Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 25, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Jana Lynn Britton, Gary R. Head, and Phyllis Hall Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Pummill OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Kevin Santos, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion by Commissioner Nickle and second by Commissioner Reynolds, the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 1994 were unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS: WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 SPENCER ALBRIGHT - NW CORNER OF JOYCE & CROSSOVER The next item was a waiver of subdivision regulations for Lot Split No. 1 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Spencer Albright for property located at the • northwest corner of Joyce and crossover. The property is zoned C-2, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the request was to split a 2.0 acre tract from an existing 14.1 acre tract. He recommended approval of the split subject to extension of the sewer and other utilities to service the site; owner participation in the improvement of Joyce Boulevard to the extent of the cost of one-half of a standard city street; and dedication of additional right-of-way off of Highway 265 to accommodate eventual widening. He advised the first and last items could be delayed until such time as a large scale development was filed for the site but, since the widening of Joyce was planned for the near future, he recommended the second item be required as a condition of the split in the event it took 6 to 8 months before they reviewed the large scale development. Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, explained Dr. Albright had a potential purchaser for the 2 acre tract. Mr. Danny Wright, representing the Albrights, stated his client's concern with the second condition revolved around a binding offer and acceptance to sell the property to PetroMart from Harrison, Arkansas. He explained they had met with City staff and had gotten some cost figures and, the purchase contract called for the Albrights to pay for the cost of Bewer extension. He further stated the buyer had agreed to pay the cost of the street improvements. He pointed out that, if the street improvements were already in place and the sale took place a month after those improvements, there would be no cost to the Albrights nor the purchaser. He stated the closing date on the property was August 16. He further stated that, should the sale not go through for some reason, the second condition would ve still apply to the subject property and raise the cost an additional $16,000 to $180000. He pointed out none of the other property owners in the area would be 351 J Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 2 required to add an addition cost to their property should they decide to sell. He requested the condition be tied to the sale of the property to the proposed buyer. He advised neither the Albrights nor PetroMart had a problem with the condition but did want it tied to the sale to PetroMart. Upon questioning by Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Wright reiterated the purchaser had agreed to comply with the second condition and would pay for the improvements. Mr. Tarvin asked if staff would be satisfied if the lot split was approved conditioned upon the buyer depositing a check with the city for the amount of improvements. Mr. Bunn stated that would be satisfactory. Mr. Tarvin reiterated the agreement that the Planning Commission could approve the lot split conditioned upon the developer paying the costs and the costs could be requested by the City at its discretion. He pointed out that, if the developer did not pay the city, the lot split would revert to a single lot. Ms. Little explained a lot split was a waiver of subdivision regulations so any conditions attached would stay in place for one year. She stated the Albright's concern was, should the subject sale fall through for some reason, they would be responsible for the same conditions. Mr. Tarvin stated the owner preferred that, if the sale did not go through, the property revert to one tract of land. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments with the as long as the sale of the property was finalized within 60 days. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Tarvin amended the motion to approve the lot Split, subject to staff comments, with the condition that the purchaser (new owner) would be required to pay the cost of improvements to Joyce Street and, if the sale was not completed within 60 days, the tract of land would revert to one lot. Mr. Reynolds seconded the amendment. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Allred, Reynolds, Nickle, Tarvin, Johnson and Head voting ^yes•' and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 3 E PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST R94-42 DON GINGER - N OF MISSION, E OF CROSSOVER The next item was a public hearing for rezoning request R94-42 submitted by Don Ginger for property located north of Mission, east of Crossover Road. The request is to rezone 5.92 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Santos explained the property was currently undeveloped and was a part of and was being developed in conjunction with a 34 -acre tract being submitted simultaneous for preliminary plat approval. He noted the subject property was separated from the 34 -acre tract by a 100 -foot wide utility easement. He explained the applicant proposed to develop no more than 25 clustered garden homes (a density of 4.3 units per acre). He pointed out the site was heavily wooded and clustering the dwelling units would allow open space and many large hardwoods to be preserved. He advised the applicant planned that restrictive covenants would run with the property and 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 in suitable environments in a variety of densities. He advised the requested rezoning was compatible with adjacent land uses and that sensitively designed mixed housing types in the area was consistent with the traditional neighborhood concept of the General Plan 2010. He explained the cluster design of the proposed development was also consistent with the City's desire to see property developed with more greenspace and tree preservation. He stated staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Mr. Tarvin asked if the applicant had submitted a large scale development for the property. the covenants was a restriction on lot splits so there would be no additional Ms. Little stated a large scale development had not been submitted but a preliminary plat for the remaining tract was the next agenda item. She further noted the large scale development might not occur for a number of years but the assurances offered would run with the land. Mr. Suchecki asked if a Bill of Assurance had been submitted. Ms. Little stated the developer had submitted a letter setting out the conditions. Mr. George Faucette appeared before the Commission representing the property owners and the proposed developers. He advised some of his comments would also apply to the subdivision plan which was the following agenda item. He further stated the restrictions and Bill of Assurance would apply to the entire development, not just the subject tract. He presented a rendition of the proposed development showing both the single family homes and the cluster development of the garden homes. He advised one of the covenants was a restriction on lot splits so there would be no additional lots created. He pointed out the plan called for the street adjacent to the Cluster homes to be within the 100 -foot easement allowing for the preservation of more trees. He stated the rendition represented a concept, not the lay -out, of the garden homes. He further advised the covenants allowed a maximum of 25 garden homes. Mr. Faucette advised the total density of 53 units on the total site of 39 acres represented a density of 1.35 units per acre and the R-2 section, with 25 units - • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 4 on 5.92 acres represented a density of 4.3 acres. He pointed out 4 units per acre was allowed by R-1 and they were just slightly over that density. Me. Britton stated the Commission had received copies of the Bill of Assurance but she would like Mr. Faucette to review it. Mr. Faucette stated the Bill of Assurance covered a maximum of 28 single family lots with a minimum of 2,500 square feet per unit exclusive of garages, porches and decks. He also noted none of the lots could be further subdivided. He went on to say the portion of the Bill of Assurance which covered Willington Court allowed the maximum number of garden (or patio) homes would be 25 units, with a minimum square footage of 1,800 per unit exclusive of garages, porches and decks. He further stated each home would have a private garage with a 2 -car capacity, all walks and driveways would be exposed aggregate concrete, all common grounds would be landscaped with installed sprinkler systems, any fencing would be decorative wood or masonry, all roofs would have architectural grade shingles and all exteriors would be at least 806 masonry (probably brick). He advised he knew there were a number of residents from Timbercrest Subdivision present that wanted to speak. He stated he had visited with some of the area residents and knew they were concerned about the rezoning request. He noted their concerns centered on two issues: property values and quality of life. He stated the developer had the same concerns because anyone developing property hoped to do something good that the public liked and produced a profit. He explained that it if was not a good development which was cohesive for the entire development, then it would not be a good development from a profitability • standpoint. He went on to say that, in terms of property values, he believed the Bill of Assurance would assure the development would be of high quality. He advised they anticipated the townhomes would sell for approximately $150,000. He stated another concern for the area residents was the patio homes but these homes would not be apartments but developed more like the patio homes in Greenbriar, or Sweetbriar. He also pointed out there were some very nice apartments in Park Place and also on East Oaks. He stated the property value of single family homes in those areas had not been reduced. He also stated there was a townhome development in Pinnacle (formerly Champions) and there had been no reduction in value of the surrounding properties. Mr. Faucette stated the second concern was quality of life. He stated the area residents believed residents of townhomes were less desirable. He disagreed stating with values in $150,000 range it was doubtful the units would be used as rentals. He pointed out there was a demand for different types of housing in Fayetteville with many more young professions that wanted upscale housing without maintenance responsibilities. He further explained the concept for the tract (other than the townhouse area) had been developed 13 or 14 years earlier, using the natural terrain, the beauty and heavily wooded areas in order to beat utilize the land and keep most of the natural beauty intact. He stated the economics of developing with such low density in the single family portion would not work and they had to find some way to increase the density to make sense from an economic standpoint. He explained the Gingers were unique in that they were also the builders as well as the developers. He stated he believed if the property had to be developed with only single family homes it would allow for over 150 homes. He further stated there was also always the possibility that, through a Planned Unit Development, they could have in excess of 200 units. He advised he believed the • proposal was a very sensitive way to develop the property and retain enormous amounts of green space. • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Suchecki asked the rental would be if someone had to rent one of townhomeB. Mr. Faucette stated he did not know. He advised there was an upward limit of $1,100 to $1,300 per month. Mr. Nickle asked if the developer would limit the number of garden homes to 25 in the R-2 area. Mr. Faucette stated the developer had agreed there would be no more than 25 homes; that had been an offering from the developer. He stated 25 would be the maximum but there could be less. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Faucette advised the Multi -list showed the average cost of a home in Fayetteville to be $75,000 to $78,000. He further stated a 4 -bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, 2,200 square foot home would cost approximately $120,000. Ms. Britton asked if the Bill of Assurance would run with the property even if the townhomes were never constructed. Ms. Little agreed and stated the limiting of the density would run with the property unless the Bill of Assurance was changed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tarvin asked if the developer had considered putting the garden homes in the southwest portion of the property opposed to the northeast corner. • Mr. Faucette stated they had considered that but since the SWEPCO line was already in existence, it would enable the developer to use the easement area for a street and retain most of the green belt on both aides of the easement. He further stated they believed if the townhomes were located at the back portion of the development, they would be set as a much higher quality than if they set on the highway. He pointed out the lots would cost $65,000 to $70,000, making a $200,000 home with the lot and house combined. Mr. Tarvin stated the street could still be located on the easement. He also pointed out that in Park Place (mentioned earlier by Mr. Faucette) the town homes were constructed at the front of the tract. He also noted there were very few trees on the southwest corner of the tract. Mr. Faucette stated if they exchanged the land to place 5 or 6 lots at the back, they would have to extend the street further into the lots, losing more trees for street purposes. Mr. Tarvin expressed doubt too many trees would be preserved once the driveways and utility lines were installed. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the power line running through the property. She asked for an example with the same capability over a street. She asked if the power line running along Township was of the comparable wattage or amperage. She asked how dangerous it would be to have the power line over the street. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know. Mr. Tarvin advised the same power line ran down the west side of Timbercrest Subdivision. • • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 6 Ms. Britton stated she had noted in the plat review minutes on another subdivision that the utility companies did not want an metal fence under a power line because it could conduct electricity. Mr. Suchecki stated he believed if there was any danger SWEPCO would not have approved the street under the power line. Ms. Elizabeth Williams, an adjoining property owner, stated she had been asked by her neighbors in Timbercrest Subdivision to present a petition in opposition to the rezoning request. She advised the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with the Fayetteville land use plan and constituted spot zoning. She stated that some of the areas mentioned by Mr. Faucette had been developed when she served on the Planning Commission. She explained they had, at that period, tried to provide a buffer between R-1 and other uses of land. She stated the subject property was surrounded on three sides by R-1 zoning and rezoning would constitute spot zoning. She disagreed with the staff report in that the R-1 zoning was on only one side. Ms. Williams further stated most of the area property owners had checked surrounding zoning when they purchased their property and made sure it was R-1. She advised she expected the city to protect the zoning more than a developer who just wanted to make more money out of a development. She further stated that, while she believed the city should provide for different types of housing, she did not believe it should be at the surrounding property owners' expense and she did believe they were entitled to some type of protection. She went on to say • it bothered her to see the Planning Commission approach zoning from the prospective they seemed to be using because it appeared they were approaching zoning on an ad hoc basis. She also stated they lived in a neighborhood where the developer had attempted to preserve as many trees as possible but her neighbors were having to replant trees. She pointed out there was nothing in the Bill of Assurance that the developer was preserving any trees. She further stated the neighbors had asked specifically how many trees would be left, there was no guarantee. She stated she did not believe there would be very much green space in the proposed R-2 area. She also pointed out that, due to the utility easement, the developer was really putting 25 homes on four acres. She stated the R-2 area also included the roads and parking, removing further buildable land from the tract. Ms. Williams stated the residents of the area were also concerned about the quality of life. She stated most of the residents moved into the area because the wanted some space and had enjoyed the woods. She expressed concern for other people purchasing homes in R-1 areas; she stated if the rezoning request was approved, showed there was very little protection for existing neighborhoods. Upon her request, approximately 30 residents from Timbercrest stood. She advised this was a very serious issue and did not only affect the residents of Timbercrest but the citizens of Fayetteville. She further advised that to approve the rezoning request would be a very bold and dangerous step. Mr. Gray explained the reason the developer was requested R-2 zoning was that it was the only zoning which allowed zero lot lines; that it was not allowed under R-1 nor R-1.5. Ms. Ann Henry stated she was aware the City was considering a new transportation plan and had heard that, as a condition of approval for this development, the staff had asked for right-of-way from the developers for a street which was not yet on the Master Street Plan. She advised the right-of-way was for the proposed 5& 1 • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 7 extension of Township from Highway 45 to the east, which would come out at Fox Hunter Road. She stated she understood the extension was a staff recommendation. She advised no public hearing had been held. She stated if Township were extended they were looking at a quality of life issue that was much greater than just for Timbercrest. She noted she and her neighbors had been interested in maintaining Township as a 2 -lane road with trees. She stated that with the addition of schools and development there would be significant additional pressure to widen Township. She advised she believed they needed to look at protecting people who had purchased their homes many years ago. Ms. Henry further stated she believed they were putting the cart before the horse if they received right-of-way from a developer for a street which had not been placed on the Master Street Plan nor had a public hearing. Mr. Tarvin stated Ms. Henry was talking about the dedicated right-of-way of the plat for Willington Place. He asked if it was not presumptive to require right- of-way for a street before it was placed on the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little stated she did not see how they could plan without making provisions for the future. She advised the main item which caused the extension of Township to resurface was the placement of an elementary school running from the intersection of Township Road down to Highway 45 and along Highway 265. She further noted staff had the recommendation of the Planning Commission Subcommittee that Township Road be extended. She advised there was not a definite route but one of Planning's jobs was to make sure streets connected. • Mr. Tarvin asked if that would not take away the argument of anyone opposed to the extension of Township when the staff could say they had already acquired the right-of-way. Ms. Little explained right-of-way could revert to the property owners at any time by vacation procedures. She further stated there was 5 - 108 of the streets platted within the City of Fayetteville which had never been constructed. Jerry Sweetser stated he was not present to oppose the subdivision but was to speak to the problem of requiring right-of-way. He advised it bothered him to have City staff require things they had on their personal agenda. He further stated 25 years earlier the city had wanted him to deed property to widen a street. He stated that, as an alternative, he had agreed to honor the setbacks. He recommended staff ask the developers to honor the setbacks rather than take land. He contended it was a burden on the property owner for staff to require dedication of land. He further contended a developer had no choice if staff made such dedication a requirement of approval. He stated he did not know who the staff worked for. He asked if the Planning Commission set the guidelines or if staff set the guidelines and brought it to the Commission. He further stated he had two pieces of property which would be affected. He advised that a precedent would have already been set by this development and the city would demand more property. Mr. Sweetser stated he understood they needed streets running through town but to impose all of the traffic on Township and Joyce was not a good idea. He suggested extending Rockwood Trail but stated that was not politically feasible. He contended they had run away from that by saying the terrain would not allow the extension of Rockwood Trail. He advised the terrain on Rockwood Trail was • not as steep as Township Road. He stated he was not in favor of extending Township Road until they had other streets running east -west also. He further • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 8 stated traffic was already backed up one-half mile on Township Road in the mornings. He advised he believed the Commission should direct the staff rather than letting the staff direct them. He further stated the Commission was responsible to the citizens and staff was responsible to the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Sweetser that it was the Planning commission's responsibility to make plans. She advised the Planning Commission had formed a subcommittee and did have a Master Street Plan which would be presented to the public in the near future. She also stated the staff not only worked for the Mayor and City Council but for the Planning Commission as well. She advised staff did not make the decisions; the reports written by staff took the form of recommendations to the Commission with the final decision in the hands of the Planning Commission. She noted staff used the tools at their disposal, the knowledge of what items were on the Master Street Plan, what items would be coming forward. She stated staff did their best to coordinate all of that information. Jack Wilson, a Timbercrest property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He advised he believed if one did not keep faith with little things, they would not keep faith with the bigger things. He stated the developer of the project had been a participant in a tract of property in the Timbercrest Addition. He noted they had protective covenants which called for the sodding of front lawns and side lawns but the only home in the subdivision which did not have sod on the lawn was one on which the developer was involved. He contended • the developer was not faithful in little things and therefore he could not be trusted in bigger things. He advised it was a matter of faith and trust and they could not put faith and trust on a piece of paper. He stated the residents of Timbercrest took pride in their homes and they did not wish to have a bunch of town houses with no landscaping or trees behind their homes. He further stated they were working all of the time in their yards to keep green space. Mr. Faucette advised the developer, Don Ginger, finished a house for a builder in Timbercrest. He stated Mr. Ginger was not the builder; that the homeowner was the builder and Mr. Ginger's contract was to finish the house and had nothing to do with the yard. He contended Mr. Ginger had no control over the yard. He guaranteed Mr. Ginger was a man of his word. John Davidson, a Timbercrest property owner, requested the Commission keep in mind the safety of the children. He said it was his understanding the proposed school between the proposed development and the intersection of Highways 45 and 265. He stated that area was congested and the area in front of Root School was a hazard. He contended for the Commission to increase the density on the outside of the school property would increase the traffic. Jeannie Hill, the coordinator for Trees for Township project, advised that in the last 2 years her group had planted over 250 trees on both sides of Township. She stated she would have liked to have known 2 years ago that the city planned to widen Township. She also expressed concern that staff had requested right-of-way prior to a street being on the Master Street Plan. She contended circular reasoning could be used later to say the city already had the right-of-way to any argument against the extension. Mr. Tarvin advised there was no consideration for widening Township; only the extension of Township to the east. He further advised that issue had not been • brought before the Commission nor the Council yet and there would be public hearings on the matter. He stated he did understand her concern about requiring right-of-way since it seemed to put the city in a "one upmanship" position. • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 9 In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the entire development could, by density, be done in an R-1 zone but R-1 did not allow zero lot line developments. Reggie Houser, a Timbercrest resident, stated he wanted to speak for the children in Timbercrest. He contended town houses were more transient that single family homes. He advised the people living in town houses would be different than the people living in single family homes. He asked the Commission to consider that fact. Mr. Suchecki stated he believed the developers had tried to protect the property rights of the surrounding subdivisions. He pointed out the plan tried to meet the conditions of the 2010 Plan. He moved to approve R94-42 subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Nickle pointed out the plan was three times less dense than it could be under R-1. He stated that would allow less traffic and have lees impact on the entire area. He stated he believed the developer had done a good job on the density aspect. Ms. Britton stated she was having trouble in making a decision because she believed it was a good development as far as density but she had assumed the R-2 property would be on the side adjacent to the school. She further stated Mr. Tarvin's suggestion to have the R-2 zoning in the southwest corner made a great deal of sense. In response to a question from Mr. Allred regarding screening, Ms. Little stated screening was not required. Mr. Faucette advised they would offer screening between the R-2 property and Timbercrest Subdivision. Mr. Allred also advised he did not believe the location of town homes adjacent to single family homes significantly increased or decreased the property values of those single family homes. He advised the Planning Commission needed to look at the community as a whole and not one particular area. Mr. Tarvin stated he would vote against the motion. He explained that, if the town homes were located in the southwest corner of the tract, there would be less impact on the subdivision to the east. He further stated he believed the access drive should be located further to the east for safety and, by moving the R-2 property to the southwest corner of the tract, it would allow the drive to be moved. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Allred, Nickle, Britton, and Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds, Tarvin and Head voting "no". 9 • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WILLINGTON PLACE DON GINGER - N OF MISSION, E OF CROSSOVER The next item was a preliminary plat for Willington Place submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Don Ginger for property located on the north side of Mission, east of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 38.88 acres with 28 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by the utility company representatives other than some easement and crossing changes. He advised there had been discussion regarding fire flows in the area and the adequacy of the water. He stated the other item of discussion had been the location of the street going through the subdivision as to how it would line up with Starr Drive. He explained staff believed the street going into the subdivision should be made to line up with Starr Drive in order to facilitate future traffic flows. He further stated staff was assuming at this point in time that the street would go further to the north, past the Township extension. He advised staff had reviewed sight distance at both the location shown on the plat and at the location recommended by staff. He noted either location would provide the necessary sight distance. Mr. Bunn further noted there would need to be addition study regarding the water issue. He explained there was an 8 -inch line coming from Highway 265 which was tied to a 12 -inch. He noted there were also two 6 -inch ties, one from the north and one from the south, which tied into the 8 -inch line. He advised there had been recent work done by a consulting firm which indicated the water supply in the area was adequate. He recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and an erosion control plan for the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; construction of sidewalks and payment of park fees in accordance with city ordinances; dedication of right-of-way for the extension of Township on the north side of the subdivision; dedication of additional right-of-way along Highway 45 to bring the total to 50 feet on the north side; construction of sidewalks along Highway 45; and submittal of a drainage report. Mr. Nickle asked if the staff was also recommending the connection at Highway 45 be located at Starr Drive. Mr. Bunn stated they were. Mr. Harry Gray stated his client did object to the extension of Starr Drive through the development. He explained they were fearful it would become a collector -type street, particularly with the extension of Township. He advised that type of traffic would defeat the idea of the larger lots and type of homes they planned to develop. He pointed out they would be eliminating the lift station located in Timbercrest by relocating it to the west side of the subject development. He also stated they would be providing pedestrian access from the new street over to the park on the west. He suggested the city could provide a sidewalk through Timbercrest to tie into the new street in the subject development, allowing children access to the new park without getting on Highway 45, Mr. Nickle stated his question had nothing to do with the extension of Starr Drive but the location of where the access lined up for safety reasons. r..r • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Bunn explained the proposed intersection was several hundred feet north of Starr Drive and did not conflict with any city regulations regarding off -sets. He stated it was not a safety consideration a traffic circulation consideration. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated the eight line from staff's proposal was better than that proposed by the developer but the developer's plan was sufficient. Jerry Sweetser suggested the Planning Commission not take right-of-way but ask the developer to honor the setbacks. He asked that they not take land without a public hearing and suggested they start with the subject subdivision. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn stated the city had acquired right-of-way the same way for a number of years. Mr. Suchecki stated he was curious as to why it was becoming an issue. Mr. Bunn stated the city normally took right-of-way, when needed, in approving a subdivision or large scale development. Mr. Suchecki asked if there was a difference compensation -wise for the property owner when the city required the granting of right-of-way as a part of the plat versus acquiring right-of-way at a later date. Mr. Bunn stated there was certainly a difference compensation -wise to the property owner. He advised that, if the right-of-way were acquired at a later • date, the property owner would receive the appraised value for the land. Mr. Nickle asked when the Commission would see the proposed Master Street Plan, Mr. Santos advised staff had been working with the Regional Planning Office. Ms. Little stated the city had just received the third draft and would post the map as soon as it was consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission Transportation Subcommittee. She also pointed out it was at the time of preliminary plat approval that the Planning Commission made decisions as to what off-site improvements were required. She noted Section 159.033 of the Subdivision regulations directed the Commission to assess any off-site improvements, including such things as water and sewer extensions, etc. Mr. Nickle asked if the Starr extension could be given back to the developer if the Township extension was not approved on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Bunn advised it could go through a vacation process. Ms. Little stated it would not really be a dedication until the final plat was approved. Ms. Fran Alexander asked if the traffic volume was considered on Highway 45. She reviewed the existing and proposed subdivisions in the area. She pointed out that, in 10 years, they would have 10 to 15 times the amount of traffic on Highway 45 as they currently had. She asked that the Commission consider the number of intersections they would be placing on Highway 45. Ms. Britton advised that, when the Commission had reviewed Barrington Parke, they had been concerned about ingresses not meeting in a good manner and had initiated • the move to bring the roadway through the City property and align directly with Timbercrest. She stated the City Council had reversed the commission's decision. 3(0l J • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Tarvin agreed and stated they had also recommended off-site improvements to Fox Hunter Road which the City Council had cancelled. Ms. Little advised the final plat for Phase I of Barrington Parke had been approved but the final plat for Phase II had not been approved. She stated the connection to the city property was in Phase II. MOTION Mr. Head moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments including item no. 9 -- that the road be moved to connect with Joe Fred Starr Road. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton asked if they developer would not have to re -submit the plat if that connection was made. Ms. Little explained the plat would have to go back to plat review but, if it was the Planning Commission's approval, it would not have to come back to the Planning Commission. Both Mr. Tarvin and Ms. Britton requested the plat come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchecki reminded the Commission the Timbercrest property owners had been concerned about their property values and quality of life and it seemed to him that, if Starr Road ran between Timbercrest and the subject subdivision creating a thoroughfare street, it would deter property values for both subdivisions. He advised he did not be it logical to require the developers to redesign the entire subdivision just to provide a street that might or might not line up with another street sometime in the future. Mr. Tarvin advised he believed he was aware of the reason for the condition and he was more concerned with the safety feature rather than the extension of Starr Road. Mr. Allred pointed out there would be a number of school children living on the south side of Highway 45 and advised there needed to be a light in the proximity of the proposed subdivision in order to allow the children to safety cross Highway 45. He asked if a decision or recommendation had been made on the placement of that stop light. Mr. Bunn stated the school was to have their entrance off of Highway45across from Whippoorwill and he believed that was the location suggested for the stop light. He advised the light would have to meet certain warrants set out by the ' Highway Department. Mr. Allred pointed out that, if a light was placed at Whippoorwill, it was doubtful warrants would be met to place a light at Starr Road. Mr. Tarvin amended the motion to require the developer's engineer to draw a new layout showing the intersection at Starr Road. Mr. Head agreed to the amendment. He explained the Transportation Committee's • concern was to put a stop light at Joe Fred Starr since the problem at that location would only get worse as more development occurred. He further stated Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 13 they had wanted to extend Joe Fred Starr Road as far north as possible in order to have another north -south road. Mr. Faucette stated he understood the rationale was to have a north -south thoroughfare but, it was only good if Township was extended. He pointed out that, if Township was extended, it would be extended to Highway 45 which would provide access. He advised their plan would force heavy traffic through a residential neighborhood. Mr. Tarvin reiterated the motion: that the preliminary plat be resubmitted with Willington Drive intersecting Highway 45 at Starr Road. Mr. Reynolds asked that the motion be amended to show setbacks from Township but not take right-of-way. Ms. Britton asked if these items would not be discussed with the resubmittal of the plat. She pointed out the motion was basically they were denying the proposed plan and asking the developer to submit another plat. Mr. Tarvin agreed and advised there would be no staff comments on the subject plat. He stated staff comments would be developed with the resubmittal. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Reynolds, Nickle, Britton, Tarvin, Johnson and Head voting "yes" and Commissioner Suchecki voting "no". Mr. Head left the meeting. 17J 0 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-43 GREG FOSTER - S OF REBECCA, E OF COLLEGE The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R94-43 submitted by Greg Foster for property located south of Rebecca, east of College. The request is to rezone .79 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. Staff advised there were no further comments than those written in the report. Mr. Foster stated the Planning staff had expressed approval of his plane and had agreed with him regarding the need for a buffer between the night spots on College and the residences on Rebecca. He stated Kevin Santos, Planning Department, had told him offices would be an ideal transition from the residential area to the commercial area. He pointed out the offices would be open at the time most homeowners were away from their homes and not in conflict with the nightclubs. He also pointed out attractive, historically influenced buildings and walls or fencing would add a measure of security and a noise buffer while aesthetically adding to the neighborhood. He stated the lot be vacant was a problem for the neighborhood because it was being used by nightclub patrons. He claimed the lot was an invitation to serious crimes such as rape, drug dealing, or violent acts. He contended these problems would be solved by a developed property with appropriate fencing and lighting. He stated it was economically unfeasible to develop the property under the R-1 zoning. • Mr. Foster assured residents of the area that two large trees on the land were protected by covenants which ran with the land. He stated he had purchased the lot in order to control its natural beauty. He advised he planned to arrange the offices around an English -type garden, leaving a great deal of greenspace. He went on to say he did not plan to alter nor obstruct Skull Creek. He explained he planned parking for the street side of the lot of the creek with an attractive footbridge to the facilities on the other side of the creek. He advised the Corps of Engineers would involve itself only if the creekbed would be altered or if there were wetlands involved. He stated neither would apply on the subject tract. He further advised he had contacted FEMA and was told they saw no problems in obtaining flood insurance for the tract. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Foster advised the covenants had not been drafted. Mr. Reynolds stated he did not believe Mr. Foster had seen the subject tract after a 5 -inch rain. Mr. Foster expressed confidence he could construct a building similar to others in the same area with the same problems. Mr. Nickle asked if there was a conditional use under R-1 zoning which would allow offices. Ms. Little advised a conditional use under R-1 allowed duplexes but not offices. She further noted staff's recommendation was to not grant the rezoning. She explained that, under the Flood Plain Management statutes, in order for Fayetteville to participate in the Federal Emergency Management program of flood plain insurance, staff was charged with not granting an excessive number of permits for building in the flood way. She stated policy had been to not allow construction in the flood way. She pointed out 70 - 80 percent of the subject lot was in the flood way. She expressed her belief the lot was unbuildable • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 15 without substantial mitigation including the blocking the channel in order to elevate the building two feet above the level of the 100 Year Plain. Mr. Foster stated he believed Ms. Little was referring to Ordinance 3251 adopting a flood damage prevention code (adopted in May, 1987). He asked if the policy was to allow no building in the flood way why Greg House and Beverly Block constructed a house at 265 Rebecca which was in the same flood way. He also noted in 1990 Greg House and Beverly Block constructed a house at 689 willow, a contiguous lot. He pointed out in August, 1991, Peter Roe was approved for a lot split of the subject tract; in October, 1991, Thomas Mauer was granted a conditional use for a duplex; in March, 1992, Mr. Mauer was granted a lot split for the subject tract; in 1993 and 1994 Mr. Mauer constructed a house at 209 Rebecca, having been granted a flood waiver. He asked if he was not to be granted the same consideration as other citizens. Ms. Little pointed out there was current zoning on the property and he had not been denied use of the property under the current zoning. She explained staff was saying the subject tract was a special piece of property with special considerations which they had tried to point out to Mr. Foster by giving him maps of the flood plain and flood way. She further stated staff would not like the density increased on the subject lot. Mr. Foster asked if it would not be preferable to have a lower usage rather than have families at risk. He also noted it was not economically feasible to develop the lot for residential use due to the mitigating circumstances Ms. Little had mentioned. He pointed out some of the cost could be recouped through offices. is In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Foster advised he planned on developing the property and renting out the offices; he had no intention of selling the tract. Mr. Tarvin asked if he had heard of reports that the lot had been under several feet of water. Mr. Foster stated he was aware of that. Mr. Tarvin asked why he would want to build on a lot which had been under several feet of water. Mr. Foster contended the lot could be built upon above the flood level. He advised that was his intention. Mr. Tarvin asked if staff knew the 100 -Year Flood level for the lot. Mr. Santos advised it was 1,387 feet. Mr. Tarvin asked the elevation of the lot. Ms. Little stated staff did not know the elevation of the lot. Mr. Reynolds stated he had seen the entire area under water. He advised he did not know how high the petitioner would have to build to keep from flooding. • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Foster stated the structures which had been allowed to be constructed on the adjacent lots gave him a good gauge as to how high he should build. Ms. Little pointed out that, when a building permit was issued for a house, the base floor elevation had to be constructed two feet above the 100 -Year Flood. She stated that was a theoretical number which had a 18 chance of occurring in any given year. She continued by saying floods did occur which were greater than 100 -Year floods. Mr. Foster stated that was why they had FEMA flood insurance. Mr. Allred asked if there was any evidence that a structure constructed on the subject lot would put the surrounding property at a disadvantage in a flood situation. Ms. Little stated that was the theory behind the floodway; that it was to be left unobstructed because if it was obstructed, it would affect the surrounding area. She advised it would take a special study to determine what that affect might be. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated the applicant could apply to build a single family home on the subject tract but she did not know if he would receive a variance to construct on the lot. She explained staff might condition the building permit by requiring the applicant to locate outside the floodway. She explained the Planning office had recently taken over the flood plain administration. She stated it had, before that time, been a building inspection function. • Mr. Allred advised that, as long as any construction would not affect the neighbors and Mr. Foster was willing to take the financial risk, he believed the burden should be passed onto Mr. Foster. He further stated that he was concerned should the channel be blocked. Mr. Suchecki asked if there was any difference in the issuance of a building permit with regard to the height of the building in R-1 or R -O. Ms. Little advised the base flood area was the same in all zoning districts. She explained the question was the mass and in R -O it was assumed the structure would be larger than a single family home. Mr. Peter Toker, 755 North Washington, stated he was opposed to the rezoning. He explained the subject lot represented the only natural buffer in the area for the neighborhood from the commercial structures on Highway 71, from River City, Doc Murdocks and EMS. He contended construction on the lot could not fulfill the same function as natural vegetation. He further stated there was not adequate drainage on the lot to allow construction. Ms. Bonnie Davis, an adjacent property owner, advised she had viewed the lot thinking about purchasing it but had determined it was not a suitable lot due to the creek running through the lot. She further stated that, in 1987, the Planning Commission had heard a request to rezone the same tract and had denied the request at that time. She contended the rezoning would be an encroachment upon the historical district. She advised she did not believe an office complex would be financially successful and pointed out there was a vacant office complex within one block of Rebecca Street at the present time. E • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 17 She stated her biggest fear was for after hours usage by patrons of the nightclubs in the area. She contended those patrons would use the parking lot which would be adjoining the historical district. She also pointed out that, by putting a parking lot in front of the creek, a number of large trees would have to be removed together with natural vegetation. She also expressed concern that, due to the location of the creek and the large trees which had to remain to comply with the covenants, the office building would be immediately on her property line. Ms. Davis agreed the lot did flood during a rain and advised dirt absorbed moisture much better than pavement. Mr. Tarvin noted a restaurant would also be allowed under R -O zoning. He stated the petitioner could always change his mind and, instead of offices, build a restaurant. Mr. Thomas Mauer, 209 Rebecca, expressed concern about the potential of flooding adjoining properties of the subject tract were intensely used. He also advised that many trees would have to be destroyed to place parking on the street side of the tract. He pointed out the greenspace on this tract separated the residential area and the commercial area. He contended the value of his property would be reduced greatly should an office building be constructed on the subject tract. He pointed out a house or duplex would not require nearly as much pavement as an office building. Mr. Don Hunnicutt, 520 N. Washington, stating he had been a Planning Commission • the last time someone had requested rezoning on the subject tract. He advised other considerations which had been discussed was buffer zones, encroachment, and the need to rezone. He pointed out there was a nice, neat line down College Avenue for 20 years of commercial property. He stated there was an R -O property directly behind the EMS building. He asked why they needed any additional buffer. He contended the best use for the tract was a single family home. He also pointed out that, if the property were rezoned, there was no guarantee Mr. Foster would but an office complex but could make the entire tract a parking lot. Ms. Claudette Hunnicutt, 520 N. Washington, stated she was a member of the Historic Commission of the City of Fayetteville. She advised she believed the rezoning would be an encroachment into the historic district. She expressed concern that, after one encroachment, there would be others. She advised that, even though there were covenants that did not allow the removal of two sycamore trees from the lot, there was not guarantee that the trees would not be killed by concreting around the tree. Ms. Hunnicutt advised the tract had, prior to being fenced, been used by nightclub patrons for parking. She stated that put the bar patrons next door to the residential neighborhood at 2:00 in the morning. Mr. Foster stated he wanted to preserve as much of the natural beauty of the lot as possible. He advised he did not want to see nightclub patrons using the parking area because there would be no economic upkeep and more property loss. He stated he had considered a gated parking area or, at the very least, fencing. He pointed out the property had been on the market for a very long time because no one wanted to construct their residence next to a nightclub. He stated he could not afford to own a piece of property and not build on it. Ms. Britton stated that, aside from the flooding issue, rezoning the tract would be an encroachment on the historic area. 40 • LI E Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 18 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the petition. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. * Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 19 FINAL PLAT - BOXWOOD ADDITION The next item was a final plat for Boxwood Addition submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of Jerry Sweetser and Atlas Construction for property located south of Old Wire Road, east of Azalea Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 20.25 acres with 53 lots. Mr. Bunn stated several of the property owners had inquired about the existing cul-de-sac on Magnolia Drive and what would be done with the cul-de-sac. He advised they had failed to consider that cul-de-sac when reviewing the preliminary plat. He further stated the city had made an agreement with the developers to split the cost of eliminating the cul-de-sac (removal of excess curbing and pavement on each side, putting in the top soil and installing a new curb and gutter). He advised he did not believe that could be considered a condition of approval of the final plat but he wanted everyone to know that had been agreed upon. Mr. Harry Gray appeared to represent the developer. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • Ms. Karen Wolf, one of the property owners on the cul-de-sac, asked who would be doing the actual work on straightening the street. She advised there were some drainage problems on the cul-de-sac. She stated her neighbor had to install a french drain due to the drainage problems and she asked if the drain would be extended. Mr. Bunn advised he would look at the drainage. Me. Wolf asked if the agreement included extending the driveways out to the new street. Ms. Little stated the agreement did include extension of the driveways. The motion carried 7-0-0. 0 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 20 PUBLIC BEARING - REZONING REQUEST R94-44 RICHARD ALEXANDER - 323 W. SPRING STREET The next item was a public hearing for rezoning request R94-44 submitted by Richard Alexander for property located at 323 West Spring Street. The request is to rezone 0.08 acres from R -O, Residential -Office, to C-3, Central Business Commercial. Ms. Little pointed out the tract was a corner lot which was 55 wide by 70 feet in depth. She stated R -O, the current zoning for the lot, would accommodate a number of office uses and residential uses. She further stated staff realized C-3 zoning did not exist in the immediate area of the subject tract but staff did recommend the rezoning request because the structure was non -conforming as to setbacks under R -O zoning. She advised that, in order to keep the downtown area vital, investment was necessary for the properties in the downtown area. She further noted the stated purpose for the use of the bottom floor was a coffee shop though there had been an earlier request for use of the area as a dress shop, which was the reason commercial rezoning had been considered. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated a coffee shop could operate under R -O zoning with a conditional use. She further explained that, once a structure was a non -conforming use, it would have to meet the setbacks. She pointed out that, should be building be destroyed by fire or other natural catastrophe, it would not be allowed to be rebuilt in its present configuration. She stated staff was trying to bring to the Commission efforts to revitalize the Dickson Street and downtown area. . Mr. Alexander explained the property owners had invested a great deal of money in the immediate vicinity of the subject tract. He reminded the Commission of the structure at 116 North School which they had rehabilitated into an office building and another structure to the east which they refurbished into a triplex. He further explained they would like to have as many options as possible available for potential lessees. He informed the Commission George Faucette was an adjoining property owner who was in favor of the rezoning. He contended the building was compatible with downtown use. He reviewed other properties in the area and advised they wanted zoning that was consistent with their investment in the downtown area. Mr. Nickle asked how many parking spaces were attached to the subject property. Mr. Alexander explained his group controlled all three buildings on the corner and were proposing to use a joint parking area with 19 or 20 spaces. He pointed out that was more than the required space. He also noted Spring Street was a one-way street so there would be significant on -street parking. He advised the on -street parking was under utilized at the present time. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Alexander explained the upstairs portion of the subject property would be used as an office and the downstairs area for broader commercial activity. Ms. Britton asked the setbacks for R -O and C-3. Ms. Little stated the building would meet the C-3 setback requirements at the present time and for R -O the setbacks were 30 feet from any street right-of-way, 10 feet from any public alley and 25 feet from any back property line. She continued with the C-3 setbacks: 5 feet from any street right-of-way (10 feet when adjacent to a residential district). • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 21 Ms. Britton pointed out that, should the building burn down, the owners could erect a typical commercial structure. She stated basically all of the structures downtown were non -conforming. Ms. Little stated the coverage of the lot would be limited by the amount of parking which would have to be provided. She explained that, while the ordinance might allow it, there would have to be a consideration for parking. She pointed out the ordinance called for replacement parking within 300 feet, if the tract was unable to provide space for parking. Mr. Tarvin asked if there was any reason to consider C-1 or C-2 zoning for the tract. Ms. Little explained C-3 was more limited in uses than C-2. She stated staff had reviewed other commercial zonings but had come to the conclusion this tract was central business district. Ms. Britton stated that, while there were some spots which had been zoned commercial, the basic downtown area was residences. She expressed her belief that was very special about the downtown area that instead of having big buildings they had a sense of place with a typical residential area. She further stated these homes were affordable housing and she hated to see an encroachment of commercial zoning into the area. She pointed out the commercial zone stopped on a nice, even line across the street from the subject tract. She went on to say the applicant could have a coffee shop in the building under the current R -O zoning. She stated she would prefer to leave the zoning as it was and grant a conditional use to allow the coffee shop. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the rezoning. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion failed 4-3-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Allred, Nickle, and Tarvin voting "no" and Commissioners Britton, Reynolds and Johnson voting "yes•'. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the rezoning as requested. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Allred, Nickle, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commiesionere Britton, Reynolds and Johnson voting "no" however the rezoning was not approved since there was not five affirmative votes, Ms. Little explained the applicant could not re -apply for C-3 zoning for one year. She stated the Commission might wish to consider a conditional use. Mr. Alexander pointed out he and his partners had attempted to keep the area consistent and historical but, to keep the area as single family residences was not feasible nor appropriate. He further stated that, if they were restricted to a conditional use, they were requiring someone to make a considerable investment in a commercial building which could not be recouped. He further explained that, because of the non -conforming use, they were restricted to the amount of money which could be invested at 108 of replacement value. He pointed out the affect that had on development was to dictate if they purchased the • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 22 property they had to refurbish the property illegally or guarantee the property, long term, became trash. He contended there was a great deal of property in the area which was run down and not desirable. He advised he would like to see some commercial activity on Spring Street since it was a broad, one-way street located one block off of Dickson. He pointed out it would allow an alternative to Dickson Street development and would encourage the multi -uses of Spring Street. He again, reviewed the properties he and his partners owned in the area which they had renovated to historical standards. He also disagreed with Commissioner Britton that the area was predominately residential, contending it was predominately commercial, multi -family, single-family and office. Mr. Alexander stated that, if the City of Fayetteville wanted to encourage the kind of investment necessary to rehab the properties they way they needed to be done, they needed to help the developers. Mr. Suchecki stated he agreed completely with Mr. Alexander and was sorry the Commission had not approved the rezoning. He advised Mr. Alexander he had the right of appeal to the City Council. He suggested Mr. Alexander contact the City Council members. Mr. Nickle stated there was both the appeal process and also the possibility of a conditional use for the property. • is • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-45 CLYDE WATKINS - 102 N. PLAINVIEW The next item on the agenda was a public hearing on Rezoning Request R94-45 submitted by Clyde Watkins for property located at 102 N. Plainview. The request is to rezone 1.3 acres from R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. Mr. Santos reminded the Commission the petitioner had approximately one month earlier, requested a rezoning from R-1 to R -O and the Planning Commission had granted R-1.5. He explained since that time the petitioner had changed his development plan and, rather than building duplexes on the property, he wished to sell the house and 1.3 acres to Ms. Lillian Burn for a counseling office. He advised staff forwarded the request without a recommendation however they did want to see a development plan which addressed the need for additional land to be zoned R -O and which showed the proposed development was compatible with adjacent land uses and existing infrastructure. He also pointed out that, since the structure was existing, it would not require large scale development review. He reminded the Commission the issues which were to be addressed at the time of large scale development would not be addressed. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained the application had been changed by varying the amount of property to be rezoned. Mr. Watkins explained there was a buyer for the house and 1.3 acres who wanted to have a counseling office. He stated the buyer was attracted to the property • because it had a rural atmosphere but was within the city and had good access. He reviewed the surrounding property uses. He pointed out the 2010 Plan stated the subject area would eventually be R -O. Mr. Nickle asked what the property immediately to the west was zoned. Ms. Little explained the property immediately to the west was the tract split from the subject tract and was now zoned R-1.5 as a result of the Commission's previous action. Mr. Watkins stated the tract was totally wooded. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little explained staff had requested a comprehensive plan as to development of the property. She explained that just a month earlier the applicant had requested R -O in order to construct duplexes. She reminded the Commission they had rezoned the property R-1.5 to allow the construction of duplexes but now the petitioner had decided to do something else with the property. She explained that, with a comprehensive plan, staff would be able to determine if an additional water line would be necessary, if any street improvement would be needed, etc. Mr. Watkins contended this would be a counseling business with minimum impact. He stated no tree would be cut, no bush would be taken out. He stated the previous use had been rental to students which had a major impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Allred asked what was allowed under R -O usage. Ms. Little stated high density multi -family dwellings and restaurants were allowed with a conditional use. She further stated that single-family, two- family, offices, studios and related services were allowed under R -O without a conditional use. She stated other offices allowed under R -O would be similar to �� a counseling business. • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 24 Ms. Britton stated she believed a veterinarian clinic could be placed in R -O. Ms. Little agreed and stated that was a professional office. Mr. Nickle asked if a counseling business could be a conditional use under R-1.5. Ms. Little stated it could not. Ms. Lillian Burn, the potential purchaser of the property, stated Longview was a one -block long street which preceded Plainview (also one block long). She advised approximately half of Longview was already commercially zoned together with half of the houses in the area having commercial uses. She advised she had discussed her proposed use with the neighbors and none of them had any objection. She stated she had been attracted to the tract because of the rural setting. She contended duplexes would impact the area more than her office. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Burn stated she was a therapist and did family and individual counseling. She advised she also planned on hiring some people that did supplementary services such as massage therapist or physical therapist. She explained her idea was to work in the holistic manner. She further stated she would normally be working with one person or one family at a time though there might be small (no more than 12 people) groups occasionally. She advised she would have evening hours and perhaps week -end hours. She stated she would not be living on the premises. Ms. Britton asked what type of parking would be required for an office. • Ms. Little stated she believed offices required 1 space for every 300 square feet of floor area. She advised it would have to be paved and striped. Mr. Nickle asked if the perceived use of the property to the back was not commercial or office rather than residential. Me. Little stated she believed that would depend upon what connections were made streetwise to the North Hills Medical complex. She further stated she believed if there was a connection, the area would overtime develop into medical offices or commercial uses relating to the medical complex. She went on to say she believed if there was not a connecting street, it would not develop in the same manner. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Commission could ask for a Bill of Assurance for the use of the subject property. Me. Little stated if the petitioners wished to offer a Bill of Assurance they could do so. Mr. Watkins stated Me. Burns was concerned about the cost of paving the parking area. He asked if she would be required to pave the parking area. Ms. Little advised the parking area would be required to be paved. She stated that, for a 1700 square foot building (the existing building) would require 6 parking spaces measuring 9 by 19 feet. Mr. Watkins advised the lowest bid they had received for paving the parking area and drive was $6,000. E • 40 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 25 In response to a question from Mr. Watkins, Ms. Little explained the drive was required to be paved 25 feet in from the roadway. Mr. Watkins stated the building was 150 feet back from the road. He asked if the Commission had the authority to waive the requirement. He explained aesthetically gravel fit the site and the building. MOTION Mr. Allred expressed his belief the request should be tabled until the petitioner came back with a plan showing what he wanted to do. He stated that would allow the petitioner to work out the paving aspect and determine any other uses allowed. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Reynolds, Nickle, Britton, Tarvin and Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioner Suchecki voting "no". • Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1994 Page 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SPRING PARR, PHASE III CLARY DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF JOYCE & MALL LANE The last item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Spring Park, Phase III submitted by Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Clary Development for property located at the northwest corner of Joyce and Mall Lane. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 13.62 acres with 1 lot. Mr. Bunn explained the only variations he had from his report was that items 2, 3, and 6 needed to be mentioned but would not become requirements until the time of large scale development. He stated those items were: the grading and drainage plan for the site; the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; and the approval of a tree preservation plan. He explained there would not be construction of any improvements until after the large scale development process. Mr. Robert Brown, Development Consultants, explained approval of the preliminary plat authorized the developer to do a more in depth report of the items requested by Mr. Bunn. He stated they would address those items after they had a Bite plan developed, as part of the Large Scale Development. He added they would be filing a vacation petition for a couple of utility easements. Ms. Britton questioned the configuration of the traffic plan. Ms. Little explained there was a divided median on Mall Avenue which provided for an access at Georgetown and one to the south. She stated staff believed there should only be one access and that access should be into Georgetown. She added staff anticipated the installation of a traffic signal at Joyce Street and Mall Avenue. Mr. Brown stated Mall Avenue entered private property before it got to Georgetown. He further stated the median plans had been worked out with the representatives of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He stated the median cut showed the primary access to the property. Ms. Britton asked the distance from the centerline of Georgetown Drive to the centerline of the ingress shown on the plat. She stated it did not appear to be a very long distance. Mr. Brown advised it was a private street on private property. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat as submitted, subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. •