private golf course. Mr. Jorgensen advised the property surveyed to be dedicated for parks purposes was not the golf course property, but the property immediately to the west of Phase I extending up into Appleby Apartments and totaling approximately 8 acres. He reiterated the portion designated as golf course area was not included in the parks portion. Ms. Little advised the Parks Board had voted not to accept that property as land in lieu of parks fees mainly because of the concern on the part of the developer that it might eventually become city property. She added they were renegotiating. „ In response to a question from Mr. Allred as to whether the Planning Commission would needed to give approval on whatever arrangement was worked out between this developer . and the Parks Board, Ms. Little advised the Planning Commission, by regulation, was had final approval. r Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 8 • Mr. Allred contended if the Planning Commission approved the project subject to an arrangement being worked out, it would need to be brought back before the Commission for final approval. Ms. Little agreed. Mr. Pummill asked for confirmation that the request to accept the golf course in lieu of payment of parks fees had been sent to the Parks Board with the Commission recommending approval. Ms. Little advised he was correct; it had been sent before them when Phase I was brought through. She stated the Parks Board had considered that but, although it was the developer's request that it be considered, it was the developer who did not want to obligate the land to become public at some future time. She further stated that, in the discussion and negotiation with the Parks Board, the developer became aware of a condition which was not totally acceptable to him. She added these are the kinds of issues that are most appropriate for their discussion at the February 14th meeting. Me. Britton contended it would be better procedure if the Parks Board met on issues before they were presented to the Planning Commission so the Commission would be making a decision based on their recommendation instead of the opposite. Ms. Little explained the Parks & Recreation staff received the information at the Plat Review Meeting which was then presented to the Parks & Recreation Board at their next available meeting (they meet on a monthly basis) at which time they make their decision. She added they have only recently begun to consider taking land which was partially the result of the requests from the Planning Commission, particularly the Subdivision Committee members. She explained fees were normally requested; but in those cases where land was dedicated, it had to come to the Planning Commission for approval because the Planning Commission had to act on the Parks Board recommendation. Ms. Little informed the Commission that, at their request, the staff would hold any request until the Parks Board had made their recommendation. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Head seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 9 40 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT DAN 3' •' MT COMFORTr W •' DEANE SOLOMON The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Epperly Mini -Storage submitted by Dan Epperly for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial and contains 2.67 acres. Mr. Bunn informed the Commission the gas company had requested a 30 -foot easement along Mt. Comfort Road at the Plat Review meeting. He explained the gas company already had a blanket easement over the property, but were willing to exchange the blanket easement for a specific easement along the road. He noted there were no other comments from any other utility representatives. He stated the Fire Chief indicated the need for a water line and a fire hydrant for the development. He advised other comments included a need for a grading and drainage plan and a tree preservation plan. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to Plat Review comments and the extension of fire protection to the site. He pointed out that all necessary easements had been granted. Mr. Epperly appeared before the Commission as the petitioner, but had no comments to add. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development subject to the staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. • The motion carried S-0-0. Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT- JOHNSON DUPIA S The next item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Johnson Duplexes submitted by Daran Johnson for property located off of Dockery Lane, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 1.40 acres with 6 units. Mr. Bunn informed the Commission there were no significant comments by any of the utility representatives at the Plat Review meeting. He stated the stub -out would need to be completed to the Fayetteville school Bite north of this project and a sidewalk would need to be constructed through the site to the school property. He also stated fire protection would need to be provided and a 50 -foot right-of-way and construction of a street to the site was required. He advised the Btaff recommended approval of this large scale development subject to the Plat Review comments, construction of a sidewalk and stub -out to the Fayetteville school property, provision of fire protection to the site, payments of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances, filing an easement plat showing all the easements as required, dedication of off-site easements that might be required by a separate instrument, provision of a 50 -foot right-of-way and construction of a standard city street to the edge of the site, approval of detailed plans for all public improvements, and approval of a grading and drainage plan. In response to a question from Ms. Britton regarding the street requirements, Mr. Bunn advised that, because Dockery Street did not go all the way to the Bite, a 50 - foot right-of-way would have to be dedicated and a street constructed to the site. Harry Gray, representing the developer, informed them the length of the street extension would be between 175' to 2251. He questioned the requirement of the developer to improve the street off-site to full city standards. He advised the • existing Dockery Street was approximately 20 feet wide extending north from Highway 16 about 600 to 800 feet with a chip and seal surface. He questioned the need to construct a full standard city street with curb and gutter for a distance of approximately another 200 feet. He added the developer also questioned the need for a 50 -foot right-of-way width requirement when the existing right-of-way, according to the plat book, was only 40' wide. He requested they only be required to provide a 40 -foot right-of-way. Daran Johnson, the developer, pointed out that a 50 -foot right-of-way easement would encroach quite a distance toward the existing property owner's residence taking away quite a bit of the frontage of the house which had been there for several years. Mr. Suchecki clarified the staff was requesting that Dockery Lane be extended all the way back to the subject property. Mr. Gray reiterated it was approximately 200 feet from the end of the existing Dockery Lane to the subject property and added the duplex development would be under one ownership and could be developed with a 25 -foot private drive into the property. Me. Little contended that it could not be developed that way because that would make it a tandem lot which only allowed for one single-family residence. She advised that, in order for this property to have the proper frontage for a standard lot, Dockery Lane would have to be extended. She explained that, once the frontage requirement was met, a duplex development could have a private street because it would be under common ownership. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki regarding ownership of the land along Dockery Lane, Mr. Johnson stated the existing Dockery Lane ended at a residence which was owned by Floyd and Daisy Dockery who also owned the property which extended all the way to his property line. He noted the north end of their home was about flush . with the existing Dockery Lane so moving the right-of-way easement farther to the north would be getting close to their home and taking away a lot of their yard. �Q Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 11 • In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little reiterated the existing Dockery Lane right-of-way width was 40 feet but the requirement for a standard city street was a 50 -foot width. She reminded the Commission the same 50 -foot right-of- way width requirement was requested from a developer who recently brought through a project on Cherry Lane which was just east of Dockery. Ms. Britton clarified that 25 feet of the required 50 -foot right-of-way easement had already been given on the other side. Mr. Johnson verified he currently had a 25 -foot easement which was given to him by Floyd and Daisy Dockery to have access to the property. Ms. Little reiterated that the existing 25 -foot right-of-way easement would only allow development of one single-family home and, in order to develop duplexes, the property had to have frontage. Ms. Britton suggested that obtaining more of the easement.in the westerly direction from Peggy Swafford might be preferred if it was not for the water easement. Mr. Johnson advised there was a sewer line and a manhole located in the existing Dockery Lane. Mr. Gray advised sewer and water would both have to be extended north to serve the property. Ms. Britton questioned whether a 50 -foot easement with the new section of the street constructed in the center of it would line up with the center of the existing 40 -foot easement. Mr. Bunn advised that there should not be any problem making that transition. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised that, in the event the City paved the existing Dockery Lane, it would not be likely that another 5 -foot easement on each side of the existing 40 -foot easement would be requested. She explained the City currently had a program to pave every graveled street in town and no additional right-of-way had been requested for any of those streets. She further noted however, if it became a major artery or was placed on the Master Street Plan, then additional right-of-way would be required. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding the sidewalk, Ms. Little advised there were no existing sidewalks on Dockery. She added it was owner's discretion as to what side of the property the sidewalk would be placed. She stated the owner preferred, and the staff agreed, the sidewalk would be constructed the length of the property along the east side which would allow a safer access to the school property to the north. Mr. Nickle asked if the staff still was requiring a 50 -foot wide right-of-way to city standards. Ms. Little verified they were and noted other developers very near the subject property had recently been given the same requirement. Mr. Gray reviewed some of the reasons why the developer questioned the requirement: Dockery Lane to the south had only a 20 -foot wide chip and seal surface and a 40 -foot right-of-way width. He pointed out that, since a private drive was being approved, the street would never be extended. He asked what they would do with storm drainage if they had a curb and gutter street as opposed to side ditches with a typical 22 - foot chip and seal street. Mr. Johnson added there was one side ditch on the east of the existing street now. • Ms. Little pointed out the staff's preference from the beginning was for a street to full city standards. She further stated that, as they worked through it and after Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 12 • the owner's promise to keep the property under one ownership, the staff had determined a private drive would be allowed. She added it would make this a dead-end street and it would be less than city standards. Ms. Little explained the property recently developed on Cherry Lane had frontage so the extension of a street was not required but the developer had been required to improve his Bide of Cherry Street to city standards. She further advised the current Cherry Lane did not have curb and gutter but funds contributed by that developer were put into escrow to cover the cost of constructing one-half of the street. She explained that, if that improvement was not made by the City within five years, the funds would go back to the developer or the funds would be used in a way that benefitted the adjoining lots. In answer to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Johnson advised he planed to use compacted SB2 which would set up hard just like concrete. He further stated that, if funds were available at the end of the project, he planned to asphalt the drive. He advised that, if the staff required him to make a city standard street between the end of the existing street and his property, it would take away quite a bit of the funding to pave his own street and the private drive. Me. Little advised staff had not been aware the owner just planned to gravel the street. She stated they had been under the impression the street would be asphalt. Mr. Johnson advised he had discussed this matter with staff prior to the original meeting to rezone the property because initially he had wanted to construct single- family homes on this land. He explained that, to build single-family homes and subdivide the property, he was required to put in the street to city standards. He explained it would not be economical to do that and that was the reason he changed the plans to one lot, one property owner. He stated staff had agreed and discussed that gravel would be acceptable. Mr. Allred advised one of the problems with the SB2 was that at some future point, 19 he could see six potential lot splits and sales without a city standard street. He added street widths might be worked out, but it needed to be paved. Ms. Johnson asked how many residences were located on the existing Dockery Lane currently. Mr. Johnson advised there were eight homes on the Btreet since Lazenby had constructed three homes on the street. He advised Lazenby had improved the sewer and the water to city standards at that time but had not been required to provide curb and gutter. Me. Johnson asked what about on the west side. Mr. Johnson advised there was one home on the very corner of Huntsville and Dockery and a duplex. He explained the rest of the homes faced Ray Avenue on another street to the west. Only one home and one duplex on that side. It was noted that this development plan was discussed at the Plat Review meeting but it did not go through a Subdivision Committee meeting. Ms. Little advised this development would have been reviewed at the Subdivision meeting but it had been canceled and, rather than delay the project until the next Subdivision Committee meeting, staff directed it to the full Planning Commission. She advised there was only one other location of a gravel private drive which the staff could remember and it was out Wedington Drive with a number of duplexes on a graveled circle street in rather poor condition. She explained they believed the development had been in the county when constructed. • It was suggested this item be tabled to allow time for Mr. Johnson and the Planning Department to work out some of the details of this project. 19 Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Gray advised they had one more question on the requirement of the sidewalk across the subject property. He stated their concern was really more from liability standpoint regarding access for all the school children. Ms. Little suggested they bring the large scale before the next Subdivision Committee. Mr. Reynolds noted he would like to see the City Engineering staff take a look at the drainage and be able to comment on the width of the street and how it would tie in. Mr. Suchecki stated staff needed to be able to offer solutions if they were going to make requirements which could cause a potential problem. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table the large scale development. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. Ms. Little asked the Commission for some input on whether the adjoining property owners should be renotified of the meetings. She asked if anyone was present who was an adjoining property owner or wanted to speak on this item. There was no response. Mr. Suchecki advised that, since the adjoining property owners had been notified of this meeting and no one had shown up to hear the discussion, he didn't think it would be necessary to renotify. C� J 13 Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 14 • LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAYETTEVILLE ATHLETIC CLUB JIM LINDSEY - MW CORNER OF ZION B CROSSOVER RD The next item was a large scale development for the Fayetteville Athletic Club submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the northwest corner of Zion and Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains 4.37 acres. The conditional use request is for an athletic club. Mr. Bunn advised the conditional use request for this project had been approved as part of the lot split approval. He stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility representatives. He further stated staff comments included the need for a fire hydrant, a grading and drainage plan, tree preservation plan and additional right-of-way on Randall Place. He recommended the large scale development be approved subject to the Plat Review comments, approval of a grading and drainage plan, approval of a tree preservation plan, installation of an additional fire hydrant as requested by the Fire Chief, additional right-of-way on Randall Place granted by a separate instrument and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances. Dave Jorgensen advised his client was in agreement with all of the staff comments. In answer to a question about outside lighting planned for this project, Mr. Jorgensen advised that down lighting was planned but he did not indicate whether it would be mercury vapor or high pressure sodium. He added there would be a privacy fence around the perimeter of the property on the north and west sides and a brick and block fence around the outside swimming pool. Mr. Greg Lee, the owner of the property just north of this project directly across Randall Place, questioned the amount of right-of-way on Randall Place. Mr. Bunn advised he did not know how the right-of-way had been dedicated; that it was most likely in place when this property was annexed into the City. Mr. Jorgensen advised that, according to the plat of the subdivision of this property, the property line actually went generally to the center of Randall Place and then the right-of-way went from that point south 25 feet. He pointed out the building would be set back another 30 feet for a total of 55 feet from the center line of the road to the structure. He added that the actual north boundary line of the property did not quite go to the center line of Randall Place as it existed; that there was approximately 9 or 10 foot distance between the north boundary line of this property and the center line of Randall Place (south of the center line). Mr. Bunn advised in all likelihood Mr. Lee's property description also went to the middle of the road. He explained that, if that was the case, the right-of-way would be prescriptive. He added there could be an instrument somewhere which indicated what the right-of-way was but it was very difficult sometimes to pin down how much right-of-way there was in these cases. Mr. Jorgensen advised there was a railroad spike in Randall Place which marked the northwest corner of the property. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development for the Fayetteville Athletic Club subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried B-0-0. I r� Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 15 PRELIMINARY PLAT - MOSIER ADDITION CLIFF NOSIER - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND 54TH The next item was a preliminary plat of Mosier Addition submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Cliff Mosier for property located on the southwest corner of Wedington and 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 2.07 acres with 2 lots. Mr. Bunn stated the development consisted of two lots of 1 acre each. He advised there were no significant comments by the utility representatives other than an additional easement requested on the east side of Lot 2 which was agreed to by the owner. He noted there had been a question of whether a power line existed between Lots 1 and 2 and, if so, the power company was requesting a 20 -foot utility easement. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review comments, installation of a fire hydrant as requested, payments of parks fees and installation of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances, and the approval of a tree preservation plan. Ms. Little advised the sidewalks were existing and she did not recall a power line between the lots. There were no public comments. Mr. Reynolds moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to the staff Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 16 • PRELIMINARY PLAT - FIELDSTONE ADDITION CASTLE DEVELOPMENT - N OF WEDINGTON DR, W OF CARLESBAD TRACE The next item was a preliminary plat for Fieldstone Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Castle Development for property located on the north side of Wedington Drive, west of Carlesbad Trace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 69.18 acres with 211 lots. Mr. Bunn advised this development consisted of 211 lots on 69.18 acres and was divided into five phases. He stated the first phase consisted of lots 1 thru 52, lots 114 thru 131, lots 162, 188, and 189 for a total of 73 lots to be developed first. Mr. Bunn noted there had been considerable discussion at the Plat Review meeting regarding easements and crossings which would be required for the development. He stated several new or revised easements were requested along with numerous crossings. He further stated the postal service had indicated they would meet with the developer to discuss mail service. He advised staff remarks included comments on the naming of the streets, the location of the fire hydrants, the need for a grading and drainage plan and a tree preservation plan. He informed the Commission there was a drainage issue to the west of this property that needed to be resolved. He suggested the engineer for this project meet with Ozarks Electric to discuss that matter. He added that, because of the number of phases involved, it might be advisable to approve the development in phases to give the utilities and the staff a chance to review this again at some other date. Mr. Bunn recommended approval subject to the Plat Review comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage facilities; submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan; a study of the receiving sewer pump station • to determine the capacities and the possible need for expansion of that station; the paving of future through streets all the way to the edge of the subdivision; construction of sidewalks; payments of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and submittal and approval of a tree preservation plan. Me. Britton expressed her concern that the center line of the streets did not line up. Me. Little advised the staff had requested a street be added so now it did not line up. She informed the Commission the eastern portion of the property was zoned R-1.5 which would permit the construction of duplexes; however, the engineer had notified the staff that the plan was to develop townhouses so that they could be sold individually.. She advised the zoning ordinance did not allow the development of townhouses in an R-1.5 zoning district and therefore staff was recommending they seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Little pointed out the staff felt the development of townhouses under private ownership with the same density as a duplex development would be more favorable to this area. She explained the developer's only other option would be to request a rezoning for this particular piece of property to R-2. She pointed out R-2 could be developed at a higher density. She advised the staff did intend to support the request for a variance and noted it was a question of the developer's wishes coming up against the City's regulations. She advised the staff maintained that, if the units were under separate ownership, they were likely to be better maintained than rental units. Mr. Allred suggested a recommendation for approval of this variance from the Planning Commission to the Board Adjustment would be in order to show their support. Me. Little advised townhouses were generally rows of houses with the minimum lot size required being 2,500 square feet, but the minimum lot size requirement for single- family homes in an R-1.5 district was 6,000 square feet. She noted this was one of ih Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 17 • the things that needed to be looked at when reworking the ordinance in terms of what type of development they want to encourage. Me. Britton noted there would actually have to be twice as many lots of half the size proposed now if two units with individual ownership was constructed on each lot. Ms. Little advised the property might be replatted to show twice as many lots in the final plat stage. In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Bunn advised that, if this project was approved in phases, there would be a preliminary plat for each phase. Me. Little stated that lots 1 thru 52 would be in Phase I. When questioned as to whether it would be best to table this item so that it could be brought through the Subdivision Committee, Ms. Little advised a replat could come back to the Planning Commission if the developer agreed to do it in phases and was granted the variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gray reiterated they needed to get an approval on the total layout so they would know how to approach the storm drainage problems for the overall project. He advised the drainage could be taken to the north or to the west and the sanitary sewer could be taken to the west or to the east. Mr. Allred asked for clarification on what the electric company had to do with the drainage problem. Mr. Gray advised they had a substation in the area which tended to back water up. Ms. Little advised the electric company had to build up their property where the • substation was located because of the water. She added that Wedington Drive was acting as a little bit of a dam. Mr. Suchecki noted that, in discussions of other subdivisions in this area in the past, the drainage had been the most prominent problem other than traffic. Mr. Bunn advised there was a depression on this property where the water did not drain and never completely dried up. Mr. Gray contended the problem was not so bad it would flood a house, but water did stand there for 8 or 9 months out of the year. Ms. Little noted this was not solvable unless everyone worked together. She stated the drainage did not occur naturally, but had been caused by development. Mr. Bunn advised the problem had been caused by the highway construction. Mr. Gray stated the water drained from east and west over to a pond area. He advised they could grade Augusta Avenue to take the runoff to the north. He advised that, whatever they did to resolve the problem, they needed to make sure when the water was diverted it was not making another problem. Me. Britton noted that, if Wedington was acting as a dam, releasing water could cause problems for properties to the south. Me. Little advised there were provisions for streets both to the north and the west shown on the plat as 50 -foot dedicated right-of-ways, but they also needed to be shown as paved or with curb and gutter (between lots 69 and 71 and lots 79 and 80). Doyle Dixon, who lives in a house adjacent to and directly west of the pond, stated • the drainage problem only came about recently because of erosion to the pond dike. He added the mosquito problem was outrageous and had increased recently. Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 18 • Mellanie Stafford, an adjoining property owner, stated in 1990 when she bought the property and for the first couple of years, the drainage problem was virtually nonexistent because the pond took care of a lot of the water. She added it now had digressed to a problem of standing water for 8 to 10 months of the year. She advised the neighboring property owners felt the problem should be taken care of before any phases of the development were approved. Mr. Dixon recommended the entire plat be approved for all five phases so they would show where the water was going to run off for the entire project. He explained that was the only way to protect the property in the vicinity. He added there was a ditch on Highway 16 which, if repaired, would catch a lot of the water to help eliminate runoff over Ozarks Electric and down onto the other properties. In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Dixon stated that water out of the north side of the pond and came across his property. Mr. Bunn advised the City did not have direct control over the drainage on the highway, but could work with the State. He pointed out the problem was larger than what had been described because Highway 16 acted as a dam. He explained there was a small pipe under the highway on the north side of the Ozarks Electric substation which water traveled through to the south. He further stated the area was essentially dammed up. He advised any possible solution would need to take into account what would happen downstream to the south. He stated that, as of now, much of the drainage never reached the south side and the best they could do was to keep the situation from getting worst. Mr. Gray pointed out they could never make the adjacent properties exactly the way the owners' wanted but, ideally, they would be able to eliminate the problem. Mr. Dixon expressed his concern that, if the land was raised and the wetland filled • in, the water level would be raised as well. Mr. Gray noted they had discussed possibly selling the pond to the adjoining property owners. In response to a question from Don Bunn, Mr. Gray stated there was not any development planned in the drainage area that fed into the pond. Mr. Dixon requested the adjoining property owners have more advance notice in the future when this matter was to be discussed. There was a request from someone in the audience that the adjoining land owner to the south, Gertrude Cathy, be mailed a plat for her review since she was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Bunn felt comfortable with the Planning Commission acting on the preliminary plat with all the discussion and concerns with the development. Mr. Bunn advised the main concern was the utilities and changes being made that might would require replatting at a later date. Me. Little informed the Commission the staff had concerns about the phasing, but did not want to unduly hold up the development by waiting until it could be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee before it was submitted to the Planning Commission. She stated the staff's preference would be an agreement that the development be done in phases with each phase coming back to the Planning Commission. She noted it could also be reviewed at the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Ms. Britton expressed her concern in regard to approving conditionally the first phase when the drainage needed to be coordinated through the entire plat. • Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 19 • Mr. Allred suggested they approve the entire plat with the stipulation that, if any changes were made to clear up the drainage situation, those particular phases be brought back for reapproval. Me. Little advised they were expecting the first phase to be replatted although it did require the approval of the Board of Adjustment. She explained if it was replatted, the first phase would be coming back before them. Mr. Allred asked if that phase could not be approved administratively by the staff if the Board of Adjustment granted the variance. Mr. Gray stated they will inform the utility companies of any changes to the plat since the Plat Review meeting. Me. Little asked the development representative if they would object to this being approved as a concept plat and each phase be brought back separately. Mr. Nickle expressed his concern on the Commission approving such a large development which bypassed the Subdivision Committee process and did not have a clear plan to eliminate the drainage problems. Mr. Gray reiterated they need a definite layout approved to work from so they could decide how to develop a detailed drainage plan. Mr. Allred advised there would not be a gainful purpose to sending the plat back to the Subdivision Committee since it had now been discussed among the full Planning Commission. x.'=•70-ce]:i • Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff comments with the stipulation that any part of the plat to be brought back to the Commission for reapproval if there were any significant changes the staff was uncomfortable approving or felt was beyond their scope of authority. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. Mr. Bunn explained one of the reasons the staff was cautious about approving a changed plat was because of problems which arose for the utility companies when they were not kept abreast of such changes. He noted these changes did not always seem significant to the staff or developer but were of real importance to how the utilities went about servicing the development. • /7 Planning Commission January 10, 1994 Page 20 • I Discussion of Design Overlay District and Formation of Committee to Work on Unified Development Ordinance Ms. Little advised that a copy of an overlay district with a number of blanks has been submitted to the Commission in their packet mainly for informational purposes. She explained Commissioner Allred had requested the staff bring this item to the Commission. She noted staff planned to complete this project within a few months, but would like some input from the Commission in order to meet their expectations and needs. She explained the overlay ordinance was a derived version which originally came from Little Rock. She added the City of Rogers had adopted an overlay ordinance very similar to the draft. She requested a committee be formed from interested Commission members to work with staff on this project. Ms. Little advised the legal department had been given this draft for their input as well. She informed the Commission they had also received in their packet the zoning ordinance portion of the Unified Development Ordinance for their review. Mr. Nickle advised it would help for the staff to highlight anything in the Use Schedule which had been changed from the current zoning ordinance. Ms. Little agreed and noted there were several uses which had been changed to conditional uses with the requirement of Commission approval which had previously been permitted by right. Commissioners Nickle and Johnson volunteered to work on the Unified Development ordinance. Commissioners Britton and Allred volunteered to work on the Design Overlay District. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. �7 1 ABRAM , JULIAN (LS #1) ALBRIGHT, SPENCER (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION OF REGULATIONS) ALEXANDER, RICHARD (REZONING REQUEST FOR R94-44) Alltel Mobile Communications Inc (CU94-24 FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER) AMERICAN LEGION POST 27 (CU94-31 FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY) ANDERS, STERLING (LSD FOR STERLING ANDERS OFFICE) ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING APPOINTMENT OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICES (LSD FOR ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICES) ASHBROOK HILL AUDITION (PP OF ASHBROOK HILL ADDITION) BALL, E.J. (PP FOR KANTZ COMMERCIAL) BARNES, ROLLIN (LSD & PP OF ROLLIN BARNES DUPLEXES) BARNES, ROLLIN - NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE V (PP OF NORTHWEST BARRINGTION PARKE SUBDIVISION BARRINGTON PARKE (REPLAT OF RIDGEMONTE DOWNS) (PP) BARTHOLOMEW, KELLY & DWIGHT (REZONING R94-55) BECKER, DENNIS (CU94-22 FOR DUPLEX) BMP DEVELOPMENT (PP FOR HENDERSON ESTATES) BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP FOR PINE CREST ADDITION) BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP FOR PINE VALLEY PHASE III) 351 369 441 527 460 102 102 452 324 466 377 ACRES) 323 BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP FOR PINE VALLEY, PHASE II) BMP DEVELOPMENT (PP OF HIDDEN LAKE SUBDIVISION) BMP DEVELOPMENT (PP OF PINE VALLEY PHASE III) BMP DEVELOPMENT (PP OF HIDDEN LAKE SUBDIVISION) BOURLAND, FREDDIE (CU94-19 FOR A DUPLEX) BOWMAN, E. PATRICIA & DANNER, WILLIAM E. (LS#1) BRADLEY ACRES (PP OF BRADLEY ACRES) BROPHY, KARYN (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-59) BURSON, GERTRUDE (REZONING APPEAL NO. R94-8) C&B LAND CATTLE CO. (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-60) CAPSTICK, DANIEL F. (LS#1) CARPENTER, CARL (LSD OF CARPENTER MINI -STORAGE) CASTLE DEVELOPMENT (PP FOR FIELDSTONE ADDITION) CASTLE DEVELOPMENT (FP OF FIELDSTONE PHASE I) CASTON, BEN (FP OF BARRINGTON PARKE) CASTON, BEN CONSTRUCTION CO. (ANNEXATION & REZONING R94-2) CEARLEY, KEITH (LSD FOR GLENWOOD SHOPPING CENTER) CELLULAR ONE (CU94-30 FOR A PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITY) Central Emergency Medical Service Inc (CU94-25 For Public Protection Facility) CHAPPELL, CECIL (ALLEY FOR V94-8) CITIZENS BANK (LSD OF CITIZENS BANK) ` k CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE (LS #1) 80 48 494 415 289 307 454 503 436 528 386 417 36 517 94 518 493 89 16 435 205 28 461 511 453 468 90 493 CLACK, ALAN & LAWRENCE (ANNEXATION & REZONING PETITION NO. R94-20) 217 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (UTILITY EASEMENT FOR V94-7) 418 CLARY DEVELOPMENT(PP FOR SPRING PARK PHASE III) 320 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (PP FOR SPRING PARK, PHASE III) 375 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (EASEMENT VACATION V94-1) 21 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (LSD - LOT 9, SPRING PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE III) 521 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (FP - LOT 9, SPRING PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE III) 521 CLARY DEVELOPMENT (LSD FOR SPRING CREEK CENTRE - LOTS 5 & 6) 26 COMBINATIONS OF LAND AND EQUIPMENT 62 COMBS, C.W. (FP FOR SEQUOYAH MEADOWS PHASE II) 32 CONDITIONAL USE FOR TANDEM LOT CU94-4 241 CONNELL, ED (LS #1) 307 COOPER, LAVERNE (REZONING R94-32) 287 COUNCIL REFERRAL: PARK PLACE / BOARDWALK STREET VACATION 519 CRAIN, SHEA & WEIDNER, GARY (CU94-18 FOR ANTIQUE STORE) 414 CRAWFORD, PERRY (REZONING APPEAL R94-14) 114 Creekwood Hills Development Corp. (FP OF BRIDGEPORT ADDITION, PHASE I) 413 Creekwood Hills Development (Public Hearing For Annexation & Rezoning R94-53) 475 Creekwood Hills Development Inc (PP OF BRIDGEPORT ADDITION, PHASE II) 440 CREEKWOOD HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP (PP CREEKWOOD HILLS PHASE I) 220 CROSSOVER ASSOC. (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 105 CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PHASE I (FP) 330 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGS) 73 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGS) 87 CUMMINGS, STEVE (LSD FOR GREGG STREET APARTMENTS) 32 DECISIONS OF THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 63 DICKEY, KATHRYN (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION - LS #!) 524 Discussion OF Master Street Plan - Transportation Subcommittee Meeting Results 419 DISCUSSION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 279 DISCUSSION ON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 20 DISCUSSION OF SWEPCO TOWER 400 DISCUSSION REGARDING 226 NORTH SCHOOL AVENUE 328 DISCUSSION OF STAGE UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON CROSSOVER ROAD 434 DISCUSSION OF REVISED FORM FOR LSD AND SUBDIVISIONS 279 DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 294 DISCUSSION OF DRAFT REVISION OF "GREEN SPACE" ORDINANCE 118 E.J. ENTERPRISES (FP DEERPATH ESTATES PHASE I) 21 EBE, PORTER (CU94-10 FOR A DUPLEX) 308 EDENS, LEN (LSD FOR SHILOH PLAZA) 307 EIDSON, RAY (CU94-8) 254 EIDSON, RAY (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 255 ELSASS, KIRK (LSD FOR KEE CORNER PLAZA) 464 ENNIS, BOB (LS#I) 443 EOFF TRUST III (REZONING APPEAL NO. R94-13) 112 EPPERLY, DAN (LSD FOR EPPERLY MINI -STORAGE) 9 EUBANKS, DON (CU94-3 FOR A DUPLEX) 93 EYE CENTER OF N.W.A. (LSD FOR EYE CENTER OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS) 72 FAIRFIELD IN & SLEEP INN HOTEL (LSD) 253 FAUCETTE, GEORGE (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LS #I) 437 FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL (LSD FOR FAYETTEVILLE ELEMENT SCHOOL) 91 FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL (LSD FOR FAYETTEVILLE ELEMENT SCHOOL) 69 FIELDS, HELEN (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 280 FINCHER, GLEN (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 205 Fite, Carl & Elizabeth & McAdow, Sherri (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-58) 516 FITE, CARL & ELIZABETH (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING FOR R94-51) 445 FOSTER, GREG (R94-43) PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 364 FOSTER, MARK & PEOPLES, BUDDY (PP FOR SAVANNA ESTATES PHASE V) 321 FOSTER, MARK & PEOPLES, BUDDY (FP FOR SAVANNA ESTATES PHASE III) 21 FOSTER, GREG (REZONING FOR R94-43) 348 GINGER, DON (PP FOR WILLINGTON PLACE) 360 GINGER, DON (R94-42) PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING 349 GINGER, DON (R94-42) PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING REQUEST 353 GINGER, DON (PP FOR WILLINGTON PLACE) 408 GLASS, LINDA (CU94-16 FOR TUTORING) 331 GLENBROOK PHASE II (FP) 103 GRAUE, BILL (PP FOR BRADLEY ACRES) 223 GRAUE, BILL (FP OF BRADLEY ACRES) 385 HALL, J.D. (ANNEXATION OF R94-31) 267 HANNA, BERT (LSD FOR HANNA INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE II) 403 O HANNA, THAD (ALLEY VACATION V94-10) 487 HANSEN, SUSAN BISHOP (PP OF YORKETOWN SQUARE PHASES II & III) 502 HAZEN, JAMES & JUDY (LS#1) 521 HIGH PINT DEVELOPMENT (PP OF HIGH PINT SUBDIVISION) 483 HILLBILLY HOLLER CORPORATION (LSD FOR LOCOMOTION FUN CENTER) 32 HINKLE, WAYNE (PP FOR JOHNLIL SUBDIVISION) 54 HOLLAND, ALLEN (REZONING APPEAL NO. R94-12) 110 HOLMES, MELVIN (FP FOR STONE BRIDE SUBDIVISION, PHASE II) 428 HOLMES, MELVIN (PP FOR STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION PHASE II) 38 HOPKINS, JOHN (LSD FOR FUZZY'S RESTAURANT) 205 HOSPITALITY GROUP INC. (LS #1, & #2) 388 HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (LSD FOR BACK YARD BURGERS) 404 HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-5) 107 HOWARD, MIKE (PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT V94-4) 237 HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-4) 203 Hulburt, Lula Mae & Holland, Mary ( REZONING APPEALS R94-17 & R94-18) 210 JACKSON, HARRY AND PARTNERS (PP FOR JACKSON PLACE) 81 JACKSON PARKE ADDITION 0 66 JACKSON, HARRY AND PARTNERS (PP FOR JACKSON PARKE) 40 JACKSON, HARRY (PP FOR JACKSON PLACE) 227 A JED DEVELOPMENT (PP OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE 11) 515 JED DEVELOPMENT (PP OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE 11) 481 JED DEVELOPMENT (PP FOR CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II) 499 JOHNSON, DARAN (LSD FOR JOHNSON DUPLEXES) 23 JOHNSON, HAROLD (CU94-5 FOR DUPLEXES IN R-1 ZONING) 205 JOHNSON, HAROLD (PP FOR WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN ESTATES) 115 JOHNSON, DARAN (LSD FOR JOHNSON DUPLEXES) 10 JOHNSON, HAROLD (REZONING FOR R94-55) 335 JONES, SCOTT & LIN -HILL COMPANY (FP FOR MISSOURI OAKS SUBDIVISION) 427 JORGENSEN, DAVE (LSD FOR LEVERETT STREET TOWNHOUSES, PHASE II) 307 JORGENSEN, DAVE (FP FOR MEADOWLANDS PHASES I & II) 493 JORGENSEN (FP FOR KEE CORNER PLAZA) 521 KECK, KATHRYN LYNNE (REZONING PETITION FOR R94-30) 266 KELLY, FRANKIE ( PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-33) 314 KELLY, FRANKIE ( PUBLIC HEARING R94-27) 258 KLING, MARY (CU94-9) 307 KRUSHIKER, NARRY (LSD FOR HAMPTON INN) 100 KWIK INDUSTRIES (LSD OF $1.25 DRY CLEANER SUPER CENTER) 484 KWIK KAR LUBE AND TUNE (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LS #1) 438 LAND V.S. PAYMENT OF GREEN SPACES 80 LARK, MARILYN A. (REZONING FOR R94-39 & CU94-17 FOR A WAREHOUSE) 343 LATTA, KEVIN (REZONING PETITION FOR R94-34) 316 LAVY, TREVOR (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING FOR R94-57) 498 LEDBETTER, CARL (WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 205 LEWIS BROTHERS LEASING (REZONING FOR R94-5 & R94-6) 75 • LEWIS, CARL (BETWEEN 1534 & 1571 ARTHURS COURT V94-5) 425 LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST (LSD OF CROSSOVER TERRACE) 508 LINDSEY, JIM (LSD FOR LAKESIDE APARTMENTS, PHASE II) 7 LINDSEY, JIM (LSD FOR FAYETTEVILLE ATHLETIC CLUB) 14 LINDSEY, JIM (CU94-1 & LS #1) 3 LINDSEY, JIM (REZONING FOR R94-29) 337 LINDSEY, JIM (REZONING PETITION FOR R94-29) 264 Linton, Daniel & Hollingshead, Ron (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGS - LS #1 & #2) 525 LITTLE, BILLY (CU94-6 FOR A DUPLEX) 243 LITZINGER, W.C. & BEVERLY (LS #1 & CU 94-20 FOR A TANDEM LOT) 431 LITZINGER, W.C. & BEVERLY (CU94-20 FOR A TANDEM LOT) 387 LOOS, MICHAEL (CU94-27 FOR COUNSELING OFFICE) 467 MAGNOLIA PROPERTIES (PP MAGNOLIA CROSSING) 410 MAGNOLIA PROPERTIES (PP OF MAGNOLIA CROSSING) 380 MAJOR INVESTMENTS, INC (REZONING FOR R94-37 & R94-38) PUBLIC HEARING 340 MAJOR INVESTMENTS (PP OF WINDSOR SUITES HOTEL) 507 MAJOR INVESTMENTS INC. (LSD OF WINDSOR SUITES HOTEL) 485 MAJOR INVESTMENTS (REZONING R94-37 & R94-38) 319 MAJOR INVESTMENTS, INC (WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 342 MARTIN, ROBERT (CU94-15 FOR A TANDEM LOT) 307 MARTIN, ARTHUR R -O -W VACATION (R -O -W VACATION V94-3) 89 MASTER PARKS PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON 88 MASTER PARKS PLAN 56 MASTER STREET PLAN PUBLIC HEARING MATHIAS, SAM (PP FOR MADISON AVENUE) MATHIAS, SAM ( REZONING R94-3 & R944) MCGLAUGHLIN, ADRIAN (CU94-29 FOR A MECHANICAL REPAIR SERVICE) MCILROY, HAYDEN (REZONING PETITIONS NO. R94-10 & R94-11) MCILROY, HAYDEN (PP FOR MEADOWLANDS PHASES I & II) MCILROY, HAYDEN (REZONING APPEALS R94-1-, & R94-11) MEADOWLANDS PHASE I & II (PP FOR MEADOWLANDS PHASES I & II) MERSKY, DAVE (REZONING R94-52) MILLER, CHERYL & MCFARLAND, GENEVA (REZONING APPEAL NO. R94-35) MOSIER, CLIFF (PP FOR MOSIER ADDITION) MOSIER, CLIFF (FP FOR MOSIER ADDITION) NANCHAR & MARJORIE BROOKS (REZONING FOR R94-15) NATIONAL HOME CENTER (CU94-7) NEAL, SAMANTHA (LS) WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS NETTLESHIP, MAE (FP FOR SUNBRIDGE CENTER) NICKLE, CHARLES & ROBERT (REZONING PETITION R94-47) NOBLES, HELEN (CU94-28 FOR TANDEM LOT) NORTHWEST VILLAGE (PP) OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC 153, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE" PARKER, MAX (CU94-13 & CU94-15 & LS #1) PARKER, MIKE (FP FOR REMINGTON PLACE) PAYMENT OF PARK FEES PAZ, JUDITH (PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-56) PEARSON, C.T. & STANTON, L. (REZONING FOR R94-23 , 94-14 & R94-25) PEARSON, C.T. (REZONING FOR R94-22) PENDERGRAFT, NEAL (LS #1) PENNINGTON, MIKE (FP FOR OWL CREEK) PHELAN, DAVID A. (REZONING PETITION FOR R94-48) PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF MASTER PARK PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATION ON FILMING PLANNING COMMISSION PRETTY, TONY (REZONING FOR R94-1) PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE FAYETTEVILLE DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING DATES PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER STREET PLAN QUESTION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT TO HILLSIDE TERRACE REED, JOHN P & FRANCES L. (VACATION FOR ALLEY V94-9) REQUEST FOR CITY ATTORNEY OPINION RIDOUT, ROSS (LSD FOR RIDOUT LUMBER) ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS ADDITION (FP) ROUSE TRISTATE VENTURES (VACATION V94-13) ROUSE COMPANY (LSD FOR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL) RUMSEY, MARK (REZONING PERMITS FOR R94-40 & R94-41) 513 292 34 510 214 216 95 98 455 207 15 89 209 282 32 430 402 486 478 104 279 309 21 64 497 248 247 454 422 67 240 329 442 490 230 469 102 465 253 533 378 345 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ON ORDINANCES 102 Second Century Investments (Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition R94-54) 477 SECOND CENTURY INVESTMENTS (PP OF NORTHWEST VILLAGE) 477 SEQUOYAH SOUTH PHASE - COVENANT AMENDMENT 32 SEXTON & ASSOC (EASEMENT VACATION V94-5) 205 SIDE WALK WAIVER FOR CROSSOVER STORAGE 327 SMITH, HARVEY DR. & DILL, BILL (LS#1) 311 SOWDER, GLENN (LSD MOLLY COURT TOWNHOUSES) 244 SPURLOCK, DREW (FP FOR SOUTHWOODS ADDITION) 3 STARR, JOE FRED (LS #1, 42, & #3) 325 STATE FARM, INC. (LSD FOR STATE FARM OFFICE AND INSPECTION STATION) 522 STEPHENS, R.H. (CU94-23 FOR VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE) 416 STERLING ESTATES (FP) 443 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE 80 SUMMARY DOCUMENT OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL BUSINESS 202 SWAIN, DAVID (WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) 332 SWEETSER, JERRY (FP FOR BOXWOOD ADDITION) 368 SWEETSER, JERRY ( REZONING FOR R94-35 & R94-36) 317 SWEETSER, JERRY & ATLAS CONST. (FP FOR BOXWOOD ADDITION) 333 SWEPCO TOWER 202 SWEPCO (LSD FOR SWEPCO SUBSTATION) 446 TANNEBERGER, RICK (LSD FOR TANNEBERGER OFFICES) 406 • TAYLOR, BOBBY & IMA JEAN (REZONING REQUEST FOR R94-19) 212 THARALDSON DEVELOPMENT (V94-12) 512 TOBIN, PAT (LSD OF TOBIN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) 509 TRI STATE DEVELOPMENT (LSD FOR TRI STATE PRECAST) 407 TRIBBLE, MADELINE (LS 41 & #2) 5 TRISTATE JOINT VENTURE, INC (REZONING FOR R94-28) 261 UNDERWOOD, BILL (PP FOR THE CLIFFS PHASE I, A PUD) 76 UPDATE OF PARKS MASTER PLAN (AGENDA ITEM I 1-A) 1 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 21 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 253 WALKER, RALPH (R94-46) PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PETITION 376 WALKER, JOHN (REZONING FOR R94-50) 444 WALKER, RALPH (FP FOR WILLOW SPRINGS, PHASE II) 429 WALKER, RALPH (PP FOR WILLOW SPRINGS PHASE II) 99 WALKER, RALPH (FP FOR WILLOW SPRINGS PHASE I) 89 WATKINS, CLYDE (REZONING FOR R94-26) 256 WATKINS, CLYDE (REZONING FOR R94-45)FOR SAVANNA ESTATES PHASE 372 WILSON, JIM (LS 41) 389 WILSON, JIM (RIGHT OF WAY V94-6) 390 WORKING SESSION ON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 80 . WORTHEN NATIONAL BANK (V94-2) 439 WRIGHT, BRAD & VONDA (PP FOR HUNTCLUB SUBDIVISION) 117 WRIGHT, DALLAS & DEE (FP FOR MASTERS SUBDIVISION) 454 YOUNGMAN, DALE & EVELYN (PP OF TAMMY SUBDIVISION) 532 • LINDSEY, JIM (CU94-1 & LS #1) EUBANKS, DON (CU94-3 FOR A DUPLEX) HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-5) HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-4) JOHNSON, HAROLD (CU94-5 FOR DUPLEXES IN R-1 ZONING) CONDITIONAL USE FOR TANDEM LOT CU94-4 LITTLE, BILLY (CU94-6 FOR A DUPLEX) EIDSON, RAY (CU94-8) NATIONAL HOME CENTER (CU94-7) MARTIN, ROBERT (CU94-15 FOR A TANDEM LOT) KLING, MARY (CU94-9) EBE, PORTER (CU94-10 FOR A DUPLEX) PARKER, MAX (CU94-13 & CU94-15 & LS #1) GLASS, LINDA (CU94-16 FOR TUTORING) LARK, MARILYN A. (REZONING FOR R94-39 & CU94-17 FOR A WAREHOUSE) BOURLAND, FREDDIE (CU94-19 FOR A DUPLEX) LITZINGER, W.C. & BEVERLY (CU94-20 FOR A TANDEM LOT) CRAIN, SHEA & WEIDNER, GARY (CU94-18 FOR ANTIQUE STORE) BECKER, DENNIS (CU94-22 FOR DUPLEX) STEPHENS, R.H. (CU94-23 FOR VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE) Alltel Mobile Communications Inc (CU94-24 FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER) • Central Emergency Medical Service Inc (CU94-25 For Public Protection Facility) LOOS, MICHAEL (CU94-27 FOR COUNSELING OFFICE) NOBLES, HELEN (CU94-28 FOR TANDEM LOT) MCGLAUGHLIN, ADRIAN (CU94-29 FOR A MECHANICAL REPAIR SERVICE) CELLULAR ONE (CU94-30 FOR A PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITY) AMERICAN LEGION POST 27 (CU94-31 FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY) • 93 107 203 205 241 243 254 282 307 307 308 309 331 343 386 387 414 415 416 441 453 467 486 510 511 527 1. LINDSEY, JIM (CU94-1) CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ATHLETIC CLUB WAS APPROVED. PG3 2. EUBANKS, DON (CU94-3) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REQUEST FOR PROP- ERTY LOCATED 231 E. NORTH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUEST IS FOR A DUPLEX. THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED. PG 93 3. HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-5) CONDITONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT WAS AP- PROVED. PG107 4. HOWARD, MIKE (CU94-4) CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED RE- VERE PLACE, E OF CAMBRIDGE RD WAS APPROVED. PG 203 5. JOHNSON, HAROLD (CU94-5) CONDITIONAL USE FOR DUPLEXES IN R-1 ZON- ING WAS APPROVED. PG 205 6. CONITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT CU94-4 WAS APPROVED. PG 241 7. LITTLE, BILLY(CU94-6) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX WAS APPROVED. PG 243 8. EIDSON, RAY (CU94-8) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A RECREATION FUN PARK WAS APPROVED. PG 254 �. 9. NATIONAL HOME CENTER (CU94-7) CONDITIONAL USE TO DEVELOP A BUILDING MATERIALS ESTABLISHMENT IN A C-2 ZONING DISTRICT WAS APPROVED. PG 282 10. MARTIN, ROBERT (CU94-15) CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 OVERCREST WAS APPROVED. PG.307 11. KLING, MARY (CU94-9) CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5855 TACKETT DRIVE WAS APPROVED. PG 307 12. EBE, PORTER (CU94-10) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX WAS APPROVED. PG 308 13. PARKER, MAX (CU94-13 CU94-14) CONDITINAL USE FOR DUPLEXES WAS AP- PROVED. PG309 14. GLASS, LINDA (CU94-16) CONDITIONAL USE FOR TUTORING WAS AP- PROVED. PG 331 15. LARK, MARYILYN (CU94-17) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A WAREHOUSE WAS APPROVED. PG 343 16. BOURLAND, FREDDIE (CU94-19) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX WAS AP- PROVED. PG396 17. LITZINGER, W.C. & BEVERLY (CU94-20) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT WAS APPROVED. PG387 18. CRAIN, SHEA & WEIDNER, GARY (CU94-18) CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN AN- TIQUE STORE WAS APPROVED. PG 414 19. BECKER, DENNIS (CU94-22) CONDITMAL USE FOR A DUPLEX WAS APPROV- ED. PG 415 20. STEPHENS, R.H. (CU94-23) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE WAS APPROVED. PG 416 21. ALLTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC. (CU94-24) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WAS APPROVED. PG 441 22. CENTRAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE INC (CU94-25) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A PUBLIC PROTECTION FACILITY WAS APPROVED. PG 453 23. LOOS, MICHAEL (CU94-27) CONDITIONAL USE FOR COUNSELING OFFICE WAS APPROVED. PG 467 24. NOBLES, HELEN (CU94-28) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT WAS NOT APPROVED, PG 486 25. MCGLAUGHLIN, ADRIAN (CU94-29) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A MECHANICAL REPAIR SERVICE WAS APPROVED. PG 510 26. CELLUAR ONE (CU94-30) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITY WAS APPROVED. PG 511 27. AMERICAN LEGION POST 27 (CU94-31) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A RECREA- TIONAL FACILITY WAS APPROVED. PG527 0