Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-13 Minutes0 • 40 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 13, 1995 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Pummill, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Jana Lynn Britton, and Gary R. Head OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, members of the press and others ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 1995: Mr. Reynolds stated the Nominating Committee had devised a slate of officers with the nomination of Phyllis Johnson for Chairperson, Jerry Allred for Assistant Chairperson, and Jana Britton for Secretary/Treasurer. There being no other nominations, it was determined that a roll call vote was all that was needed. Mr. Head made a motion to approve the slate of officers as presented. The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: It was determined that Items B, C, E, G, H, & K should be discussed and voted on separately. A. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1995. D. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - PETROMARK: Submitted by Terry Cooper on behalf of Stephen Lair and Steve Turner for property located at the northwest corner of Joyce and Highway 265. The property contained approximately 2 acres and was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. F. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - PAYLESS SHOE STORE: Submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Payless Shoe Source for property located on the south side of Highway 62(Sixth Street), west of Shiloh Drive. The property contained 2.35 • acres and was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. I. LOT SPLIT #1: Submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 237 S. Stonebridge Road. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. J. LOT SPLIT #1: Submitted by Dub Dunaway for property located at 2785 Wyman Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda (A, D, F, I, and J). The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • [I W1 Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 3 B. FINAL PLAT OF CEDARPOINT SUBDIVISION GENERAL DEVELOPMENT - S OF HUNTSVILLE, W OF CURTIS The next item was a final plat of Cedarpoint Subdivision submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of General Development for property located south of Huntsville and west of Curtis. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contained 12.91 acres with 37 lots. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Don Bunn advised the staff had been working with the engineers in regard to the staff's conditions of approval. Mr. Gabbard, the engineer representing the developer, stated they would be willing to table this item until they could work out any problems which might exist. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to table the final plat of Cedarpoint Subdivision until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill The motion carried unanimously. • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 4 C, LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR TRUMBO HOWELL TRUMBO - E OF CATO SPRINGS RD, S OF SIXTH ST, N OF INDIAN TR The next item was a large scale development submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Howell Trumbo for property located east of Cato Springs Road, south of Sixth Street, and north of Indian Trail. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contained .98 acres. A member of the audience expressed concern that since Sixth Street was the first impression that persons visiting the University of Arkansas got when they entered though the south, he felt they should be very selective in the type of commercial development they approved in that area. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the 40 foot wide driveway and suggested it be narrowed. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers was present representing the developer. • In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gray stated the 40' drive on the east would be shared by the property to the east and would eliminate a curb cut on that end of the property. He added the future development there would need one more entrance. Ms. Johnson pointed out 20' of the drive was shown on the adjacent property. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray stated since this was located on a State Highway, the state would have to approve the curb cuts. He added the wider ingress/egress was for the traffic entering from Highway 62. Mr. Allred contended narrowing that ingress/egress would create a funnel effect and back traffic up. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Britton voting "no". 40 W) LWo • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 5 E. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LINDSEY OFFICE BUILDING THE LINDSEY FAMILY - VANTAGE SOUARE(S SIDE OF JOYCE, E OF HWY 71B) The next item was a large scale development of Lindsey Office Building submitted by Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of The Lindsey Family for property located in Vantage Square (south side of Joyce Street, east of Highway 71B). The property contained 3 acres and was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Britton expressed concern there was no cross access between this development and the property to the east which would be developed in the future. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission did have the authority to request an access to adjacent property on a development especially if there were traffic problems in the area. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, a re esent�tive of Crafton, Tull, & Associates stated they hadn't discus e j a possible cross access with the property to the east. • Mr. Allred clarified that the property wouldn't exit onto Front Street. He expressed concern that requiring a cross access had the potential for creating another street within the parking lot with the parking lot being used to traverse in that area. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised that the length of the southeast boundary was around 571 feet. A representative of the developer advised they didn't have any problem with having a cross access to the property to the east. Mr. Allred asked the staff if it was a policy to request that developers provide access to adjacent properties. He contended that it was unusual that these projects made it all the way to the Commission with that problem not being resolved in the Subdivision Committee. Ms. Little pointed out it was the same property owner for the subject property and the property to the east which made it easier in this case. She stated as to whether it was a policy, the staff had noticed there were areas in town where people were going over curbs or down drainage ditches to cut between parking lots to be able to exit to the main street. She contended it would allow a person to travel from one business to the other without going back • out onto the major street. She advised as a general rule, the staff concurred with it. • • I• Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Allred stated his point was if they wanted to make that change, it should be made a policy so that everyone was aware of it to be fair to all the developers. Ms. Little stated the staff would concur with that and noted at this point the staff didn't know the feelings of the Commission on that issue. A representative of the developer requested that the shared access be left to be worked out after the approval with just an agreement that they will work it out. IL1"4%to) :i Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to the staff's comments, subject to a shared access with the property to the east being negotiated between the developer and the City with the staff having the flexibility in the location, and subject to a waiver of the parking requirements allowing for a minimum of 52 required parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried unanimously. PE • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 7 G. CONDITIONAL USE CU95-6 FOR CHURCH AND SCHOOL THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS - W OF GARLAND, S OF WEDINGTON The next item was a Conditional Use CU95-6 for a Church and a School submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of The Church of the Latter Day Saints for property located west of Garland and south of Wedington. The property was zoned R -O, Residential - Office. Ms. Little advised the staff had no additional comments to their staff report attached to the agenda. Mr. Reynolds asked if the proposed development took up all the property which was previously rezoned to Residential -Office or was if there was a piece of property between the subject property and the C-1 zoned property on the corner. Ms. Little advised the property zoned C-1 adjoined this property. Mr. Reynolds stated at the Subdivision Committee meeting they had requested information as to the hours of operation of the school in is the church of which the developer had agreed to provide. A representative of the petitioner stated there would be approximately 75-80 students with classes being offered throughout the day. In terms of hours of operation, he stated it would be operating from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 - 5:00 p.m. daily. He noted there would not be a lot of traffic at any particular point in time. He noted it was close enough to campus so students could walk. Mr. Reynolds pointed out a restaurant and bar had been approved previously on the C-1 corner property. He expressed concern that even though the Church had stated having a restaurant on the adjacent property which sold alcoholic beverages wouldn't be a problem and had agreed to submit a letter to that affect, he wanted to clarify that the restaurant had gotten approval first and there was the potential for church members filing suit against the restaurant in the future. Ms. Little clarified that the restaurant hadn't been issued a liquor license yet and she noted approving the location of the church as requested would most likely hinder the adjacent property owner in his attempt to obtain a liquor license for his restaurant. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the proposed parking spaces numbered quite a few more than what was required in the R -O zoning district or by the proposed parking lot ordinance. Ms. Britton suggested a possibility of shared parking. • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 8 Ms. Johnson pointed out they had been given information which indicated the church representatives were opposed to the location of a restaurant and bar on the adjacent property. Mr. Nickle stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed the possibility of moving the access drive across from Berry Street or the possibility of shared access with the school. Mr. Harry Gray, representative, stated they wouldn't be opposed to relocating at least one of the drives. Ms. Johnson expressed concern in regard to approval of this request if it was going to essentially assure the restaurant and bar that it wouldn't be able to get a liquor license. She pointed out the subject property was the location of Fayetteville's infamous trees that had been thought about for years. There was further discussion in regard to the liquor license requirement and the distance limitations from churches and schools. Mr. Allred suggested the item be tabled until the next meeting so that the issue could be resolved to avoid potential litigation. • MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to table the conditional use so that the issue of whether approval of it would keep the previously approved restaurant on the adjacent property from obtaining a liquor license could be resolved. The motion was seconded. After further discussion from some members of the audience, Ms. Johnson explained the reason for the motion to table was because it was the opinion of the staff that state law would prohibit the adjacent property owner from developing his property as he had proposed and had gotten previous approval for. She stated further discussion on this item would be appropriate if and when it were brought back before the Commission. The motion carried 6-2-0 with Johnson, Britton, Reynolds, Pummill, Head, & Allred voting "yes" and Nickle & Suchecki voting "no". • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-5 - RECEPTION AREA DAVE MERSRY - 40 N CROSSOVER RD The next item was a conditional use CU95-5 - Reception Area submitted by Dave Mersky for property located at 40 North Crossover Road and zoned R -O, Residential -Office. Ms. Little advised the staff had no additional comments to add to their staff report. Ms. Johnson advised this was a home operating as a reception and catering business. Mr. Nickle contended, as a matter of course, he didn't feel they should have conditional uses on the Consent Agenda to give the public the opportunity for discussion on them. He noted that was his reason for requesting that all the conditional uses be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Johnson advised the staff hadn't made a recommendation on this item in their staff report. Ms. Little advised this request was identical, as far as she knew, to the one which was brought before the Commission in October. She noted conditional uses were not required to wait a year tc resubmit. Harriet Neiman, representing the petitioner, stated there was a provision placed on their rezoning approval that no addition be allowed to the existing structure. She pointed out they weren't intending to add additional space or go beyond the existing structure, but they wanted to enclose a porch on the north side. She noted that was their reason for bringing the conditional use through. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Neiman advised people come to her home on reservation only for dinner. She noted they had only served meals at their property about 3 times since the beginning of the year. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Neiman stated they didn't usually have more than 20 people at a time. Ms. Britton stated she seemed to remember that this was going to be a very small operation and this petition appeared to be a way of expanding the operation for more seating. She expressed concern that this operation was going to continue to expand. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated one of N • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 10 the complaints had been in regard to the number of cars in the drive area. Ms. Britton stated that she thought they had originally stated that all the parking would be along the driveway and it appeared they had now built a parking lot behind the house. After further discussion, Ms. Neiman stated this was her livelihood and contended she wasn't doing anything in the neighborhood to cause an eyesore. She noted she was not trying to enlarge her operation, but only to enhance it. She added enclosing the porch would serve to provide seating even during inclement weather for the bed and breakfast and the reception operation. Mr. Allred explained the reason he had requested the provision that they not add on to the structure was as a spirit of compromise between them and the adjoining property owners. He noted there didn't appear to be any opposition to it at that time. He stated, however, since that time there was a new proposal to include some commercial into R-1. He contended if this fit into where they were trying to go with the new ordinances, the Commission was going to have to change their attitude about those kinds of operations. • Mr. Reynolds stated he observed a parking lot at the northeast corner of the property which he stated would provide about forty spaces. • Mr. Suchecki stated this property was an eyesore before the petitioners got involved with this project and now it was a nice facility. He contended it was a dynamic business and a situation in which the petitioners perhaps didn't know the level of their potential success. He pointed out the business was located on a state highway that might be widened in the future. He contended they weren't really bothering any adjacent property owners and noted there was an apartment complex across the street. He pointed out they were enhancing the area. A member of the audience stated the petitioners had only enhanced the area. Another member of the audience expressed concern that this operation had escalated and continued to escalated and would impact the residential area near it. He contended the petitioners were moving toward a commercial rezoning by changing the operation little by little. Another member of the audience who lived on Happy Hollow Road stated he hadn't seem anything but positive changes on the property with the current operation. He noted he would be opposed to a commercial rezoning there. N 5 40 Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 11 Ms. Neiman stated she had no desire or intention to run a restaurant at that location. There was more discussion in regard to the new proposed ordinances and how they would relate to the petition. Mr. Reynolds contended this would fit into the 2010 Plan. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the Conditional Use CU95-5. The motion was seconded. Mr. Nickle clarified they were only planning to close in the deck on the north side and not the deck on the south side as well. The petitioners agreed. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Head "abstaining". Commission 13, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-4 - BED AND BREAKFAST SARA RUTH STROIN - 2042 BALL AVENUE The next item was a conditional use CU95-4 - Bed and Breakfast submitted by Sara Ruth Stroin for property located at 2042 Ball Avenue and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson advised the staff recommended approval of this petition and noted it would be subject to all the conditions and requirements found in Section 160.195 Conditions Governing Application of Conditional Uses; Procedures of the Zoning Code, and Section 160.085 Home Occupations. Ms. Johnson plex. Mr. Conklin advised the staff would like to add another condition which would be the requirement that only two rooms be rented on any given evening. In answer to a concern from Ms. Britton in regard to parking, the petitioner stated there shouldn't be more than two cars and there was room for them. Mr. Allred moved to approve Conditional Use CU95-4 staff comments with the additional requirement that be rented on any given evening. subject to the only two rooms Mr. Nickle stated the subject property was a very attractive home and he didn't think a bed and breakfast would be appropriate at that location. He expressed surprise that there was no opposition in the audience. The motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0 with Johnson, Allred, Pummill voting "yes" and Britton, Reynolds, Nickle, Suchecki, Head voting "no". E Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION AND REZONING R95-4 HELEN DUNLAP - N OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF SALEM RD The next item was a public hearing for Annexation and Rezoning R95- 4 submitted by Robert Whitfield on behalf of Helen Dunlap for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Salem Road. The request was to annex and rezone 40 acres from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson advised the staff had recommended a postponement of these items until the Master Street Plan was completed and changes to the Land Use Plan had been made. Ms. Alett Little explained this property did not physically touch another part of the City(it was located across the street from the city limits) and noted it could be considered a piece meal annexation. Ms. Johnson inquired if there was any concentration that property directly across the street from a Fayetteville City School and from the Fayetteville City Park would not be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. Ms. Little stated that it would most probably be annexed and the staff would feel comfortable recommending that a residential type development take place there. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated there would not be anything keeping this developer from developing the property to county standards. She noted, however, it was her understanding that was not what the developer hoped to do. She pointed out the requirements in the county standards were different that the city standards. Mr. Allred pointed out if this developer was only given the option to develop his property to county standards, it could present a potential problem of who would pay for the cost of bringing the infrastructure up to city standards in the event that it was annexed into the City at a later date. Ms. Little advised the Planning Commission did have the option to require the developer to meet city standards as a part of its review. She pointed out the Commission did review subdivisions developed in the county. Mr. Don Bunn advised the City had a right in the Planning Area • where property was close to the existing city limits and given the anticipation that it might be annexed in a short period of time to require that it meet city standards. He noted the only difference O Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 14 with this one would be that the decision would need to be made whether to allow the city septic sewer to serve this area. He noted if it were not allowed, then an extensive investigation would need to take place in terms of whether septic tanks were suitable for that area. He advised that would probably be the limiting factor on the development if it were not brought into the city limits or if the city sewer were not allowed to serve the area. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Bunn stated the pump station would serve this area but he didn't know whether it adjoined the subject property or not. In answer to a question from Mr. Head, Ms. Little advised the City park was upstream from this property. Mr. Head then pointed out if this land were developed to county standards with septic systems being installed, they would drain to the city park. Mr. Bunn advised the drainage was to the west. Mr. Bob Whitfield, representing the petitioner, stated it would seem that it would be in the best interest of the community to control the property across the street from a school and park. He Is contended there was a good viable interest in placing this property under the control of the City. He added they had already designed a preliminary plat and they would like to submit it as an answer to the village concept. He added it also incorporated all the ordinances including the Master Street Plan. He noted one of the requirements would be that they would have to improve Salem Road with 1,320 feet of it being widened and curbed. He contended that would be a good feature of this development in regard to the school and the park. He added they were also donating 13 acres of green land. Mr. Whitfield stated their proposed development was upscale and they anticipated that the prices would run $25,000 to $35,000 higher than the average price in the Crystal Springs Development. He noted they considered there principal market the people making an income of $50,000 to $100,000 per year. He advised it would not be a tract development with lots being sold to individual builders, but a controlled development with the owner being the builder. Mr. Nickle stated he hadn't seen the preliminary plat, but he expressed concern about the amount of the property which was in the flood plain. He noted there was a potential for some wetlands there. He asked if the developer had taken a good hard look at that aspect. Mr. Whitfield stated the wetland issue would be subject to • mitigation. He noted they did intend to elevate or fill the flood plain, but not the flood way. He stated they proposed to hold land NO Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 15 back for use as a church or such things as a cooperative nursery which would be operated by mothers in the development and the general area. He stated the lots would be at the new revised filled flood plain level and each home would be 2 1/2 to 3 feet above the flood plain. He noted they would improve everything including drainage and water control. Ms. Johnson noted the petitioner had supplied them with a plat, but pointed out the annexation and rezoning were what they were reviewing. She questioned whether they should even be considering the plat and what affect their vote on the annexation and rezoning would have on it. Ms. Little advised the petition related only to the use of the land and whether the property should be annexed and rezoned. Ms. Johnson advised they should therefore not be discussing the plat that had been provided. Mr. Allred stated to implement a village concept in regard to the 2010 Plan, commercial would need to be integrated. He asked if any thought had been given as to where the commercial area should • be in this development. Ms. Little stated the village concept didn't by definition require commercial. She added with the density being built into this area and with the location of the school there, the staff would support a large development in the area. She advised the proposed Master Street Plan showed two intersections within the near proximity of this particular plot and noted the commercial area, if it was present, should be accessed by one of the major streets. She explained, however, neither of those streets really existed at this time so the staff would have to recommend that it be located on one of the newer streets. Mr. Whitfield noted there was some land at the entrance which would be proposed as a neighborhood center, but it would be zoned R-1. He noted they would probably request a rezoning in a few years to develop a the commercial area. Mr. Allred pointed out the commercial areas needed to be identified now to work towards having the commercial integrated into the residential in all areas of the City. Mr. Whitfield stated they would use the area as greenspace until such time that it was economically feasible to do something like that. Mr. Pummill contended if there was no drive for the commercial area . by the developer, he didn't think it was appropriate for the NIS Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 16 Commission or the Council to insist on it. He noted the owner should have a say in that. Mr. Suchecki questioned whether they should even be discussing the rezoning because of the moratorium put on by the City Council. He noted since annexation wasn't part of the moratorium they could discuss it. Ms. Little advised that the Council had noted that anything already submitted should be considered. In response to comments by Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Whitfield stated the plat was his design based on his research. He noted time was of the essence since it would take time to properly drain and dry the property. He noted if they had to wait until August to go through the planning process, then it would be approximately two years before they could get any houses out there. He noted his intention was to present this project as a demonstration project for the community. Ms. Johnson contended it would be appropriate at this time to get the sense of the Commission as to their opinion on the staff's • recommendation to postpone consideration of this. She noted if it was to be postponed, it wasn't necessary to spend a long time debating the matter. rV1i1Wi7 Mr. Nickle made a motion to postpone the consideration of the annexation until they had a Land Use Plan specifically addressing that area. Mr. Reynolds seconded that motion. Ms. Johnson requested information from the staff as to how the Land Use Plan would affect this even if it were amended in the Planning Area. Ms. Little advised the major concern was for the Master Street Plan. She noted the staff felt it was very important to have that network document. She explained the Land Use Plan was related to the Master Street Plan so if the Master Street Plan changed, the Land Use Plan would need to change. She stated she couldn't foresee a staff recommendation for development on this land of anything other than residential with some neighborhood commercial. She reiterated the major concern was that they have the Master Street Plan to guide them. • Ms. Johnson asked how the Master Street Plan would affect the rezoning. She contended it obviously wouldn't affect the • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 17 annexation. Ms. Little stated the current proposal of the relocation of Salem Road to the west would make a difference in the staff's recommendation. She stated, as she understood it, the Committee to review the Master Street Plan had recommended that street be relocated. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the Committee had informed her they were expecting the Master Street Plan to go through rapidly. Mr. Whitfield contended his proposed development had no conflict in the land use, no conflict in the Master Street Plan, no conflict in the building concept, and no conflict with FEMA. Ms. Johnson stated granting the annexation and rezoning might not be of any benefit to the developer at this time with the assurance that essentially no subdivision plat would be considered until the Master Street Plan was adopted. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the • staff was working toward a goal of completing the Land Use Plan by August of 1995. In answer to further questions, she stated the annexation and the rezoning should be voted on separately. In response to comments by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Nickle stated his intention with the motion was to follow the staff's recommendation which was to postpone these petitions until the Master Street Plan and changes to the Land Use Plan had been made.He pointed out he looked at the Master Street Plan and the Land Use Plan as being connected. He noted the motion included the Master Street Plan, but was directed toward the annexation issue. Ms. Johnson clarified the motion was to postpone consideration of the annexation until the Master Street Plan and the Land Use Plan both had been updated through the City Council. Mr. Suchecki pointed out this would have to be taken on to the City Council for further approval, and noted he didn't see what good it would be for them to deny this petitioner the opportunity to take it forward to be discussed at a further level. Mr. Pummill contended it would be important to the City of Fayetteville to annex land west of the school and the new city park as rapidly as possible. Ms. Britton pointed out this area was still in the school district . whether it was in the City or not. M • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 18 The motion failed 3-5-0 with Britton, Reynolds & Nickle voting "yes" and Johnson, Allred, Pummill, Head, and Suchecki voting "no". A member of the audience who owned property near this area contended it was very important that the Commission realize there was a big issue attached to this consideration. She contended if this annexation and rezoning were approved, then it was only a formality that the development would take place without thought for the problems with traffic and the direction of travel in that area. Mr. Pummill reminded them that the Planning Commission was only an advisory board and any final action would be taken up by the City Council. Ms. Johnson pointed out they were the committee that looked at the petitions closely and it was their job to do what they felt was appropriate, although they didn't have the final say. Mr. Allred stated if this should be approved, this developer would be required to help with improvements to Salem Road as far as widening and making it a collector no matter what the location was. He noted one way to increase the potential for that road being upgraded was to have some more development facing the road which • would give the City the opportunity to request the developers pay their proportionate share in making the improvements. Mr. Head stated it was his understanding that the spirit of the moratorium was to promote this type of subdivision which seemed to fit within the ordinance. He pointed out this project would go through many phases before it was finalized including approval of annexation and rezoning by the City Council and the preliminary plat being brought through the Commission for review. He contended not annexing land directly across the street from a City school was a mistake. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the annexation as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. Mr. Tim Conklin made a couple of corrections to the staff report on page 4.5 in the agenda packet including the fact that the city park was located to the east of the subject property instead of the west which was undeveloped property. He also advised they had the City Engineer's report which he passed on to them. Mr. Nickle stated this seemed to him like a piece meal annexation • when they should really be looking at the land to the north all along Salem Road instead of just this property. X Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 19 Ms. Johnson stated she felt they were splitting hairs to say this wasn't adjacent to existing city property. She noted even though this may be only a small tract and it was unclear how far they would go to the north or the west in the future, she didn't think they would be doing any damage to any of their long-range planning by approving this annexation. She noted she didn't see how they would profit by delaying it. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Johnson, Allred, Pummill, Head, & Suchecki voting "yes" and Britton, Reynolds, & Nickle voting "no". Ms. Johnson advised the annexation was recommended for approval. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to grant the rezoning petition from A-1 to R-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. Mr. Whitfield advised it would be voted on together • annexation approval unless approved. was his understanding that both issues and stated he would like to withdraw the the R-1 zoning recommendation was also Ms. Johnson stated a key difference between the rezoning issue and the annexation issue was the location of Salem Road. In answer to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little any development brought through before the adoption of the new Master Street Plan would have to abide by the current Master Street Plan. She noted if the Master Street Plan was adopted before development took place on this property, it would be required to adhere to the new Master Street Plan. After further discussion, Mr. Suchecki contended they seemed to be trying to contemplate the City Council's decision on this. He pointed out they could only make the recommendation. He noted the question was whether the annexation could be withdrawn if indeed it were accepted and the rezoning was not. Ms. Little stated the developer could withdraw the annexation any time before it was placed on the City Council's agenda. Ms. Johnson clarified the petitioner was willing to accept the location of Salem Road wherever it ended up in the Master Street Plan no matter when the Plan was approved. 0 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION • • • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 20 Mr. Pummill amended his motion to include the petitioner's agreement that he would accommodate the location of Salem Road wherever it ended up on the Master Street Plan once the Plan had been amended. The amendment to the motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Johnson, Allred, Reynolds, Pummill, Head, Nickle, & Suchecki voting "yes" and Britton voting "no". mi C I Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 21 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWEST VILLAGE ADDITION SECOND CENTURY INVESTMENTS - E OF HWY 71B, N & S OF SHEPHERD LN The next item was a preliminary plat of Northwest Village Addition submitted by Development Consultants on behalf of Second Century Investments for property located east of Highway 71B and north and south of Shepherd Lane. The property contained 12.22 acres with 5 lots and was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Johnson advised the staff had recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the normal requirements including construction of sidewalks on east side of Frontage Road; an agreement on cost sharing for the traffic signal at Shepherd with the Mall, and the intersection improvements at Joyce and Highway 71B; the restriction of the northern connection with 71B to egress only (right turn); and the dedication of the unbuildable lots along Frontage Street as street right-of-way. After further discussion by the staff in regard to negotiations with the developer on the cost sharing for the improvements to the intersection, Ms. Johnson asked what would happen in the event the • staff and the developer could not reach an agreement. Ms. Little stated it would come back to the Planning Commission and she added in the event that the staff and the developer did reach an agreement it would also have to go through the City Council if the amount was over $20,000. The representatives for the developer stated they were also prepared to discuss their large scale development plan. There was extensive discussion from several different speakers in regard to their plans and it was noted a Pier One Imports and an Olive Garden restaurant would be locating there. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, a representative stated the future development on the southeast part of the property would most likely be employee parking. A member of the audience opposed the closing off of Shepherd Lane. Mr. Charles Futrall, owner of property on Shepherd Lane, stated he also owned Shepherd Lane and had the deeded rights to the property. He expressed concern about the growth in Fayetteville and the growth pains being experienced. He added he was in favor of this project and felt it was an appropriate development in that area. Mr. Nickle stated it appeared this development would provide a • major safety for the traffic and he felt it would be a nice addition to the City. Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 22 MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton expressed appreciation for all the hard work the developers had done. She added, however, she had a problem with the developer choosing the location of the road in order to suit his needs rather than the City designating the road location and the development around it. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Ms. Britton voting "no" • • K41) Planning Commission • February 13, 1995 Page 23 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DEANE SOLOMAN PLACE E H SONNEMAN & SARA AGEE - W OF DEANE SOLOMAN, S OF MOORE LN The next item was a preliminary plat of Deane Soloman Place submitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of E.H. Sonneman and Sara Agee for property located west of Deane Soloman, south of Moore Lane. The property contained 5.85 acres with 17 lots and was zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Ms. Johnson advised that this item had been removed from the agenda. • • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WINDY HILL ESTATES TOM TERMINELLA - E OF OLD WIRE RD, S OF BRIDGEWATER LN The next item was a preliminary plat of Windy Hill Estates submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Tom Terminella for property located east of Old Wire Road and south of Bridgewater Lane. The property consisted of 51.31 acres with 8 lots and was located outside the City Limits. Ms. Johnson advised the staff had recommended approval subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Comments; approval of plans for the extension of water along County Road 87; Washington County approval of the subdivision; the granting of a 20 foot right-of-way along the south boundary of the property (lot 1). Also, the dedication of an additional 20 feet of utility easement along the power line easement on the east side or the designation of the power line easement as a general utility easement; and an additional 20 feet of utility easement adjacent to the drainage easement between lots 4 and 5. The representative for the developer stated they agreed with all is the requirements set forth by the staff. Ed Stith, the owner of the property immediately across the road from the subject property, stated they were proposing to put in a 2" water line and he had been told in the past he would have to put in a 6" water line just for his house. He expressed concern about contamination to his 62' water well. He suggested that there should also be a fire hydrant put in. He expressed interest in tapping into the water line. Mr. Don Bunn stated the developer would be putting in a 2" water line on each end of this property. He noted they had considered that a 6" line be put in with the understanding that a fire hydrant couldn't be put on it because it didn't connect to anything larger than a 2" line. He noted he wasn't aware of what Mr. Stith had been told in the past regarding getting city water to his home. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Bunn stated there would be a way to get fire protection off the 36" line. He advised, however, they couldn't provide fire protection outside the City and if a fire hydrant was placed out there, the owner would be required to be responsible for it. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated there was no reason Mr. Stith couldn't tap into the water line from this development. • In answer to further questions, the developer stated the homes • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 25 would have a minimum size of 2600 to 2800 square feet. He noted they would be depending on the Goshen Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Allred stated the developers might be able to increase the price of the lots to cover the cost of installing fire protection. He explained the cost would be offset because the Buyer's Home Owners Insurance would be reduced if they did have fire protection. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as submitted subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously, E 11 u W • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, ANNEX CREEXWOOD DEVELOPMENT - S OF MT COMFORT RD, E OF BRIDGEPORT RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Bridgeport Subdivision, Phase II, Annex submitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of Creekwood Development for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, east of Bridgeport Road. The property contained 6.81 acres with 17 lots and was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson stated the staff had recommended approval subject to several conditions including construction of sidewalks; and construction of an outlet street to the east at some point within the subdivision. Mr. Rudasill, representing the developer, stated they agreed with the staff's comments. He noted the cul-de-sac was approximately 700' in length. In answer to a question in regard to the length of the cul-de-sac, Ms. Little advised 500' in length was the limit. • In answer to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Rudasill stated they would consider possibly losing a lot so that they could tie in the street and eliminate the long cul-de-sac. Mr. Allred stated if the access was required to the south, there should probably also be one required to the east. Mr. Bunn stated if they had to choose, they would rather have the access point to the east as to the south. There was more discussion as to what would be the best way to connect the streets to eliminate the excessively long cul-de-sac. Mr. Nickle contended with just one bridge going over Hamestring Creek as the staff had pointed out, they needed to make provisions to the east and west to be able to tie onto that. He noted taking it to the south wouldn't help the development. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Phase III of Bridgeport Subdivision subject to the staff's comments which included location of a road access to the east at a place to be agreed upon between the staff and the development. The motion was seconded. • In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised last • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 27 year the City had made the decision that if a street stub -out was provided, it would be constructed. There was more discussion in regard to the cul-de-sac and where the street should be connected to. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Nickle amended his motion to include a waiver of the cul-de-sac length requirement. The amendment was seconded. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Johnson, Allred, Pummill, Nickle, & Suchecki voting "yes" and Britton & Reynolds voting "no". (Head left the meeting early.) • 40 0 • • Planning Commission February 13, 1995 Page 28 PARKING WAIVER - HOUSES, INC, Ms. Johnson explained this was a request for a waiver of three off- street parking spaces in a C-3 zoning. She added the property was located between Ralston and Campbell Streets. The staff recommended approval of the waiver. The representative of the petitioners stated that the owners planned to add a second floor residential area with 6 apartments. He gave further discussion as to the other parking available in that area and to the petitioner's plans. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a potential for putting two compact spaces in which would cut the waiver down to one space. The representative stated, according to the ordinance, they had to start with 25 regular spaces before they could use the compact spaces clause. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated that this project would meet the proposed new ordinance's parking requirements in terms of number. After further discussion, it was determined that they could grant a waiver of three spaces and require that two compact spaces be put in leavina onlv one space actuallv waived. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to grant a waiver for three parking spaces with the modification that there would be eleven spaces on each street with two of those being compact on each side. The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned ,S