Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-14 Minutes10 0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 14, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Ren Pummill, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickles Phyllis Hall Johnson(left the meeting early), and Jana Lynn Britton MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, and Gary R. Head OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Kevin Santos, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Chairman Tarvin informed the petitioners that a rezoning or a vacation required five positive votes to pass. With only six of the nine Planning Commissioners present, he advised the petitioners had the option to table their petitions to a later date. The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION & REZONING R94-53 CREEKWOOD HILLS DEVELOPMENT - W OF RUPPLE, S OF MT COMFORT RD The next item was a public hearing for Annexation and Rezoning Appeal R94-53 submitted by Creekwood Hills Development for property located west of Rupple Road, south of Mt. Comfort Road. The request was to annex 6.61 acres and rezone from A-1. Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Alett Little advised the Commission the annexation order had been signed by the County Judge on September 19, 1994 and noted this location was adjacent to the street that the developer of Bridgeport Subdivision, Phase I had constructed. In answer to questions from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised that the Bridgeport Subdivision - Phase II had been approved as a preliminary plat. She added Phase III of Bridgeport would provide a connection to Northwest Acres - Phase V and Willow Springs - Phase III or IV thereby providing a connection from Wedington Road (Highway 16 West) to Mt. Comfort Road. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the City Engineer had completed a study on the capacity of the sewer system in regard to further development and had determined there was capacity for at least 1,200 more homes in the area including the subject development. She added this would include all the areas which had been platted in the past two years. She noted he had specifically included the subject development in the analysis. Mr. Tarvin questioned whether there would be capacity in the sewer system for the potential development of other properties in the area which were currently in the city limits if the annexation were approved. Me. Little advised the City Engineer had completed the analysis based on the study of all the subdivisions which had been platted including all phases of Willow Springs, all the phases of Fieldstone, Crystal Springs, and all of the �C� Planning Commission Minutes • November 14, 1994 Page 2 phases of Bridgeport. She reiterated those all together represented about 1,200 additional units which would take the sewer system up to capacity. Mr. Bill Haas, an attorney representing Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. was present to answer any questions. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the scheduling for the new development over Bridgeport Phase III. She contended there needed to be a connection made through to the south before adding any more traffic on the only outlet due to the fact all the residents of the development would have to exit through Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Haas advised Phase II would make that connection from Willow Springs to the south which would provide a through street to Wedington. Ms. Little stated the park land intervened to the west and it was her understanding that Phase III would make the connection. Mr. Haas stated there would be a connection to the south into Mr. Walker's property through Phase II of Bridgeport. He added that Phase III of Bridgeport would connect with Northwest Acres. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the annexation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. • The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Tarvin voting "no". MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve rezoning R94-53. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0-0. • 1%Q • Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 3 14"9410CFAN, .. . The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-54 and a preliminary plat of Northwest Village submitted by Robert Brown on behalf of Second Century Investments and located at 1008 Shepherd Lane. The request was to rezone 2.6 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property contained 12.224 acres with 6 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised the staff had no further comments on the rezoning petition. Mr. Robert Brown, representing the petitioner, advised they were in agreement with the staff's comments. Ms. Britton requested a time frame on completion of the widening of the eastern portion of Joyce Street from Old Missouri to Highway 265. Ms. Little advised that project was in final design and had been transmitted to the Highway Department for their approval of the intersection itself with a projection for contract letting early in 1995. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the property immediately west of the 2 -acre plot was currently zoned C-2. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Brown advised the subject property • was not originally a part of the Stout place. In answer to further questions, Mr. Brown advised the stone house, with all the glass, was Mr. Stout's property and was currently zoned commercial. He added the parcel they were discussing was the wooded area with a homestead on it to the east. Mr. Charles Futrel, the owner of the property, advised the white house was the original homestead house. He added it was not listed on the Historical Register. He advised the subject property was bounded on the west by the Stout property and bounded on the south by the Stout property. He added it was bounded on the north side by commercial businesses. Mr. Tarvin clarified the current C-2 property included the contemporary (stone) vacant house. He asked for clarification on how the area would be changed in the development. Mr. Brown advised they had contracted to purchase a little over 12 acres of land which included the 2.6 acres being discussed. He added they had come up with a plan to reroute the frontage road and connect it from both the north and south ends. He further stated the plan was to bring in three tenants to get into the main line of the buildings. He further stated a restaurant would be brought in to fit on one end of the property with Pier One on the south end. He noted they would be doing grading on the land and cutting down the northern high area to be moved toward the south end of the property. Mr. Nickle clarified the development would be on the subject property and property adjacent to it. Mr. Futrel requested the rezoning be considered as one issue and the plat be considered as another so that the rezoning would not be based upon the subject • plat. 01 • Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 4 Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to traffic problems in the area and contended even the widening of Joyce Street would not provide a solution for the problem. She expressed concern regarding extending any commercial zoning in the area because of the potential for adding to the traffic problem. In answer to questions from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little referred to Page 3.3 in the agenda packet and noted that, in regard to the extent of commercial land, the portion to the north extended back approximately 1,000 feet with about 1,400 feet for extension of C-2 zoning to the south. She noted they would probably be seeing C-1 and R -O in the future in the large area of A-1 in the center of the area. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised Shepherd Lane was a private drive which extended back to the white frame house. She added that, in the proposed development, the frontage road connecting the north and the south would have an extension of Shepherd back to the east. She added the access from Highway 71 (existing Shepherd Lane) would serve the commercial development on the front only with the back of the development being served by Frontage Road with an extension of Shepherd Lane to the east. Ms. Little reminded the Commission that, at the time the expansion of the Northwest Arkansas Mall was reviewed, there was a petition submitted to the Highway Department to reopen the Shepherd Lane intersection as a four-way intersection which was denied. She added, however, the Mall developers had subsequently resubmitted to the Highway Department a plan to lower the hill approximately 18 inches in that location which had not been approved as of yet. . She pointed out if that were approved, it might allow for signalization of Shepherd Lane at the intersection of Highway 71 or the entrance of this development to Highway 71. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the rezoning petition R94-54. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mo. Britton voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWEST VILLAGE Ms. Little advised that, at the time the Clary Development was reviewed (to the south of the Mall), intersection improvements to Joyce Street were estimated and those developers were assigned approximately a third of the cost of those improvements. She added the cost of those intersection improvements had been estimated at $600,000 with Clary bearing a share of slightly over $240,000 (based on traffic). She noted a percentage based on acreage would make this developer's share for improvements for the intersection at Joyce approximately $30,000. She pointed out that did not include any of the cost of the intersection improvements east of Highway 71, the cost of bringing Stearns in at a 90 degree angle, or any cost of rerouting the frontage road known as Front Street. She noted they had also assigned a cost of improving the intersection to Remington Place at the end of current Stearns Street. In response to a request for clarification from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little reiterated the cost of bringing Stearns in at a 90 degree angle or any improvements to Joyce east of Highway 71 had not been assessed with Remington Place or Clary. She noted the City had assumed those costs. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Chester Pittman, an attorney, representing Huey Bullington (Second Century), stated he his client had not anticipated they would be asked to join in on the Joyce Street improvements. He pointed out they had the expense of a frontage road and a portion of the signalization and probable left-hand turn lanes on Highway 71. He further noted the City had contemplated condemning the property a few years ago and paying a fair market share for the right-of-way on the frontage road and doing the improvements in total. He pointed out they were now purchasing the property and donating it to the City and incurring a significant percentage of the improvements. He requested that participation in the Joyce improvements be postponed until they could see what their other costs would be. Ms. Little contended the developer had been made aware of the anticipated assessment for Joyce intersection improvements, but noted they had not asked the developer to participate in the Joyce Street extension to the west from the current Mall Lane to the west to intersect with Wilkerson Road. In response to questions in regard to Shepherd Lane, Ms. Little advised that, as a part of the subdivision plat, an extension of the frontage road had been proposed which would connect to the north to the current frontage road and connect to the south to the current frontage road in sort of a bow out toward the east. She advised the land to the west (in front of the frontage road) would be used for commercial development with an extension of a road (Shepherd Road). She pointed out the street going to the east would allow the use of the frontage road both north and south. Mr. Nickle expressed concerned that the proposed extension of the frontage road would not be a straight shot. • Ms. Little pointed out the current Master Street Plan called for the connection of the two frontage roads and noted the developer had made the proposal as shown. Mr. Brown stated the road layout fit around the plan they had for development. He presented a drawing of their development layout. He added they had looked at alternative plans and had determined the proposed route was the only way they could make all the property useable. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised that, if the state should approve Shepherd Lane for signalization, the Cost would be 1008 on the company developing the Mall. She added the subject development would receive the benefits of having the signal at that site. She noted the street, since it was not a public street, would be closed by allowing the subject development. She added, it could be required to be dedicated as a public street as a condition of the plat, but that had not been proposed. She added the staff had decided not to recommend extension of Shepherd partly due to not having an answer on the Mall development and signalization at this time. She advised the City would not bear any of the cost of signalization of Shepherd and Highway 71 if it occurred. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments with the exception of the ingress into the lot to prevent it being used as a cut through and the redefining of the interior parking area. Ms. Little pointed out the Planning Commission would have final approval on each of the developments on each lot (Lots 1, 2-A, 3-A, and 4) as they were brought through the large scale development process. She noted the parking could be reviewed at the same time. 0 The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. L • Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 6 The motion failed 3-3-0 with Johnson, Allred, and Pummill voting "yes" and Tarvin, Britton, and Nickle voting "no". Ms. Little advised the petitioners they could resubmit their development plan in a different configuration. • Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II JED DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM RD, N OF MT COMFORT RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Crystal Springs, Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JED Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 35.32 acres with 104 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised the subject development was included as a part of the sewer capacity in the analysis for west Fayetteville. She noted the development abutted Phase I of Crystal Springs to the north and west and provided for Crystal Drive to extend eventually to the east for a connection to Dean Solomon Road. She added that, during the review of the preliminary phases, the connection directly to the east had been changed because it cut across the golf course. She stated there had been a request for the road to go north to provide access and then eventually to the east. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised Jade Drive connected to Raven Drive. Ms. Britton expressed concern that all the residents of the development would travel down Raven Street, making it a major arterial, rather than going out onto Salem Road to go to Mt. Comfort Road. Me. Little pointed out Crystal Drive was a major road which exited to the west and went by the school. She expressed her belief a number of the parents from the area would exit onto Mt. Comfort from Salem Road. Ms. Britton contended residents would only use that route when going to the school and would use the other route the rest of the time. Ms. Micki Harrington, representing the petitioner, contended land between the development and the future phases would deter Raven Drive from being used more frequently than the main arterial. She noted they would look at that concern in the future development. In response to further discussion, she advised the only access at this time was Crystal Drive to the west. Mr. Allred expressed concern regarding traffic congestion within the development. Mr. Davis, the petitioner, advised they would rely on the Planning Commission as the future phases developed to assist in advising them on the street layout. In answer to comments, Ms. Little advised they had originally planned 150 to 160 lots in Phase II, but had chosen to reduce the lots to 104. She added the petitioner was negotiating with the Parks Department regarding dedication of an additional 19 acres of park land. She noted the developer had chosen to avoid building in the flood plain, cutting down on the development potential by approximately 508. In answer to further questions, Ms. Little advised the developer had met the park land dedication for the development with the original 15 acres dedicated for park land. In answer to questions from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the staff had suggested access north of the detention pond, at the south of lot 120, in the area between lots 179 and 180, 177 and 178, or 171 and 172, which would give access to the open area. • In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the access through the subdivision to the west would go directly to Salem Road. 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Nickle asked if there was a potential for a connection to Moore Lane (on the west side of Dean Solomon Road), in the next phase. Ms. Harrington advised the golf course intervened between the subject land and Moore Lane and explained the petitioner did not have any property contiguous to Moore Lane. Me. Britton reiterated her concern that another connection was needed. Ms. Little advised the City would work with the developer to make another connection. She reminded the Commission the access to the east had been requested with the original development plat, but found it was an unreasonable request since the access crossed the golf course. She noted that, after determining there could not be access to the east, the staff had requested an access to the north abutting currently vacant land which staff assumed would be developed in the future. Ms. Harrington explained the developers had made every attempt to gain access in those directions and had followed every suggestion the Planning Department made. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding vehicular access to the land dedicated for a park. She pointed out the turn at the end of Crystal Drive was awkward. In response to Ms. Harrington's question regarding the Commissioners preference for an access to the park lands, the consensus was lot 175 would be the best place. Ms. Harris advised they would comply with the Commission's request. Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 North Salem Road, stated the Master Street Plan showed an extension of Moore Lane to the west across the golf course. He expressed concern that there was only one access to the development and contended it would be too much of a load on Salem Road. Ms. Little stated it was indicated that, if Moore Lane were extended, it would go south of the clubhouse which should not affect the golf course greens or clubhouse. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Little advised Trucker's Drive was north portion of the subject property. Ms. Johnson contended they needed information to indicate where Trucker's Drive, Moore Lane, and the golf course was in relationship to the proposed subdivision. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to table the request until information was obtained indicating where Trucker's Drive, Moore Lane, and the golf course were located in relationship to the proposed subdivision. The motion was seconded by Me. Britton. The motion carried unanimously with a 6-0-0 vote, Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HIGH POINT SUBDIVISION HIGH POINT DEVELOPMENT - S OF OLD FARMINGTON RD, N OF RUTLEDGE LN The next item was a preliminary plat of High Point Subdivision submitted by Rick Pulvirenti on behalf of High Point Development and located south of Old Farmington Road and north of Rutledge Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 3.03 acres with 12 lots. Ms. Little advised the staff had no additional comments to their staff report. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Me. Little advised the staff had not pursued a connection from Rutledge Lane and High Point it since the subject subdivision met the criteria for a cul-de-sac which was less than 500 feet. She added there were only 12 lots with 24 units which was not a heavy traffic generator. She added the reason the staff had considered requesting a connection to Rutledge Lane was because of a number of complaints received from citizens on Rutledge Lane in regard to problems exiting onto Highway 62 (the eastern entrance to the Wal-Mart Center). She noted, however, persons from that subdivision were present at the Subdivision Committee and expressed opposition to connecting the two developments. Ms. Britton stated it seemed that two pockets of isolation were being created and noted they should take this opportunity to correct it. Mr. Pummill pointed out the people living on the cul-de-sac might not want another connection. Mr. Allred advised the subdivision on Rutledge Lane was already platted and it would be difficult • to make a connection now without a lot being lost. In answer to a question, Ms. Little explained that, if a lot was needed to make a connection, the City would have to incur the expense unless an off-site expense were assessed to the subject development. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of High Point Subdivision subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 4-2-0 with Commissioners Tarvin, Allred, Nickle, and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioners Johnson and Britton voting "no". 0 o Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OF $1.25 DRY CLEANER SUPER CENTER KWIK INDUSTRIES - 2897 N COLLEGE The next item was a large scale development plan of $1.25 Dry Cleaner Super Center submitted by KWIK Industries for property located at 2897 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little advised the staff had no further comments. Mr. Sid Hollingsworth, representing the petitioner, advised the large scale development plan did meet the design criteria for the City of Fayetteville and the use was allowed by right in the ordinance. He added they would be adding approximately $750,000 to $800,000 to the City tax roll and a 4 to 5 increase in the unemployment rate. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the large scale development plan subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously with a 6-0-0 vote. 0 Z N1 Planning Commission Minutes is November 14, 1994 Page 11 The next item was a large scale development plan of Windsor Suites Hotel submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Major Investments for property located east of Highway 71 Bypass, south of Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.88 acres. Ms. Little advised the particular parcel was within the overlay zone and was 100% in compliance with the ordinance. In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the project was being handled by two separate engineering firms and they were requesting an area known as tract 2 to be subdivided into three separate tracts. She added a number of easements had been created during the large scale, particularly an access easement along the north portion of the property, which would need to be transferred to the subdivision. She noted the staff had requested the subdivision follow the large scale development so all of the easements required to make it work could be transferred to the subdivision. She stated the subdivision would be on the next Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the developers, advised he and three of the owners were present to answer any questions. He advised the hotel would be two stories with 82 units. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Gray advised there would be some minor fill in the flood zone to develop the parking lot. He advised there were • two flood zones involved. Ms. Little pointed out one of the flood zones located to the east was zoned "X" which designated the 500 -year flood plain and added the other one was zoned "A" which designated the 100 -year flood plain. She explained the 500 -year flood plain was not regulated, but the 100 -year flood plain was. Mr. Gray advised there would be a detailed drainage study made in conjunction with both of the projects. Ms. Little clarified fill was allowed in the 100 -year flood plain and was required anytime there would be a structure. She added parking lots were allowed within the 100 -year flood plain without any fill. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the developer would need to obtain approval from the Highway Department on the drainage from the subdivision going into the box culvert which went under Futrall Drive. NOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development, subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously. 0 0 �: • CI • -, •r• i :i :� F •• r .' •' The next item was a large scale development plan of Windsor Suites Hotel submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Major Investments for property located east of Highway 71 Bypass, south of Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.88 acres. Ms. Little advised the particular parcel was within the overlay zone and was 100% in compliance with the ordinance. In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the project was being handled by two separate engineering firms and they were requesting an area known as tract 2 to be subdivided into three separate tracts. She added a number of easements had been created during the large scale, particularly an access easement along the north portion of the property, which would need to be transferred to the subdivision. She noted the staff had requested the subdivision follow the large scale development so all of the easements required to make it work could be transferred to the subdivision. She stated the subdivision would be on the next Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the developers, advised he and three of the owners were present to answer any questions. He advised the hotel would be two stories with 82 units. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Gray advised there would be some minor fill in the flood zone to develop the parking lot. He advised there were • two flood zones involved. Ms. Little pointed out one of the flood zones located to the east was zoned "X" which designated the 500 -year flood plain and added the other one was zoned "A" which designated the 100 -year flood plain. She explained the 500 -year flood plain was not regulated, but the 100 -year flood plain was. Mr. Gray advised there would be a detailed drainage study made in conjunction with both of the projects. Ms. Little clarified fill was allowed in the 100 -year flood plain and was required anytime there would be a structure. She added parking lots were allowed within the 100 -year flood plain without any fill. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the developer would need to obtain approval from the Highway Department on the drainage from the subdivision going into the box culvert which went under Futrall Drive. NOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development, subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously. 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-28 - TANDEM LOT HELEN NOBLES - 1725 WOOLSEY AVE The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Helen Nobles for property located at 1725 Woolsey Avenue and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a tandem lot. Ms. Little advised the staff had no further comments. Mrs. Helen Nobles advised she was encouraged to get a lot split so that the houses could be sold independently in the future. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the conditional use request for a tandem lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion failed with a vote of 3-3-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Nickle, and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioners Tarvin, Britton, and Allred voting "no". 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 13 ALLEY VACATION V94-10 THAD HANNA - E OF VANDEVENTER AVE, BETWEEN MAPLE ST & ILA ST The next item was a vacation V94-10 submitted by Thad Hanna for an alley located east of Vandeventer Avenue, between Maple Street and Ila Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was to vacate 222.75 feet of an east -west alley. Ms. Little advised the staff had received a number of calls on this item and it had been pointed out the sign posted on the lot by the City gave a description of the alley vacation as being only 88 feet in length. She noted it had been correctly published in the newspaper. She added there was not a requirement in the ordinance that a sign must be posted, but the staff did post signs because of a request by the Commission that signs be posted for vacation requests. Mr. Tarvin clarified the lot farthest west already had the alleyway vacated and the subject petition was for the remainder of the alley. Ms. Little stated that portion of the alley between lots 4 and 5 had already been vacated so the alley was a dead end at that point. She added the portion requested to be vacated was between lots 1, 2, and 3 and lots 6,7, and 8. In answer to further questions in regard to proper notification, Ms. Little advised if the public had only looked at the sign they would have received incorrect information. She pointed out the sign did direct the public to the City Planning Department for information. Mr. Nickle asked for information on the ownership of lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. Ms. Little advised lots 3, 6, and 7 were owned by Thad Hanna, lots 1 and 2 were owned by University Baptist Church, and lot 8 was owned by Mrs. Wolfe. Mr. Thad Hanna, the petitioner, advised he lived at 319 Ila Street (lot 3). He stated there had been some question as to whether he owned the property and noted he had purchased it from his father. He further noted the property had been in his family since 1962. He added the alley was closed between lots 4 and 5 in 1978. He advised the alley was never used and he was specifically interested in closing the alley between lots 3 and 6. He noted his home was one of the originally zero lot line houses and it eat on the southeast corner of the property line approximately 4 feet from the alley. He explained he had petitioned for the vacation because he intended to sell lot 6 and he wanted to insure that he had a parking spot at the back of his house. He noted he had intended to remove a 20 by 20 foot section of lot 6 for his parking, but had not realized that could not be done since it would be an illegal lot. He further explained his only option was to have the alley closed and then do a property line adjustment. He stated the alley from Shady to the back of his house had never been used by anyone except him. He added there was also a utility easement in the alley so nothing could be constructed. Mr. Hanna further stated another reason for the request was to be able to fence in a backyard for his children. He stated he did not care if the alley was closed between lots 1, 21 7, and 81 it was just requested for convenience. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Hanna advised he was selling lot 6 to University Baptist Church who was going to give him an easement to the back of his property which he would access off of Maple. IN Planning Commission Meeting • November 14, 1994 Page 14 Ms. Ellen May of 215 Ila Street expressed concern that the vacation of the alley would give a strip of city owned land to adjacent property owners. She noted the neighborhood was opposed to the vacation because the sanctity of their homes was at stake and they were trying to preserve their neighborhood. Mr. Tarvin questioned how an alleyway vacation would impact their neighborhood. Mr. John Reagan of 215 Ila advised the neighborhood had discovered the projected plan of the University Baptist Church was to level the block and install a parking lot. Mr. Tarvin contended that could be done even if the alleyway was still in existence. Mr. Reagan advised all the Hanna -owned lots on the block were still shown under Mayor Fred Hanna's name at the County Court House. He added the records showed University Baptist Church owned lots 1 and 2 and would have right of first refusal on lot 8 after Mrs. Wolfe passed away. He pointed out that would essentially give the church access to the entire block. He expressed concern regarding the number of large ancient trees on the property and noted University Baptist Church did not seem to have much regard for trees. He further stated the neighborhood was 90% along in the process of being designated a State Historic District which was due to be ratified on December 8th. He stated several of the structures had major historical significance. Mr. Frank Head of 402 Ila explained the neighborhood saw the alley in question as a much needed buffer zone between an R-1 and an R-3 zoning. He pointed out a portion of Vandeventer had been closed at the Church's request with much opposition from the neighborhood. He expressed concern that three-quarters of a square block had been leveled to create a parking lot for the church. He advised the trust that the majority of the neighborhood had felt with the church to preserve the neighborhood had been violated. He expressed concern that the neighborhood was becoming a parking garage and expressed opposition to the vacation because of the intention of the Hanna family to sell more property to the University Baptist Church. He noted they were also concerned that the value of their property would be reduced. Suzie Stephens of 318 Ila expressed concern that vacating the alleyway would give up the only buffer that could save Ila Street from becoming another Lafayette Street. She reiterated the trust between UBC and the neighborhood had been damaged and the church's promises to make their land a park like atmosphere had been broken. Mr. Hanna reiterated his plans were to stay in his home. He noted his whole purpose was to have a back yard. He stated he had told University Baptist Church he did not want a parking lot up against his house either. He contended the fact that his last name was Hanna should not preclude him from having the right of any other citizen in requesting for a vacation of an alley. He reiterated he was the owner of the property. He stated he did not feel like he was getting fair representation. He noted the sole purpose of the alley vacation was not so that UBC could mow everything down and put in a parking lot, but to protect the integrity of his yard and the safety of his family. In answer to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Hanna stated he would accept the vacation of the alley between lots 3 and 6 only. He stated he just wanted a place to park. 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 Page 15 Mr. Allred clarified the area could become a parking lot without the Planning commission's approval or denial. Mr. Nickle questioned what Mr. Hanna's reason was to go through the vacation process if he was the only one who could use that portion of the alleyway. Mr. Hanna responded by stating he was concerned about the safety of his children. He further pointed out the vacation would be cutting off an access for him, but he was trying to bring his house in to conformance as much as possible. Mr. Bob Jordan of 280 Ila advised one of the neighborhood's major concerns was the loss of the buffer between the R-3 and the R-1 zoning. Another resident stated approval of the vacation would set the precedent that UBC or any other adjacent property owner could completely shut off the alley with UBC owning a sizable part. She urged the city planners to come up with a comprehensive plan that minimized how much residential area could be removed and replaced as parking lot. She also pointed out Mr. Hanna had a huge front yard. Me. Britton advised Mrs. Browne, a resident of the area, had contacted her and expressed concern that the vacation of the alley would compromise the integrity of the historic area. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the alley vacation between lots 3 and 6 only. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. is The motion failed with a vote of 3-2-0 with Commissioners Tarvin, Allred, and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Nickle voting "no (N8. Johnson had left the meeting.) The staff advised that a vacation approval required 5 affirmative votes. Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER STREET PLAN Mr. Jerry Allred, Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, advised the Subcommittee had completed in excess of a year studying the Master Street Plan and found it was virtually impossible to appease everyone. He presented the fifth draft of the Plan to the Planning Commission and noted the Subcommittee would be dismissed with the Commission handling at this point in time. He advised the plan needed to go to the full Planning Commission and the City Council for final approval. Kevin Santos, a member of the staff, pointed out a petition from the property owners of Oakland -Zion had been submitted which stated they wanted the minor arterial moved to the area shown on the plan. He further noted Mr. Butch Robertson, a resident of that area, had expressed opposition to the new location. Mr. Tarvin explained this was discussion of a north/south roadway to be located somewhere east of Oakland -Zion Road. It was pointed out the Plan was conceptual and the exact location would be determined as property was developed. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion that the Planning Commission accept the Master Street Plan from the Transportation Subcommittee and that the Subcommittee be relieved of any further responsibility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Britton pointed out Rolling Hills Drive was not shown on the draft as going into the Fiesta Square parking lot to join Appleby Road as was agreed upon. Mr. Santos explained a motion had been made by Mr. Tarvin to state that Rolling Hills would go through the Fiesta Square parking lot to connect with Plainview. Mr. Tarvin stated his intention was to have a connection south to Appleby. Ms. Britton pointed out there was to be another connection as a collector from the Medical Park onto College Avenue which was only partially shown. She suggested it should be designated as a local street rather than a collector. Ms. Little advised she had anticipated the second public hearing on this to be at the next Planning Commission meeting on November 28, but stated it would have to be held as a separate meeting so that 15 days public notice could be given. Mr. Tarvin advised they would not be taking action on the Plan until after the next public hearing. Mr. Nickle contended the public needed to be made aware of the right-of-way widths of the various designated streets. Ms. Little advised collector streets required a right-of-way of between 60 and 80 feet, minor arterials required between 80 and 100 feet, principal arterials required between 80 to 100 feet, and freeways required between 100 to 120 feet. She noted the map published in the newspaper would use varying line width to �_� describe the types of classifications. so Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1994 Page 17 Ms. Little advised that, at the time development took place creating a need for connections of streets with different designations, the requirement of the developer would be to dedicate only 50 feet and the City would be responsible for purchasing the additional right-of-way and contributing to the portion of the road over the standard 31 -foot width. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised a collector street could be either 36 or 48 feet in width. Ms. Little advised the streets sections proposed as a part of the document resulted from work done by Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission approximately a year and a half earlier and were sections required in order to be eligible for any state or federal money. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little stated the City did get Highway Department participation with collector streets. She pointed out they were more likely to get participation with a principal arterial than a minor arterial and more likely to get participation with a minor arterial than with a collector. Richard Miller, present on behalf of Bob Gaddy, expressed concern regarding the conceptual north/south right-of-way near Oakland -Zion Road. He stated it appeared such a road would split Mr. Gaddy's 50 acres of property down the middle. He requested that the proposed right-of-way be either removed or relocated to prevent devaluation of the property. Mr. Allred pointed out they could not adopt a specific location for the proposed right-of-way, but it could be adjusted so that it would not split the property down the middle. He added he had a problem adjusting it to Mr. Gaddy's property line out of fairness to the property owners on the other side of the proposed road. Ms. Little advised that, at the time the property was developed, there would be a proposal made for the connection to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tarvin advised the Planning Commission did not have a problem with moving the dashed green line over 3/4 of an inch on the map, but then there could be other residents who would request it be moved again. He noted the the chances of the road being developed were zero unless the owner of the property wanted to develop it. He explained a connection was needed somewhere in the area and the purpose of the road being on the Master Street Plan was as a tool to use when the owners of the property brought in a plan for development. Mr. Miller pointed out that, if the Commission would move the proposed right-of- way, the property owner would at least have the knowledge that the connection would be on the back of the property instead of through the middle. MOTION Mr. Tarvin made a motion to extend the connection straight down to an intersection at Mission which would move the roadway approximately 5/8 of an inch east of Oakland-Zion.Road on the map. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Z Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1994 ;: ~ �• Page 18 Bill Ashmore of Dinsmore Trail suggested a connection be proposed straight from Rupple Road down to Highway 62. He advised that would avoid Mrs. Teague's house. He stated he would grant to the City the portion of right-of-way on his property. He added he was in favor of a direct straight line from Highway 16 to Highway 62 precisely across the west end of his property. He also was in favor of a connection between Double Springs Road and Shiloh Drive. He added there was a 100 -foot wide power line easement which ran all the way to Double Springs Road and could be used to develop a street. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to extend the east/west road to Shiloh Drive and to make a straight road from Rupple Road to Highway 62. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Cyrus Young suggested more narrow streets, but noted reducing the right-of- way could make the space for sidewalk and utilities crowded. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Santos advised they had decided to leave the extension of Fulbright Expressway as a conceptual line, but a routing study would be needed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. O �J A