Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 24, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson, Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, and Kenneth Pummill MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA Ms. Britton requested that consent agenda items 1.- B. (LSD - Johnson Duplexes) and 1.- C. (LSD - Spring Creek Centre - Lots 5 & 6) be discussed further and voted on individually. MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 1994. EASEMENT VACATION V94-1 CLARY DEVELOPMENT - 637 E JOYCE BLVD An easement vacation submitted by Robert Brown on behalf of Clary Development on property located at 637 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate the north 7.5' of a 20' east -west utility easement. FINAL PLAT - REMINGTON PLACE MIKE PARKER - N OF STEARNS, E OF FRONTAGE RD A final plat - Remington Place submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Mike Parker for property located on the north side of Stearns, east of Frontage Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 8.17 acres with 14 proposed lots. FINAL PLAT - SAVANNA ESTATES PHASE III MARK FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES - S OF SKILLERN, W OF OAKLAND ZION RD A final plat - Savanna Estates Phase III submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Buddy Peoples for property located on the south side of Skillern, west of Oakland Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 18.08 acres with 35 proposed lots. FINAL PLAT - DEERPATH ESTATES PHASE I K. J. ENTERPRISES - E OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF WYMAN RD A final plat - Deerpath Estates Phase I submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of K.J. Enterprises for property iocated on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Wyman Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 5.89 acres with 9 proposed lots. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 & #2 GREG ABLES - 4687 GULLEY ROAD (OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS) A waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot splits #1 & #2 submitted . by Greg Ables for property located at 4687 Gulley Road outside the city limits. 6�I Planning COmmission January 24, 1994 01 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the consent agenda except for items 1.- B. and 1.- C. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 6-0-0. 0- r7l Planning Commission January 24, 1994 . Page 3 The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Johnson Duplexes submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Daran Johnson for property located off Dockery Lane, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-21 Medium Density Residential and contains 1.40 acres with 6 proposed units. Mr. Bunn advised a special meeting had taken place the previous week to discuss the subject development. He advised the staff's recommendation was for approval of the large scale development plan with the following requirements: that a 40 -foot right- of-way be provided from the end of the existing Dockery Lane up to the development; that a 24 -foot asphalt street be built to city standards (with the exception of the width and the curb and gutter) be constructed within that 40 -foot right-of-way; that a sidewalk be constructed from where the new street would begin all the way through to the north side of the property. He noted there would be an 8 -foot sidewalk easement granted for the purpose of designating it a "city sidewalk" and perhaps relieve some of the liability for the developer in connection with placing a sidewalk on private property. He did state, however, the developer would still have to maintain the sidewalk. Mr. Bunn added the staff was also requesting a 50 -foot right-of-way easement be dedicated going toward the east from the subject property for eventual connection into Cherry Lane, Ms. Britton requested further information in regard to where the 50 -foot right-of-way • easement to the east would be located. Mr. Bunn noted the staff had conferred and agreed to accept a 40 -foot right-of-way dedication to the east. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers appeared before the Commission as the representative for the petitioner. He stated the developer was in agreement with all the staff's requirements except for the right-of-way easement going east. He noted the dedication of the right-of-way as requested had the potential of causing the developer to lose one of his proposed buildings. He contended it was unnecessary since Cherry Lane did not currently extend that far to the north and development there might never take place. Ms. Britton contended a right-of-way easement to the east would give the potential of linking the two streets together in the future to eliminate a dead-end street. She suggested a 40 -foot right-of-way easement was a good compromise. Mr. Pummill advised requiring a developer to dedicate a right-of-way easement in anticipation of the City eventually building a road did not seem necessary. He contended, in his experience over the last 25 years, any new roads in Fayetteville had been built by the developers and not the City. He informed the Commission this request from the staff had come about since the Subdivision Committee meeting and did not seem necessary since Mr. Johnson had made good faith effort to accommodate all the other recommendations from staff. Mr. Jones confirmed the request had not been brought up until after the Subdivision Committee meeting. In answer to an inquiry from the Commission in regard to whether the developer was still in agreement on the sidewalk construction (a 6 -inch base with 2 inches of asphalt on the front) and chip and seal streets, Mr. Jones advised the sidewalks • would be constructed to those specifications. He further stated a 24 -foot wide extension of the street was planned at the end of Dockery Lane up to the south property line; a double chip and seal private drive was planned through the duplex �.J Planning Commission January 24, 1994 • Page 4 development; and concrete drives with a 4 -foot concrete sidewalk were planned up to the duplexes. In response to comments regarding the recommendation to dedicate right-of-way, Ms. Little advised there had been a special Subdivision Committee meeting called to discuss the matter. She added the recommendation from the staff came about as a possible solution to the issue raised at the initial Subdivision Committee as to a possible way to extend the street to the north. In response to Commissioner Pummill's comments, she indicated it would not necessarily be a City requirement to build a street, but the responsibility of the developer, at such time as development took place on the large piece of undeveloped land at the north end of cherry Lane. Ms. Britton reiterated the right-of-way dedication request would not be out of line and reminded the Commission a developer of property on Cherry Lane had recently been required to install curb and gutter and improve his side of the street up to city standards for the entire length of his development. Mr. Jones pointed out the existing Dockery Lane was only chip and seal, not a city standard street. Mr. Johnson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and pointed out that the development which recently took place on Cherry Lane was on a city street not on private property like his. He suggested there were other possible avenues to connect a road to the east with future development of the several acres of undeveloped land behind the Mhoon Beef Company as well as to the north of Cherry Lane toward Highway • 265. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Britton in regard to the typical street requirement in private developments such as apartment complexes, Mr. Bunn advised the ordinance only required "a durable and dust -free surface" which had been interpreted by the City to mean a double chip and seal. He added most developers of apartment complexes would construct a better quality street than was required by ordinance because of the potential for high maintenance due to heavy traffic and garbage trucks. Mr. Jones advised there were problems associated with putting in curb and gutter on this short section of street because of the existing ditches along the road. He added the chances of Dockery Lane being improved to city standards in the near future were slim. Mr. Jones noted they originally proposed providing a double chip and seal for the 220 feet of road with a Bill of Assurance to pay for bringing the road up to city standards when the city improved Dockery Lane. Ms. Little informed the Commission Mr. Johnson had initially proposed a single-family residential development which would have required a standard city street and the standard frontage. She explained the private drive agreement came about after working with the developer over a period of several months and with the rezoning of the property to R-2 to allow a duplex development. She added the staff was in agreement with the sidewalk easement shown on the plat revised January 21, 1994. Ms. Britton reiterated her concern that an access to Cherry Lane was needed. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to the 24 -foot wide, 240 feet portion of the street being approved to meet city standards without curb and gutter, the sidewalk easement as requested, and the staff's comments with the exception of the recommendation to dedicate a 40 -foot right-of-way easement to the east. Planning Commission • January 24, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Head seconded the motion. The motion tied 3-3-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Head, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Reynolds, and Johnson voting "no". MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to all the staff's comments including the 40 -foot right-of-way easement to the east. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. • Planning Commission • January 24, 1994 Page 6 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CLARY DEVEWPMENT - S OF JOYCE BLVDr E OF MALL LN(637 E JOYCE BLVD) The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Spring Creek Centre - Lots 5 and 6 submitted by Robert Brown on behalf of Clary Development for property located on the south side of Joyce Boulevard, east of Mall Lane (637 E. Joyce Blvd.). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with 3.66 acres. Mr. Bunn stated the large scale was being submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. of Little Rock for the development of a 39,000 square foot retail sales building. He advised there were no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting regarding service to the site other than discussion regarding the paving of utility easements and the resulting costs involved in repairs to utilities. He noted the developer had agreed to provide conduits under the paved areas for the utility companies. He stated staff had advised the developer of the need for a grading plan, street lights, and a waiver of the size of parking spaces. He noted it had also been pointed out the owners would have to coordinate with the City on backflow prevention and fire service. He stated the staff supported a waiver of the parking space size (length of parking bay) involving the distance between parking rows. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, approval of a grading plan, waiver of the parking stall size, and construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances. Robert Brown, appearing before the Commission as a representative for the developer, . noted they had agreed to all the staff recommendations and had agreed to provide the utility companies with conduit or sleeves for pavement crossings as needed. He informed the commission a waiver of the depth of the parking stalls from the standard 20 feet to a proposed 18 feet was being requested in order to preserve more of the grading and landscaping space on the perimeters. Ms. Britton asked if the installation of bumpers was planned to prevent cars from running over the landscaping. Mr. Bunn advised bumpers were required by ordinance. Mr. Brown contended he had not been aware of the bumper requirement and it had never come up during their other developments. He advised they planned to put in a curb and gutter around the entire perimeter with an offset of approximately 2 feet to allow for the overhang of cars. He asked if it was possible to be granted a waiver of that requirement. Ms. Britton suggested that the extra curb cuts on to Joyce Street in the center of the development would cause traffic congestion. She contended, in her opinion, the developer would want to avoid that to maintain the traffic flow along the street and to prevent it being used as a cut through across the parking lot. Mr. Brown noted that could be a possibility, but it was not a concern of the developers/owners of property behind the National Home Center. He explained their view point was that consolidating the two curb cuts into one in a single development might be feasible, but this was two typical out parcel developments, each with their own access point. Ms. Britton contended they already had two curb cuts to her • way of thinking - one at each end. Mr. Brown advised they had common access agreements and parking agreements throughout the centre. 'Q� 6 Planning Commission • January 24, 1994 Page 7 Ms. Little stated that, after further discussion, the staff had concluded the bumper requirement was geared toward keeping sidewalks free from obstruction and was an ordinance they had not been requiring stringently. In response to concern about the curb cuts, she requested Mr. Brown address whether it would be an extreme detriment to eliminate the northern most curb cut proposed in the development. Mr. Brown stated he could not speak for Mr. Clary who was not in attendance, but the subject plan was the plan Mr. Clary had presented and shown to a number of the tenants and he felt confident Mr. Clary would like to have a curb cut in the central access point for the development. Ms. Britton advised there was 255 feet each direction from the center of the driveway to the curb at each end. She added curbs cuts had been limited in other developments to attempt to provide less congestion. Mr. Brown contended nothing was mentioned as far as restricting cuts throughout the entire preliminary platting and final platting process which had taken place in the last year. Ms. Little advised the curb cuts were not shown during the preliminary and final platting process. Jeff Maxwell, an employee of Clary Development, stated he believed the developer would feel eliminating that curb cut would be a detriment. He contended they might not be able to sell or lease street front property if it did not have street access. MOTION • Mr. Pummill moved to accept the large scale development on lots 5 and 6 of Spring Creek Centre as platted subject to staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Johnson, Head, and Suchecki voting "yea" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • Planning Commission • January 24, 1994 Page 8 PUBLIC BEARING - ANNEXATION fi REZONING R94-2 BEN CASTON CONSTRUCTION CO. - S OF MISSION BLVD, W OF FOX HUNTER RD The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of an annexation and rezoning petition R94-2 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Ben Caston Construction Co. for property located south of Mission Boulevard, west of Fox Hunter Road. The request was to annex a total of 101.65 acres and rezone a 77.2 acre portion of that property from A-1. Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised of the total 101.65 acres of property, the City of Fayetteville owned 13.51 acres; Ben Caston, Sr. and Jr. owned 77.2 acres; and Sam Mathias owned 10.94 acres. He clarified no other property was proposed for annexation other than the area had been petitioned by those three land owners. He advised the annexation petition had been heard and approved at 10 a.m. on this date by the Washington County Court. He reminded the Commission a preliminary plat for 58 proposed lots had been approved by them earlier on the portion of the property now owned by Ben Caston. He noted a replat of the subdivision has been requested by the Castons, but any discussion on the actual development of any of thes property would be addressed later during the subdivision approval process. Mr. Conklin advised an A-1 zoning was automatically assigned to land annexed into the City. He informed the Commission the portion of the subject property (10.94 acres) owned by Mr. Mathias was currently developed with a single-family home and several outbuildings. He stated Mr. Mathias had indicated to the staff he would be requesting R-1 and R -O zoning for his property in the future; however, no petition • for rezoning had been presented nor had the proper notification been given. He advised Mr. Mathias' property was not included in the subject rezoning petition. He further stated the A-1 zoning would be appropriate for the 13.51 acres owed by the City since the mayor had indicated a desire to use the land for a city cemetary, which would allow the City to sell cemetery plots to raise revenue for the incinerator debt. Mr. Conklin stated water and sewer were available to the site. He pointed out the City property and Mr. Mathias' property had frontage on Highway 45 and Ben Caston's property had frontage on East Fox Hunter Road and North Fox Hunter Road. He advised all on-site improvements and the proportionate share of off-site improvements would be the responsibility of the owner/developer. He noted Those improvements wwould be addressed during the subdivision review process. He advised A-1 zoning allowed for agricultural, single-family, residential and two- family residential uses by right and noted the proposed R-1 zoning was the most restrictive residential zoning allowing only single-family homes as a use by right. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the request to annex 101.65 acres and the request to rezone the 77.2 acre tract owned by the Castons from A-1 to R-1. He added a separate motion would be required for each action with the annexation being voted on first. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin stated Mr. Mathias had indicated he would like R-1 zoning on his property with the exception of the portion located on the corner of Highway 45 and Joe Fred Starr Road which he would like zoned R -O to allow a possible dentist office. Ms. Little advised the Commission that, although the Order of Annexation from the County indicated the Castons were the current owners of the 77.2 acre tract of land, . the Niblocks were still the current owners of the property. She stated negotiations with the Castons were currently underway to transfer ownership. J� Planning Commission • January 24, 1994 Page 9 Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering, appeared before the Commission as the representative for the petitioners, and advised the three owners had concurred and agreed to this annexation. He noted they concurred with the staff's recommendation and respectfully requested the Commission approve both the annexation and the rezoning and recommend approval to the City Council. Rosann Gonzalez, an adjacent property owner, expressed her concern about the proposed development of such a large area of land in her neighborhood. She inquired as to the purpose of annexing the property into the city. In response to an inquiry from Barbara Moore (an adjacent property owner), Mr. Suchecki advised that land owners did have the right to request annexation at any time, but the adjacent property owners would not be forced to annex their properties into the City. Ms. Moore pointed out that, if this 101.65 acres was annexed, it would be like an oval in the middle of their property and inquired as to how much input the adjacent property owners would have in the number of houses developed there. Mr. Suchecki advised any discussion in regard to development of the property would take place when the project was submitted for review. Ms. Britton noted rezoning the property would dictate what could be developed on it. Ms. Moore clarified that, if the request to annex and rezone was granted, there was a potential development of four houses per acre without any discussion with the adjacent property owners. • Mr. Suchecki reiterated the property could be developed to the maximum allowed by ordinance and that discussion would take place when the development plans were submitted for review. Ms. Little assured the adjacent property owners they would receive notification of any development on the subject property before it was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission to allow them to attend those meetings and voice their concerns. Carol Stanberry, an adjacent property owner, expressed her concern as to the reasons for the annexation proposal and as to the number of lots proposed. She informed the Commission there had been a problem with raw sewage backing up at her residence and on her property for several years because (as she understood from litigation) the current sewer improvements were made on the assumption that the old existing line was working properly. She further stated that one of her primary concerns was the reoccurrence of the problem with development of so many more homes in the area. Fran Alexander, a property owner one lot away, inquired as to how being so close to the city limits line would affect their fire protection, trash pick-up, and the use of the county road by people in the new development. She inquired if property owners near the subject property would be required to annex as well. Mr. Suchecki advised persons living within the city limits would have access to services and fire protection provided within the city; but, the services and protection provided to persons living outside the city limits would remain the same. He reiterated individuals could submit an annexation request which would be reviewed based on its own merit. He added the City attempted to annex property adjacent to the city limits in a consecutive and orderly manner. Ms. Little advised a request for property to be annexed which was not adjacent to the city limits could possibly be approved, but it would not be the norm. Ms. Alexander contended it was a shame property owners did not have a mechanism for • W Planning Commission January 24, 1994 Page 10 opposing a development in their neighborhood which would change the integrity of the area. In response to further comments, Ms. Little explained there were two methods of annexation: a petition by the owner and an initiation by the City. She advised a city -initiated annexation required a referendum of the voters in order to be approved. Curt Rom, an adjacent property owner, inquired about the greenspace requirement for the subject development. He advised he believed greenspace would have an impact on how the neighborhood reacted to the rezoning request. He added he hoped the commission would give due consideration to access to and from the proposed subdivision (which would involve 300 plus cars) as well as to the impact this development would have on the quality of life in the area and the public schools in the eastern Fayetteville area. Ms. Little advised development of property located within the county (within the City's planning area) would be subject to the subdivision regulations for the planning area, but the greenspace ordinance could only be enforced on developments within in the city limits. She noted the greenspace ordinance required the dedication of .025 acres of land per lot or the payment of $225 per single-family lot in lieu of land to be used for the development of parks either on the property or in that quadrant of the city. Lora Loge, owner of property on the corner of Highway 45 and Fox Hunter, asked for further clarification on property annexed against the owner's wishes for the purpose of developing a road across the property. Ms. Little explained annexation and right-of-way acquisition were two separate issues. She stated any City -initiated annexation against the owner's wishes would require a referendum by the voters, but the acquisition of property for road right- of-way needed for public access went through a different process. She advised any right-of-way acquisitions outside the city limits would be a county issue. Harley Brigham, an adjacent property owner at 1801 Fox Hunter Road, appeared before the Commission to go on record as being in favor of the annexation and the rezoning. Ms. Britton reminded the Commission they had voiced a great deal of recently (when an earlier rezoning and 30 -lot subdivision had been presented for review) in regard to what impact further development on Mission Boulevard (Hwy 45) would have on traffic in that area. She expressed her concern that.approval of the subject request to annex and rezone 77.2 acres would give the potential for development of 300 additional lots which would undoubtedly impact the traffic. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the annexation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Johnson, Head, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". �3() I* • • Planning Commission January 24, 1994 Page 11 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request from A-1 to R-1 as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Johnson, Head, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Ms. Little reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the Parks Board members on February 14th to discuss how the greenspace fees are being applied and how they could coordinate with the Parks Board. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. �3 /