Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-14 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 14, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others PRELIMINARY PLAT - JACKSON PLACE HARRY JACKSON & PARTNERS - N OF MISSION, E OF OLD WIRE RD The first item was a preliminary plat for Jackson Place submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Harry Jackson & Partners for property located north of Mission Blvd. and east of Old Wire Road containing 24.74 acres with 68 proposed lots. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Don Bunn noted he had submitted his original report to the Commission at the previous hearing on this item. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission this item had been tabled at an earlier meeting with the request for a drainage report. Mr. Bunn noted the subdivision plat had been tabled previously in order to allow Milholland Engineering to prepare a drainage report for the area. He reminded • the Commission the matter had been tabled again at their last meeting because the staff had not had sufficient time to review the report. He added the staff now had a supplementary report on the drainage. Mr. Bunn confirmed the estimated maximum flows for the various frequencies of storms from a 10 -year up to a 100 -year storm. He advised his computations showed a slightly higher flows than the Milholland report but, generally speaking, they were in the same range. He stated the capacity of the box culvert under Old Wire Road, which was approximately 930 to 940 CFS, was sufficient to carry the estimated maximum flows from somewhere between a 40 and an 80 -year storm depending on the flow data used. He contended the box culvert would take a flow from a 50 -year storm and was considered adequate for that particular location. Mr. Bunn added he had looked into Mr. Perry's flooding problem north of the subject development along the east side of Old Wire Road. He advised he had taken some elevations using a photograph submitted by Mr. Perry as a base and confirmed the water at that elevation would be crossing Old Wire Road and crossing over a rock wall on the far side. He explained the reason the water crossed the road at that point was because the creek was not a well-defined drainage ditch at that point and going back to the east. He stated there had been a berm along that north side which had been breached. He explained the low point in Old Wire Road was actually several hundred feet north of the box culvert and, according to the contour lines on a map, that should be the natural place for the crossing. He stated the water would cross the road at that location before it completely filled up the box. He explained the solution was to confine the flow into the channel which did have a good grade (falling approximately 1 1/2 percent across the property from east to west). He further stated there had not been a detailed design on the channel but it was his understanding the channel would probably be around 20 feet wide and 4 to 5 feet deep in order to handle the flows. He further advised the flood plain would be filled in to make some of the proposed lots usable on the north side of the 19A Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 2 creek. He stated the filling of the flood plain would further confine the creek and keep water from going to the north at that location. He added that Ms. Cook, who lived at the corner of Ranch and the east side of Old Wire Road, had contacted him concerning a flooding situation which she had experienced. He pointed out the water flowed to the north at that point and he had assured her the development of the subject subdivision would not adversely affect her situation as long as the water flowing to the north off of her property was not impeded by filling lots or some other action by the developer. He also noted he had talked with the engineer regarding the possibility of the city joining in with the developer to install some properly sized drainage pipe from Ranch north along Old Wire Road. He explained such action would insure the drainage went through the area without being impeded and would also reduce the frequency of flooding problems in the low area. He advised he also looked at the two downstream structures and had determined the one at Ash Street had a 2500 CFS capacity and the other structure carried approximately 1,100 CFS and would sustain somewhere between a 50 and 20 -year storm. He advised this structure would be improved. Be advised that, as far as the stream conditions downstream, the channel did not carry the 50 or 100 -year flood; there was a 230 to 250 foot flood plain all along the creek according to the Corp of Engineers Flood Plain maps. He stated he believed that, when the subject development was complete, it would probably add from 30 to 50 CFS of flow which was approximately 5 to 7% of the total flow. He further stated the staff needed some additional details from downstream to determine exactly what the affect would be and to determine if some kind of retention was necessary to protect downstream. He further stated that, as far as the east side of Old Wire Road was concerned, it appeared the box culvert would carry the flow if the water was channeled properly. Mr. Bunn advised that off-site improvements to Old Wire Road were not mentioned in his original report. He explained that future plans for the road could involve more than just a standard city street with a possibility that four -lanes would be required. He stated the standard requirement was to improve one-half of the street to city street standards (15 feet in this case) with curb and gutter. He advised the staff was considering either money in escrow require the developer to spend the money on the street improvements (widening of the road, improvement of the shoulders, and probably an extension of the box culvert), but omitting curb and gutter in order to eliminate wasting money at the time the road was improved since a curb and gutter would have to be removed if the road was changed in a few years. Mr. Nickle expressed concern regarding the additional impact on the box culvert at Overcrest since it was apparently already at capacity and this development would add 30 to 50 cubic feet per second flow. Mr. Bunn stated the ordinance indicated the developer's share of those off-site improvements had to be in direct relationship to the increased flows which in this case was a small percentage (probably half of the 5 to 7% that was at the first Old Wire Road crossing). He explained there would be the same total flows but much less impact. Ms. Britton stated Mr. Bunn's original report stated the creek channel was not sufficient to carry the 100 -year flood and asked that this be clarified before • any development took place. • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Tarvin asked if the 230 - 250 foot wide flood plain along the creek would be narrowed because of the proposed development. Mr. Bunn that, because of the fill-in, it would be narrowed without affecting the elevations. A. C. Perry, a resident of Old Wire Road, requested the Commission look at a photograph which reflected that drainage which was supposed to go through the 4 x 5 existing culvert. He expressed his concern that, if a concrete dike was not built on the north side of the channel, it would wash out. Mr. Milholland, representing the developer, stated the results of his calculations were that an improved straight channel, without obstruction of debris, would allow the water to flow. He explained that, through development of the subdivision, there would be a defined channel. He also advised there would be fill in the 100 -year flood plain on several of the lots which would raise the sites at least 2 feet above the 100 -year flood plain. He also noted that, if necessary, they would fill on the north bank to more define the channel. He contended the water would be confined across the entire property. Mr. Nickle asked if he was speaking of a 20 foot flat bottom ditch with 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 side slopes grassed in or a concrete lining. Mr. Milholland stated it would be a natural ditch without a concrete lining at roughly 4 to 5 feet deep. Mr. A. C. Perry asked who he could contact if Mr. Milholland's plan did not work. • in answer to a question from Mr. Perry, Mr. Tarvin explained the 100 -year flood meant there was a 1 in 100 probability of the area flooding every year. Mr. Bunn stated Mr. Perry could contact the City with flooding problems and advised he had informed Mr. Perry that there could be, at some point, a storm event would produce a flow higher than what was designed. He explained the plan might not eliminate Mr. Perry's problem but it should occur far less frequently. Walt Stephens, a resident of Ranch Drive, asked if the run-off coefficient and the intensity values Mr. Milholland used were acceptable with the staff. Mr. Bunn advised the intensity values were acceptable and that Mr. Milholland had used around .5 to .55 while the staff used a .6. Mr. Stephens advised the Planning Commission he had sent Mr. Milholland's report to an Graham Engineering of Little Rock, who were drainage consultant engineers. He stated he had a preliminary study from them in which they found two inconsistencies in the report: the runoff coefficient used in the report was at the lowest end of acceptable range and should be a much higher coefficient at a much higher range and, in regard to the intensity values used throughout the study, there were several inconsistencies with the 10 -year criteria and the 100 - year criteria. In answer to a question from Mr. Stephens in regard to the direction of the sewer, Mr. Bunn advised there was a sewer which ran generally with the creek. He acknowledged the flow would go to the Old Wire and Pittman Road area. Mr. Stephens informed the Commission Fayetteville was under an EPA mandate to reduce the amount of overflow in the sewer system because of periodic runoffs in the sewer system in the Pittman Road area. He added most of the residents in . the area were not fighting against development of the property but were concerned about the subject plat. He requested the Commission deny the plat because of concerns with traffic problems, sewer problems, and drainage problems. He added Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 4 the City of Fayetteville did not have a Comprehensive Drainage Plan which would require the development to retain the water that was currently retained on the property. Mr. Milholland stated he had reviewed more than one type of rainfall and the overall perspective of the entire water shed which was why his study referred to the 10 -year flood in some instances the 100 -year flood in others. Mr. Tarvin asked if they had traced each event through the overall perspective or if they had looked at different rainfall frequencies at different places. Mr. Milholland stated they looked at the entire drainage tributary which came into the creek that crossed the property. He advised they had used the Arkansas Department of Highway Manual for drainage recommendations as to the number of acres per a certain method. Mr. Bunn noted that, in regard to traffic, the 68 lots proposed would generate approximately 640 two-way trips per day. Ross Tompkins, a resident of Old Wire Road, expressed his concern regarding the drainage study including the fact that the potential maximum detention or retention had not been addressed. He explained it had not been adjusted for a decrease in the swamp or pond area which was an important factor. He contended an area that compromised 18 of the entire run-off area could change the drainage • peak discharge by as much as 13B which would be a definite affect. He further stated the addition of soil in the flood plain areas would change the run-off coefficients as well as the retention data. He contended that, because there was no analysis or proof that the fill would not affect areas downstream or adjacent, the preliminary plat should be disapproved. He also suggested the comment on the preliminary plat which stated there were no planned improvements to Old Wire Road should be omitted.' Mr. Milholland addressed Mr. Tompkins' comments in regard to the pond referred to as a retention pond. He advised the pond was currently not a retention pond so it would not have any affect on drainage. Ms. J. McKinney, 940 Arlington Terrace, expressed concern regarding the impact of additional traffic from the proposed subdivision would have on the neighborhood. She noted the stub -out to Mr. Torbett's property to the north provided the potential of more traffic coming out onto Mission in the future. She advised the majority of the concerns of the area people residents in regard to the proposed development related to design changes. Mr. Larry Tompkins, 1701 Old Wire Road, advised he had reviewed the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and believed the basic problem was that they were relating a particular concept to the whole idea of community building, neighborhood building. He stated another problem was in regard to social and behavioral systems -- the idea of creating a sense of place, a sense of connectivity within the idea of neighborhood or community. He commented on the basic guidelines set forth in the 2010 Plan for decision making by the Commission in regard to traffic and the use of sidewalks and trails. He also suggested Old Wire Road not be widened to four -lanes 'in order to provide self-regulation. He noted the 1970 General Plan indicated the subject area as a green space. He advised the Commission should disapprove the preliminary plat particularly in light of the concept of how it contributed to the 2010 Plan with regard to the . village concept and the concept of neighborhood. • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Dick Rogers pointed out the elementary school to be located on East Mission would lessen the traffic in and around Root School. He contended development was not good or bad based on any one factor, but there was a combination of factors which affected the quality of the development. He advised the proposed development had a minimum square footage of 1700 square feet homes and the average home price would be approximately $125,000. He advised the average home in the proposed subdivision would occupy approximately 10 to 126 of the square footage of the lot and the average lot size nearly doubled what the city required by ordinance. Ms. Pam McClelland, 7 Ranch Drive, inquired as to whether filling a spring -fed pond and a flood plain area would not violate the Federal Wetlands Regulations. She added sidewalks on Tracy, Rhonda, and Leah Drive would be a needed asset. Mr. Bunn advised filling the flood plain did not violate any regulations; however, the matter of wetlands was a totally separate question from flood plains and he did not know if the Corp of Engineers had looked at this property in regard to wetlands. He advised wetlands were not permitted to be altered or deleted without some type of replenishment. Ms. Little advised there had been an effort to obtain a trail within this development and the staff had discussed not putting sidewalks along some of the internal streets. Mr. Milholland stated the developer had initially proposed constructing sidewalks • in compliance with city ordinances but, in the review process, it had been determined a sidewalk was also required along Mission. He added they also concur with improvements along Old Wire Road, including a sidewalk. He stated a proposal had been offered by the staff to put a 5 -foot trail along the creek from Old Wire Road to Jordan Drive in lieu of the sidewalks along part of the interior streets. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding safety for the children who would be walking along the interior streets to school. She contended the trail along the creek was important but not at the cost of the interior sidewalks. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated the staff had preferred the trail be constructed of asphalt but, due to the large turning radius required by an asphalt machine, an asphalt trail would have to be constructed by hand. She noted concrete had been discussed but the matter had not been resolved. She asked for the Commission's preference as to whether they want trails, a combination of trail and sidewalk, or another compromise. Mr. Allred suggested the trails be left in a native state with an easement and the sidewalks on the interior streets be required. Mr. Milholland asked how the trail would be defined. Mr. Allred stated the Trails Committee could make that determination. Mr. Tarvin pointed out if the channel was dug 20 feet wide and 5 feet deep with some filling on each side in order to contain the water to direct it to the box culvert, most of the trees would be lost. He stated he was not sure there would be a scenic trail area. He also contended there would be a problem with fencing backyards and maintenance of the trail. Me. Little advised if a trail was allowed, an easement would be given with the condition that no fencing would be allowed across it. • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 6 In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated that, if an easement was designated for the purpose of a trail, the City could make the decision in regard as to when it was needed. Mr. Head noted some of the lots on Rhonda backed up to existing houses. He asked if there was any plan for a definition between the homes on Ranch Drive and the subject subdivision. Mr. Milholland stated there was an existing fence, brush and small trees along there now. Ms. Little advised the ordinances did not provide for any screening between residential properties. Mr. Milholland stated it was fairly common for people to fence their backyards. Ms. Britton expressed concern that some of the lots would be created completely with fill with lot 56 being the worst. She added she was uncomfortable with the lots being sold as buildable lots. She suggested allowing an internal street (possibly Sheila Drive) to be narrower than a standard street as an economic incentive to the developer to redesign some of the lot lines so that 34, 35, and 56 would not exist. Mr. Milholland contended the representative of Corp of Engineers has made it very clear it was not uncommon to fill the flood plain on house sites. He added the • developer had proposed to raise the elevation of the lots, compact the fill material to 90% and note the elevations on the final plat. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to an easement for the trails to be dedicated, improvements to old Wire Road to be up to the discretion of the City staff, sidewalks in accordance with the City ordinances, and all other staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Mr. Nickle asked if it was necessary to include in the motion some provision for the staff to assess any off-site impact. Mr. Allred contended the staff should already have that authority and he would expect them to exercise that authority if there was a problem, but he would amend the motion. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Allred amended his motion to include a provision that the staff have the authority to assess any off-site impact and address any problems accordingly. Mr. Pummill seconded the amendment. The motion carried with a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Johnson, Reynolds, Suchecki, Tarvin, Pummill, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Head voting "no 0 Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 7 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLIT tl CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - 971 LANCELOT STREET The next item was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations -lot Split #1 submitted by Lossing Realty on behalf of Cumberland Presbyterian Church for property located at 971 Lancelot Street and zoned R-11 Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission the item had been tabled at the previous meeting because of a requirement that the Church grant an additional easement along Highway 16 as condition of the lot split approval. He explained the staff had requested an additional 20 feet for a portion of the property and then a triangle which spread out to 40 feet at one end. He stated the staff had been in contact with the Highway Department and were informed the Highway Department owned additional right-of-way. He explained staff had amended their request to .03 acres for right-of-way. He stated the issue at the previous meeting had been the value of the right-of- way property and whether the City should be asking for the additional right-of- way in exchange for the approval of the lot split. He explained the Church believed they should be allowed to be the beneficiary of the value of the property. He pointed out the value of .03 of an acre was probably not going to be a great deal. Mr. Bunn stated the staff's recommendation on requiring the right-of-way still • stood. He noted it would be satisfactory to the City if the Church contacted the Highway Department and sold the .03 acre at whatever value the Highway Department placed on it. Ms. Lossing of Lossing Realty asked if the lot split could be approved with the condition that the Church would have an allotted period of time to pursue the sale to the Highway Department. Mr. Bunn stated that would be his recommendation. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn advised the sidewalk requirement remained the same. ILCe7 l/(*RI Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot Split subject to the staff's comments. Mr. Nickle Seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 8 MASTER PARRS PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON The next item was a report on the Master Parks Plan by Commissioner Johnson. she stated a meeting had been held last Friday in order to review the Parks Master Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. She noted that, as a result of that meeting, the Subcommittee had submitted a 4 -page report to the full Planning Commission setting forth their recommendation. She gave a detailed summary of the recommended changes to the Parks Plan. She advised they had prioritized the categories as to which was considered more important with the first priority in their opinion being the following three things: developing facilities, acquiring park land, and seeking additional funding for maintenance and development of new and existing facilities. Ms. Johnson advised they also recommended the Parks Commission explore the possibility of utilization of some of those properties such as open spaces and athletic fields with the University of Arkansas in the same way it had been explored with the public schools. NOTION Me. Johnson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Master Parks Plan with the changes noted by the Subcommittee. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0.. G:iI4[6RI Ms. Johnson moved to request the Park Commission explore the possibility of an agreement for utilization of University of Arkansas open spaces, athletic fields, tennis courts, etc. as greenspace or park land with the inclusion of these areas in the mapping of greenspace in Fayetteville as a minimum. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill Mr. Tarvin asked if the citizens would.have use of those areas. Ms. Johnson advised the Subcommittee was just asking that the Parks Commission explore the possibility of an agreement for utilization. Mr. Nickle noted the Agri Park was recognized as a park on the Parks maps even though it was not a city park. The motion carried 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 9 CONSENT AGENDA There was a request by members of the Commission and the staff to discuss and vote on consent agenda Items D. Large Scale Development - Citizens Bank, E. Large Scale Development - Fayetteville Elementary School, and G. Conditional Use CU94-3 separately. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1994. FINAL PLAT - WILLOW SPRINGS PHASE I RALPH WALKER - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF RUPPLE ROAD A final plat submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ralph Walker for property located on the north side of Wedington, west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and R-2, Medium Density Residential. FINAL PLAT - MOSIER ADDITION CLIFF MOSIER - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON & 54TH A final plat submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Cliff Mosier for property located on the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and 54th • Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 2.07 acres with 2 lots. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CARPENTER MINI -STORAGE CARL CARPENTER - S OF 15TH, E OF S SCHOOL AVE A large scale development submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Carl Carpenter for property located on the south side of 15th Street, east of South School Avenue and zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial with 14.98 acres. R -O -W VACATION V94-3 ARTHUR MARTIN - VACATE LINDA LN, E OF WALNUT, W OF RAYVIEW A right-of-way vacation request #V94-3 submitted by Arthur Martin. The request was to vacate Linda Lane, east of Walnut Avenue and west of Rayview Drive. MOTION Mr. Head moved to approve the consent agenda with the exclusion of Items D. E, and G. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 9-0-0. 0 . Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CITIZENS BANK CITIZENS BANK - W OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF MISSION BLVD The next item was a Large Scale Development for Citizens Bank submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, & Associates for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Mission Boulevard and containing 1.92 acres. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility representatives in regard to this development other than some easements and conduits requested and agreed to by the owner. He stated staff had questions on the location of a driveway in relation to the driveway into Lindsey Mercantile, the drainage on the site, and the right-of-way on Highway 265 (Crossover). He stated no additional issues were raised at the subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; construction of sidewalks as required by city ordinances; dedication of a total of 50 feet of right-of-way along Highway 265; approval of a Tree Preservation Plan; and the filing of an easement plat. Ms. Britton expressed her concern regarding the curb cut which went directly from Highway 265 to the bank at a location fairly close to an intersection where traffic stacked up. She suggested they clear up congestion and confusion by having an ingress/egress off the access easement rather than having the curb cut. • The developer's representative stated the access mentioned currently existed and provided two accesses from the property. He contended the direct drive out would enable a quicker access onto the highway. He added there were future plans to possibly route the main entrance to the bank on to the west and out to Highway 45 (Mission) for a primary entrance and access area. Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, & Associates representing the developer advised the access was existing and should have been approved by the Arkansas Highway Department already. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development as presented subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried B-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no". . Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 11 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAYETTEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS - N OF MISSION BLVD, E OF CROSSOVER RD The next item was a a gg a development for Fayetteville Elementary School submitted by Laleh o`iSf Hailey and Associates Architects on behalf of Fayetteville Public Schools for property located on the north side of Mission Boulevard and east of Crossover Road. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains 60.07 acres. Mr. Bunn stated there were changes in the staff's conditions of approval in regard to this development. He referred to Item #6 which indicated the recommendation was subject to consideration of a permanent access to Highway 45 provided a safe access point could be located. He advised that, as a condition of approval, the staff wanted a permanent access to Highway 45 provided a safe access point conditioned on sight distance could be located. He advised that, at the time Township Road was extended to the site, it would be totally contained within the school property. He stated an additional condition should be that a 60 -foot right-of-way be parallel and adjacent to the north property line of the school site. He stated most of the right-of-way was contained within the 100 -year flood plain and should not cause any problems as far as construction was concerned. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained the 60 -foot right-of- way would not be for the construction of the part of Township being extended, but • would be for a possible future extension of Township on to the east and a possible tie back into Highway 45 at some point. He clarified it would be along the north property line going east and west. AA lY YnoeT� Ms. Laleh Rmimorez asked for clarification that the staff wanted condition #6 to be as a recommendation that the school provide permanent access providing that there was a safe access point. Mr. Bunn agreed and noted they would need to work with Mr. Franklin of the Traffic Department in determining the access point. Jim Akin, 1238 Box Avenue, expressed his concern in regard to the possibility that Box Avenue might become a feeder bus route connecting to the center of this property. AynlY m0fL Ms. Am;norae assured him it would not. Mr. Akin also requested the overhead power line along the property line be offset to alleviate having to remove approximately 60 feet of 30 foot tall pine trees along the property line. Mr. Tarvin asked if the school board would have any consideration for relocating the power line. Nm�f nuGZ Ms. Aminnre-Z advised they were working with Mr. Milholland for an additional topographic survey of property and had talked about trying to adjust the easements and the road, if necessary, to go around the trees. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn reiterated the staff felt another access was needed on Highway 45. . Mr. Allred advised the Subdivision Committee had determined the access should be a requirement and he suggested it be included in any motion with the condition 9i • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 12 the large scale come back to the staff or Planning Commission for reevaluation if a safe access point could not be found. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to the staff's comments including the access onto Highway 45. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 9-0-0. • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-3 - DUPLEX DON EUBANKS - 231 E NORTH STREET The next item was a conditional use request CU94-3 submitted by Don Eubanks for property located at 231 E. North Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a duplex. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the staff's recommendation to deny the conditional use was based on the fact that the site was located within an existing single-family residential neighborhood, the opposition to the development by the neighborhood, and the proposal to pave the drive completely around the structure. He added the staff believed that would not be appropriate from the standpoint of compatibility and conserving the neighborhood as single-family. Gretchen House, an adjoining property owner, expressed her opposition based on the problems with trash being thrown across to their property from duplexes located behind them and the problems with sewage line back up at the site. Another resident of the area on Waneetah Street expressed his opposition to the conditional use. Steve House, an adjoining property owner, advised he and other immediate neighbors had circulated a petition with 23 signatures in opposition to this request. • NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to deny the conditional use request. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 9-0-0. • . Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL NO, R94-8 GERTRUDE BURSON - S OF SEILLERN, E OF CROSSOVER The next item was a public hearing for rezoning Appeal No. R94-8 submitted by Truman Yancey on behalf of Gertrude Burson for property located on the south side of Skillern Road, east of Crossover Road. The request is to rezone 21.75 acres from A-1. Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Tim Conklin stated the site was part of a larger tract with frontage on Township Road. He advised the applicant had requested the rezoning of the property to be used along with additional land to the north as part of future additions to Savanna Estates Subdivision. He noted all on-site and off-site improvements would be determined and required through the subdivision process. He further stated access to the north, south, east, and west would have to be decided when the land developed. He stated the applicant had been advised that, in 'order to divide the subject property off of the parent tract, a lot split application would be required. He noted adjacent zoning and land use to the north and east was R-1 with single-family residences and to both the south and west was A-1 with vacant land. Mr. Conklin submitted an aerial photograph to the Commission showing the approximate boundaries and noted the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval of the requested rezoning. Truman Yancey, representing Mrs. Gertrude Burson, stated he had not encountered • any obstacle or anything conflicting with the staff's recommendation. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle in regard to points of access, Mr. Yancey stated the only reasonably available access was to Skillern. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-8 subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 9-0-0. • 9y Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEALS NO. R94-9, R94-10, AND R94-11 HAYDEN MCILROY - S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE, E OF 46TH AVE The next item was a public hearing for rezoning Appeals No. R94-9, R94-10, and R94-11 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Hayden McIlroy for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, east of 46th Avenue. R94-9 is a request to rezone 4.39 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential -Office. R94-10 is a request to rezone 14.77 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. R94-11 is a request to rezone 45.66 acres from A- 1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin noted the entire site contained 64.82 acres. He advised the next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for 104 lots on 40 acres of the subject tract. He advised the Commission the applicant proposed to develop this portion of the site (40 acres out of a total of 64.82 acres) with two Residential -Office lots, 42 duplex lots, and 61 single-family lots. He pointed out the adjacent zoning and land use to the north, south and west was A-1 with an existing single- family development to the west. He explained that permitted uses by right under each zoning district. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezonings. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the owner (Hayden McIlroy), stated the applicant believed he had a reasonable request and was available to answer any questions. Is In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding restricting the R-1.5 request so that triplexes would not be allowed, Mr. Jorgensen stated they would agree to that restriction. O.E. Luttrell, 4480 West Luttrell Lane, expressed his concern for the placement of a subdivision with smaller lots adjacent to his large tract of land. He noted that surrounding properties were taken into consideration when appraisals were made of property and he was worried about his property value. He also expressed concern regarding the drainage problems the area had since 1969. He pointed out the drainage problems would be impacted even more by a development of the proposed type. He advised he was opposed to development of anything other than single-family dwellings because of the added traffic and drainage problems. Millard Goff expressed his concern regarding the drainage problem. He stated the problem had been skirted around for years with the promise to fix it later. He noted he had written Mr. Don Bunn and had received a response that the drainage problems would be resolved before the final plat of willow Springs was approved but the final plat had been approved earlier in the meeting. He advised his main concern was for a box culvert which was not doing the job of containing the drainage and noted there was a hole under the pavement where water has run around the culvert. His request was that the drainage issue be addressed and resolved before any more development took place. Chairman Tarvin advised this type of item needed to be discussed when they reviewed the preliminary plat. In response to Mr. Goff's comments, Mr. Bunn advised it had been determined most of the drainage went to the north at that point. As Mr. Goff questioned Mr. Bunn further in regard to the drainage, Mr., Allred • called for a point of order. He noted that Mr. Goff s comments were well taken, but they were comments which should be reserved for the preliminary plat discussion and not the rezoning request. li Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 16 Mike Pehosh, 788 N. 46th Street, stated the box culvert Mr. Goff referred to was in his front yard. He expressed concern regardomg the drainage problems. He contended the drainage problems were pertinent to the rezoning discussion. He advised drainage had not been addressed by the Highway Department and the City as promised and had increased on his property in the last couple of years. He also noted he was present at a Planning Commission meeting approximately a year ago when discussion had taken place regarding the north side of Highway 16. He reminded the Commission they had agreed there would be no R-1.5 zoning on the south side of Wedington. Mary Alice Kenney, 846 46th Street, expressed her concern regarding drainage and traffic problems in the area and the effects of further development on the existing problems. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-9 subject to staff's comments The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-10 subject to staff's recommendation for a restriction • of a density no higher than duplexes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Allred stated there had been a consensus of the Commission to restrict development on the south side of Wedington and he felt they need to adhere to it. Ms. Little stated she remembered a comment by the Planning Commission to establish a rule of thumb in regard to development on the south side of Wedington until the General Plan had been adopted. Ms. Britton reminded the Commission Mr. Neilson (a planning consultant) had suggested a percentage of higher density versus lower density in a neighborhood. She stated she believed the percentage 20%. Ms. Britton stated was not opposed to duplexes, but she believed it should be a smaller percentage of the total property. Mr. Conklin advised that, even though Willow Springs and Fieldstone Additions were zoned R-1.5, they were developing as single family units. Mr. Reynolds stated he remembered their comment regarding R-1 zoning being preferred on the south side of Wedington but noted the staff was recommended the R-1.5 zoning for 42 duplexes. Ms. Little explained the staff felt their recommendation was appropriate in light of the General Plan. She further stated she believed mixing of uses should occur and those types of units were marketable within the community. The motion was denied with a vote of 3-5-1 with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, • and Pummill voting "yea", Commissioners Suchecki, Tarvin, Allred, Britton, and Head voting "no'• and Commissioner Johnson "abstaining". • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 17 MOTION Mr. Allred to recommend an R-1 zoning for the 14.77 acres (Rezoning R94-10). The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Chairman Tarvin questioned whether the Commission had the authority to approve a lesser zoning (R-1) on a petition that had been denied as requested (R-1.5). Ms. Little advised the Commission there was a provision allowing that authority in the ordinance. Ms,�Johnson commented that perhaps they should address the representative, Mr. Jorgensen, to see whether or not there was a desire to rezone the property to R- 1. Mr. Jorgensen stated the developer was not in total agreement with R-1, but such a motion would not prevent him from coming back with another request in the future to rezone to R-1.5 for a lesser amount of land. The motion carried 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval the rezoning appeal R94-11 to R-1 as requested subject to staff comments. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 18 PRELIMINARY PLAT - MEADOWLANDS PHASES I & II HAYDEN MCILROY - S OF WEDINGTON, B OF 46TH AVE The next item was a preliminary plat of Meadowlands Phases I & II submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Hayden McIlroy. The property is located on the south side of Wedington Drive, east of 46th Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and R-1, Low Density Residential (Proposed R94-9, 10 & 11) and contains 40 acres with 104 lots. Mr. Bunn advised there were no significant comments by any of the utility representatives other than some additional easements and crossings requested that were agreed to by the owner. He stated staff comments included questions on the status of the alleyways, location of fire hydrants, parks fees, drainage, location of street lights and on solid waste pickup. He stated there was very little additional comment at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; the approval of a tree preservation plan for the site; payment of parks fees and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; construction of permanent cul-de-sacs at all dead end locations if the adjacent property was not developed within three years. He clarified the Parks Board had recommended land in lieu of fees. He also referred to the final plat which had been approved for Willow Springs, Phase I • which showed a 660 -foot drive going into Willow Springs on Highway 16. He explained Weeping Willow Drive went into the development and the break occurred at about the 660 -foot mark. He noted the drainage in the area being developed went to the north. Ms. Johnson asked what affect their previous vote against the R-1.5 rezoning would have on this development. Ms. Little advised the staff was checking the lot minimums to see if they were in compliance with R-1. Mr. Allred inquired as to whether they could require a preliminary drainage study be submitted with the preliminary plat. He stated some of the land appeared to be in a low lying area where there were some significant concerns on the drainage. He noted this would avoid the misinformation and controversy expressed earlier in the evening. Mr. Bunn advised it had not been the normal sequence for a drainage study to be done prior to approval of the preliminary plat. Ms. Britton noted that, since the development was platted with the assumption that a portion of it would be zoned R-1.5, she was not comfortable with assuming the lots met R-1 requirements and, with the possibility of a drainage problem, she believed'the plat should be looked at closely. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table the preliminary plat until the next meeting in order to give staff an opportunity to review the portion that was to be rezoned R-1.5 for compliance with R-1 zoning and to take a preliminary look at the drainage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. . The motion carried 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 19 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WILLOW SPRINGS PHASE II RALPH WALKER - OFF CARRIAGE WAY, N OF WEDINGTON The next item was a preliminary plat of Willow Springs Phase II submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ralph Walker for property located off Carriage Way, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 12.17 acres with 55 lots. Mr. Bunn advised the subdivision would join Phase I of Willow Springs to the east and Northwest Acres to the west. He explained the intent was to construct single-family homes only on the site. He stated there were no significant comments by the utility companies other than several additional easements and crossings requested and agreed to by the developer. He added staff had recommended several modifications in the location of fire hydrants and street lights. He stated there were questions regarding how the drainage tied to the adjacent subdivisions and how the subdivision streets would fit in with the adjacent subdivisions. He noted there were no additional issues raised at the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the subdivision showing ties to the adjacent developments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; approval of a tree preservation plan; construction of permanent cul-de-sacs at all dead-end locations if the adjacent property was not developed within three years; and a contribution of a pro -rata share for the improvements off-site sewer lines and sewer lift stations. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin in regard to the construction of cul-de- sacs three years later, Mr. Bunn stated that, at the time the final plat was filed, staff would either require money be paid into an escrow account or have a lien on an appropriate lot or lots to ensure the cul-de-sac construction. Mr. Dave Jorgensen advised the developer was in agreement with the staff's comments. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 9-0-0. • 0 Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 20 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HA The next item was a large scale development - Hampton Inn submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Narry Krushiker for property located on the southwest corner of Old Farmington Road and Shiloh Drive and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property contains 1.75 acres. The petitioner is also requesting a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Bunn advised the large scale development was a motel to be located on 1.75 acres. He noted several of the utility representatives pointed out existing easements across the site would have to be taken into consideration when construction began. He stated there were some additional easements and conduits requested by the utilities. He further stated staff remarks included comments on dumpster location, a pedestrian link with the IGA area,.setback requirements, possible screening of the site which had not been resolved, and off-site street improvements to Old Farmington Road. He stated the developer was requesting a Bill of Assurance be accepted in lieu of construction of a sidewalk at this time. He advised staff recommended either a lien be placed on the property or money placed in escrow to ensure construction of the sidewalks. He further noted that, in regard to off-site street improvements, at the time of construction of Regency 7 Motel the developer was not required to improve his half of Old Farmington Road because of an oversight by the staff. He explained staff felt the developer should be required to improve the street regardless andprevious oversight or error not requiring that improvement should not be carried over to this development. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; installation of an additional fire hydrant as required by the fire chief; completion of a drive around the motel for emergency access; either construction of sidewalks at this time or a lien on the property or the placement of money in escrow for the sidewalks; and improvements of one-half of Old Farmington Road to city street standards. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers was presen advised they were requesting a waiver of the Shiloh only. Mr. Gray stated they were try center if the owner would allow them to make tl a major ditch between the two properties anc made, the sidewalk would not go anywhere. requesting a waiver to allow them to build the of the City. representing the developer. He requirement for a sidewalk along ng to gain access to the shopping at connection. He added there was if the connection could not be He explained the developer was sidewalk in the future at the call In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray clarified the developer would like to be allowed to sign a Bill of Assurance to construct the sidewalk in the future at the call of the City. Mr. Reynolds asked if they could not cross at a better area with a sidewalk instead of across the ditch. Mr. Gray advised the owner hoped to be able to make a driveway through and tie it into the shopping center parking lot. He explained it would take a large culvert across the ditch. He also stated he believed people would use the driveway or parking lot rather than a sidewalk along Shiloh Drive. He noted the Park Inn across the street did not have a sidewalk. . Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 21 Ms. Britton commented she did not think they should encourage people to walk along the road. There was further discussion in regard to what would be the best way to handle the sidewalk issue and the off-site improvements. Mr. Allred commented he preferred the improvements to Old Farmington Road be waived in exchange for the development being required to get permission from the shopping center to build a permanent access in the form of a pedestrian bridge and sidewalk along Shiloh to the shopping center. He pointed out patrons of both motels, since neither one would have a restaurant, would be trying to get to the establishments in the shopping center. Mr. Gray advised they would agree to that if they could get -permission from Mr. Agee. Mr. Nickle disagreed stating they would be giving up something the city was entitled to. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development with the staff's recommendations. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. • The motion carried 9-0-0. l0l J • Planning Commission March 14, 1994 Page 22 Chairman Tarvin announced that Commissioner Pummill had agreed to Chair the Subdivision committee. He stated the other members would be Commissioners Nickle and Suchecki with Commissioners Reynolds and Allred being substitutes. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ON ORDINANCES Mr. Conklin stated a schedule had been submitted to the Commission with their agenda packet in regard to the meetings on the Unified Development Code. He noted they would be meeting at noon on Friday to review the Parks Land Dedication. He requested that the entire Planning Commission be at Friday's meeting. Ms. Little advised there would be three ordinances before them at the next Planning Commission meeting: The Unified Development Ordinance on Night Clubs; an emergency change to the Parks, and a portion of the Subdivision Regulations; and the Design Overlay District. OF MEETING Mr. Tarvin noted it was his understanding the Transportation Subcommittee had a public hearing scheduled for Thursday night, March 17th at 5 p.m. to hear public • comment regarding transportation problems within the City. REQUEST FOR CITY ATTORNEY OPINION Mr. Tarvin requested the staff obtain comment from the City Attorney regarding the Commission's position in situations when there was neighborhood opposition to a subdivision being developed with smaller lots smaller. He stated this type of situation presented a dilemma for the Commission because, if they denied the subdivision they are going against ordinance and the rights of the developer, but if they approve it they are ruining the neighborhood. He would like to know whether or not the Commission had any latitude in this area. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. 102