Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 25, 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, Jerry Allred, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Jerry Rose, Sharon Langley, members Of the press and others OLD BUSINESS: PRELIMINARY PLAT - JACKSON PLACE HARRY JACKSON - N OF MISSION, E OF OLD WIRE RD The first item was the preliminary plat of Jackson Place submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Harry Jackson and Partners for property located on the north side of Mission Boulevard and the east side of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 24.74 acres with 68 lots. Mr. Fred Vorsanger, City Alderman from Ward #3, explained there were three reasons for his motion to send the preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission: concerns about the drainage and flooding problems in the area, a density problem, and the park space devoted to the subdivision. He advised that. money in lieu of park lands was required. He added that, in this particular plat, there was a pond to be filled in which seemed silly given the concern for greenspace. Mr. Vorsanger advised the people he represented were not against the development of the area; but they were concerned that more thought and additional planning needed to be done regarding drainage and flooding. He added they also believed there should be a better opportunity to provide park space instead of money. He pointed out there was a precedent established with the appeal of Barrington Parke (reviewed by the City Council and sent back to the Planning Commission with a solution being worked out in which the neighbors of Barrington were happy, the trees were saved, the traffic pattern was changed, and some of the problems were solved). Mr. Vorsanger added the neighbors of the Jackson Place development would like to express their major concerns at this meeting for further consideration by the Commission. Ms. Alett Little advised the Planning Commission had given preliminary plat approval for the Jackson Place Subdivision on, March 14, 1994; but it was subsequently appealed to the City Council who voted unanimously on April 12, 1994 that it be reheard by the Planning Commission. She stated it was staff's understanding the subjects to be reviewed by the Planning Commission were: drainage, impact of the subdivision on city sewers, and review of the decision to accept park fees in lieu of park land. She noted the density question just mentioned by Alderman Vorsanger had not been a part of the motion. Ms. Little advised the question of acceptance of park fees in lieu of park land had been reviewed by the Parks Board and they had determined they did not wish to have park land within the area of the subject development. She noted the following reasons given for the decision had been submitted in the form of a letter dated April 20, 1994 from Susan Driver, Chairman of the Parks Board. The • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 2 reasons included: 1) the land was not located in a priority area of the Parks Master Plan, but in a neighborhood with twenty-six existing park acres. (She explained the park acreage needs in the year 1990 were a low of 21 acres to a high of 42 acres and the needs in 2010 were a low of 25 acres to a high of 50 acres and they are within that range.); 2) the subdivision was located close to existing Root and Gulley Parks; and 3) according to Milholland Engineering, the elevation of the existing pond made it unsuitable for water retention or flood control. Ms. Little pointed out the pond was not a part of the existing drainage system, but a spring -fed pond. Ms. Little advised additional studies had been done on the drainage with a recommendation from the City Engineer; and an additional analysis had been done on the sewer system with a report from David Jurgens, Water/Sewer Operations Manager. She referred to Mr. Jurgens' report which stated under the section "Sewer Condition": "The 10 -inch sewer overflow was not a normal condition and should not recur. We have no records of this overflow occurring prior to this report. The pipe has a capacity of 1.23 million gallons per day (mgd) at the most constricted segment, far exceeding its current normal usage. Examining consultant studies indicated one 219 -foot long segment of 10 -inch pipe in the middle of the Jackson Place subdivision site has several major laws and should be replaced." Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, apologized to the Commission and the public for the staff's error in the capacity of the box. He advised the staff's conclusion was . that, in order to pass a 25 -year storm, the box would have to be expanded and the rock section be torn out and replaced with a concrete section. He added the staff would like to see the structure designed for a 25 -year storm for the following reasons: 1) for a collector street, a 25 -year storm was a reasonable design; and 2) the existing properties downstream needed to be protected. Mr. Bunn noted he had not seen the calculations of the capacities downstream, but it did not appear the downstream would take a full 100 -year storm across Old Wire Road. He recommended a crossing be constructed which would pass a 25 -year storm, that there be a retention basin created on the east side which would at least equal the existing natural retention and protect downstream; and the plan, including the proposed channelization (which will have to be approved by the Corps), be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for their approval and assessment of the effects both within the subdivision and downstream.' He expressed hope this would solve the flooding problem on the east side. He cautioned care should be taken to prevent the transfer of the problem to the downstream side. He advised the intent of the drainage plan was to minimize flooding to the north and old Wire Road as well as to protect property owners within the subdivision and downstream. Mr. Bunn reiterated the pond located within the subdivision was not located in the drainage channel and was not large enough to help with storm water retention. He explained utilization of the pond was not proposed to be a part of the drainage plan for the area. He advised that, in regard to the sanitary sewer, David Jurgens' report addressed the capacity of the sewer to handle the additional flows and infiltration. He pointed out Mr. Jurgens had concluded the proposed subdivision would present no problem for the existing sewer line in terms of capacity. Mr. Bunn added that, wherever the sewer might fall within that channelization, it would have to be . relocated. • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Bunn stated that, in regard to the manhole overflows which might be contributed to by the subject subdivision, the City was preparing a schedule of sewer repairs (which would be made prior to the full development of the subdivision) intended to off -set the additional flows created by the subdivision. He added, as mentioned in the report, there was a section which would require repair and was recommended in the staff's infiltration inflow analysis. Mr. Allred inquired as to what the Planning commission's responsibility would be as far as adhering to the Parks and Recreation recommendation. Ms. Little advised it was the staff's understanding and interpretation of the subdivision regulations that the Planning Commission's responsibility was to consult with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board before taking any land to determine that it was in compliance with the Master Parks Plan and that it would be suitable for parks development. She advised, however, the ultimate decision as to the taking of land for parks did rest with the Planning Commission and this had not been changed in the proposed draft of the ordinance. She advised there was a proposed change in the draft that, if either the developer or the Parks Board would disagree with the Planning Commission, the City Council could be petitioned to review it. She added that would tend to give great weight to the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board., Ms. Little stated the staff felt it was the Advisory Board's responsibility to undertake the issues and make the recommendations; therefore, some overriding concern on the part of the Planning Commission should be noted before overturning their decision. • Ms. Britton expressed concern that the new drainage channelization would remove all of the trees and inquired if the developer would be required to replant trees of similar specie help retain the channel. Mr. Bunn stated he was not sure that would be consistent with the current tree ordinance. He added that, from a drainage standpoint, the replanting of trees was not required. Ms. Little advised the Tree Ordinance required preservation of trees in the amount of 25% of existing trees at the time the subdivision was platted. She went on to say there would need to be a physical reason or a negotiation with the developer in order to require replacement of the trees. She advised there were quite a few existing trees on the property and it would seem the developer would be able to easily meet the requirement of the tree preservation plan by preserving other trees while removing those along the creek. Mr. Reynolds inquired if the City was willing to spend the money to correct the problem of flooding on the west side of Ramsey, specifically on the northwest corner where the existing duplex flooded every time there was a 3 -inch or 4 -inch rain. Mr. Bunn advised he would be glad to look into the problem to see what would be involved in correcting the flooding and whether money would be available to make any corrections; but, he was not sure it would be relevant to the subject subdivision since it was downstream. He advised the design of the channel through the subdivision would be done as if the flooding problem was already corrected. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little stated the requirement for • park land in the subdivision was 1.675 acres with the money in lieu being $15,075. • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 4 In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Mel Milholland stated he did not know the size of the existing pond on the property but the developer proposed to donate it as part of the land required for a park. He added he had been informed by the City Attorney that the developer had the option of whether to donate land for a park or pay the funds. Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated he had reviewed the ordinance and had determined the developer could choose to either give land or money. He advised the city staff was working on changing that ordinance. He noted there might be some ambiguity in the ordinance and some differences of opinion on how to read it. He further advised there was a rule of law that zoning ordinances were written in derogation of common law; and as such, the tie would go towards the land owner. He contended he was not favoring either the developers or those who disagreed with the ordinance; but was simply stating the way the ordinance was written. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn stated the proposal, as noted on the plat, was to fill in the pond. He added that, as far as the pathway of the channelization, the plan indicated the channel would be outside of that pond area. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland advised most of the larger trees were on the south side of the creek with a few on the north side. He noted the proposal was to save every tree they could and added they would • comply with the City Tree Preservation Plan. He went on to say the developer concurred with the City Engineer's report. He added they were willing to create the same amount of retention on the east side of the road as that of the natural retention created by old Wire Road embankment and the culvert. In answer to a request for clarification from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland reiterated that, whatever was naturally retained by the elevation of Old Wire Road joining the subdivision, they would provide for in the drainage plan, He noted they concurred with the storm drainage report and the Parks Board recommendation. Ms. Britton asked if they were going to pipe the water from the spring into the drainage flow of the creek. Mr. Milholland advised they propose to drain it underground to the creek. Ms. Micki Harrington, the attorney for Harry Jackson, advised she believed that Mr. Vorsanger's goal was for discussion and an opportunity for the City and the developer to look again at every issue regarding this subdivision. She stated there had been a lot of compromises and changes to the plat. She noted the developer was not asking for any waivers to the subdivision regulations. She also pointed out the plat had been analyzed by the city staff over and over. She further stated she was in agreement with the City Attorney's opinion on the parks ordinance. She noted density had not been one of the issues for which the plat was sent back to the Commission. She contended the developer was completely in compliance with the existing ordinances and was entitled to follow the ordinances on all the matters. She also pointed out the developer had proposed a lower density development than that allowed. . Ms. Harrington advised the water problems in the area obviously had existed long before the development was proposed and there were problems both upstream and downstream which needed to be handled regardless of whether the subdivision was • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 5 developed. She added the developer believed the development would cause changes in the entire drainage which would benefit the neighboring properties. In answer to a question from Ms. Harrington, Mr. Bunn stated the changes in the crossing at Old Wire Road and ensuring water retention so properties downstream were not adversely affected would certainly take care of some drainage problems on the east side. He added the fact there was a proposed subdivision was not of major importance in terms of the drainage because the same things would be done to correct the drainage even if the subdivision was not developed. He contended the amount of flows the subdivision would be adding in terms of a 25 -year or 50 - year storm were not significant. Ms. Harrington contended the developer had gone out of his way to work with the staff to address every problem. She noted the property owner's right to develop his land should not be forgotten in the course of procedure in spite of the neighbors' concerns. Larry Tuttle, a resident of the area, expressed concern regarding the existing flooding problems and the doubt that the existing culvert was adequate. He advised he and other neighbors had consulted an independent engineer (Mr. Graham) to look at the culvert and obtained a formal study regarding the drainage capacity of the culvert. He further stated Mr. Graham had found that the culvert's capacity was less than half of that suggested by Mr. Milholland and Mr. Bunn. He noted the report also reflected the capacity of the culvert to be 384 cubic feet per second if the culvert was 1008 full and 423 cubic feet per second if the culvert was 908. 1 • He stated the neighborhood had two questions: 1) how could Mr. Milholland tell them initially that the culvert could handle the proposed flow if it could not; and 2) how could Mr. Bunn's confirmatory study so closely coincide with Mr. Milholland's if it were a separate study and both of them were so far off from Mr. Graham's findings. He contended a new culvert would not have ever been considered if the neighbors had not hired the independent engineer at their own expense to verify their reports of flooding. He added they resented having to pay Mr. Graham at their expense to address basic problems Mr. Milholland and Mr. Bunn failed or neglected to recognize. He further stated that, because of this, the residents now had doubts regarding the credibility of the entire subdivision development. He urged the Planning Commission to disallow the developer's intention to fill in the flood plain, as well as the pond, until a more comprehensive drainage plan was implemented which would allow the area to continue to serve as a retention basin for the runoff of the 299 acre water shed (largely from Mt. Sequoyah) and continue to lessen the possibility of flooding downstream. Walt Stephens of Ranch Drive contended Mr. Milholland had stated at the April 19, 1994 Parks & Recreation meeting that the pond was spring -fed which was a contradiction to his original statement at the initial Planning Commission meeting. He added Mr. Milholland also stated the elevation of the existing pond made it unsuitable for water retention or flood control, but the bottom of the pond was actually lower than the existing floodway and would seem to make a very good detention area. He added Mr. Milholland had stated approximately 1 foot of fill would be brought in to keep the lots out of the flood plain in the area of the existing pond; but, according to the ordinance 3251, approved by the City in 1987, 2 feet of compacted soil was required above the existing flood plain. He went on to say Ordinance 3251 stated variances could only be issued when a good and sufficient cause was shown; determination that failure to grant the • variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and a determination that the granting of a variance would not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, 2-311 • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 6 create nuisances, cause fraud and/or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Mr. Stephens advised he took exception to the fact that the citizens had been treated as if they were a problem or a nuisance to the City. He stated they wanted a quality development with the flood plain being left alone. Mr. Tarvin requested clarification in regard to Mr. Stephens comments regarding development in the flood plain being prohibited. Ms. Little advised that prior to the first meeting on the subdivision, the staff contacted Conrad Batrell, the person in charge of flood plain management at the Corps of Engineers in Little Rock. She explained he had stated the Corps of Engineers' calculations for the floodway assumed 1008 fill of the flood plain which was also called the floodway fringe. She further explained the area shown on the plat in the cross -hatch had been assumed by the Corps of Engineers to be 1008 filled. She noted this was done in an effort to assure the floodway would have capacity which was also why they prohibited any filling in the floodway and regulate it so stringently. Ms. Little contended the ordinance required the finished floor elevation of any structure be elevated 2 feet above the 100 -year flood plain; witFi'a certification from a registered engineer required, which would be placed in the file before a building permit would be issued for that lot. She advised the Building Inspections Department was responsible for doing the tests on the soil to ascertain that compaction had occurred as required. • Mr. Tarvin clarified the ordinance did allow construction in the flood plain and the floor elevation had to be 2 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation. Ms. Little explained the building pad had to be 1 foot above the 100 -year flood plain and the finished floor elevation had to be 2 feet above the 100 -year flood plain. Mr. Tarvin stated his understanding of Mr. Stephens' comments were that the Corps of Engineers a set of guidelines which were different than the City's. Ms. Little noted Mr. Batrell had looked at the city ordinances and felt they were in 1008 compliance. Mr. Tarvin asked the City Attorney, Mr. Rose, for an opinion. Mr. Rose contended his understanding was the ordinance stated there was a 2 foot fill requirement in flood plain areas and the variance from that, if the 2 feet of fill was not done, was exactly as was stated. Ms. Harrington contended the developer was not asking for a variance and would meet everything that Ms. Little set forth. She added the idea of filling the flood plain to help the channelization of the water would be exactly what would happen in compliance with what the Corps and the city's regulations required. Craig Brown, a member of the audience, pointed out a lot of odious and unethical things could be done and still be legal. He expressed concern regarding the density issue in regard to the traffic so close to a school. He stated he wished the developer would voluntarily cut back the number of lots on the plat to make it more reasonable. • Larry Tompkins, a member of the audience, advised the Planning Enabling Legislation in Arkansas stated the Planning Commission's job and responsibility was to preserve and develop, in an orderly fashion, those lands in the interest is Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 7 of health, safety, general welfare, and prosperity. He suggested they take a broader view of this particular subdivision in light of the 2010 comprehensive plan which included design policies that dealt with the concept of the village scale. He stated the subdivision regulations were minimum standards which had become the standard. He stated the guidelines in the 2010 Plan were very appropriate maximizing and maintaining the environment. He contended the public hearing had basically become a negotiation process which was extremely important. He suggested they permit the timely citizen input into this subdivision, not only from the technical and engineering standpoint, but also from more meaningful social comment with regard to neighborhood and the ecology. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stressed the 2010 Plan had to be implemented by the zoning and the subdivision regulations. She reminded the Commission they were currently working under the old zoning and subdivision regulations. She noted that, under the 2010 Plan using the village option, smaller lots could be required if greater amounts of open space were left as tradeoff. She added that commercial would be an allowable use as well as such neighborhood service type facilities as residential offices and day care facilities. She added the introduction of units such as duplexes and four-plexes were also one of the recommendations under the village concept. Cyrus Sutherland, an architect, stated he had a prime --interest in historic buildings and he was astonished that the Jackson house had not been mentioned in the discussion. He advised it was one.of the most notable houses in Northwest Arkansas and he could testify to its basic structural soundness. He expressed concern that, if the floor level of this house fell below the flood plain, it would have to be demolished. He also expressed concern for the ancient trees on . the property. Ms. Little advised the Jackson house floor level was not below the flood plain. She added the house had a conventional foundation, but the elevation of the ground at that level was 1425 and the flood plain was between 1405 and 1410. She noted the subdivision had been designed so that the house would be saved and would fit on one of the proposed lots. She added although the out buildings were planned to be removed, the salvaged brick would be retained for the use of renovation to the house. Cyd Goodenough, a member of the audience, contended the flood plain issue was just an excuse to save a beautiful piece of land because nature provided the floods. She stated the tract was located right across from the school and should be a historic park. She contended this was all about greed. Ms. Little advised she had received two calls from citizens who were unable to attend the meeting with concerns about the density. She stated that, in conversation with them, she determined there was not so much a concern for density as there was for preservation of open space. Ms. Britton advised she was more comfortable with the development after the reassessment of the drainage, the culvert, and the idea of detaining some of the drainage on the site. She noted she still had concerns about the houses which would be built on those pieces of property adjacent to the creek. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. • In response to questions, Ms. Little gave a review of the ordinance relating to parks, reiterating two points 1) there was a requirement for dedication of land d • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 8 or payment of parks fees; 2) there seemed to be a strong inclination in the ordinances that the developer could propose the dedication of land. She advised it would be the developer's option, but the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board would decide if the dedication of land was within accordance with their Master Parks Plan and if the physical characteristics of the land were suitable for a park. She reminded two separate recommendations had been submitted by the Parks Board stating they did not wish to have land in the area. Ms. Little further noted the Planning Commission could make the decision to take land, but they could not make that decision without consulting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on the issues of need and suitability. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little stated the channelization plan would be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for approval because, under the Clean Water Act - Section 404, a permit was required for dredging and fill of wetlands which was a separate issue from the flood plain. She added the Corps of Engineers required that the permit be issued prior to any work taking place with a stiff penalty resulting if work did take place prior to their permitting process. Mr. Bunn advised another reason it would be submitted to the Corea of Engineers would be to get their assessment of the effects of filling in the flood plain, the channelization improvements, the change in the structure to Old Wire Road and to advise the City of changed conditions both downstream and within the subdivision. • Mr. Tarvin stated it seemed logical to have the Corps' decision before this was approved. Mr. Milholland stated it was not customary to require the Corps of Engineers approval of any drainage plan prior to approval. He stated the Corps, under the U.S. Waters Act, inspected any work done in the floodway and issued permits for utility and street crossings at the end of the design stage during the preliminary plat's approval. Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, when the plan was submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review, there might be changes required. Mr. Milholland reiterated a permit was required for anything done in the floodway. He added the City could request review of the improvements that were planned in the drainage area. Mr. Bunn advised they were asking the developer to do more than normally required. Mr. Tarvin stated that, if more than normal was being done in the floodway and flood plain, what was normally done would not be pertinent in this case. Mr. Milholland stated that, if the plat was approved, he would do design on the drainage which would be submitted to the Corps since it was in the flood way of U.S. waters. He advised if it did not meet the compliance, the Corps would inform him of needed improvements. He explained the Corps was not there to stop development, but to ensure compliance with their procedures. He reiterated the developer would concur with whatever was asked. Mr. Tarvin pointed out he was concerned the drainage could still be an issue after the plan was reviewed by the Corps if the plans were found not to be in compliance. He contended that assessment should be made before the plat was approved. Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 9 Ms. Harrington advised there would be adjustments made to meet the requirements if the plans were not in compliance because there would be no alternative in order to go forward. Mr. Allred pointed out a drainage plan would have to be submitted to the City Engineer regardless of the Corps of Engineers' review. In answer to a question from Mr. Head, Mr. Bunn advised the staff would be reviewing the problem on Ramsey and noted the culverts under the two new streets would have to match the capacity of the changes that were needed on Ramsey. AMENDED MOTION Ms. Britton amended her motion to approve the subdivision plat as proposed subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Little asked for clarification of the staff comments. Ms. Britton stated she was referring to staff comments from the -report plus the amended drainage report as proposed and the City Engineer's report which included the replacement of the box culvert. Mr. Reynolds asked if it was being proposed that the City would be responsible for the culvert on Ramsey and the developer would be responsible for the culvert • on Old Wire Road. Mr. Milholland stated the City would be responsible for the drainage problems upstream from the subdivision. He explained whatever was designed through the subdivision abutting the subdivision located on Ramsey would be as if Ramsey Street culvert was already taken care of and it would be matched. He added that, as far as Old Wire Road, they would work with the City on the same basis as every other developer. In answer to a question, Mr. Bunn stated he was in agreement with amendment to the motion. He added in regard to the drainage work which would be required upstream on Ramsey, he did not have the authority to obligate the City for the cost to repair the condition there; but he would look into it. Ms. Britton stated one of the staff comments would be approval of the drainage plan and the two culverts on the new streets which would be part of the drainage plan proposed. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that, until the ordinances for the City were rewritten, the Planning Commission was bound by the old rules and that was why this plat was approved. Mr. Suchecki stated that the rights of the private property owners to develop should not be ignored under the laws by which the city had set forth. 17) Z35 . Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 10 QUESTION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO HILLSIDE TERRACE IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOT SPLIT REQUESTED BY CARL LEDBETTER chairman Tarvin announced there had been a request to add another item to the agenda under old business which related to the lot split approved for Carl Ledbetter at the last meeting. Ms. Little explained the Commission had approved a lot split for Carl Ledbetter at their last scheduled meeting. She further explained the issue was whether improvements should be required to Hillside Terrace. She noted the person requesting the lot split had come back to the staff for clarification as to whether improvements would be required for Hillside Terrace in connection with the lot split. She advised that, in 1988 when the rezoning was approved, the minutes reflected the following: The Commission also approved splitting the R-1 part into no more than three single-family lots, and indicated that no off-site improvements would be required for this parceling." and "A property owner in the audience noted that the developer had previously offered to limit the access in the R -O and R-2 areas so that traffic would come out on Highway 265 rather than funneled across from the residential area, and the Board agreed that the minutes should reflect the City's acceptance of the developer's offer to execute-a.Bii-l*-of Assurance to run with the land." Ms. Little noted the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission, in light of the history of this subject, was that no off-site improvements for Hillside • Terrace be required because Hillside Terrace would not be used for access since it was the expressed wishes of the residents at that time that the use of Hillside Terrace not be allowed. Mr. Bunn advised the owner had requested clarification on this at the original lot split approval and the staff failed to do that. He noted they want a clarification so that they can make a decision on the property. He noted that the staff's memorandum to the Planning Commission stated since the acreage involved was over an acre, that question would be resolved at the time of the large scale development. However, they have requested a decision be made before then to help in the decision on the property. Mr. Reynolds stated this was the first time he had seen this and suggested it be tabled until the next meeting. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to table this item until the next meeting to give the Commission an opportunity to review it. The motion died for the lack of a second. Ms. Little reminded the Commission of Sterling Estates Subdivision which was platted with six lots on Hillside Terrace. She stated Sterling Estates was the R-1 and R-2 portion of the piece of property and noted they were now dealing with the R -O portion of the property. She further added that, at the time the plat was approved, the question of off-site improvements had been addressed and, due to a Bill of Assurance offered by the owners, an agreement had been made that only the proportionate share of costs for improvements for those three lots that fronted on Hillside would be required by the Planning Commission, Ms. Little advised at the Council/Board level, it had been determined no off-site improvements would be required for the R-1 parceling if it was limited to three lots. O • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Allred stated that he received some information there were some restrictive covenants for the entire area which indicated the plat was not to have access to Valerie and these lots were to have ingress/egress on Highway 265, Ms. Little stated she was not aware of covenants to that affect, but there was a Bill of Assurance to that affect. In answer to further inquiry from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated the staff's recommendation was, in keeping with what was approved in 1980, not to require the off-site improvements. She noted they would not be contributing to the traffic on the road. Carl Ledbetter of Sterling Development, the petitioner, reiterated the discussion was on record in the 1980 Board of Directors minutes. He added the existing property owners had gone on record in opposition of the road being upgraded. Ms. Little advised the petitioner deserved clarification on this issue, but she would like to make it very clear the Planning Commission was only being asked whether improvements would be required to Hillside Terrace. She noted the rest of the off-site improvements would have to be decided upon at the time the parcel went through the large scale development process. MOTION Mr. Allred moved that off-site improvements not be required in connection with the lot split as per staff comments. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 6-0-2 with Commissioners Head, Suchecki, Johnson, Pummill, Allred, and Britton voting "yea" and Commissioners Reynolds and Tarvin "abstaining". r � U 0 2371 Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 12 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V94-4; PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT; CONDITIONAL USE CU94-4 MIRE HOWARD - OFF REVERE PLACE, EAST OF CAMBRIDGE ROAD The next item was a request for a Right -of -Way Vacation V94-4; Property Line Adjustment; and Conditional Use CU94-4 submitted by Mike Howard for property located off Revere Place, east of Cambridge Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was to vacate the easternmost 300 feet of Right -of -Way of Revere Place and for a tandem lot conditional use. Ms. Little advised she would attempt to give the Commission some additional information about how this request related to the development of Park Place as a whole. She submitted a color -coded map which showed a 50 -foot access to the east at the east end of Lensfield Place (now blocked by the recreational area for Park Place, Phase III). She added there was a 50 -foot access to the east and south at the east end of Revere Place which was now blocked by Park Place, Phase V. She noted there was currently a 50 -foot access to the east at the end of Victoria Lane and a 50 -foot access to the east to Arthur's Court from the Boardwalk Subdivision to provide a continuous access. She advised this was complicated by a structure which has been constructed at 2496 Victoria Lane within 3 feet of the city right-of-way and noted an application for a variance from the setback requirement had been filed. Ms. Little explained the staff had submitted to the commission a copy of all the minutes of the Planning Commission deliberations on Park Place, Phases IV, V. VI, VII, and VIII (VI, VII, and VIII are now Boardwalk Subdivision). She advised, according to the history of the Planning Commission, an access to Highway 265 for . this subdivision was required. She noted an issue had been raised a month ago requesting the Property Owners Association be allowed to construct a lot at the end of Revere Place requiring vacation of the right-of-way which could possibly be used for a connection at some future time. Ms. Little stated the first decision to be made was whether the Commission wished to reopen the discussion of the connections to Highway 265. She clarified the approval of Park Place, Phase V and Boardwalk included a 50 -foot right-of-way which could provide for an extension of Victoria Lane to the east. She went on to say that, according to records, a gravel 16 -foot wide emergency access was required. She explained nothing had happened since that time to preclude the 16 -foot wide emergency access being constructed, but there were some concerns regarding possible non-compliance with building setbacks by the homes located at 2496 Victoria and 2495 Victoria, Ms. Little stated the second decision would be whether the 16 -foot emergency access would be viable in light of the structures located adjacent to the access. She noted the City would have a very difficult time getting a standard city street at that location since there were homes close to the 50 -foot right-of-way. She advised she had discussed this situation with Jim Lindsey who was willing to work with the City to resolve the question of access. In response to a comment by Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated there would be no further building permits issued adjacent to the access until the issue was resolved. Mr. Tarvin clarified there was only 16 feet from the driveway of 2496 to the tree at 2495. Ms. Little advised the trees and the driveway were in the right-of-way and the house was within 3 feet of the right-of-way at 2495. • Mr. Allred stated originally the requirement was a 16 -foot emergency access with a surfacing of SB2 covered with grass and placement of a barrier. He contended • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 13 one of his concerns at that time was that the general public would use it as a cut through and it would be a natural path instead of a street. He commented assurances were given by the Homeowner's Association it would be taken care. He noted he was in favor of enforcing the 16 -foot access with a barrier. Ms. Little advised a barrier was not a part of the approval. She added the entire purpose of the access was for emergency vehicles. Mr. Allred pointed out it was also alluded to in the minutes on record if this were not done, it could be reopened as a street by the Commission's approval. Ms. Little referred to the minutes dated May 14, 1990 which stated the staff recommendation was that Phases V and VIII be approved as submitted favoring the direct connection between Mission and Crossover rather than only an emergency access. She advised the motion was to approve a proposal of putting a cul-de-sac with an emergency access at the east end of Victoria Lane in Phase V. She noted the records indicated there was clarification that, if they voted in favor of the cul-de-sac, it did not necessarily mean the street would be permanently closed. She advised an inquiry had been made as to whether their decision would preclude a further extension to the south and the answer was in the affirmative. Ms. Little pointed out that had caused some of the problems because, once the change had been made, the property lines had not been adjusted to reflect the fact and were shown going to the center of the right-of-way. She added that, since the right-of-way was not paved, it was not evident a street connection was intended. • Mr. Allred referred to the minutes of August 24, 1992 which reflected the Subdivision Committee had recommended the emergency access become a street when if it was used by the general public. He added it stated the Property Owner's Association and residents of Park Place preferred the connection not be made. He further stated the minutes reflected that, if the easement was being used, it would come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Little advised the minutes on record reflected there would not be a through street between Phases V and VII without further action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred suggested they go back to the original agreement. Ms. Little advised she thought the staff could use what was originally agreed upon and require the access to be constructed now. She stated they needed to decide whether they want to vacate the street right-of-way at the end of Revere Place. Mr. Tarvin contended a public street could not be built at that location now because there was not room. Ms. Little advised the full 50 feet of right-of-way had not been compromised; there was room for a 31 foot wide street although there were trees and a driveway within it. With further questions from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained the street could be offset to the south since the house on the south was located 14.5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Tarvin noted there would be 22 feet of driveway if the street was built all the way against the south right-of-way. 0 Z39l • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 14 Ms. Little stated the driveway for the home at 2496 would be cleared because it was determined to be only about 6 inches into the 16 -foot access. She added there was also the consideration of building a street less than 31 feet wide. She noted the access was obviously currently being used probably by construction workers. Ms. Britton advised she would like to see the option of the through street at Revere Place pursued but it might require a condemnation of property. She suggested this matter be tabled until the staff could work it out. Mr. Suchecki contended if the Property Owners Association would clearly mark the access as emergency use only and the construction workers would not use it, it would be back to the original request for a well marked emergency access only. Ms. Britton commented the property owner at 2496 was apparently not aware of the emergency access since it was not obvious and noted the Planning Commission should have originally required the access be paved. She added her feeling was if it was not viable to pursue Revere Place, Victoria Lane needed to be constructed to at least a 24 -foot width. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to leave the easement as it was, but required the marking and sod be placed in the appropriate manner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. • Ms. Britton contended by allowing the access to remain as it was they would be compounding an error made by the earlier Planning Commission. Mr. Allred contended the property owner at 2496 was aware of this proposal so any problem with the house would not be the City's responsibility. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Commissioner Johnson "abstaining". RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V94-4 Ms. Little advised a vacation of right-of-way would require action both by the Commission and the City Council. Mr. Calvin Jarrett, property owner of Lot 3 of Boardwalk Subdivision (1543) at the location of the emergency access road, advised they had full knowledge of the access when they purchased the lot. He contended, however, there was no mention of a paved road on the plat. He requested a permanent solution to this matter since there was discussion of a paved road which would be off -set on his side of the right-of-way. He contended that would cause a building setback issue. He requested an action to ensure there would never be a paved road. Ms. Little advised Mr. Jarrett could pursue a vacation of the right-of-way by going through the same procedure that the Property Owner's Association had followed. Mr. Pummill stated that the Property Owner's Association should ensure the access was used for emergency vehicles only. Frances Mayo, 1728 Cambridge, president of the Park Place Homeowners Association, advised the purpose in the request for the right-of-way vacation was in an • attempt to sell the lot to raise some funds to improve, enhance, and maintain the 5 acres of common ground owned by the POA. She added they had received an offer • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 15 and acceptance on the lot. She made the point the subject right-of-way was useless to the City because it did not go anywhere. Bill Bleil, a homeowner in Park Place, advised the Park Place residents were unanimous in their opinion that Park Place should not have an access to Highway 265. In answer to questions from John Willett, Ms. Little advised the lot which the City would not issue a permit on until the subject issue was settled was located in Boardwalk on Arthur's Court. She added there was a 50 -foot right-of-way on the Boardwalk side on Arthur's Court between lots 2 and 3 (1543 and 1571). She further added one of the alternatives before the Commission was that, if an access was not possible across Victoria, it could be possible at this location. Mr. Willett advised that, since 1990, the residents did not want a thoroughfare through Park Place. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve right-of-way vacation V94-4. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. .-.. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred; Ms. Little stated there were two ways this could be accomplished, as a conditional use for a tandem lot with a 25 foot access or as a legal lot with the extension of the cul-de-sac to provide a 70 . foot minimum frontage. She added the Street Department had requested that a turnaround be provided. She commented the opinion of the Property Owner's Association was they could not afford the cost of a turnaround and still realize any profit from the sale of the lot. She further stated it would be typical for the Commission to ask of the POA the same requirements that would be asked of anyone else. In answer to further questions, Ms. Little explained Revere Place did not currently have a turnaroundbecauseit was not required since the emergency access was required. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Head, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds, Johnson, and Tarvin voting "no". PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT Mr. Suchecki clarified the property line adjustment would separate lot 19 into lot 19A and 19B. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised this was a tandem lot conditional use because the lot would not have frontage on the right-of-way of Revere Place. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the property line adjustment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Head, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and . Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds, Johnson, and Tarvin voting "no". 2q01 Planning Commission 46 April 25, 1994 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT CU94-4 Ms. Little advised the Commission this was the point a decision would have to be made as to whether a turnaround or a 25 -foot private access easement would be required. She requested clarification from Frances Mayo, the president of the Property Owners Association, that the lot being created was an enlargement of the existing Lot 19B and the Property Owners' Association property would remain to the east of lot 19B. Ms. Mayo agreed. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the east boundary line of lot 19B was the west side of the right-of-way. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the staff had worked with the Homeowners Association for a period of approximately three years and had recognized the Street Department's concern that a turnaround be constructed. She went on to say that, basically out of concern for the Homeowners Association, the staff had gotten to the point where they were willing to accept the turnaround currently provided (a portion of the recreational area). She advised the staff had recommended approval of the tandem lot. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the conditional use for a tandem lot. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Head. • The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Head, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Britton voting "yes" and Reynolds, Johnson, and Tarvin voting "no". 11 • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 17 CONSENT AGENDA: There was a request by Ms. Little to remove Item C and a request from Ms. Britton to remove Item B from the Consent Agenda to be discussed and voted on individually. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 1994. MOTION The motion passed unanimously. 0 • 2y2J I Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 18 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-6 - DUPLEX BILLY LITTLE - 1779 N WOOLSEY AVE The next item was a conditional use request CU94-6 submitted by Billy Little for property located at 1779 N. Woolsey Avenue and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a duplex. Ms. Little advised this request was to allow an existing single-family structure at this location to be converted into a duplex. .She stated the area was mainly single-family and that work had already started on the structure. Ms. Little advised the staff did recommend approval of the request on the condition that all drives and parking surfaces be paved. She noted the reasoning was that this particular structure needed renovating and there had been reports that the structure harbored rats. She added one phone call had been received with the concern that adequate procedures would be taken to ensure a safe and sound structure (specifically the foundation) and elimination of the rodent problem. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised that a building permit was issued and a certificate of occupancy would be required before occupancy. She pointed out the City Inspections Department discovered the fact that the single-family residence was being converted to a duplex during routine inspections. . Kathy (last name unintelligible) advised she had questioned Ms. Little on what basis the staff had recommended approval and was told that the Planning Committee of the City of Fayetteville wanted to put more duplexes into R-1 zones. She added she had obtained a list of signatures of persons from the community opposing the duplex at this location because of the current density of the area. She stated further reasons for the opposition was the construction of the building was very old with an inadequate foundation, there were drainage problems, and the lot and building are too small for a duplex. Bill Rudasill of 1780 North Woolsey advised he was opposed to this request because of the predominance of R-1 in that area which the neighborhood would like to see remain. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to deny the conditional use request CU94-6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 19 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT — MOLLY COURT TOWNHOUSES GLENN SOWDER — N OF ADAMS STREET, OFF OF MOLLY COURT The next item was a large scale development for Molly Court Townhouses submitted by Glenn Sowder for property located north of Adams Street, off of Molly Court and containing 2.28 acres. Ms. Little advised the staff recommended a dedication of additional right-of-way be granted off of Gregg Street. She noted the Subdivision Committee did not elect to bring that recommendation forward and the staff would like the issue clarified. She pointed out the required right-of-way dedication would be 15 feet. Ms. Little further stated the City Council had recently instructed the staff to stringently enforce the off-site improvement provisions of the ordinance. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised parking should be along the eastern boundary. Mr. Pummill advised the Subdivision Committee had contended that, if the developer would dedicate tho right-of-way, parking would be allowed on it until such time as the City decided to widen Gregg Street. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin,..Mr. Conklin advised the development was exceeding the required number of parking spaces, and even with elimination of the parking proposed on the right-of-way, there would be sufficient parking. He noted there would be parking located on the interior of the development which would be used if the east parking was eliminated, noting the tenants would have • to park farther away from the building. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the one-way driveway and the access being so close to the intersection because of problems with traffic safety. She suggested the driveway be moved farther south and a triangle island be put in the north access allowing only right turns into and out of the development in order to encourage use of the other access point. Mr. Sowder expressed his belief the one-way drive would be less dangerous. He added he personally believed it would obstruct traffic. He advised the access would be at least 40 feet from the corner which met the ordinance requirement. Ms. Little requested any motion be clear on what was being required in regard to the dedication of right-of-way; the allowing of the right-of-way to be used as parking; who would be required to pay the cost of the street improvements (the developer or the City); and whether there would be a Bill of Assurance, money in an escrow account, or no requirement for contribution for widening of Gregg Street. She advised the staff was requesting the dedication of right-of-way, an additional dedication of 15 feet for the relocation of the utility easement, and construction of improvements to Gregg Street. Mr. Sowder stated he would do whatever was fair but he would prefer to be paid for the property for the street to be widened like everyone else along there would be. He added he was willing to work with the City. Mr. Pummill stated as he understood it, Mr. Sowder had agreed to dedicate the right-of-way if he was allowed to use it as parking without charging the City for the land. He added that was the compromise the Subdivision Committee came to with the developer. . Mr. Sowder agreed. 24yJ • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 20 Ms. Little advised the minutes of the Subdivision Committee reflected the petitioner would be allowed to use the right-of-way as long as he offered a Bill of Assurance that, upon the call of the City, he would dedicate the right-of-way to the City. Mr. Sowder stated he would dedicate the right-of-way as requested. In answer to a question from Mr. Head, Ms. Little explained there was currently a 15 -foot wide utility easement along side Gregg Street. She added that, if the City required the additional 15 feet for widening of the street, the utility company's 15 -foot easement would have to be located. She pointed out there would be a required 15 -foot right-of-way dedication plus the relocation of the existing utility easement for a total of 30 feet. Mr. Tarvin pointed out it would not be 30 feet of right-of-way, but 15 feet of right-of-way owned by the City and a 15 -foot utility easement. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised Gregg Street was on the Master Street Plan and on the unfunded list of the CIP Plan. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the staff's recommendation was to place the money for approving Gregg' -Street into an escrow account. Mr. Sowder requested he be allowed to pay for the street improvements at the time they were done. He reiterated he would like to be treated like the rest of the • property owners along Gregg Street and only pay for his improvements if they paid for theirs. Mr. Pummill advised it was his understanding the other property owners along the street would be paid for their land for the widening of the street, but Mr. Sowder would be required to dedicate the land without payment and also be required to pay for the improvements. He stated that did not seem fair. Ms. Little explained the Subdivision Regulations required developers to pay their proportionate share of improvements. She added the apartment complex would be contributing to the traffic on Gregg Street and the need for improvements. She further stated structures currently along Gregg were mainly single-family homes and were not adding to the traffic. She explained existing development would not cause an existing need, but new development would add to the need. Dennis Becker, architect for this development, stated they had proposed a bus stop turnout on the preliminary plan; however, at the Plat Review meeting, it was determined the turnout would require another 25 -foot setback plus the 10 feet for the bus stop eliminating four units. He asked for consideration of allowing a bus turnout with a 15 -foot setback instead of the 25 -foot which would fall in line with the 2010 Plan. Ms. Little advised the staff would be willing to support that request, but variances to the zoning ordinances would need to be directed to the Board of Adjustment. In answer to questions from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the bus turnout was not a requirement, although it was a good idea. She added that, if the Planning Commission wanted to consider a bus turnout, the motion would need to state the turnout would be approved conditioned upon approval by the Board of Adjustment. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Sowder advised he had been informed a bus stop • at the subject location would not be added to the University bus route Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 21 immediately. He added, however, there would be a need for a bus stop at some point in the future. Ms. Little reiterated any motion made needed to address the issues of improvements to Gregg Street, the timing, and the payment. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development with the 15 -foot right- of-way dedication, in lieu of payment for improvements and with the bus turnout. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Head. Mr. Allred clarified the motion regarding the payment for street improvements would not be waved, but would be assessed at the time Gregg Street was widened. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised she was of the opinion that, if a Bill of Assurance was not obtained, it would not be legally enforceable. She added the City had cases currently with Bill of Assurances they could not collect. Mr. Allred asked if the Bill of Assurance could be tied to the -property. Ms. Little advised they could ask the legal department to construct something along that line. Mr. Allred advised that, if a lien were put on the property it would prevent the • developer from obtaining mortgages, refinancing, etc., but if a Bill of Assurance was acquired which was tied to the legal description it could be enforced at some future point without a lien. In answer to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Reynolds stated the intent was not to bind Mr. Sowder legally to pay for those improvements at a later date because he felt the 15 feet was enough to take away from the developer at this time. Ms. Britton advised other developers had to put in streets and do off-site improvements. She noted this development would impact Gregg Street with all the increased traffic. • Mr. Tarvin clarified the motion was to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments with the 15 -foot dedication of right-of-way and the 15 feet for the utility easement being required; the cost for developing Gregg Street not being assessed at any time; the bus stop turnout not being required if the Board of Adjustment denied the setback variance; and parking being allowed on the right-of-way. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Head, Suchecki, Pummill, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Johnson, Allred and Britton voting "no" ZLI& J Planning Commission • April 25, 1994 Page 22 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-22 C T PEARSON - S OF 15TH ST, W OF WEST AVENUE The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-22 submitted by C.T. Pearson for property located south of 15th Street, west of West Avenue. The request was to rezone 8.99 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial -Heavy Commercial. Ms. Little advised there was an industrial building just to the east of the subject property and to the south was a mini -storage unit. She noted the remaining surrounding uses were mainly single-family with a lot of vacant land to the south. She expressed concern that quite a bit of the property was located within the 100 -year flood plain and traversed by a 20 -foot sewer easement. She noted the staff did not recommend approval of the request because industrial uses normally required large tracts of land; this particular site had developmental restraints making it unsuitable for an industrial site; and the site was surrounded on the west and north by residential uses. Mr. Bill Rudasill, representing the petitioner, stated the petitioner felt the best use for this property would be an industrial use. He added, however, due to the constraints on the site, it would be developed with smaller buildings. In answer to a question from Mr. Head, Mr. Rudasill advised the rezoning request was for speculative reasons. MOTION • Mr. Pummill moved to deny the rezoning request R94-22. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion passed unanimously. • 0 Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONINGS R94-23, R94-24, & R94-25 C T PEARSON & L STANTON - S OF TOWNSHIP, E OF COLLEGE The next item was a public hearing for rezoning requests R94-23, R94-24, and R94- 25 submitted by C.T. Pearson and L. Stanton for property located on the south side of Township Road, east of College Avenue. R94-23 was a request to rezone 1.98 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. R94-24 was a request to rezone 1.38 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. R94-25 was a request to rezone 8.27 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Me. Little advised the applicant was requesting to rezone approximately 1.38 acres (to the rear of the properties along 71B) to C-2; approximately 2 acres in the middle of the acreage to R -O, and approximately 9 acres to the east of the proposed R -O property to R-2. Ms. Little advised the staff was not recommending any of the requests except the portion requested to be zoned R -O. She added the staff recommended those portions requested for R-2 and C-2 also be considered for rezoning to R -O. She advised the recommendation was made for the following reasons: the General Plan recommended developments include mixed uses so the R -O zoning would be the appropriate classification to allow single-family, duplexes, and offices as a use by right. She also noted R -O zoning it would allow the Planning Commission to make the decision as to whether multi -family units or eating establishments could be developed as conditional uses. She further stated staff was also recommending any concept for rezoning include an alternate ingress/egress to the property since the widening of Township Road had been opposed by neighboring • residents with concerns regarding existing traffic. She added staff was also aware of drainage problems caused by the development on the north side of Township, Emerald Point Subdivision. She requested any rezoning concept include a provision that drainage would have to be addressed early in the development process. Ms. Little stated that, at the request of a neighbor, she was submitting to the Commission a copy of the minutes of a hearing in regard to the widening of Township held on September 24, 1991. She noted a map had also been submitted to the Commission for use in deciding alternate connections. She stated it appeared connections would have to be made from Overcrest in order for the property to have an alternate egress. She advised she had received a call from Gail Beggs expressing concern regarding the introduction of other uses into the area by this development and the connection through her neighborhood. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated there was a single- family structure located on the small piece in the middle of this property. She noted she believed that Jane Avenue did exist as an access. Bill Rudasill, representing the owners, stated they were in disagreement with Ms. Little's recommendation to rezone all of the property to R -O. He advised they had tried to progress the properties from commercial to R-1. He noted there was currently commercial uses on Jane Avenue. He explained the developers were planning offices in the R -O with a progressive into duplex lots in the R-2. He further noted they would be willing to offer a Bill of Assurance limiting the R-2 area or, propose an R-1.5 zoning to limited to duplexes. He stated medium sized homes were proposed on the western portions of the R-1 zoned area and larger lots on the area abutting the existing subdivisions accessed by Juneway Terrace. 0 • Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 24 Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the massive cut and cliff on the property especially for use as residential property because of safety reasons. Mr. Rudasill advised they had taken the cut and cliff into consideration and it would be looked at when the property went through the Subdivision process. He reiterated the lots would be deep in order to keep the homes as far away from that ledge as possible. Trevor Lavy, an adjacent property owner, advised his property was essentially landlocked so he would request a road be required through the subject property to touch the border of his property. He commented he did not have any immediate plans for his property, but would like to see the same usage granted on his property as the subject property. Mr. Charles Stewart, a resident on the corner of Jimmy Avenue and Township Road, expressed opposition to the rezoning requests. He advised there was a proposal to rezone that area several years ago to allow development of an orthopedic clinic which had been denied. He contended people in the area had built nice homes and were concerned about property value erosion as well as the additional traffic which would compound the existing problems on Township. He explained the neighborhood was not opposed to development of the land, but would request it be used for R-1 purposes. He also pointed out there was a -high pressure gas line on the remaining R-1 portion of the property which would restrict the usage of that area. Mr. Stanton, one of the petitioners, advised that, after owning the land for 21 years, he had finally decided to develop it. He stated the area abutting the commercial zone was not conducive to residential development because of a 20 to 30 -foot drop on the property, the noise, the 24-hour restaurant nearby, and the closeness of the bowling alley. He explained they had proposed a transition zone between the commercial and residential areas.. He further stated he could understand the concerns about traffic, but pointed out the congestion of Township was caused by the extension to Highway 265. He requested they not zone the property all R-1, but leave the buffer zone. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Rudasill advised the rezoning requests were developed along the lines of either selling the lots or constructing homes.. He stated the R-2 was planned for duplexes with a possibility of some triplexes, but no apartments. He advised the high pressure gas line mentioned earlier was located in the northeast corner oftheproperty and would affect 1 1/2 to 2 lots. He pointed out that, after talking to the staff about their plans, they proposed a connection to Overcrest and an extension to Mr. Lavy's property. Mr. Rudasill advised they had also discussed their proposals with the Parks Board and were informed three acres of land would be required for parks since this was a priority one zone for parks. He stated the gas line easement portion of the property would be a good place for a park since it would be the only portion of the property required to access Township off an individual lot. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little reiterated the R -O zoning would give the Commission more control over the uses developed on the property because single-family and duplexes would be uses by right, but triplexes would not. She added professional offices would be a use by right, but eating places and multi -family dwellings would have to come back to the Commission for approval. • In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated the rectangular property (not a part of the request) was zoned R-1 and was separately owned. Planning Commission • April 25, 1994 Page 25 Mr. Allred suggested approving the C-2 and R -O and leaving the options open on the R-2 request until they had a definite plan to deal with the cliff area on the west. Ms. Little advised the staff was concerned regarding recommending thoroughfare commercial where there was no thoroughfare. She added that, if commercial was to be considered, the staff would request that neighborhood commercial (C-1) be considered. Mr. Suchecki pointed out that R -O with conditional uses would allow a lot of the C-1 uses on the property. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding residential uses being near the cut. She expressed her belief that residential offices would be more appropriate there but not an R -O zoning since it would allow for residences in that area. Ms. Little advised the only zoning district allowing offices and not other commercial uses was R -o. She commented she was not familiar with any mechanism which would allow restriction of housing from that portion of the land. She noted Ms. Britton's concerns could be discussed and the developer could offer a Bill of Assurance barring construction of residential units. Mr. Jim Wilkins stated if the R-1 zoning were left in its entirety, the west end would abut against the cliff. He noted it seemed it would be better to have commercial all the way across rather than permit private residences there. Joe Rodman, of 2160 Juneway, expressed concern that, if Overcrest was used as an • alternate connection, it would become a thoroughfare. He explained one of the primary reasons the Planning Commission denied a request years ago to locate the orthopedic clinic at the subject location was because of the compounded traffic on Overcrest. A resident of 2245 Juneway, expressed concern that, if the 8.27 acres were rezoned to R-2, there would be the potential for up to 24 units per acre allowing a 200 -unit apartment complex. Mr. Stanton contended he certainly would not put a 200 -unit apartment complex on the Bite. He noted he did not think duplexes would hurt in certain areas, but he did respect the rights of the neighborhood. He further stated he agreed it would not be a good idea to place residences up against the commercial zone, but an R -O zone would serve as a buffer. He requested if the Commission did not want to rezone any of the property to R-2, they consider a rezoning to R -O or R- 1.5. Ms. Little advised R-1.5 would allow duplexes and tri-plexes as a use by right. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the density in R -O would be the same as R-3, but any multi -family uses would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, Mr. Robert Martin, owner of 11 acres of property just south of the subject property, stated historically there had been a considerable resistance to "Highway 71 Sprawl" from Ash to Township. He advised approval would allow what had been a wooded area to become a part of an encroachment into R-1. He noted there had not been a particular need demonstrated for apartments, commercial, or residential -office in that area. He added, in his opinion, the property could be developed in a profitable way as residential homes. He stated that, as an owner of property at the end of Overcrest, he did not the property rezoned • because of traffic problems. Planning Commission • April 25, 1994 Page 26 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to rezone the total acreage to R -O, Residential -Office subject to an alternate access and the drainage being addressed at the early onset of the project. The motion died for the lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to deny the three rezoning requests (R94-231 R94-24, and R94- 25). The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Tarvin advised a denial of these requests would not affect any future proposals that come before them except the fact they could not come before the Commission with the identical request within 12 months. The motion passed unanimously. C J Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 27 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Little reminded the Commission she needed to know if any of the Commissioners wanted to attend the Planning Commissioner's Workshop May 12th in Hot Springs. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. C-1