Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-11 Minutes0 0 � Is MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 11, 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 pnmmill OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Kevin Santos, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others OLD BUSINESS: A. SWEPCO - MT. SEQUOYAH - Presentation by Floyd Hornaday Mr. Hornaday, a representative for SWEPCO, advised he wanted to give the Commission an update on the status of the SWEPCO tower located on Mt. Sequoyah. He explained the new tower was installed but the old building and tower were still there because they had not yet converted to the new tower. He stated they might not convert to using the new tower until late in September. He advised SWEPCO did plan on putting in vegetation to screen the building as soon as the old building and tower were removed. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the timeframe. She asked if the fencing could not be put up prior to removing the old tower. Mr. Hornaday explained the fence would have to be taken down when they removed the old tower if it was put in prior to that ,time. Mr. Reynolds explained the Commission had asked Mr. Hornaday to report the status so the neighbors would know SWEPCO still planned to install a fence and remove the old tower. B. R -O -W VACATION V94-4; PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT; CONDITIONAL USE CU94-4 - MIKE HOWARD - OFF REVERE PLACE, E OF CAMBRIDGE RD Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission the question had come up at the last meeting regarding an emergency access on the east end of Victoria Lane into Boardwalk Subdivision. He explained that previously the Planning Commission had approved a 16 -foot emergency lane for the specific purpose of police and fire vehicles. He reminded the Commission there had been discussion regarding making that access a permanent street but there was a question as to whether there were houses built in the access easement. He went on to say it appeared there were two houses constructed close to the right-of-way (neither house met the 25 -foot setback) but the right-of-way was not encroached upon. He stated it was possible to construct an emergency access or a less than standard street. He explained Ms. Little had also looked into extending Revere Place through, to Boardwalk (straightening the street out rather than vacating it). He noted that LI Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 2 would give the Park Place Property Owners Association three additional lots rather than one. Mr. Nickle referred to the minutes from a 1990 meeting in which the developer was required to gravel the emergency access. Mr. Bunn stated there was a gravel base under the Boardwalk side. He further stated he did not recall if the Park Place side was required to have a gravel base. Ms. Britton stated she believed there should be an access to Boardwalk from Park Place and had been under the impression Ms. Little had been working with the Park Place residents. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table this item until such time as the Planning staff can work out the issue. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-3-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Tarvin, Reynolds, Britton, Allred, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, and Head voting "no". Chairman Joe Tarvin advised the item was tabled until the next meeting and discussion on it would take place at that time. 201 Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA: A. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1994. B. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FUZZY'S RESTAURANT JOHN HOPKINS - SW CORNER OF NORTH ST & GARLAND AVE A large scale development - Fuzzy's Restaurant submitted by Perry Butcher & Associates on behalf of John Hopkins for property located on the southwest corner of North Street and Garland Avenue and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with 1.44 acres. C. FINAL PLAT - BARRINGTON PARKE BEN CASTON - S OF MISSION BLVD, W OF FOX HUNTER RD A final plat submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Ben Caston for property located south of Mission Blvd, west of Fox Hunter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 49.8 acres with 85 lots. . D. CONDITIONAL USE C94-5: DUPLEXES IN R-1.ZONING HAROLD JOHNSON - W OF SHILOH DR, S OF 15TH ST A conditional use request C94-5 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Harold Johnson for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, south of 15th Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for duplexes. E. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CARL LEDBETTER- W OF HILLSIDE TR, S OF ZION RD A lot split #1 submitted by David Cox on behalf of Carl Ledbetter for property located on the west side of Hillside Terrace, south of Zion Road and zoned R -O, Residential -Office. F. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 GLEN FINCHER - E OF GREEN ACRES RD, N OF POPLAR LN A lot split #1 submitted by Glen Fincher for property located on the east side of Green Acres Road, north of Poplar Lane and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. G. VACATION V94-5 - EASEMENT VACATION SEXTON & ASSOCIATES - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF JOYCE BLVD A vacation V94-5 submitted by Steve DeNoon on behalf of Sexton & Associates for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, 40 south of Joyce Boulevard. The request was to vacate a 25' east -west utility easement. Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 4 e MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed unanimously. ZO(ol Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL NO, R93-35 CHERYL MILLER & GENEVA MCFARLAND - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF SHILOH The next item was a public hearing for rezoning Appeal No. R93-35 submitted by Rick Osbourne on behalf of Cheryl Miller and Geneva McFarland for property located north of Wedington Drive, west of Shiloh Drive. The request is to rezone 8.6 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Tim Conklin reminded the Planning Commission they had denied a motion to approve rezoning 13.8 acres from R-2 to C-2 by a 7-2-0 vote on December 13, 1993. He advised they had approved a modified request to rezone 5.3 acres to C-2 by a 5- 4-0 vote. He further noted a final motion had been unanimously approved which had tabled any action on the remaining tract. He stated there had been a lengthy discussion between the staff, the applicant and the Commission regarding the necessity of C-2 and the amount of C-2 requesting to be rezoned. He explained the applicant was now asking that 8.6 acres be taken off the table and be rezoned to C-2. Mr. Rick Osbourne stated the applicant was requesting the north C-2 boundary be even with the north boundary of the Holiday Inn Express. He advised approximately 250 feet of the north end of the property would remain R-2 as a buffer. He added Mr. Steve Clary of the Clary Development Company, Little Rock, was the proposed buyer and developer of the tract. He further stated it was his understanding the buyer hoped to develop a commercial type shopping or mall for the subject site but, could not do so unless the additional 8.6 acres was rezoned to C-2. Mr. Nickle clarified the need for the rezoning to C-2 versus R-2 was because of the use. He asked if the use had changed since the Commission had previously reviewed the rezoning request. Mr. Osbourne stated he believed this item had been tabled in order to allow him time to get an accurate legal description. He reminded the Commission the southwest corner of the tract had been rezoned to C-2. He further added the subject tract, referred to as the middle section, needed to be rezoned to C-2 in order for Mr. Clary's development to work. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval of rezoning R93-35 as requested subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton advised that, when they had previously discussed this item, it had been her understanding the previous rezoning had lined up the C-2 property on this tract with the adjacent C-2. She further stated she did not see any reason to change the . zoning since it currently served as a buffer. 207 • • Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission they had previously questioned whether the developer really needed to have the land rezoned, thinking it might have been a speculative rezoning. He pointed out the representative of the developer had now indicated the use. Mr. Allred stated the Commission often heard concern regarding additional traffic. He advised approval of the request might ease some of the traffic burdens on some of the other major developments in the area. Ms. Britton noted one of the most intense intersections in the city was at Joyce Street and North College. She advised she'did not see where further development would help any traffic issue. The motion carried 7-1-1 with Commissioner Johnson "abstaining" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Za J Planning Commission April 11, 1994 is Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-15 NANCHAR & MARJORIE BROOKS - N & S OF MILLSAP RD, W OF COLLEGE AVE The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-15 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of NANCHAR and Marjorie Brooks for property located on the north and south sides of Millsap Road, west of College Avenue. The request was to rezone .73 acres in Tract A and 1.21 acres in Tract B from R -O, Residential -Office, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the site currently was being developed as a CMN Business Park, a commercial subdivision. He pointed out the existing Residential -Office zoning encompassed all of lot 10 and a portion of lots 9 and 11. He stated the applicant had petitioned for C-2 zoning in order to allow for the commercial uses planned on the lots. He further advised the required improvements, as part of the final plat approval, had been completed and individual lots within the subdivision had been approved for commercial large scale developments by the Commission. He reviewed adjacent land uses. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the requested rezoning. Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering, representing the petitioner, advised he had failed to notice that one portion of the property was zoned R -O. He advised he was . now trying to bring the subject tract into compliance so it could be developed the way it was intended when the plat was approved. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to recommend approval of rezoning R94-15 as requested subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING APPEALS NO. R94-17 & R94-18 LULA MAE HURLBURT & MARY HOLLAND - N OF 6TH ST, W OF DINSMORE TR The next item was a public hearing for rezoning appeals R94-17 & R94-18 submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of Lula Mae Hurlburt and Mary Holland for property located on the north side of 6th Street, west of Dinsmore Trail. R94-17: Request is to rezone approximately 10 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. R94-18: Request is to rezone approximately 37 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently undeveloped. He explained the applicant had originally requested C-2 zoning but had since amended the request to C-1 zoning in order to provide Neighborhood Commercial uses next to the proposed R-2 rezoning to the north. He further stated the applicant had indicated an intent to develop the proposed R-2 zoning site with a mix of single-family and two-family dwelling units and had offered a Bill of Assurance limiting the density to 15 units per acre. He pointed out the 2010 Plan designated the 62/71 Bypass interchange as one of the four regional employment areas of the City. He stated many of the existing land uses and future land uses in the subject area would employ individuals with lower -paying • service jobs creating a need for more affordable housing. He advised rezoning the property to R-2 would allow the land to develop with more affordable housing and meet the future employment demands of a regional employment center. He also informed the Commission all higher density residential development within close proximity to an employment center should reduce the number of trips generated and possibly provide a high enough density for a future mass transit along the corridor. Mr. Conklin reviewed adjoining land uses and zoning: A-1 zoning to the north, south, and west; R-2 and C-2 zoning to the east. He noted that, to the west the existing land uses included a small area of mobile homes and to the east single-family homes. He pointed out the site did have frontage on Highway 62 (a five -lane principal arterial) and access off of Dinsmore Trail (a local street). He further stated there was a 12 -inch water line on the south side of Highway 62 and an 8 -inch water line along Dinsmore Trail; a 10 -inch sewer line and a 12 -inch force main follows the North Fork Branch of Farmington Creek which transected the property. He recommended approval of the requested rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance. Michele Harrington, representing the land owners, advised her clients had made an effort to see if any of the neighboring property owners had any objections to, the rezoning. She stated all of the neighbors were in favor of the rezoning and one neighboring property owner, Mr. R. F. Dudeck, actually wrote a letter expressing his approval which she read to the Commission. Ms. Harrington advised another neighbor, Dr. Ashmore, did have some concerns however her clients would be happy to work on all those these issues with Dr. • Ashmore. Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 9 Ms. Britton stated that, while the 2010 Plan had pointed out the 62/71 area was a regional employment center, the suggestion had been made that they not let the area become a strip development. She expressed her belief that a commercial zoning would not be in the best interest of the community. Ms. Harrington advised her clients had requested commercial zoning because of the 5 -lane highway in front of the property. She added her client's plan would fit well into the village concept of the 2010 Plan. She added only a very limited portion of the property would be capable of developing in a commercial use due to the terrain. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin stated he did not believe staff had the latest traffic count on Highway 62. Mr. Allred noted it would be helpful if the Commission was supplied with that type of information in the future. Mr. Conklin stated the staff normally had traffic counts done by the Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, for developments but he could request such counts on rezonings as well if the Commission wished. MOTION • Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of R94-17 to C-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. Ms. Johnson asked if any large parcels of C-1 or C-2 abutted the highway. Mr. Conklin advised most C-1 and C-2 tracts in the area were small but grew larger further east. Ms. Harrington advised the depth of the parcel was the same as the depth of the C-2 tract just a little to the east. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no". MOTION A motion was made by Mr. Pummill to recommend approval on the R94-18 rezoning request subject a Bill of Assurance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried 9-0-0. I 211 Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING IMA JEAN & BOBBY TAYLOR - QUEST R94-19 )F GREGG AVE, S The next item was a public hearing for rezoning request R94-19 submitted by K & J Realty on behalf of Ima Jean and Bobby Taylor for property located on the west side of Gregg Avenue, south of Center Street. The request was to rezone .56 acres from I-15 Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Santos advised the site was currently undeveloped and the applicant had petitioned for R-2 zoning in order to construct multifamily housing. He pointed out the property was located between an active and abandoned rail corridor and currently zoned I-1. He advised Industrial zoning might no longer be appropriate in what had become a residential area as railroad related industry declined. He stated three single-family units to the north of the property separated it from an existing small apartment building. He reminded the Commission the General Plan 2010 recommended higher density residential development in the area between downtown and the University Area Activity Center.. He further stated downzoning the property from I-1 to R-2 would allow for the development of affordable housing in an area within walking distance of downtown, the University and transit lines, reducing the length and number of automobile trips generated by similar developments in outlying areas. He reviewed the adjacent land use. . He also noted the site fronted on South Gregg Avenue (a local street with access to minor and major arterials). He stated there was an 8m -inch sewer line and a 6 -inch water line along Gregg Street. Mr. Santos recommended approval of the requested R-2 zoning. Rob Sharp stated he planned to build 12 small efficiency units on the site and try to save as many of the trees on site as possible. Ms. Britton stated that she would feel more comfortable if the applicant offer a Bill of Assurance. She advised most of the units in the area were single-family dwellings. Mr. Reynolds stated he recalled the Commission discussing, on several occasions, how they needed to have denser population in the subject area. Mr. Sharp advised he planned to construct three small buildings instead of one large building so it would not disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Allred stated they had a potential developer willing to take a piece of property in a area which had no activity for a number of years and do something which would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. He added they needed to keep in mind they were not discussing a large scale development at this point, but a rezoning. Ms. Britton pointed out they could not get any assurances from a developer once the . property was rezoned. Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Allred reiterated the Commission was supposed to make decisions based on land use, not development. Ron Bradner, an area resident, expressed concern regarding traffic generated by the development. He advised the road currently did not allow parking on the street because it was so narrow. Mr. Conklin advised the site was less than one acre and would not have to go through the large scale development process. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. Planning Commission April 11, 1994 is Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITIONS NO. R94-10 AND R94-11 HAYDEN MCILROY - S OF WEDINGTON. E OF 46TH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petitions No. R94-10 and R-94-11 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Hayden McIlroy for property located south of Wedington, east of 46th Avenue, R94-10: Request is to rezone 8.71 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. R94-11: Request is to rezoned 51.74 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin reminded the Planning Commission they had approved R -O zoning on two lots within the Meadowlands preliminary plat and then modified the petitioner's request and rezoned the remaining tract of land to R-1 instead of the R-1.5 as originally requested. He stated the applicant was proposing a compromise which would rezone approximately 8.71 acres to R-1.5 instead of the original request of approximately 16 acres. He further reminded the Commission they had modified the request for R-1.5 because of a policy statement made by the Commission on February 8, 1993 which addressed where single-family and multi -family development should take place along a corridor. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezonings explaining the applicant had provided a larger buffer between the existing single-family homes to • the west by reducing the amount of Moderate -Density Residential. In response to a question by Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had offered a Bill of Assurance at the earlier meeting restricting the R-1.5 property to duplexes, but the staff was not sure if the applicant was willing to offer the same Bill of Assurance. Mr. McIlroy advised the Bill of Assurance for duplexes only would be offered. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the applicant, pointed out the applicant had reduced the request from 42 duplex units to 22 units. He advised they believed the R-1.5 would be a good buffer between the R-1 units and C-2 and R -O properties directly to the north. Mary Alice Kenney, 846 46th Street, expressed concern the water and sewer would not be able to handle the development. Mr. Don Bunn advised the sewer and the water would handle the number of duplex lots proposed. In response to a comment from Mr. Jorgensen, Mr. Conklin advised the 2010 General Plan did, as a policy statement, state the mixing of residential uses was more appropriate than having large areas as either multi -family or single-family. He noted the plat did represent those type of policies in the 2010 Plan, Ms. Britton pointed out a higher density surrounded the open space planned as a • city park and had good pedestrian access to it. 2w Planning Commission . April 11, 1994 Page 13 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend approval of rezoning R94-10. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to recommend approval of rezoning R94-11. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion passed 9-0-0. E • Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT- MEADOWLANDS PHASES I & II HAYDEN MCILROY - S OF WEDINGTON, E OF 46TH ST The next item was a preliminary plat - Meadowlands Phases I & II submitted by David Jorgensen on behalf of Hayden McIlroy for property located on the south side of Wedington, east of 46th Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, R-1.5, & R-1 (Proposed R94-10 & 11) and contains 40 acres with 104 lots. Mr. Don Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the utilities at the Plat Review meeting other than additional easements and crossings requested which were agreed to by the owner. He noted staff comments included questions on the status of the alleyways, location of fire hydrants, parks fees, location of street lights, and drainage. He stated no additional issues were raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He recommended the subdivision be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; submittal and approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan for the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; approval of a Tree Preservation Plan; construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; a construction of permanent cul-de-sacs at all dead-end locations provided the adjacent property does not develop within a three- year period; and either a dedication of parks land or payment of the appropriate parks fee (Mr. Conklin advised that park land was recommended by the Parks Board on April 4th) . Mr. Jorgensen advised they planned to dedicate park land in the southeast corner of the property. He noted the overall site would have one large park. He further stated he was hopeful the drainage problems in the subject area would be improved., An unidentified area resident expressed concern regarding her property value and the possibility her yard would become a public playground since her property abutted directly on the backyard of all the properties. She asked if there was a possibility of getting something done to protect her space when the land developed. Mr. Jorgensen advised he would imagine there would be a privacy fence built. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion passed 9-0-0. • 21(p Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION & REZONING PETITION NO. R94-20 ALAN & LAWRENCE CLACK - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF RUPPLE RD The next item was a public hearing for annexation and rezoning petition No. R94-20 submitted by Truman Yancy on behalf of Alan & Lawrence Clack for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Rupple Road. The request is to annex 85.12 acres and rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R=1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Kevin Santos advised the site was currently undeveloped and the applicant had petitioned to have the 85.12 acres annexed into the City in order to receive city services for a subdivision of single-family homes proposed to be built on the property. He pointed out the site adjoined the current city limits to the south. He pointed out a rezoning requested accompanied the annexation request to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. He noted the preliminary plat for the proposed residential development, Creekwood Hills Phase I, was included as the next item on the agenda. He pointed out the subject area was rapidly becoming urbanized with development following Washington County Development Standards. He contended it was in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville to exercise the more stringent development regulations of the City to prevent substandard development at the perimeter of the current corporate limits. He submitted a brief comparison of County and City land use controls to the Commission. He also summarized a comparison of the subdivision requirements if the land was annexed into the City and supplied a chart comparing the zoning requirements for the Commission. Mr. Santos pointed out the property was presently surrounded by un -zoned agricultural vacant land except to the south which was R-1. He noted much of the surrounding land to the south was developing residentially: Willow Springs and Fieldstone Subdivisions. He stated the site had access to Mt. Comfort Road although four connections were planned as part of subdivision development. He advised future phases of the development would eventually provide through access from Mt. Comfort Road to Wedington Road. He further stated there was an 8 -inch water main and a 6 -inch water line along Mt. Comfort Road and an 8 -inch water main along Rupple Road. He also reviewed sewer connections for the development. Mr. Santos advised the property owners had successfully petitioned Washington County to order the annexation and the Order of Annexation was filed by Washington County Clerk, Marilyn Edwards, on March 22, 1994. He noted no objections had been filed. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the annexation and rezoning. Mr. Truman Yancy, representing the applicants, was present to answer any questions. 0 Zl71 • • Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 16 MOTION A motion was made by Mr. Allred to approve the annexation as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the annexation noting one this large was making decisions for the entire community to take on more sewer treatment, more police protection, and more fire protection which entailed more expense. She pointed out that, while the subject area did touch the City, it was totally surrounded by rural area and was almost a mile from developed areas. She expressed her belief it was not the City's responsibility to provide facilities for the subject development. She further stated she did not think it was wise to annex the property at this time. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Tarvin, Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, Head, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds and Britton voting "no". MOTION A motion was made by Mr. Allred recommend approval of rezoning request R94-20. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton advised that, in the 2010 Plan, there was some discussion regarding less dense zoning on the perimeters of communities. She noted this subject was being addressed in subdivision rewrites of the ordinances. She pointed out that, if the property were zoned A-1, it would necessitate the lots being two acres in size which would comply with the idea of larger lots on the perimeter. She reminded the Commission they had adopted the Master Plan. She reiterated it made sense to have more intense use toward the core of the city and leave the extremities in a more rural type atmosphere. Mr. Tarvin advised the Commission did not adopt the 2010 Plan but simply accepted it. left at A-1, there would Mr. Allred stated the situation before them was a proposed development and so far there had been no opposition. He expressed his belief they were off base to say the development would be a burden because the developer would be putting in the infrastructure and the lots would be paying the taxes to support the fire and police protection. He advised it was easier on the community to annex the property now and require the developer to put the improvements to city standards instead of waiting 3 or 4 years before annexing the property with substandard streets. Ms. Britton pointed out they were discussing the rezoning and, if the property was left at A-1, there would be less strain of city facilities. Mr. Nickle stated the point had been made that, if the Unified Development Ordinance had been adopted providing rural residential and rural estate -sized lots. ZI Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 17 the subject land might be an appropriate development for the larger lots; however, those ordinances were not enacted at this time. The motion carried 6-3-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Tarvin, Allred, Suchecki, Pummill and Head voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Reynolds, and Nickle voting "no" . • 1• z611 • • Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 18 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CREEKWOOD HILLS PHASE I CREEKWOOD HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF RUPPLE The next item was a preliminary plat for Creekwood Hills Phase I submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Creekwood Hills Development Corporation for property located on the south side of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Rupple Road. The property is outside city limits and contains 23.58 acres with 58 lots. Mr. Don Bunn advised there were several additional easements requested by the utility companies including an off-site easement and several crossings and conduits and these were agreed to by the owner. He stated staff's remarks included comments on the parks fee or land dedication requirements, street lights, the need for a Tree Preservation Plan, the need for additional right-of-way on Mt. Comfort Road, the need for a Grading and Drainage Plan, and comments on water and sewer improvements, the location of the sidewalks, and construction of permanent cul-de- sacs in the event that adjacent properties failed to develop. He noted the main issue raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting was the fact that the developer had retained a 70 -foot wide piece of property from Mt. Comfort to the development site and was showings, 50 -foot street centered within that right-of-way. He explained this meant the street would not be accessible to other developers or individuals without dealing with the owner for right of way. He explained the intent of the developer was to recover some of the cost of the street by the sale of access strips to adjacent owners. Mr. Bunn explained staff had discussed this matter with the City Attorney, Jerry Rose, and it was his opinion a plat could not necessarily be rejected based on an access strip. He added the staff was requesting four stub -outs be left (two to the east and two to the west) which would allow for development along the road without a future developer purchasing an access to the road. He noted there had been a request at the Subdivision Committee meeting that Mr. Rose give that opinion in writing but staff did not have the written opinion at this time. He stated there were several residents living downstream from the development who had expressed concern regarding additional development and additional run-off that they have experienced over the years due to upstream development and the potential for more problems with further development in the future. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee meeting comments; approval of a Grading and Draining Plan; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the annexation and rezoning; either the payment of parks fees or the dedication of parks land as required by the Planning Commission; the dedication of off-site easements as required; and developer's contribution toward lift- station improvements and water improvements required to serve the subdivision properly. He further advised there had been quite a bit of development in the subject over the past 3 or 4 years which caused the lift station on Hamestring Creek 1 in need of upgrading. He stated staff wanted the developer of this project to 0 Z 2 Planning Commission April 11, 1994 fe Page 19 his share of that cost. He also noted there was some question regarding the water improvements and the developer needed to pay his share of those costs to make sure there was adequate water. Mr. Tarvin asked if the Planning Commission needed to decide whether to accept parks land or fees. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representative of the developer, advised the Parks Board had recommended land be dedicated in lieu of parks fees and the developers had agreed to dedicate property immediately to the west of the project and to the south for the amount of parks land necessary for the overall project. Mr. Tarvin clarified the dedicated parks land would be property located outside that covered by the plat. Mr. Jorgensen agreed and noted it would be located immediately to the west of the property in an area that would make a nice park. Mr. Jorgensen advised he was in agreement with the staff comments regarding the developer's duty to assist in upgrading water lines, sewer lines, and pump stations to the degree necessary to accommodate the improvements planned especially if it was • the policy of the City for all other developers to pay their corresponding proportionate share. He went on to say, however, the staff needed to draw the line at some point in deciding just how much of the infrastructure the developer should be responsible for. Mr. Nickle requested that a written opinion from Jerry Rose, City Attorney, in regard to this issue be submitted as soon as possible. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred in regard to the 70 -foot easement with four stub -outs, Mr. Bunn advised the staff was not requiring the stub -outs be paved. Mr. Allred questioned if those stub -outs would revert back if the configuration of the adjoining developments should be of such a nature that four access points were not required. Mr. Bunn suggested an agreement could possibly be made to vacate the easement at some future time if the access points were not needed. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn advised the access were for right-of-way and not curb radiuses. Ms. Britton pointed out discussion had taken place by the City Council on looking into a sewer treatment plant in the west part of town. She asked if some of the pump stations would no longer be necessary at that time with a possibility of much of the line being gravity flow. 0 Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 20 Mr. Bunn stated that, generally, many of the pump stations could be eliminated with a treatment plant on the west side of town. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioner Reynolds voting "no". • 222 Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 21 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BRADLEY ACRES BILL GRAUE - N OF HUNTSVILLE RD, S OF WYMAN RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Bradley Acres submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Bill Graue for property located on the north side of Huntsville Road, south of Wyman Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 3.9 acres with 4 lots. Mr. Bunn advised the plat was a revision of a previous plat considered by the Planning Commission earlier in the year. He reminded the Commission the previous plat contained six lots on the same acreage. He explained the plat had been revised after the Planning Commission requested a street be constructed creating a tie between Huntsville Road and Wyman Road. He noted there had been no significant comments by any of the utility representatives other than some easements requested and agreed to by the owner. He advised staff had commented on the need for a Tree Preservation Plan, parks fees and the need to provide right-of-way along the west side of the subdivision for a future street, and comments on drainage. He stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed a proposed right-of-way dedication along the west side of the property and possible drainage improvements along the east side of the property. He informed the Commission the plat had been referred to the full Planning Commission without recommendation. • Mr. Bunn recommended the plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer and drainage improvements; the payments of parks fees; the construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; and a final determination on the feasibility of providing sewer to all the lots. He pointed out the Subdivision Regulations indicated that, in the case of a subdivision, it was possible for lots to be on septic tank if it was shown that sewer was not economically feasible. He noted the subdivision would need to be approved by the Health Department if any of the lots had septic systems rather than sewer. He further stated staff had requested a 25 -foot right-of-way along the west side of the property and then toward the north end where the property widened to 50 -foot as set out in the plat. Mr. Bill Rudasill, representing the developer, advised it was not feasible to build a road for just six lots. He pointed out the location of the subdivision was adjacent to a trailer park and the topography of the land and advised the property would not support the cost of a road. He stated the developer had elected to provide right-of- way for future street construction. Ms. Britton expressed concern that lots 3 and 4 faced the highway and it would be necessary for lot 4 to access directly onto the highway. She pointed out a street could be built to provide access to all of the lots. She added reducing the density made the cost of the street less economically feasible but, with 6 lots, one lot could have been sold to pay for the cost of the street. r� U ZZ 3 Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 22 In answer to an inquiry from Ms. Britton, Mr. Rudasill reviewed the right-of-way which could, at some point in the future, connect Huntsville and Wyman Roads. Ms. Britton noted lot 2 was a tandem lot. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the developer was required to have a 25 -foot long paved access off the street onto the tandem lot. He noted it would just extend 25 feet from the street, not to the actual tandem lot. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin advised one 25 foot long paved access was required off the actual street, either Wyman Road or Huntsville Road, whichever the owner planned to use for access. Ms. Britton advised that, when the Planning Commission had previously reviewed the subject plat, it was denied because there was not a street through the subdivision. She pointed out there still was not a street and she did not understand why they are considering the plat. Mr. Conklin advised Mr. Graue, the developer, was attempting to compromise. He stated Mr. Graue contended it was not economically feasible to construct the street. He pointed out the right-of-way and advised it would be possible to acquire additional right-of-way if the neighboring property owner (Mrs. Esby) developed • her property. Ms. Britton noted 25 feet was required if they approve the plat with a tandem lot. She noted that would mean lot 4 had direct access onto the Highway which was not a good situation on a major state highway. Mr. Tarvin noted the lots were small and it would be difficult to make a U-turn right- of-way for safe access. Mr. Pummill contended the street construction would be cost inhibitive because the developer could not sell the lots in this particular neighborhood for what it would cost to build the street. Mr. Graue commented he was not in a position to pave the street and give it to the City because it would cost $110,000. He advised if the proposed plan was not approved, he intended to apply for a lot split and have two lots with no easement. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin explained that, when the adjacent property developed, additional right-of-way could be obtain in order to construct a street. He noted he was not sure who would be responsible to pay for the cost of building the street. Mr. Bunn informed the Commission Mrs. Espy's property was even smaller and perhaps a bit narrower than the Bradley Acres property so it was not likely a development would go in there that could afford to build half a street either. He • went on to say staff believed the compromise would be the best chance of at least getting another 25 feet of right-of-way. 224 Planning Commission • April 11, 1994 Page 23 Mr. Nickle suggested a redesign of the right-of-way. Mr. Graue responded the redesign would create a blind curve on Wyman Road. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Tarvin, Reynolds, Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Head voting "no". • • Z Z}�J Planning Commission April 11, 1994 Page 24 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Conklin advised a copy of an open letter to the Parks Committee and Fayetteville Planning Commission from Frances Langham had been submitted to them regarding the parks fees requirement. He noted the Parks Board would address the letter at their next meeting and he would keep the Commission informed. Mr. Conklin stated that the Unified Development Ordinance Subcommittee would be meeting on Friday to address Density and Bulk and Areas Standards. He asked for 2 or 3 volunteers to attend the meeting. Mr. Conklin informed the Commission the Greenspace Ordinance had been discussed again at a joint committee of the Parks Board and Planning Commission. He advised a recommendation had been made to increase the greenspace fee by approximately 33$. He added this item would be addressed at the May 9th Planning Commission meeting once the 15 -day required public notice had been given. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. • 22& 1