Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 11, 1994 in the Board of Directors Roam on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Jana Lynn Britton, and Phyllis Hall Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Kevin Santos, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: There was a request to remove items B. D and F from the Consent Agenda to be discussed and voted on separately. Item E (Lot Split #1 submitted by Spencer Albright for property located on the northwest corner of Joyce Street and Crossover Road) was withdrawn. MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 1994, FINAL PLAT - CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PHASE I: Submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Howard Davis for property located on the east side of Salem Road, north of Mount Comfort Road. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contained 38.23 acres with 112 proposed lots. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda excluding Items B, D, E, and F. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. 1.00 IV Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-16 - TUTORING LINDA GLASS - 805 JACKSON The next item was a conditional use request CU94-16 for tutoring submitted by Linda Glass located at 805 Jackson and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, Mr, Kevin Santos advised the property was located in the Jackson Heights Addition and explained the applicant proposed to operate a reading tutoring business in her home. He added the proposal was to tutor one student at a time with the hours of business not extending past 7:30 p.m. He added the applicant's driveway could provide parking for two cars with space for three along the street in front of the home although only one additional space should be needed. He noted the staff had determined the requested conditional use should not have an adverse affect on the neighborhood and would be similar to the applicant having a guest visit; therefore, the staff recommended approval of the request. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Allred advised his understanding was that, if there were complaints in regard to a conditional use, it could be reviewed again after a one year period. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use for tutoring. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 7-0-0. • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 3 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 DAVID SWAIN - NW CORNER OF CLEBURN & VANDEVENTER STS The next item was a first lot split request submitted by David Swain for property' located at the northwest corner of Cleburn and Vandeventer Streets and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. In response to a request for clarification, Mr. Bunn advised the request was for a lot split and not a conditional use. He advised the total tract was one-half acre and the proposal was to split the tract into two parcels: one approximately .27 acres and one approximately .22. He advised the original tract was lot No. 1 of the Roy Adams Subdivision, Replat of Part of Block 4, Wilson Adams Addition. He further stated the split would create two legal lots which were generally compatible in size with the lots in the immediate area. He added there were no known covenants which might prohibit a split. Mr. Bunn stated water was available to both proposed lots, but sewer would have to be extended to serve one of the proposed lots. He noted the staff recommended approval of the split request subject to the dedication of an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Cleburn Street and the provision of sewer service to the west lot. In response to a question from Ramona Tugwell, a member of the audience, Mr. Bunn advised the only regulations in regard to what type of home could be built on the lots was that the R-1 zoning would require a single-family residence and a minimum size requirement which would probably be 900 to 1000 square feet. He noted there would be no other restriction on the size of the house nor any design • standards. Mr. Bunn advised if there were any covenants for this subdivision, they would be on file at the courthouse. He added covenants typically ran 15 to 20 years so it was doubtful any covenants would still be applicable. • Ms. Little reiterated there might have been restrictive covenants filed with the subdivision, but noted the City did not enforce covenants. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve lot Split #1 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 4 FINAL PLAT - BOXWOOD ADDITION JERRY SWEETSER & ATLAS CONST - S OF OLD WIRE RD, E OF AZALEA TERR The next item was a final plat of Boxwood Addition submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of Jerry Sweetser and Atlas Construction for property located on the south side of Old Wire Road, east of Azalea Terrace. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contained 20.25 acres with 53 proposed lots. Ms. Britton advised she had requested this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda so the staff could determine whether the existing cul-de-sac (which ended at the entry point of the addition) could be vacated so the property owners adjacent to the cul-de-sac could have their front yards back. Ms. Little clarified Ms. Britton was referring to the end of Magnolia Drive and advised the staff had been approached by several property owners who had not wanted the street extended when the plat had received preliminary approval. She explained it had been determined at that time that, in order for the subdivision to have access, the connection had to be made. She added the proper time to have required the vacation of the round parts of the cul-de-sac and the Straightening of the road would have been during the preliminary plat approval. She added after discussing this matter with Jerry Sweetser, the contractor, and Mr. Ferguson, the developer, the determination was that, without the City participating in the cost, the developers were not willing to make those changes. Ms. Little advised the staff had been contacted by one property owner on the north side of the street, Mrs. Wolfe, who had specifically stated she would like the curb and asphalt removed, her drive extended, and the area reseeded. Me. . Little noted Mrs. Wolfe had indicated two other property owners would also like to have their yards back. Ms. Little pointed out the staff was in a difficult situation having not required the removal of concrete and seeding of the yards during the preliminary plat approval which was where the cost of improvements occurred. She added the City Engineer concurred with her belief that such changes would probably need to be done with City participation and estimated cost had not been determined yet. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised this was an unresolved issue so the Commission could table the plat until the issue was resolved. Karen Wolfe of 2450 Magnolia Drive, located immediately adjacent to the Boxwood Addition, advised she had no objections to the development taking place but pointed out her main concern was if she were going to live on a through street, it should look like a through street. She expressed concern for the safety of children on the street, for the potential for the lowering of the property value, and for the potential for people congregating there. She requested the City consider straightening the street for the protection of the safety of the persons living in the three homes abutting the cul-de-sac. Kurt Jones, representing Mr. Sweetser and Mr. Ferguson, advised this was the first he had heard of the street issue and felt it was unfair to hold up the plat approval at this point in the process. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the staff would be glad to look into a solution to this problem and contended final approval by the Planning Commission at this point would eliminate a lot of the Staff's negotiating ability. She recommended the item be tabled. �i • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Allred asked if there would be any legal ramification as a result of the Commission tabling the final plat when the developers had met all the City codes and required ordinances. Me. Little explained the City Engineer had assured her that returning cul-de-sacs to a natural street in situations like this one had been a standing requirement for years. She noted she did not know about legal ramifications, but the City was required to assign costs for improvements at the time of preliminary plat and they had not in this case. Mr. Allred contended it was unfair to put a burden on the developer since it was not required by the City in the preliminary process. Ms. Britton contended it would be beneficial to table the item for two weeks. In response to a comment by Mr. Pummill, Ms. Britton pointed out they would not be refusing the development by tabling it but simply giving staff more time to work the situation out. Mr. Pummill pointed out if the developers were not willing to negotiate now, they would not be willing to negotiate in two weeks. Mr. Reynolds contended they needed to find a solution for the current property owners now before the development was approved. NOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to table the Final Plat of Boxwood Addition for two weeks to give the engineer and the City staff time to find a resolution to the problem. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 4-3-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Britton, Reynolds, and Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki, and Allred voting "no", n LJ Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R93-55 HAROLD JOHNSON - W OF SHILOH DR, S OF 15TH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R93-55 submitted by Harold Johnson for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, south of 15th Street. The request was to rezone 3.46 acres from A-1. Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Kevin Santos stated the property was currently undeveloped and located between the 71 Bypass and Shiloh Drive. He noted the property was a narrow strip ranging from 40 feet wide to approximately 150 feet wide and was located on a steep slope which was heavily wooded. He stated the applicant had no specific plans for development, but had requested the rezoning to seek guidance from the City as to the reasonable use of the land. Mr. Santos advised the this matter had been tabled at the December 13th, 1993 Planning Commission in order to allow the staff adequate time to present a comprehensive plan for the Bypass. Mr. Santos stated the adjacent land uses were A-1 zoning to the north and the south, the Bypass on the east side, and a proposed single-family residential development on the west with the same owner. He advised the applicant would be providing water and sewer to the proposed subdivision to the west of the site. He noted the subject property fronted on Shiloh Drive which was a local street under Arkansas Highway Department jurisdiction. Mr. Santos advised the staff believed this narrow strip of densely wooded land • on a steep hill over the Bypass was not suitable for commercial development due to the configuration and the slope. He pointed out the General Plan 2010 future land use map designated the area for future residential use primarily for topographical reasons. He stated the staff recommended rezoning the property to R-1.5 if the parcel were to be developed. Mr. Santos contended that, after subtracting residential setbacks, there would be very little buildable area left on the site. He noted the City had recently adopted a Design Overlay District Ordinance which defined the Bypass area as deserving in character protection and required that the land be sensitively developed. He noted it was the staff' recommendation to deny approval of a commercial zoning but urged a moderate density residential development instead. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing Harold Johnson, reminded the Commission the petition to rezone had been tabled to await the overlay district ordinance. He noted the subject parcel of land was completely controlled by highway right-of-way. He added there were subdivision plans underway for the property to the west. Ms. Britton contended residential would be a more appropriate use. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to grant a rezoning to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The motion died for lack of a second. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised the overlay district applied strictly to non-residential development. Mr. Suchecki pointed out it would be contradictory to rezone the subject property to . something the City could not control when they had just gone to great lengths to try and control development in the Bypass area. Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 7 Ms. Little pointed out the subject property was a strip of land 40.51 feet wide to the south and 50.43 feet wide to the north which posed some very severe restrictions in regard to the size and shape of the parcel in addition to the grade of the land. She noted the staff had determined the parcel would not have suited commercial development even if it were not along the Bypass. Mr. Allred pointed out if duplexes and tri-plexes were placed on the subject property, travelers on the Bypass would be looking at backyards. Me. Little advised the development could be situated with one drive in the middle and one on each side. Mr. Allred suggested the property could be rezoned R -O with some variances granted for a facade facing both sides. Ms. Little advised the staff had considered recommending R -O zoning which would allow duplexes or office development. Mr. Allred contended R -O would provide the corridor more protection than multi- family development. Mr. Harold Johnson contended no one would like to live in the triangle of land with a highway on both sides. He added his opinion was that a commercial establishment was the only rational use of this property. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little clarified an R -O zoning of this property would be subject to the overlay district restrictions if an office • use was developed, but not if a residential development took place. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to recommend rezoning of the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised the difference between C-2 and R -O zoning was that C-2 would allow such things as motels whereas R -O would allow mostly professional offices and not any commercial type of development. She read the list of uses allowed in each zone from the ordinances. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Britton, Reynolds, Allred, & Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioners Pummill and Suchecki voting "no". Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-29 JIM LINDSEY - B OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF JOYCE ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-29 submitted by Jim Lindsey for property located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Joyce Street. The request was to rezone 6.70 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Santos advised the applicant had previously petitioned the Planning Commission for R-2 zoning in order to develop the site with apartments but the application was denied by a 5-0-0 vote on May 5, 1994. He noted the applicant had then appealed to the City Council on June 20, 1994 and the Council had sent the matter back to the Planning Commission. He added the minutes of those meetings were included in the agenda packet. Mr. Santos advised the site was currently undeveloped and heavily wooded and pointed out initially the applicant had proposed to develop 120 units, but the amended plan proposed seven structures with 84 units. He stated the area to the north had recently been platted as Sterling Estates which was a 6.5 acre 15 - lot duplex development. He added the adjacent land uses included duplexes to the north with R-2 zoning and vacant A-1 zoned land to the south, east, and west. He further stated the site had frontage on Crossover Road which was a principal arterial and advised that on-site and off-site improvements would be required at the large scale development stage. Mr. Santos pointed out the planned 84 units represented approximately 538 of the allowable density under the proposed R-2 zoning. He noted the site features • included slope and heavy coverage by trees. He added the staff believed the current development trends and surrounding development would support multi -family development. Mr. Santos further stated the issue which originally led to the denial of the rezoning was concern about the impact of traffic created by 120 housing units, and the site's location on a hill and a curve creating an additional traffic hazard because of sight distance problems. He noted the applicant had voluntarily reduced the number of units planned for development from 120 to 84. Mr. Santos stated the staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1) tree preservation and runoff problems be addressed; and 2) ingress/egress and traffic impacts (i.e., number and location of curb cute, sight distance problems) be addressed. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the proposed development density of 84 units would exceed the 82 units which would be allowed under R-1.5. She added the petitioner specifically wanted to develop complexes with 12 units which was the reason for the request of R-2 zoning. Ms. Britton pointed out a 4-plex or higher was not allowed in R-1.5 zoning. She also asked for clarification of the term "erosion control plan". Mr. Bunn advised it was a grading plan which showed the extent of grading planned on the site and what type of cuts and fills were on the site. He added the City had been requiring a specific erosion control plan which showed exactly what would be done to control erosion on the site. Jim Lindsey, the petitioner, advised the reason for appealing to the City Council was because of the one-year delay restriction in the ordinance in relationship to resubmitting the same rezoning petition. He advised he had been out of town at the time of the earlier meeting and had not authorized Mr. Albright, the Planning Commission • July 11, 1994 Page 9 representative, to negotiate on his behalf. He pointed out he had been under the impression for the past six years that the property had already been zoned R-2. He noted they were informed that it was not zoned R-2 when they came in to obtain the building permit. Mr. Lindsey advised they were willing to compromise the entrance into the property with one single entrance. He noted the development would also have a huge amount of greenspace with relation to the number of units. He added that, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, they were now presenting a better plan for the location. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Lindsey advised they would propose a three -lane road for the entrance and could open the radius as wide as possible for people coming from the north to help eliminate the biggest concern. Mr. Albright stated initially the proposal had been 120 units with 10 buildings and two driveways, one on the north and one on the south. He noted with the new plan, the one on the south had been eliminated with a three -drive entrance on the north end so that northbound and southbound traffic would each have their own exit point. He added that, in regard to the concern about the tree coverage, they were proposing to reduce the number of proposed buildings which would increase the number of trees to remain standing. He added they were proposing four ponds which would help satisfy the requirements of the City Engineer as to the runoff problem. Mr. Allred asked if there would be a possibility of the ingress/egress circulating one-way. . Ms. Little advised the staff had not performed any detailed studies to determine the best location for the ingress/egress which was why their recommendation was simply that the ingress/egress and traffic impact be discussed during the development process. Ms. Fran Alexander of Fox Hunter Road asked for clarification on whether the slope would be cleared of trees and trees planted back or if as many of the existing trees as possible would be preserved and protected. Ms. Little advised the Tree Preservation Ordinance called for preservation where possible, but did not require it. She noted it would allow for replacement of tree canopy if it were removed during construction. She added the ordinance did require replacement if trees were removed prior to the time the project was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Leonard Schafer expressed concern that high density zonings were being encouraged in this area which was already over -burdened with traffic problems. He pointed out the village concept in the 2010 Plan suggested large areas be developed in total in a way which encouraged mixed density and contended this rezoning petition did not reflect that concept. Ms. Little advised the subject property was bordered on the north by land currently zoned R-2 although it was not developed with multi -family development. She explained that, from the City's standpoint, it was more economical to maintain land which had been developed in a way that the water, sewer, and street connections (which the City would be required to maintain) would be concentrated. She contended it was probably not suitable to consider a village concept on this particular tract of land. . Ms. Little advised the infrastructure in this part of town was very similar to the infrastructure in other parts of town in that it had excellent water since it was very near the new 36 -inch water line and good sewer structure since it was • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 10 on the east side of town. She noted also that the state highway was one of the better ones they currently had in Fayetteville. In answer to a further questions, Ms. Little advised the City was collecting right-of-way along Highway 265 as development occurred and noted the State Highway Department had indicated they were considering a project which would go only from Highway 16 to Highway 45. She advised it had been communicated to the Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission that the project needed to be extended northward from Highway 45 to Highway 412. In response to further questions in regard to the right-of-way, Mr. Allred advised the petition under discussion was basically related to the land use and the other concerns such as right-of-way and ingress/egress would be discussed and decided during the large scale development process. In response to further questions, Ms. Little advised the long range plan did call for the majority of the subject land to be residentially developed. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn advised that, according to the State Highway Department, the proposed traffic light at the intersection of Joyce Street and Highway 265 was in the State's 1995 program and would probably be installed in the Spring of 1995. Ms. Little read a letter the staff had received from the Executive Director of Youthbridge in regard to the proposed development. The letter expressed concern regarding the current dangerous traffic situation specifically along the strip of Highway 265 between Joyce Street and Zion Road and cited three recent traffic . accidents resulting in serious injury and death on that section of the Highway. The letter contended allowing the proposed development would only increase the traffic situation and requested that strip of the highway be improved as far as traffic conditions in conjunction with additional development. Mr. Lindsey pointed out the density proposed was only 1.7 people per unit even though there was the potential for approximately 26 single-family homes on the property which would mean over 4 people per household. Ms. Little noted for clarification that 1.7 multiplied by 84 units would give a total of 142. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval of rezoning petition R94-29 subject to the staff's comments and a bill of assurance detailing the density aspect as discussed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission . July 11, 1994 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REEONINGS R94-37 8 R94-38 MAJOR INVESTMENTS, INC - E OF FOTRALL, S OF 6TH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petitions R94-37 and R94-38 submitted by Major Investments, Inc. for property located on the east side of Futrall Drive, south of 6th Street. R94-37 was a request to rezone 11.34 acres from I-1, Light Industrial/Heavy Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R94-38 was a request to rezone 17.71 acres from I-1, Light Industrial/Heavy Commercial to R -O, Residential/Office. Mr. Santos stated the subject property was adjacent to Baldwin Piano and was currently undeveloped. He advised the applicant planned to construct a hotel and restaurant on the site of the 11.34 acres adjacent to the existing Best Western Inn. He advised the request was to rezone to thoroughfare commercial which was designed especially to encourage the functional grouping of commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers and noted the proposed motel would meet that criteria. Mr. Santos stated the adjacent land use to the north was C-2 with a Food -4 -Less shopping center and the Best Western Motel, the south and east was I-1 and vacant, and to the west was the Bypass. He noted the site was served by 24 -inch and 12 -inch sewer lines and a 24 -inch water main. He stated access was by Futrall Drive, designated a collector street. He pointed out the General Plan 2010 suggested the area around the Highway 62/71 Bypass intersection be developed as a multiple activity center to provide regional services and that industry should be discouraged in this area. He noted this request was consistent with the Plan. He further stated site development considerations such as the location in the floodplain and an additional means of access would need to be addressed. He . advised the staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Kim Hesse, CEI Engineering, was present to represent Major Investments, Inc. and stated the proposal did meet the 2010 General Plan and contended this was the best use of land for this particular location. She pointed out the building area requirements for industrial were more dense than for the commercial thoroughfare. She noted most of the flood zone area on the subject property would be left undeveloped. Ms. Little advised the property would be covered by the Overlay District and the provisions of that new district would apply. NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-37. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 7-0-0. Mr. Santos advised petition R94-38 was the property immediately to the east of the R94-37 petition. He noted it was a 17.71 acre parcel and the request was to rezone to R -O, Residential -Office. He noted R-0 zoning was designed to provide area for offices without limitation to the nature or size of the office and stated the staff recommended approval of this rezoning. Planning Commission • July 11, 1994 Page 12 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approve of rezoning petition R94-38. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. • E Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 13 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 MAJOR INVESTMENTS, INC - E OF FUTRALL DR, S OF 6TH ST The next item was a first lot split request submitted by Major Investments, Inc. for property located on the east side of Futrall Drive, south of 6th Street and zoned I-1, Light Industrial/Heavy Commercial. Ms. Little advised the rezonings of the subject property would progress to the City Council for final approval and, if approved, the property would be zoned C-2 and R -O. In answer to questions from a member of the audience, Ms. Little advised the entire area of the commercially zoned lot and a portion of the R -O zoned lot would be included in the Overlay District. She added the reason for the split was to have all the property which was zoned C-2 in one parcel and all of the property zoned R -O in one parcel. She noted it was possible to mix zoning within one parcel of land, but it was much more confusing to try to develop the land that way. She noted the staff would be reviewing each of the parcels during the large scale development process and would address such things as circulation patterns and overall drainage. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to circulation and access to the properties. Mr. Pummill contended this was not the time to be discussing traffic circulation on the subject property. Ms. Britton stated she felt access and ingress/egress were well taken at this particular time. Mr. Allred advised the appropriate time to discuss ingress/egress was when the parcels came through the large scale development process. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve lot split #1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Britton "abstaining". • • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-39 & CONDITIONAL USE CU94-17 MARILYN A LAHR - N OF W 6TH ST, W OF DINSMORE TR The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-39 and Conditional Use CU94-17 submitted by Laura Huston on behalf of Marilyn A. Larr for property located on the north side of West 6th Street, west of Dinsmore Trail, The R94-39 request was to rezone 3.35 acres from A-1. Agricultural to C-2. Thoroughfare commercial and the CU94-17 request was for a warehouse in the proposed C-2 zoning district. Mr. Santos advised the property was currently undeveloped and located north of U.S. Highway 62 across from Hoot Owl Lane. He noted the rezoning request for thoroughfare commercial was in order to develop a commercial shopping center and office along the front of the lot. He stated a separate conditional use request to allow a warehouse for the storage of construction equipment at the rear of the lot was also being requested. Mr. Santos pointed out that approximately. 258 of the lot, the rear north portion, was in a special flood hazard area (the 100 -year flood plain). He further stated the front of the lot was approximately 8 to 10 feet below the grade of Highway 62 which would require extensive grading to guarantee adequate site distances for ingress/egress into the 55 mph traffic on Highway 62. He stated the single- family home to the north of the site was accessed via a 52 -foot easement along the western side of the subject property and water and sewer lines to the home ran approximately through the middle of the subject property. Mr. Santos advised the purpose of C-2 zoning was to encourage the functional grouping of commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. He noted that adjacent land uses were a single-family home to the north, A-1 land developed with the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse to the south, and A-1 vacant land to the east and west. He added the site was served by a 10 -inch sewer line and a 12 -inch force main and a 12 -inch water line along the highway which was designated a principal arterial. He advised the staff's determination was the requested rezoning did not meet the criteria for grouping of commercial enterprises since it was not adjacent to or near other commercial property. He further advised the City's Future Land Use map showed the area to be residential in the future. Mr. Santos stated the site was 1 1/2 miles west of the U.S. 71 Bypass which placed it beyond the area recommended in the General Plan 2010 for the Highway 62/71 Bypass commercial activity center. He contended establishing commercial zoning so far west (less than a quarter of a mile from the City of Farmington) would establish anchor points for a linear commercial strip violating the General Plan's concept of the multiple activity center and encouraging linear commercial development. He noted flooding and grading concerns added to the property's unsuitability for commercial development and contended property zoned for commercial use which was more suitable for commercial development was readily available between the subject tract and the Bypass. He stated the staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning. Bill Rudasill, representing the petitioner, advised the petitioner was under contract for purchase of the land conditioned upon the rezoning being approved. He pointed out the property was located on a major thoroughfare and advised the petitioner felt the proposal was the best use for the property. He noted in regard to the 2010 Plan, the proposed commercial zones had already been extended beyond what was shown in the Plan to within approximately a half of a mile of the subject property. He further stated the Farmington area was a quarter mile to • the west and commercially zoned. He noted the utilities across the site would be relocated if necessary to facilitate the proposed development. He added every . Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 15 effort would be made to buffer the residence area and pointed out the flood plain area on the site would provide greenspace. Mr. Rudasill further advised the potential developer planned to utilize one of the warehouses for maintenance on his equipment. He noted it would all be indoors and the warehouse would be insulated to help muffle the noise. He added the other primary use for the warehouse would be storage for commercial type businesses with construction related products such as air conditioning units to be sold to construction companies. Mr. Allred advised one of the Commissioners (Ms. Johnson) had left the meeting at this point and noted a vote of 5 out of the 6 Commissioners left remaining would be needed to approve any rezoning. He noted the remaining rezoning petitioners present had the option to request their items be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Rudasill advised the petitioner he was representing would like the Commission to proceed with the rezoning request. Randy Holiman, an adjacent property owner, advised his utility lines crossed the subject property and the access easement to his residence ran along the side of the subject property. He expressed opposition to the proposed warehouse for maintenance of equipment because of the potential for noise problems and the current problem of standing water after a rainfall in the exact location of the proposed maintenance shop. He pointed out the only access to their residence was via this road and contended that, if heavy equipment traveled it, there would be . potential damage to the road especially when mud was present. Freda Poore, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern that the Planning Commission were sending out mixed signals in regard to commercial development in the area. She advised she had been denied a rezoning to commercial on property next to the Ozark Smokehouse in the recent past and noted her opinion was that residential was not a good use for the land because of the 4 -lane highway. She advised that, if the subject petition were approved, she would be submitting a commercial rezoning petition for her property across the street since a commercial development there would be detrimental to her residential property. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to deny rezoning request R94-39. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 6-0-0. Mr. Allred advised the conditional use request which had been submitted in conjunction with the rezoning would not be discussed since the rezoning petition was denied. E Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARING OF REZONING PETITIONS R94-40 & R94-41 MARK RUMSEY - S OF STEARNS ST, E OF JOYCE ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petitions R94-40 and R94-41 submitted by Mark Rumsey for property located on the south side of Stearns Street, east of Joyce Boulevard. The R94-40 request is to rezone 10.75 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The R94-41 request is to rezone 10.75 acres from A-1. Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office, Mr. Santos stated the property was currently undeveloped and located at the east end of Stearns Street. He noted the applicant had no specific plans for development of the property, but had requested the rezoning to allow development of the subject property similar to that of surrounding land. He noted the request was made in conjunction with R94-41 which was a request to rezone the 10.75 acres immediately to the east from A-1 to R -O. He advised C-1 zoning was designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential area and allowed uses included offices, studios, neighborhood shopping, gasoline service stations, and drive-in restaurants. He added R -O zoning was designed primarily to provide areas for offices, without limitation to the nature or size of the office, together with community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses. He noted allowed uses included offices, studios, and single and two-family dwellings. Mr. Santos stated adjacent land uses to the north were R -O and C-2 offices, to the south was C-2 offices, to the east was A-1 and vacant, and to the west was C-2 offices. He noted the site was served by an 8 -inch sewer line and a 16 -inch water line and stated Stearns Street was a local street which accessed Joyce • Boulevard, a minor arterial. He stated the petition was compatible with adjacent land uses with the General Plan 2010 calling for this area to develop as a regional services center. He further stated uses permitted in an R -O district would buffer the residential area to the east from the heavy commercial area to the west. He noted the staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, representing the petitioner, advised the C-1 request was for the western half of the property and the R -O request was for the eastern half of the property which was adjacent to the existing R-2 and R -O zoning. He contended, therefore, it would act as a buffer for the residential area to the east. He added the petitioner concurred with the staff comments. Jack Washburn, a residence of the Brookhollow Subdivision, advised that Stearns Street ran west one block from Old Missouri Road and he lived at the end of that block. He noted there were five or six cul-de-sacs or circles that adjoined Stearns Street. He expressed concern for the children living in his area because of the potential for increased traffic if Stearns Street was extended to 716. Ms. Little advised that, as development occurred, the City had been requesting right-of-way for the extension of Stearns Street. She noted the part of Stearns that Mr. Washburn entered his residence off of was located a little farther north than that part of Stearns which intersected with Joyce Street and advised there would have to be a curve to connect the two. She pointed out that, not only was staff anticipating the connection of Stearns Street on the west side of Old Missouri Road, but it would also be connected on the east side to Highway 265 as the pace of development allowed. In response to further questions, Ms. Little advised there was right-of-way for • an extension of Stearns in the newly platted subdivision to the east of Old Missouri Road. She added the portion of the property the petitioner was requesting a R -O rezoning of would be on Mr. Washburn's southwestern boundary. • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 17 She pointed out Joyce Street was the major street in the area and noted Stearns Street would not be one of the larger streets. She explained the specific plans relating to street extensions, drainage considerations, and parking lots would be reviewed during the development process. In answer to a specific question from Mr. Washburn in regard to parking lots, Ms. Little advised there was a requirement for screening between commercial uses and residential property, but there would be no mandatory requirement for screening in R -O districts although it could be negotiated during the large scale development process. Carrie Adams, a resident of Foxborow Drive, expressed concern for the safety of her children when Stearns Street was extended and for the potential for devaluation of her property. Ms. Little advised there were plans to improve the intersection of Stearns and Joyce Street. Ms. Adams asked if there was a requirement for an Environmental Impact Study to show what affect the development would have on the wooded area. Ms. Little advised Environmental Impact Studies were required by projects which had federal funding. She added the City did have a requirement that development meet the Tree Preservation Ordinance. In response to further statements, Me. Little advised C-1 zoning was neighborhood commercial which was the lesser intense commercial zoning. She further explained • residential -office zoning was more restrictive than the commercial zoning and limited to offices. She advised at this point they were discussing a land use consideration and noted there were some safeguards for residences in terms of the amount of lot coverage and the amount of parking required. She noted the staff did not have all those answers at this stage since they had not yet been presented with a plan for development. Mr. Rudasill stated the owner did not have any specific development plans for the property currently except to do a development consistent with what was currently surrounding the property. He stated all of the grading and tree preservation ordinances would be adhered to at the time of development. Ms. Britton expressed opposition to the rezoning since there were no definite plans for development and the street would flow into a residential neighborhood. She suggested the petitioner bring back a proposal which dealt with a transition zone and less intense zoning, possibly R -O and R-2. Ms. Britton asked for clarification that the one-year limitation in the ordinance in regard to rezonings was that a petitioner could not come back with the same request for a period of one year once it was denied. Ms. Little agreed. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the rezoning petition R94-40. The motion died for the lack of a second. NOTION • Mr. Suchecki made a motion to grant the rezoning petition R94-40 subject to the staff's comments. Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 18 The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried with a vote of 4-2-0, but did not pass because there were only four affirmative votes. Commissioners Nickle, Pummill, Suchecki, and Allred voted "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Reynolds voted "no". NOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to grant the rezoning petition R94-41. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried with a vote of 4-2-0, but did not pass because there were only four affirmative votes. Commissioners Nickle, Pummill, Suchecki, and Allred voted "yea" and Commissioners Britton and Reynolds voted "no". • • .34%1 Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 19 The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-43 submitted by Greg Foster for property located on the south side of Rebecca Street, east of College Avenue. The request was to rezone .79 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential -office. Mr. Santos advised the subject property was just east of the Doc Murdock's nightclub with almost the entire tract lying within the 100 -year flood plain or floodway. He noted the applicant proposed to build either professional offices in an architectural style compatible with the nearby Washington -Willow Historic District or duplex town -homes resembling Victorian homes. He noted the R -O zoning district was designed to provide areas for offices without limitation to the nature or size of the office together with community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses. He added adjacent land uses were R-1 to the north across Rebecca Street, R-1 apartments to the south, R-1 single-family homes and a duplex to the east, and R -O zoning with the nightclub to the west. He noted the site was served by a 10 -inch sewer line and a 10 -inch water line and Rebecca street was designated a local street, Mr. Santos advised the majority of the subject property was in the federally regulated floodway and noted that construction in the floodway required significant mitigation and permitting from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. He added the entire area of the lot within the residential setbacks was within the 100 -year flood plain and any development outside the floodway but still within . the flood plain would have to comply with the City's flood damage prevention ordinance and would have to be insured through the National Flood Insurance Program. He further stated without extreme mitigation efforts, the parcel was an unbuildable lot. He advised the staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning. Greg Foster, the petitioner, stated there were several people in the audience wanting to speak both in favor and in opposition of the proposal. He advised it had been suggested to him by the staff he would still have the option to table the petition after public comment. Ms. Little advised he would need to make the request prior to the discussion being closed to the public. Mr. Allred clarified Mr. Foster was requesting that, after the public discussion was heard on this item, it be tabled and not voted on at this meeting. Mr. Foster advised he would just like to reserve the right to table the request if he chose to. In answer to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Allred stated they would have to rehear the public comment when it was taken off the table at the next meeting. Mr. Pummill suggested the request be tabled at this time with the public comments being heard when it was taken off the table. The consensus was that it be tabled. I: 4�f 1I [•):I Mr. Nickle moved to table rezoning petition R94-43. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 6-0-0. • Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 20 PUBLIC BEARING FOR REZONING R94-42 DON GINGER - N OF MISSION BLVD, E OF CROSSOVER RD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-42 submitted by Don Ginger for property located on the north side of Mission Boulevard and east of Crossover Road. The request was to rezone 5.92 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Santos advised the subject property was currently undeveloped and was being developed in conjunction with a 34 -acre tract being submitted simultaneously for large scale development approval, single-family homes on one -acre lots. He stated the subject tract was separated from the 34 -acre tract by a 100 -foot wide utility easement. He noted the applicant proposed to develop no more than 25 clustered garden homes with a density of 4.3 units per acre. Mr. Santos advised the site was heavily wooded and clustering the dwelling units would allow open space and many large hardwoods to be preserved. He added the applicant had Stated restrictive covenants would run with the property and the dwelling units would be limited to 1,800 square feet plus garages. He pointed out R-2 zoning permitted 4 to 24 families per acre and was designed to encourage the development of a variety of dwelling types and suitable environments and a variety of densities. He noted the adjacent land use to the north and south was A-1 undeveloped land, to the east was R-1 with the Timbercrest Subdivision single-family homes, and to the west was P-1 which was the proposed site for a new elementary School. • Mr. Santos noted the site was Served by a 20 -inch sewer line and a 24 -inch force main and an 8 -inch water line along Mission approximately a quarter mile in distance. He added access to Mission Boulevard would be provided by a local street through the 34 -acre development and a future tie in to the planned extension of Township Road. He advised the rezoning request was compatible with adjacent land uses and noted sensibly designed mixed housing types in this area was consistent with the traditional neighborhood concept of the General Plan 2010. He further stated the proposed cluster design was also consistent with the City's desire to see property developed with more green space and tree preservation. He advised the staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the petitioner, advised that they were requesting the rezoning petition be tabled since there were only six commissioners present and that the preliminary plat - Willington Place being presented in conjunction with the petition also be tabled. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to table rezoning petition R94-42 and the Preliminary Plat for Willington Place until the next meeting. The motion was Seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 6-0-0. CI Planning Commission July 11, 1994 Page 21 OTHER BUSINESS A. PUBLIC BEARING - Proposed draft of the Fayetteville Development Code and the Master Street Plan. Mr. Allred advised the staff had suggested they set separate dates to have a public hearing on the proposed Development Code and the proposed Master Street Plan. Me. Little reiterated the staff felt it would be preferable to have separate dates for public hearings (the first being the Master Street Plan) and then consolidating the public comments and presenting them to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Allred clarified the Planning Commission would be holding a second public hearing on each of these items after the staff held their information gathering hearings. There was a consensus that the Planning Commission needed to have another session on the Unified Development Ordinance for further discussion after the staff held their information gathering hearing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. 0 0