Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 27, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R, Head, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Jana Lynn Britton, and Phyllis Hall Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Suchecki and Charles Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: It was requested that Items 1. (G) Conditional Use CU94-10, (I) Lot Split #1 and Conditional Use CU94-13 and CU94-14 and (L) Lot Split #1 - Dr. Harvey Smith and Dr. Bill Dill be discussed and voted on separately. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 13, LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LEVERETT STREET TOWNHOUSES, PHASE II: Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jerry Sweetser for property located on the east side of Leverett, south of Sycamore. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 1.97 acres with 24 unite proposed. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SHILOH PLAZA: Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Len Edens for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, south of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.53 acres. FINAL PLAT - LYNN LEIGH HILL ADDITION: Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Wheeler for property located on the southwest corner of Hwy 112 and Deane Solomon Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 8.45 acres with 8 lots. FINAL PLAT - PINE CREST ADDITION: Submitted by Kurt Nones on behalf of BMP Development, for property located east of Salem Road, north of Timberline. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 16.03 acres with 72 lots. CONDITIONAL USE CU94-9: Submitted by Mary Kling for property located at 5855 Tackett Drive. The property is zoned A-1. Agricultural, and the request is for a Bed and Breakfast. CONDITIONAL USE CU94-11: Submitted by Matt Wengert on behalf of Angie Wengert for property located at 10 North Garland. The property is zoned P-1. Institutional, and the request is for a Fraternity House. CONDITIONAL USE CU94-15: Submitted by Robert Martin for property located at 610 Overcrest. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and the request is for a tandem lot. LOT SPLIT #1: Submitted by Ed Connell on behalf of Patrick Henry Burnett for property located at 1030 Hollywood Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 2 LOT SPLITS #1, #21 AND #3: Submitted by Kirk Elsass on behalf of Joe Fred Starr for property located at 3340 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, NOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the remainder of the consent agenda excluding,Items 1. (G), (I), and (L). Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-0. (Commission Head absent) CONDITIONAL USE CU94-10 - DUPLEX PORTER EEE - 2948 MT. COMFORT ROAD The next item was Conditional Use CU94-18 submitted by Porter Ebe for property located at 2948 Mt, Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the request is for a duplex. Ms. Britton advised there was already a structure on the site and she did not believe the request seemed appropriate. Mr. Reynolds agreed and stated he would be in favor of allowing the petitioner to add an additional room but not an additional kitchen. Mr. Tom Hatfield, 2996 Mt. Comfort Road, stated he could understand the petitioner wanting her mother to live on the premises with her but was concerned that should Ms. Ebe sell her house, it could become a duplex. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, spoke in regard to Conditional Use Request CU94-10 for a duplex which had been submitted by Porter Ebe for property located at 2948 Mt. Comfort Road. He expressed concern that a duplex would be encroaching in their established single-family area and contended there were other areas which would be more suitable. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to deny CU94-10. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 3 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLIT #1 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-13 6 CU94-14 MAX PARKER - E OF GREGG AVE, S OF SYCAMORE ST The next item was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 and Conditional Use Requests CU94-13 and CU94-14 submitted by Max Parker for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, south of Sycamore Street. The conditional use requests were for duplexes. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the staff had an addition to their staff report. She noted it had been pointed out that the Commission had approved the structure at the corner of Sycamore and Gregg for a duplex less than a year ago. She noted at that time there had been concern from residents of the area that a trend to allow duplexes in the neighborhood not be started. Ms. Little read from the minutes from that meeting. Ms. Britton advised she had requested this item be removed from the consent agenda was to give the residents of the area a chance to voice their concerns. Mr. Max Parker, the petitioner, advised the property in question was approximately 8/10ths of an acre and they had determined that duplexes would be the best choice of development. He advised they were requesting a split of the property which would create two lots of approximately 100 feet by 170 feet to 212 feet. He noted they intended to preserve most of the mature trees on the property and to plant a denser growth next to the neighbors to aid in reducing the noise from the traffic on Gregg Street. He pointed out, with the proposed development plan, there would be at least 100 feet between the back of the duplexes and the neighbors on Vandeventer Street. • Mr. Parker read the four conditions of approval noted in the staff's recommendation: 1) construction of duplexes that have the appearance of single- family homes;2) location of all parking spaces and garages to the rear of the structures; 3) provision of two parking spaces for each duplex; and 4) provision of a shared access drive and limiting of curb cuts to Gregg Avenue to one. He stated he proposed locating the garages and parking areas to the sides of the units to eliminate having to cut away part of a bank located at the back of the lots and to allow preservation of more trees. He added that, in regard to the fourth condition, there were two existing curb cuts so no additional curb cuts would be needed. Ms. Britton stated her understanding of the reasoning behind the request for rear garages was that typically there were no garages on duplexes, but basically one huge curb cut the length of the building. Ms. Little advised parking _garages to the side would be equally acceptable to the staff. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Parker advised there would be approximately 1,300 square feet per side with a total of approximately 2,600 square feet per unit. Ms. Britton requested assurance that the applicant's proposed development would not be modified from what he was presenting to the Commission. Mr. Parker stated he would have no objection to the Commission reviewing the construction plans as had been suggested by the staff. CI Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split as requested. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. The motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional uses subject .to the staff's recommendation with the conditions that the garages be located to the side and that no additional curb cuts be created. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 5 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT *1 DRS HARVEY SMITH & BILL DILL - N OF JOYCE BLVD, W OF CROSSOVER RD The next item was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations.- lot split H1 submitted by Dennis Becker on behalf of Dr. Harvey Smith and Dr. Bill Dill for property located north of Joyce Boulevard, west of Crossover Road and zoned R -O, Residential -Office. Me. Little advised the staff had revised their report to note the size of the piece of property to be split off was .75 acres instead of the original amount noted as .66 acres. She stated the staff's recommendation to grant the request remained the same. Ms. Britton asked for information as to how the properties would be accessed and expressed opposition to any additional curb cuts being allowed because of the potential for them causing a conflict in the traffic flow on Highway 265. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Me. Little advised there currently was not an ordinance on the books which gave the authority to regulate curb cuts other than the separation required between drives and from intersections. Mr. Allred contended that, although he was not opposed to curb cute being eliminated when feasible, he was opposed to the Planning Commission making requests when they did not have the authority. Mr. Dennis Becker, representing the petitioner, advised the lot split was the first strategy of a large scale development plan to follow. He contended it was premature to request one curb cut and he agreed the Planning Commission had no . authority in that matter. Ms. Britton stated Mr. Becker's client would not be served by having difficulty getting to his business and noted channeling traffic through a minimum number of curb cuts would be a way to get better service to the property. Mr. Becker advised there would eventually be approximately 50 cars parking on the site and one curb cut would cause congestion. He reiterated he felt it was premature to request only one curb cut prior to seeing the development plan. Ms. Little stated, with regard to access, the ordinance did state that "safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels; local streets and driveways shall not detract from the safety and efficiency of bordering arterial roads; and there should be a minimum number of intersections". Mr. Allred stated that, although discussion of curb cuts was appropriate sometimes, he did not feel they should be making decisions which did not pertain to the Commission's duties. Ms. Britton contended that, as representatives of the community, she felt it was in the community's best interest for the Commission guard their investment in the roadway. Mr. Becker advised they were considering a one-way situation which would facilitate the traffic movement and noted, in his opinion, one curb cut would cause a more unsafe traffic condition than two. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Becker stated they had agreed to build a sidewalk on Joyce Boulevard. Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Head moved to approve the lot split as presented. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1-1 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Tarvin, Allred, and Head voting "yes", Commissioner Britton voting "no", and Commissioner Johnson "abstaining". • 0 Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 7 At this point, a member of the audience who had just arrived expressed concern that the Lot Split and Conditional Use Requests submitted by Max Parker for property located east of Gregg Avenue, south of Sycamore Street had already been discussed and voted on without his input. Me. Britton advised the lot split and conditional use in question had both been approved with the condition that the garages be located on the side. In answer to comments, Ms. Little advised there would be some type of appeal procedure and the staff would provide that information to him if he would contact the City Planning Department or the City Attorney's Office the next morning. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #2 AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR • REZONING R94-33 FRANKIE KELLY - W OF MORNINGSIDE DR, N OF 15TH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R94-33 submitted by Mike Parker on behalf of Frankie Kelly for property located on the west side of Morningside Drive, north of 15th Street. The request was for a lot split and to rezone 0.52 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. In answer to a question from Chairman Tarvin, Ms. Little advised there were no changes to the staff's recommendations. Mr. Mike Parker, representing the petitioner, advised John Dramis was proposing to purchase the property from Mr. Kelly in order to construct an office and storage area for Dramis Hardwood Floors. He stated Mr. Dramin had informed him members of the church located to the south of the subject property were in favor of the rezoning request. Mr. Parker reminded the Commission of a previous request to rezone the entire property which had been denied. He advised the applicant was back with a request to rezone half of the property. He noted the tract seemed to be a good buffer between the heavy industrial and the residential zones in the area. In answer to a question, Mr. Parker stated his understanding was there would be no manufacturing of the product at this site. Ms. Little pointed out it was the proposal for a warehouse to store materials which required the industrial zoning. Mr. Parker stated he was sure Mr. Dramis would agree to putting conditions on the rezoning to ensure that the use proposed was the actual use. • In response to questions from Ms. Britton regarding the zoning in the subject area and her concern that approving the request would be spot zoning, Me. Little stated the zoning map attached to the agenda was correct and pointed out the request was for I-1 zoning and not I-2. Mr. Reynolds stated he had no problem with this request since Mr. Kelly had no objections to I-1 zoning being next to his residence. Ms. Britton contended the area was currently zoned basically for residential and expressed concern that approving the request would contribute to the pockets of industrial zoning in undesirable locations throughout the City. • Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Reynolds advised the Kellys had run a stone masonry business from the location for many years and contended the proposed use would not really be a change. Mr. Parker noted Mr. Dramis had advised him he intended to landscape the front of the property to make it attractive. He noted the location was preferred because of the businesses located nearby such as White River Hardwoods. MS. Britton advised it had been recently pointed out to her that the Planning Commission had the option of denying a request when there was adequate unutilized property in the area already zoned for that use. She contended there was not a necessity for this rezoning request and that it was not appropriate. NOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to deny the rezoning request. The motion died for the lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the rezoning as presented subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no". • LOT SPLIT MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot split as presented subject to staff comment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion was unanimous with a vote of 7-0-0. 0 Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R94-34 KEVIN LATTA - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD, E OF CURTIS The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R94-34 submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Kevin Latta for property located south of Huntsville Road, east of Curtis. The request is to rezone 6.04 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential. In response to a question from Chairman Tarvin, Ms. Little advised there were no changes to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Bill Rudasill, representing the petitioner, advised the property in question abutted an R-2 zoning on the west and contended their proposal for developing a medium density mix of apartments and duplexes was because of the orientation of the property. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised duplexes and tri- plexes were allowed as a use by right in R-1.5. Mr. Rudasill advised they were proposing 24 units per acre in the form of twelve - unit apartments on the northern portion of the property which was approximately one-third of the entire tract. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rudasill stated his preliminary estimate of the number of units being proposed was 4 twelve -unit buildings with a total of 48 apartments and 11 duplexes. • Ms. Little advised there was a new ordinance which required an automatic dedication of park land on tract over 40 acres in size or containing over 100 units. She noted 24 units per acre on 6 acres would allow a potential for 144 units which fit into that category. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the rezoning request subject to staff comments. Mr. Head seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no". 0 Planning Commission • June 27, 1994 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING - RBZONINGS R94-35 & R94-36 JERRY SWEETSER - S OF ZION RD, W OF OLD MISSOURI RD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petitions R94-35 and R94-36 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jerry Sweetser for property located on the south side of Zion Road, west of Old Missouri Road. The R94-35 request is to rezone 8.24 acres from R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential. The R94-36 request is to rezone 2.27 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential. In response to a question from Chairman Tarvin, Ms. Little advised there were no changes to the staff's recommendations. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the petitioner, contended their request was not out of line because the property to the west, east and south was zoned R-2. He noted they currently had the capability to develop 340 units and were simply requesting the R-2 in order to be allowed to develop some 4, 5, and 6-plex units. Mr. Jamie Jones, whose residence is on the north side of Zion Road to the west of the subject property, asked for information on the difference between moderate and medium density residential zonings. Ms. Little advised R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential allowed 12 units per acre and R-2, Medium Density Residential allowed 24 units per acre. She pointed out both zones allowed multi -family units, but only tri-plexes were allowed in R-1.5 while R-2 allowed 4-plexes or higher. • Mr. Jones expressed his concern and opposition to any rezoning which would further saturate the current traffic problem on Zion Road. He stated he would like to see the zoning remain as it was currently which he felt was very generous. Mr. Tarvin pointed out his understanding of this project was that the total number of potential units in the development would remain the same regardless of whether the zoning request was approved. He noted the rezoning request was to be allowed to development a different type of building. Ms. Little pointed out to the Commission that other than the verbal assurance, they did not have any record of that assurance. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Jorgensen advised the petitioner would be willing to sign a bill of assurance limiting the density as proposed. He added they were aware of the traffic problems on Zion Road and would be dedicating the necessary right-of-way for the eventual improvements to Zion Road. Ms. Little advised they would also be asked to make contributions to the improvement of Zion Road. Ms. Britton referred to the minutes on record of the last time this property was discussed for rezoning and noted a reference made to a traffic study of that area. Ms. Little advised she had not seen the traffic study referred to in those minutes. She noted it was her understanding the applicant made use of the traffic study in making their decision. • Planning Commission is Page 27, 1994 Page 12 Ms. Britton stated she understood the Commission had made a motion to do the traffic study. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Jorgensen stated the ingress/egress would be on the extreme south property line of the existing 10 -acre tract which bordered the property in this rezoning request and that the ingress/egress would access through Spring Hollow Subdivision. He pointed out there were other accesses proposed into the property from Frazier Terrace on the east portion of the property, from Missouri Oaks Subdivision immediately east of the 8.2 acre tract, and from Zion Road for a total of four access points. Mr. Pummill pointed out that would help the burden of traffic on Zion Road, MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to grant the rezoning request R94-35 subject to staff comments and a bill of assurance that the total density of the development would be the same as the current zoning allowed. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Me. Little interrupted to further comment on the earlier question in regard to a reference to a traffic study in the minutes on record. She noted the minutes indicated a study was to take place to determine the beat location for a connection between Joyce Street and Zion Road. She pointed out they were referring to the house located at the corner of Old Missouri Road and Zion Road and noted there had not been an amendment to the Master Street Plan to require • any street at this point. The motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the rezoning petition R94-36 subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. 0 Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 13 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 R PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONINGS R94-37 & R94-38 MAJOR INVESTMENTS - E OF FUTRALL DR, S OF 6TH ST The next item was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 and a public hearing for rezoning petitions R94-37 & R94-38 submitted by Jeff Wilson on behalf of Major Investments for property located on the east side of Futrall, south of 6th Street. The R94-37 request was to rezone 11.34 acres from I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and the R94- 38 request was to rezone 17.71 acres from I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Ms. Little advised it was the staff's request that the items be tabled in order to allow time to determine the current ownership of the property because of discrepancies. i...i . ,i Mr. Reynolds made a motion to table the items. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. The motion carried 7-0-0. 13tq • Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SPRING PARR PHASE III CLARY DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF SHILOH DR & MALL LN The next item was a preliminary plat ,of Spring Park, Phase III submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located on the northwest corner of Shiloh Drive and Mall Lane. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contained 12.60 acres with one lot. Ms. Little advised the staff's report remained the same and pointed out in regard to the fourth condition of approval ("final resolution of the off-site improvements issue"), the staff had been meeting bi-weekly with all of the developers in the area and were very near a resolution of all off-site improvements issues. Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants, representing the developers, advised they had submitted an overall lot layout and easement map which they assumed would be sufficient. Ms. Little advised since this was an adjustment to the preliminary plat, the staff was requesting the additional area be addressed also. In answer to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Little advised the tree preservation plan would need to be submitted at the time of the preliminary plat. In answer to further questions from Mr. Brown, Ms. Little requested a tree inventory be provided at this time with the preservation being addressed during the large scale development plan discussion. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Brown noted the existing street running parallel north of Joyce Street was a deadend at Mall Lane to the west and would not be extended. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat for Spring Park, Phase III subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. • Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 15 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SAVANNA ESTATES, PHASE V MARK FOSTER S BUDDY PEOPLES - S OF SKILLERN, E OF CROSSOVER RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Savanna Estates, Phase V submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Buddy Peoples for property located south of Skillern Road, east of Crossover Road. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contained 49.62 acres with 95 proposed lots. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Little advised the there were no additions or changes to the staff report. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the cul-de-sac was almost 1,000 feet long. Mr. Truman Yancy, representing the owners and developers, advised the south side of Skillern Road opposite to this property was currently curbed and guttered (except for a small portion where the high-voltage transmission line crossed the road) to the east boundary of the development and stated if that what was intended by improvements, there was no problem. He added that, as far as access to Highway 265, it could currently be accessed from Skillern to Old Wire Road to Highway 265. He noted a street had been stubbed on the south side of the development for a future connection to Township Road which would allow access to Highway 265 as well. He noted it would seem that emptying traffic onto Highway 265 at points where controlled access was almost surely to be installed would be a desirable method rather than additional entries onto Highway 265 on the inside of a curve. He noted they could provide a stubbed road to the east, but they did • not think it would be desirable because of the creek and the problem with trying to determine where the road should be until the property between the subject project and the highway was developed. Mr. Yancy noted that, in regard to the reason for the curve proposed in the entry from Skillern Road, it was intended to serve both an aesthetic and a monetary purpose for the developers. He explained the entry road would have a median maintained by the property owners and a 50 -foot strip had been created on the east side of the road which would have a row of planted trees and sprinkled landscape to be maintained by the Property Owner's Association. He added the intention was to have a controlled and attractive entrance to the development. He further noted the monetary reason was related to lots 37, 38, and 39 which were just south of the 50 -foot strip and which would have to be eliminated without the curve. Mr. Yancy further stated that, in regard to consecutively numbering lots through Phases 1 through 5 of the subdivision, he noted each phase was numbered independently as it was developed. He added this phase would still be associated with Savanna, but would be developed entirely separate. Ms. Little advised that, with regard to improvements to Skillern Road, the staff was requesting improvements to the north portion of lot 40. She advised there was an intervening property owner and the road improvements would not affect that property owner. She added that, with regard to access to Highway 265, there was an intervening property and a ravine, the staff was not requesting access to Highway 265 as a part of the plat. Ms. Little pointed out it appeared the strip near the curve was shown to be a portion of lot 39 and not owned by the Property Owner's Association. She noted the staff had recently seen a number of plats where access to roads put in by developers become public streets to be maintained by the City. She advised the concern in this case was to make sure the property owner to the east, Mr. Krueger, had adequate access. She noted there was current access for the Krueger property to Skillern Road. • Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 16 Ms. Little noted the staff needed a resolution in regard to whether the additional strip of land approximately 50 feet in width was part of lot 39 or a separate piece. Mr. Yancy advised the strip would be separate and they would amend the plat to reflect that. Stan Krueger, 3169 Skillern Road, advised most of the lots in the area had 3 to 12 acres and he expressed concern that the traffic caused by development of so many houses coming out on Skillern Road would create problems. In response to Ms. Britton's concern about the cul-de-sac to the southwest part of the development which extended almost 1,000 feet, Mr. Dave Jorgensen advised he had discussed the matter with the developers who had stated they were trying to create a neighborhood within a neighborhood. Ms. Britton contended the proposed cul-de-sac layout did not allow for proper circulation within the development. Mr. Jorgensen advised they were requesting a waiver of the cul-de-sac length with their preliminary plat approval. Mr. Allred stated the Transportation Committee had recently met and expressed a desire to extend Township to the east which would tie into this development in the future to create some north/south traffic flow and help congestion on • Skillern Road. He added he did not see any beneficial purpose for the traffic to circulate within the subdivision. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and granting the waiver of the cul-de-sac length. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Tarvin, Allred, and Head voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Johnson voting "no". 10 ' Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 17 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE V ROLLIN BARNES - OFF OF CARRIAGE WAY, N OF BLUEBIRD The next item was a preliminary plat of Northwest Acres, Phase V submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Rollin Barnes for property located off of Carriage Way, north of Bluebird. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 3.69 acres with 14 lots. Ms. Little advised the plat had not been reviewed by the Parke Board, but would be heard July 11th. She requested any motion on this item be subject to the decision by the Parks Board. Al Harris of Northwest engineers, representing Mr. Barnes, stated the development was a continuation of the existing phase. He noted Carriage Way would be extended to the north and the street would loop around with fourteen more lots. NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Northwest Acres, Phase V subject to the staff comments and a decision by the Parks Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 7-0-0. • Ile Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 18 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ASHBROOK HILL ADDITION JERRY SWEETSER - E OF AZALEA TERRACE, S OF OLD WIRE RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Ashbrook Hill Addition submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of Jerry Sweetser for property located east of Azalea Terrace, south of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 3.67 acres with 12 lots. Ms. Little stated there were no additions to the staff report except to add that approval would be subject to the payment of parks fees as stated or the dedication of land as required by the Parks Board. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, representing Mr. Sweetser, advised they concurred with the staff comments. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. The meeting recessed for 10 minutes. C J • Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 19 .rW.r, c : ,r• REQUEST BY A COMMISSIONER WHO ARRIVED LATE TO RECONSIDER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM (M) IAT SPLIT #1, #2, & #3 JOE FRED STARR - 3340 N COLLEGE AVE The next item was a request by Commissioner Head who arrived late to reconsider Consent Agenda Item (M) - Lot Splits #1, #2, & #3 submitted by Kirk Elsass on behalf of Joe Fred Starr for property located at 3340 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Head advised he had spoken with some of the residents in the area who had expressed concern regarding the existing curb cut with 425 feet along the frontage. He noted his understanding from the petitioner was there was a turn lane so an additional curb cut in the center of the property would be necessary in order to make the traffic flow. He asked why it would have to be submitted through the large scale development since the property was less than an acre. Ms. Little advised the reasoning behind the large scale development process request was because of the creation of additional tracts from property over an acre in size. She advised, at the time of the large scale development, the items such as the curb cuts, the number of parking spaces, the layout of the buildings, etc. would be addressed. She noted the large scale development process would be primarily for the utility companies to get the easements needed. She pointed out this area was currently 1008 paved which would require a great deal of work • to get utility service into the area. She further stated research with regard to the number of accidents in the area had shown between 1992 and 1994 the area was not subject to a high number of accidents. Ms. Little advised that, if an additional curb cut in the center was approved, staff would like to request that the buildings be brought forward to the 25 -foot setback line and that the parking and other drive-thrus be located to the rear. She further noted the staff would prefer the existing curb cuts remain in their current locations. Mr. Head stated he was not suggesting the existing curb cuts be moved, but would hope they would be widened. He added he did not understand the need for the large scale development plan process. In response to further comments, Ms. Little pointed out if the parking were to the rear it could be shared. Mr. Head stated he was not in favor of the suggestion by the staff that the building be moved up to the 25 -foot setback line. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot splits subject to the allowance of one additional curb cut in the span of the 435 -foot frontage, preferably to be in the center of the three lots; the structures not being required to be located at the 25 -foot setback line; and that the large scale development process requirement on this property be omitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. . Ms. Britton expressed concern that ignoring the suggestion by the staff requiring the large scale development process was unwise. She added even though the staff had reported there had not been numerous accidents at the particular site, she knew from personal experience there had been a lot of close calls in regard to n LJ Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 20 the center lane of traffic. She further stated, in her opinion, adding curb cuts would not help the traffic flow in that part of town. Mr. Tarvin contended the three developments would most likely not take place at exactly the same time and, since the three parcels would each be less than an acre, it was his understanding they did not have the authority to require the large scale development process. Ms. Little advised that, as a condition of a lot split, the Commission did have the authority to require the large scale development process because smaller lots were being created out of the initial tract of over an acre which would have had to be approved through large scale development. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Tarvin, Allred, and Head voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Johnson voting "no". I• Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 21 A. SIDEWALK WAIVER FOR CROSSOVER STORAGE, WEST SIDE OF CROSSOVER ROAD, SOUTH OF MISSION BLVD, Ms. Little advised the developer of Crossover Storage had requested a waiver of the sidewalk requirement requested by the Planning Commission. She noted there were some considerations with regard to terrain at the location, but the staff did not consider it new information since they had been aware of it at the time of development. She advised the staff contended they could assist in locating the sidewalk in an area which would not be disturbed by the improvements to Highway 265. She added there did not appear to be any grounds for postponing or waiving the sidewalk. Mr. Tarvin advised he had spoken to a resident of the area a couple of weeks ago who had some background regarding to the development of properties and noted she was quite upset by the appearance of the development. He contended there should be a way for the city to limit the use of metal buildings in certain locations for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Reynolds contended the property needed a sidewalk for use by pedestrians. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, pointed out it would be hard to anticipate where the final grade and the limits of. the construction would be for the highway improvements. He noted this was more of a request to delay construction of the sidewalk than it was for a waiver. • Mr. Jorgensen further stated the original intention was to development the front portion of the property next to the highway which would help hide the structures in the back. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to deny the waiver request for the sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Britton. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Pummill voting "no". I* 10 0 I� Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 22 B. CAL CANFIELD - DISCUSSION REGARDING 226 NORTH SCHOOL AVENUE, Mr. Cal Canfield advised the property in question was the old Ozarks Mountain Sports Building on School Street just north of the Walton Art Center. He noted at some point last year his clients, Tim and Christine Klinger, were granted a waiver for 22 parking spaces. He added he was now requesting clarification concerning what they were allowed to do with the building. Mr. Canfield advised the logic for the amount of 22 spaces was the current size of the building (4,300 square feet on the ground) and the parking requirement for retail uses only (one parking space per 200 square feet of building). He added the Klingers now proposed to develop professional offices and retail space in the building. He advised that, in working through it, they arrived at a solution which left the front of the building with two narrow retail slots (single story with two retail spaces) with a smaller retail space back in the center of the building and an office space at the rear of the existing building which would add up to 2,800 square feet of retail space. He pointed out that, at one space per 200 square feet, a total of 14 parking spaces for that portion of the building was required. He further stated the professional office portion parking requirement was one space per 500 square feet of building area. Mr. Canfield advised his question of the Commission was if they could expand the building at the back with a 2 -story structure that would face the parking lot to the south and be seen from the west side. He added it would allow Mr. Klinger to have the space needed for his office along with some much needed retail space in that area. Mr. Canfield reiterated the question was whether they would be allowed to expand the building if they stayed within the 22 parking spaces limit. Ms. Little explained that was a question for the Commission because, at the time this waiver was reviewed by them, there was a decided preference by the Planning Commission to allow the parking spaces for proposed uses as retail which accounted for the calculation of 22 total spaces. She added the expansion Mr. Canfield was currently presenting was not what was presented to the Commission in the past. She further explained the reason a waiver was initially required for the building was that the site immediately to the east of the subject building had been acquired by the City and developed into a parking lot in support of the Walton Art Center which left this building with no on-site parking. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the parking she was discussing was to the south of the subject building. Mr. Tarvin clarified that, when the building was originally purchased, the City owned some property which they took for parking spaces leaving the building with no parking spaces. He added a waiver of parking had been requested of the Commission who calculated that 22 spaces would be the requirement for the building based on retail usage. He noted at that point the Commission granted the waiver of required parking and now the request was for some office space mixed with retail with an expansion to the rear of the building which still (using the calculations for retail and professional office) would not exceed the 22 space requirement originally calculated. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to grant the waiver. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 7-0-0. 0 Planning Commission June 27, 1994 Page 23 C. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE FAYETTEVILLE DEVELOPMENT CODE, Mr, Jerry Sweetser expressed concern that the new parks ordinance recently passed required that developing a 20 -acre parcel of land would require approximately half of it (9.84 acres) be dedicated as parks land. In response to a comment from Me. Little, Mr. Sweetser stated he was basing his calculation on the maximum number of units allowed. Ms. Britton contended there could be a compromise for less units and less land dedicated. Ms. Johnson advised the Planning Commission did not recommend the new parks ordinance, so he was addressing the wrong body. Mr. Tarvin agreed the Commission had voted unanimously not to recommend the ordinance. It was pointed out to Mr. Sweetser by a member of the Commission that the Parka Board had not been in favor of that particular ordinance either. Mr. Sweetser suggested the Planning Commission create a specific procedure for initiating an ordinance such as the Bypass Overlay Ordinance and that the persons it would affect be allowed input. Ms. Little advised that, in regard to the Overlay Ordinance, the Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings were public hearings. She also pointed out the City Council had held three public meetings on the ordinance. She added that, with regard to the new Development Code, the City did want good citizen participation. Mr. Dave Jorgensen stated he was not prepared to address the ordinance and inquired as to whether he would have the opportunity to address it in the future. Mr. Tarvin assured him this would not be the last chance to comment. Another member of the audience commented on the concern expressed earlier at the meeting in regard to metal buildings and suggested it be included in the development ordinances. He also suggested they start informing the public now about what was being proposed in the Development Code. Ms. Little pointed out it appeared the only three people making comments on the proposed ordinance were not present at the meeting for that purpose, yet the Public Hearing was an agenda item and it had been published in the newspaper which proved that type of forum for getting public input was not working. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.