Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-09 Minutes❑N MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 9, 1995 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 Nickle, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, and Jana Lynn Britton MElIDERS ABSENT: Gary R. Head OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: Due to a request from commissioner Britton, Item D. Large Scale Development of Shiloh Motel was pulled from the Consent Agenda to be discussed and voted on separately. A. MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 1994. B. FINAL PLAT OF TAMMY SUBDIVISION: Submitted by Dale Youngman for property located north of Zion Road, east of Highway 265 and zoned A-1. C. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS: Submitted by Gary Rawl on behalf of Arkansas Western Gas for property located along Armstrong Road and zoned I-2. E. FINAL PLAT OF BROOKHAVEN ESTATES: Submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Brookhaven Estates for property located west of Old Missouri Road, north of Stubblefield Road and zoned R -1. - MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda excluding Item D. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. J 0 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 2 D. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OF SHILOH MOTEL SHILOH MOTEL - W OF SHILOH DR, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The next item was a large scale development plan for Shiloh Motel submitted by Dennis Becker on behalf of Shiloh Motel for property located west of Shiloh Drive and north of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr, Don Bunn stated the staff had no additional comments to add to the staff report attached to the agenda. Ms. Britton pointed out the proposed development was in the Overlay District which required there be a limit on curb cuts. In reference to this, she requested further information as to the distance from the proposed curb cut to the adjacent curb cut and whether the proposed curb cut would serve as the only curb cut for the entire tract. ' Ms. Little advised the site to the south was currently occupied by the Park Inn Motel and the site to the north was undeveloped so the only adjacent curb cut was the one going into the Park Inn Motel. She added, since there was limited frontage associated with the subject parcel of land, the location shown would be the only possible location for the curb cut unless it were made in the vacant land to the north. She pointed out the road was physically separated from the land to the north. Ms. Britton pointed out all the property was owned by the same person, Mr. Mong, but she did not see how traffic would necessitate such large of a curb cut unless it was going to be utilized by more of the property owned by Mr. Mong. She noted, in that case, it could be placed so that it was a shared access with the property to the north. Mr. Becker pointed out the proposed curb cut was the minimum which the State allowed and had been approved by the State. Ms. Britton stated she was still concerned regarding the placement of the curb cut. Ms. Little advised the 250 -foot separation between curb cuts was a provision in the Overlay Ordinance. She reiterated the proposed location was the only physical location where the curb cut could be placed for the subject parcel. She added sharing curb cuts between adjacent parcels was also encouraged by the Overlay District ordinance. She clarified the State minimum was for a 25 -foot separation between curb cuts (the same as the City's requirement). She explained the 24 -foot access would allow for two-way traffic in, but she did not believe they required two-way traffic in and out. She stated the maximum allowed by the State was a 40 -foot curb cut. In answer to further questions, Mr. Becker advised the distance between the proposed curb cut and the adjacent one to the south was more than 250 feet. He added the next curb cut on the property to the north would have to be 250 feet from the proposed curb cut to meet city requirements. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Becker advised there was a planned future addition to the west. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding lack of access to the property to the north and the property to the south from the parking lot of the subject property. Mr. Becker stated they had discussed the possibility of tying through to the north, but at this time his client did not know how the property to the north 0 is Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 3 would be developed. He added the proposed entrance/exit would eliminate traffic backing up. Ms. Britton contended either the curb cut should be large enough to serve all the parcels of land owned by Mr. Mong or it should be sized down. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Becker stated the owner/developer would consider using the proposed curb cut as a part of future development to the north and to the south. Ms. Britton pointed out nothing on the development plan showed that would happen. Mr. Becker stated it would be in the notes of the meeting that they had agreed to consider using the curb cut as part of development to the north or the south. Ms. Little advised the staff would like to amend the note to state that, if the City requested use of the curb cut at a future time, the developer would allow it. Mr. Becker agreed with her statement. Mr. Allred stated there was a possibility the developer would sell the property before the other property was developed. He added they should consider the fact, in all probability, there would be some bus traffic going in and out of the motel. He contended the plan as presented met all the criteria for City regulations. • MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Len Schaper, Alderman for Ward 4, questioned why there was a piece of C-2 zoned property at the subject location. He requested a history on when the tract had been zoned commercial. Ms. Little stated she did not have that information, but she stated it had not been a recent action. In answer to a further question, she advised it was rezoned before the 2010 Plan was approved by the City. 14r.' Schafer pointed out the 2010 Plan would show the subject area as residential and restrict the commercial land to the area around Highway 62. He pointedout the proposed development would not be in conformance with the guidelines of the 2010 Plan. In answer to a question from Mr. Schafer, Mr. Tarvin stated they did not have a choice since the property was rezoned before the 2010 Plan. He pointed out the Planning Commission did not rezone property, but only made recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Britton requested the motion be amended to include the notation that the access would be shared with flow through traffic admitted to the north and to the south from the subject development. 0 Mr. Reynolds seconded the amendment to the motion. • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 4 The motion to amend failed 4-4-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Johnson, and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred, Tarvin, Pummill, and Suchecki voting •'no". NOTION The original motion by Mr. Allred carried with a 7-1-0 vote with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Johnson, Allred, Tarvin, Pummill, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". 0 40 0 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-01 - EDUCATIONAL FACILITY CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE - 800 S CHURCH ST The next item was a conditional use request CU95-01 submitted by the City of Fayetteville for property located at 800 South Church Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request was for cultural and recreational use for an educational facility (Use Unit 4). Mr. Conklin advised the staff had no additional comments. Mr. Nickle asked if there was a difference in the appraised value of the two parcels. Mr. Ed Connell, Land Agent for the City, stated the appraised values of the two parcels were basically the same. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the Conditional Use CU95-01. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Is 0 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R95-01 W MIRE GALBRAITH - 708 1/2, 708, & 721 N LEVERETT The next item was Rezoning Appeal R95-01 submitted by W. Mike Galbraith for property located at 708, 708 1/20 & 721 N. Leverett Avenue. The request was to rezone from R-3, High Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The staff had no additional comments. In answer to an inquiry from Ms. Jana Britton, Ms. Alett Little advised the zoning directly to the north of the subject property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare commercial. Ms. Little advised that, after discussing the rezoning appeal at length, the staff had determined in terms of implementing the General Plan and the introduction of neighborhood commercial, the staff could recommend approval possibly with the inclusion of a suggestion that housing units be included as a second story so that the residential nature of the area would not be lost. She added the staff did realize Leverett Street was a fairly congested street in its present form and noted the staff was not interested in seeing an entire 'commercial area develop in the neighborhood. Ms. Little pointed out some neighborhood commercial could be beneficial, particularly if it were developed as the potential developers had indicated, as a neighborhood coffee shop/donut shop. She explained the type of use would generate mostly early morning traffic which might counteract some of the peak hour traffic. She advised the staff had decided not to give a recommendation to the Planning Commission since it depended on how strongly the Commission wished • to pursue the General Plan at this point. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the residential property located just to the south of the subject property and contended the proposed development would be more appropriate located on a corner with the potential for dual access. Ms. Little pointed out that, from the traditional zoning aspect where commercial was concentrated at nodes, that concern would be valid. She added, however, from the neighborhood planning perspective allowing for some commercial among residential areas, that would not be the case. She explained a corner location would not be necessary in the subject case because the proposed use would not involve a high generation of traffic. Mr. Suchecki suggested the proposed use would probably generate some pedestrian traffic, but contended it would probably generate zero additional automobile traffic due to the proximity to the University of Arkansas and a large number of apartments. Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, since the property to the north was zoned commercial, rezoning the property commercial would allow for constructing the building adjacent to the property line allowing more use of the property. He stated he agreed with Ms. Little's idea of living units being located up above the commercial business. Mr. Tim Conklin advised that, in discussion with the staff, Mr. Galbraith had stated he was willing to consider the possibility of placing attached residential units above the commercial business. He added that was currently allowed under the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. • N • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the rezoning appeal R95-01 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Tarvin, Allred, Pummill, Johnson and Suchecki voted "yes" and Commissioner Britton voted "no • 0 0 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING APPEAL R95-02 VANTAGE SQUARE, A JOINT VENTURE - S OF JOYCE ST, E OF FRONTAGE RD The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Appeal R95-02 submitted by Vantage Square, A Joint Venture for property located south of Joyce Street, east of Frontage Road. The request was to rezone 2.58 acres from R -O, Residential - Office to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Me. Little advised the total property included 2.58 acres instead of 2 acres as listed in the staff report. She added the staff had received a Bill of Assurance from the petitioner limiting the use of the property to a banking facility or professional offices. She added the Bill of Assurance would run with the land and be binding upon the owner and his successors. Me. Little stated it was her understanding the residents of Butterfield Trail Village had expressed a request that a Bill of Assurance limiting the use be offered. She noted the Bill would be filed with the zoning change if it were approved. Mr. Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates was present representing Jim Lindsey, The Family Trust, and Southwest Energy (Vantage Square - A Joint Venture). He advised they were proposing the development close to the Butterfield Trail Village so it would be convenient for the residents. Mr. Britton pointed out it appeared from the map there was a huge utility easement through the property on the east end which would take up almost half of the tract. • Ms. Little advised there was a 50 -foot easement for a 36 -inch water line on the property which could not be built upon. Ms. Britton clarified she was referring to the broken line running parallel to the east property line. Mr. Elsass advised Crafton, Tull, & Associates had been contacted in regard to an explanation of that line on the map and they had stated theydidnot know what it designated but assured them it was not an easement. Ms. Little advised, according to the plat, there was a 30 -foot utility easement running along the east property line. She added the large dotted line Ms. Britton had referred to was not identified on the map but it appeared to be a section corner. Mr. Allred pointed out any easements would need to be addressed in the large scale development process, not the rezoning. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the rezoning appeal R95-02 subject to the Bill of Assurance limiting the use of the property to a banking facility or professional offices and to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, Tarvin, Allred, Pummill, Johnson and Suchecki voted "yes" and Commissioner Britton voted •' no'• . LJ 6 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING .• REZONING APPEAL R95-03 SONNEMAN & SARAH S AGEE - W •• DEANE SOLOMANt•• MOORE LN The next item was a public hearing for rezoning appeal R95-03 submitted by E. H. Sonneman and Sarah S. Agee for property located west of Deane Soloman Road and west of Moore Lane. The request was to rezone the property from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had no additional comments. Ms. Britton advised there was difficulty identifying how the rezoning would line up when they toured the property. She asked for clarification. Me. Little stated the property ran to the private drive located a slightly north of the intersection with Moore Lane on the northeast corner of the site. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised it would be feasible for Moore Lane to connect with this property. She advised it would have to jog to the south in order to miss the house currently under construction and then cross a portion of the golf course to continue to the west. She added it was her understanding the developers of Crystal Springs Subdivision had offered to swap some property which would be the, only feasible environment to extend Moore Lane to the west. There was discussion in regard to the discrepancy between the extension of Moore Lane shown on the map in the agenda packet and the existing Moore Lane. Ms. Little clarified the existing road actually turned to the north at the point • where the stubout to the north was shown on the map. Mr. Nickle pointed out the applicant could have reached his goal of developing duplexes on the property by requesting a conditional use in the R-1 zoning instead of requesting a rezoning to R-1.5 which would allow the potential of a higher density development. Mr. Conklin advised the staff's recommendation was in support of a conditional use in the R-1 zoning for duplexes instead of a rezoning. Mr. Charles Agee, representing the applicants, advised they proposed to develop 17 lots with 17 duplexes (34 units) similar to those located around other golf courses. He assured the Commission they had no plans to develop anything else on the property. In answer to a inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Agee stated they would be happy with a conditional use instead of a rezoning as long as they were allowed to develop duplexes as planned. Ms. Little advised 34 units would most likely exceed the density allowed in the R-1 zoning district. In answer to inquiries, Mr. Conklin advised the R-1 zoning required 12,000 square feet per lot with a minimum of an 80 -foot width per lot. Ms. Little referred to the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting dated April 13, 1992 which were attached to the agenda packet. She pointed out there had been a prior request for a rezoning to R-2 which was denied by the Commission because of the need to extend sewer to the area with the need for a pump station. She explained a development at this location would be much more costly than a • traditional development. ' Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Agee stated the engineer had prepared all the elevations necessary to put in the sewer and noted the water and sewer would both be run at the owner's expense. Mr. Conklin advised R-1.5 zoning required a 70 -foot lot width minimum and 7,260 Square feet per each lot or duplex with 12 units per acre. He reiterated R-1 zoning would allow up to 7 units per acre. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin advised a conditional use in the current R-1 zoning would allow for the potential of up to 35 units on the subject property. Ms. Little pointed out the 34 proposed units could theoretically be developed on the property with a conditional use in R-1. In response to a request for further explanation, Ms. Little advised after taking out the area needed for streets and easements, it was rare for a development to achieve the density allowed by the zoning district. Mr. Conklin stated, according to the staff's log book, there had only been two or three subdivisions which had actually approached the densities allowed in the R-1.5 and R-2 zones. Mr. Nickle inquired as to whether the Commission would have the option to recommend a rezoning of the property with a limit of no more than 17 lots allowed. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, a representative of the applicants advised all the property owners in the subject area were notified of the proposed • rezoning. He presented a layout of the proposed development. Ms. Little pointed out the staff had not received a subdivision plat of the proposed development for review. Mr. Tarvin stated it seemed to him they would be circumventing the ordinance which they did not have the power to do. Ms. Little pointed out if the Commission wanted to approve duplexes and there was assurance the water and sewer would be extended, the R-1.5 zoning would more correctly represent as a use by right the proposed development. Mr. Tarvin advised they had the option of recommending the rezoning to R-1.5 with a limit of no more than 17 duplexes or of allowing a conditional use under R-1 zoning which could be less than 17 units. He asked for clarification as to whether the Commission could attach a limit on the approval without the applicants offering a Bill of Assurance. Ms. Little pointed out the Commission could require a limit only if it were tied to a physical reason related to the land. She added the staff had determined the proposed layout would not fit on the property in its present configuration with R-1 zoning because of the 12,000 square feet per lot requirement. She noted it could probably be adjusted to meet the requirements by moving the street to.the east, but pointed out the staff had not calculated it. A representative of the applicants advised they were willing to give the Commission assurances that the development would be limited to 17 lots. He added their goal was to build a nice project, but pointed out it might not be feasible in terms of cost if the number of lots were cut down because of the added cost of the water and sewer extensions. • 2 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 11 In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, the representative stated they would not be opposed to conditioning the approval on a limit of 17 lots and with the contingency that, if their development did not materialize, the zoning would revert back to R-1. Mr. Allred stated the advantage to approving a conditional use would be that the staff would have more control over the development taking place as proposed. In response to further discussion, Ms. Britton pointed out the Commission was there to do what was best for the community and not to accommodate the developer. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, the representative stated the property was cut up and Mr. Sonneman owned three pieces with the rest being owned by the golf course. Len Schaper, City Council member, advised the proposed project was located diagonally across from the industrial park which would be the Research and Development Park for the City. He stated he had spent 15 years managing research and development in private industry and knew from experience that duplex housing was not the kind of housing Research and Development people would want to live in. He contended continued higher density zoning and duplex developments in the area would not encourage the cluster of Research and Development oriented activity. He expressed opposition to a zoning change from R-1. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the rezoning appeal R95-03 subject to the • staff's comments and with a Bill of Assurance that the development would not exceed 17 lots or 34 duplexes and that the zoning would revert back to R-1 if the proposed development did not take place as planned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton contended a conditional use approval instead of a rezoning would allow the developer to mix the duplexes with residential housing which would have less of an impact on the neighborhood. She expressed concern that with a duplex development the property value would not be maintained over a long period of time. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Tarvin, Johnson, Pummill, & Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds, Allred & Britton voting "no". 0 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 12 IAT SPLITS #1 & 2 CLIFFORD CLEVENGER - 796 N 54TH ST The next item was lot splits #1 and #2 submitted by Clifford Clevenger for property located at 796 North 54th Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated in addition to the conditions listed in the staff report, the staff was requesting an additional 25 feet of right-of-way for the purpose of construction of a public street along the frontage of the lots at some point in the future. Ms. Little advis d the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use to allow duplexes on 'the subject property approximately a year ago. She pointed out the street currently dead -ended into an open field. She explained requiring the right-of-way would give the City the potential for expanding the current private drive into a public street if and when the other part of the property developed. In response to a request for clarification from Mary Denham, Ms. Little advised the requested r�ght-of-way would be for a street. She explained a lot split was actually a wai er of the subdivision regulations which did allow the City to acquire right -6f -way for public street purposes. .She noted, in this case, the purpose was to�open access to the vacant property to the east which did not have access to Wedington Drive. In answer to further questions, she advised the Dolan Case stated any right-of- way required had to bear a rational nexus, a reasonable connection to the type of development which was occurring. She advised in that case they were • specifically speaking about a trail easement being required to offset the traffic generated by the plumbing store. She pointed out the high court did not find the City had erred in requiring the easement, but had erred in describing the correct rationale to the amount of land that had been required. Ms. Denham expressed her belief it was the responsibility of the City to pay for any street easement unless the street was within the actual development. Ms. Little stated it was within the development if it was adjacent to the development. She explained one-half of a public street was required when development took place adjacent to an inadequate public street. She read from the ordinance which said, "When a proposed subdivision has direct access to or fronts on an existing road or street which is below current standards, the subdivider shall be responsible for contributing his proportionate share of the cost of improving said street or road to existing City or County standards. The Planning Commission shall determine the subdivider's proportionate share of said costs in accordance with the provisions of Division A above". MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to table the lot split request since neither Mr. Clevenger nor a representative were present. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Ms. Little agreed with the motion and noted the staff did make Mr. Clevenger aware he would not be able to sell the units individually. The motion to table passed unanimously. (91 0 • Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 1995 Page 13 OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Chairman Joe Tarvin appointed a nominating committee to nominate three individuals for the 1995 chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary positions. He appointed Commissioners Johnson, Allred, and Reynolds to serve on that committee. BY-LAWS OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: In answer to a question, Ms. Little advised the staff had included the Bylaws in the agenda packet because they set out the Chairman was supposed to select a nominating committee. She pointed out the staff wanted to make the Commission aware the Bylaws did not name the committees which were normal standing committees of the Planning Commission. She added the staff felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to review the Bylaws and update them to at least name the Subdivision Committee as a standing committee of the Planning Commission and note how that committee was appointed. OTHER BUSINESS: There were no other items of business. INFORMATIONAL ITEM: TRD, Inc. vs City of Fayetteville fi City Planning Commission. Ms. Little advised the Commission TRD, Inc. had filed a lawsuit against the City of Fayetteville regarding the requested lot split in Rosewood Subdivision. She stated the staff wanted to make the Commission aware of the suit and they would provide the Commission with updates as the case went through the court procedures. • There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.