Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF • THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 26, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 212 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jana Lynn Britton, Bob Reynolds, Gary Head, John Harbison, John Forney, Conrad Odom, and Charles Nickle. OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Janet Johns, members of the press, and others. Ms. Britton requested more detailed minutes and Ms. Johnson stated the minutes should be a summation rather than verbatim. Minutes were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS MINISTORAGE ORDINANCE An ordinance to allow ministorage units as a use by right in 1-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zones under Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesale and to remove ministorage units as an allowable use under Use Unit 17, Trades and Services. Ms. Little stated there were a total of three ordinances. One ordinance amended section 160.055, Use Units; Unit 21 Warehousing and Wholesale, to insert ministorage units as an allowed activity. • The second ordinance, amended 160.118(D) to add paragraph (8) prescribing screening requirements for ministorage units, and Ms. Little read as follows: "At the expense of the owner of the property all storage units and storage yards for ministorage created under Use Unit 21, shall be required to be screen by view obscuring vegetation when the storage yards or the storage units have common property lines with any residential use or zone and when they have frontage on any public street. Vegetation used for screening purposes shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting and it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the screening throughout the life of the use of the property as ministorage." The third ordinance amended 160.002, Definitions to add a definition of view obscuring vegetation and to add a definition of ministorage and Ms. Little read as follows: "Ministorage Units. A structure or structures containing separate, individual, and private storage space of varying sizes leased or rented on individual leases for varying period of time. Such facilities may have associated with the structures a storage yard." "View Obscuring Vegetation. A screen of live plant material that is opaque from the ground to a height of at least six feet, intended to exclude visual contact between uses and to create a strong impression of spacial separation during all seasons of the year. At maturity, the screen shall be considered to be view obscuring if there are no openings of greater than 1 square foot." Ms. Little reported the ordinance changing the interpretation of the zoning ordinance to allow ministorage as a use by right in only industrial zones and a conditional use in C-2 zones has been heard by the Commission at three • meetings. She reported that on May 8, 1995, it was decided to allow ministorage as a conditional use in C-2 zones. On May 22, 1995, it was decided to incorporate screening requirements. On June 12, 1995, staff was asked to Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 2 provide a definition of "view obscuring." On June 26, 1995, the legal department requested that a definition of ministorage be added. Copies were distributed to the Commission and discussion ensued. Ms. Little requested the Commission take immediate action because the 15 day advance notice would expire and readvertising had not been initiated. Further she stated Alderman Bassett had requested the changes to the ordinance and she felt like he was somewhat anxious to receive the changes which have been in process since May, 1995. Discussion ensued regarding use by right and conditional use and the separate ordinance for screening. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the ordinance amending Section 160.055. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous 8-0-0 vote. Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the ordinance amending Section 160.118(D). • Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous 8-0-0 vote. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the ordinance amending Section 160.002. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous 8-0-0 vote. Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA WAREHOUSE BURT HANNA - S OF 15TH, W OF ARMSTRONG The first item on the Consent Agenda was the large scale development for Hanna Warehouse submitted by N.W. Engineers on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located south of 15th street, west of Armstrong. This property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial•& Light Industrial and contains 5.08 acres. The staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Approval of the grading Plan and a Drainage Report, 3. Approval of the detailed plans for the extension of water and sewer to the site, 4. The looping of the water line and placement of hydrants in accordance with the recommendation of the Fire Chief, and 5. The filing of an easement plat provided the Industrial Park Plat is not filed prior to completing the work. • LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - COZART OFFICE BUILDING DON COZART - NE CORNER OF EAST & MEADOW The other item on the Consent Agenda was the large scale development for Cozart Office Building submitted by Cromwell & Blackwell Engineering on behalf of Don Cozart for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of East & Meadow Streets. The property is zoned C-2, Central Commercial and contains .58 acres. The staff recommended approval subject to: I . The plat Review and Subdivision Committee Comments, 2. Approval of a grading permit and a drainage report, and 3. Clean-up of the oil dump site. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved by a 7-0-1 vote. Mr. Head abstained. C+ Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - PINECREST PHASE II KURT JONES - E OF SALEM ROAD, N OF ESSEX DRIVE The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for Pinecrest Phase 11 submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of BMP Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Essex Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 15.2 acres. The staff recommended approval of the revised preliminary plat subject -to: - I. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Approval of a Drainage Plan and a Grading Plan, 3. Approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage, 4. Compliance with the old Flood Plain Ordinance, 5. Placement of Fire Hydrants as requested by the Fire Chief, 6. Submittal of a warranty deed and plat of the parks land that is to be dedicated in connection with this project, • 7. Dedication of a 20 foot parks access easement as requested, and 8. Approval of the Tree Preservation Plan. Ms. Johnson noted the CAD generated maps contained in the packet and stated her approval of same. Discussion ensued regarding the reason for recommending compliance of the old Flood Plain Ordinance and Ms. Johnson stated the original preliminary plat was submitted and first reviewed when the old Flood Plain Ordinance was still in affect. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jones advised they were amenable to complying with the eight staff requirements. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the staff had no additional information. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that this subdivision along with the Pine Valley Subdivision would form a large barrier to any streets to the north. She pointed out Marigold Drive at the northwest edge of Pine Valley, Phase III was stubbed out but would only go to the park land and would create a large barrier without street connections. Ms. Little advised there was one remaining triangle at the end of Marigold still under control of the developer. Further, Ms. Little advised connections had been considered. Discussion ensued regarding bridge construction contributions along Salem and park land dedication. Ms. Johnson stated it was her opinion the lack of northern connections was short sighted and not beneficial to the city in the long term. Ms. Britton inquired as to the status of the 5 acres at the northeast comer of the subject tract. Mr. Jones responded • the 5 acres were not a part of Phase II but were shown on the plat to demonstrate the way the various phases fit together per a request from staff. Further Mr. Jones stated the 19 acres did not represent the total acreage dedicated to parks land. Mr. Jones stated there were not any major changes to the preliminary plat. He stated the Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 5 only changes were elimination of the cul de sac and 7 lots. He stated the terrain had been problematic in meeting the minimum grade requirements. Discussion ensued. Ms. Britton requested the former plat be included in the agenda packet for reference. Mr. Reynolds inquired as to the future plans for the 45 acres at the end of Marigold Drive. Mr. Jones stated he was unaware of any future plans for the subject tract. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding Hamstring Creek and other tributaries and their effect on Pine Valley Drive. Mr. Jones stated the creeks merge to the south between phases. Mr. Harbison inquired as to the location of the bridge on Salem the developer was building. Mr. Jones stated the bridge was not part of the subject project but would span Hamstring Creek. Discussion ensued regarding options to connect to Salem Road. Mr. Jones stated there was a connection to Salem Road with Essex Drive to the west in Pinecrest Phase 1. Further Mr. Jones stated the developer does not own the land between Salem and Pinecrest Phase 11. Discussion ensued regarding a northern connection. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the number of houses on one collector street. Discussion ensued regarding various options for a connection to the west. Ms. Little stated the terrain was not • suitable for a connection at lots 77 and 78. Mr. Jones stated the terrain was one reason for increasing the size of several of the lots which decreased the total number of lots. Mr. Gray stated there were two exits to the south and west of Salem Road and with other developments in the area and connections with Hamstring Creek, there will connections to Wedington Road. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the present connections would be adequate. Mr. Harbison expressed concern regarding all connections being to Wedington Road. Mr. Jones stated other connections were not feasible because there was no crossing over the creek at present. Ms. Johnson stated there was a future possibility to bridge the creek and provide a connection to the south. Mr. Jones stated the developer had already contributed to the proposed construction of a bridge on Salem Road. Mr. Gray clarified the developer, if required, would only be able to make connection to Shiloh not all the way to Salem Road. Discussion ensued regarding the connection to Shiloh. Ms. Johnson inquired as to whether Shiloh would extend to Sycamore and Ms. Little responded it would extend to Sycamore and Dorothy Jean. Discussion ensued regarding Shiloh's designation on the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little stated Phase I provided a stub out of Wildflower to Sycamore at Lots 21 and 22 going east and connecting to Shiloh. Discussion ensued regarding Wildflower stub out and the undeveloped 1.97 acres which will provide another south access. Discussion ensued regarding changes to the original preliminary plat and changes in the phase order which resulted in the project having to repeat the approval process. Mr. Nickle stated the original preliminary plat provided for three connections whereas the subject plat provided two and potentially a third connection with the 1.97 acres. Mr. Schaper inquired as to why a possible connection was precluded and advised the Commission the City was in the process of spending revenue to extend Salem Road north to Mt. Comfort in order to provide some traffic relief . for the residents of the area. Further Mr. Schaper suggested a connection in this area might be a better project for the City to undertake. Additionally, Mr. Schaper inquired as to why a connection with Merigold had not been made. Ms. Little responded the issue had been addressed at the preliminary plat stage where it was agreed a bridge Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 6 on Salem was more advantageous than the connection. Further, she stated the agreements were made in 1993 and she expressed the new plats were better from the stand point of less lots. She stated it was not possible to change prior agreements. Mr. Harbison inquired as to the arrangement/decision regarding open space. and the bridge construction. Ms. Little stated a formula was needed to assess the contribution amount which was based on park fees per lot. Ms. Johnson clarified assessment of park land dedication and fee per lot were used to assess the dollar amount. Discussion ensuedregarding whether. or not the location of the Hamstring bridge was agreed upon: Further discussion ensued regarding grades and their effect on street construction. Mr. Bunn stated the construction was possible but flood zone area would make street construction more expensive. Ms. Britton inquired if it was possible to require the 1.97 acres be developed in Phase 11 to provide connection to Sycamore and Ms. Little stated it could be required as an off site improvement. Mr. Marquess explained the front end agreements and assurances and stated they had dedicated 15% of the total acreage as park land. Additionally he stated they had contributed over $50,000 for off site capital improvement. He further stated he was unable to develop the 1.97 acres at this time and felt additional off site improvements requirements were unfair. He focused on Pinecrest Phase 1 and stated there was access to Salem, Whitfield, and Giles connecting to Shiloh Drive at the stoplight. He emphasized the stoplight was access controlled and it would be more cost effective to connect to Mt. Comfort. Concluding, Mr. Marquess stated western access was impossible due to the developed lots in that area. isMs. Johnson inquired as to the possibility of requiring additional access. Ms. Little responded the issues included that Merigold was stubbed out to the northwest and access could be obtained to the south. Another issues was crossing the creek and parkland and the third issue would be the loss of one of the lots out of Pinecrest Phase II. Mr. Bunn stated requiring a connection would change the economic feasible for the project and he further recommended adherence to the original agreement and not require additional off site improvements. Mr. Bunn stated he would recommend a connection with Sycamore in accordance with the original preliminary plat. Discussion ensued regarding a connection to the northeast and a connection to the south and west and the impact same would have on the financial feasibility of the project. Mr. Reynold expressed his support for a requiring a connection to Sycamore and further stated he felt any additional off site improvement requests would be unfair to the developer. Mr. Marquess stated he would provide a connection to Sycamore. Ms. Britton stated the plat for Phase 1 was approved with the connection to Sycamore which was not completed as presented. Mr. Marquess assured he would provide the connection to Sycamore. Mr. Forney expressed his opinion regarding the subject plat and requested information on how to handle tree preservation. Mr. Marquess offered to submit a plat for Phase Il within the next 30 days and reiterated that 13.5 acres had been dedicated as park land . Ms. Little explained the tree preservation ordinance and stated the subject plat preserved 29% of the canopy and requested the three trees shown in roadway would not be preserved but the plat would still meet the requirements. Mr. Forney stated the tree preservation plan did not match the aerial map and inquired as to whether or not the developer would have the right to remove all the trees and replat. Ms. Little responded it would be within his right to remove as many or as few trees as he desired. Discussion ensued regarding buyer preference • for wooded lots and meadow lots and the Commission making sure buyers have a choice. Mr. Nickle inquired if the connection to Sycamore could be constructed prior to the approval of the final plat on Planning Commission Minutes • June 26, 1995 Page 7 phase 11 and Mr. Marquess agreed to same. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there was a need to replat and Ms. Little stated if the phases had been developed as originally approved there would not be a need to go back through approval. Further she stated it was her opinion the Commission had every right to require the connection to be made. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to all staff comments and Bill of Assurance for construction of a connection to the southeast to Sycamore by either Wildflower or Pinecone to be completed prior to approval of the final plat. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the time frame allowed for completion of the connection. Ms. Britton stated she wanted the street to be built before approving the final plat. Ms. Little stated the street connection would be allowed as a separate plat. Mr. Marquess stated he would submit a plat of the 1.97 acres which shows plans for the street connection for the first August Planning Commission Meeting but requested to post bond in the event the road was not complete. He stated they were putting in water and sewer in the third phase and the street might not be finished at the completion of phase two. Ms. Johnson stated the request would be considered. Mr. Nickle made an amendment to the motion to allow for a three month period to complete the street from the • approval of the final plat. Ms. Johnson stated the amendment failed due to lack of a second. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. 11 Planning Commission Minutes . June 26, 1995 Page 8 REZONING R95-18 - ALNIC TRUST 2350 WEDINGTON The last item on the agenda was rezoning R95-18 submitted by James Wray on behalf of Alnic Trust for property located 2350 Wedington. The request is to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider allowing the convenience store and gas pumps under Neighborhood Commercial zone and requested discussion of aspects regarding Neighborhood Commercial uses and structures contained in same. Ms. Little stated the applicant was not prepared to make a request for conditional use which would require drawings which were not prepared. Further she stated the applicant was not prepared to begin improvements to the property until such time construction of the highway was complete. Ms. Johnson stated the Commission would only vote on the rezoning and discussion of future action by the Commission would not be allowed. Mr. Wray made a statement regarding the ownership/management of the subject property and the beneficiaries of the Alnic Trust. Further he stated the plans for the subject property included covering the pumps and repaving the parking lot. Mr. Wray expressed concern regarding lost parking due to the widening of Wedington. • Mr. Wray introduced a letter of consent from an adjoining property owner. Discussion ensued regarding other commercial uses within the subject R-1 zone. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to deny to R95-18. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding a conditional use making the subject area a conforming use. Ms. Little stated current use units would allow grocery stores but not gas pumps and at the time a conditional use was brought before the Commission same would need to be discussed but it was her opinion it was a reasonable use if the number was limited to two pumps. Ms. Johnson urged the applicant to apply for conditional use as soon as possible. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 9 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Little gave an update on the 2020 Land Use Plan and distributed an agenda for the meeting held June 29, 1995. She stated public comment was welcome and requested same be given in writing. Additionally, she added a presentation would be made by each of the public service divisions delineating their capacities Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. • • • DANNING C9mmlS5ioN VOTING LOG FOR 6Z6 5 PAGE, I of z fv W N - M U % 4z MOTION KIICY�LE NICK -LE 02RJnIC5 ZeIKOLC�5 SECOND con }iEAl) Bp o AdSEMT A35Ei,IT A .- Jx pflJr ASS9 tM BRITTON �/ Y� \' YES FORNEY HARBISON y YES 6 YES HEAD Pe%74IN Yes YES / 6s JOHNSON Yes YeS NICKLE \ es y Y ODOM REYNOLDS / -701 So.o ..�:. - ..a. e. 11 • PLANM)KC- COMMISSION VOTING LOG FOR (bZf 4S ZOF Z Q P �D �- MOTION Z�{NOLI� STAFF -t dM 1�►ct TT�u De 1�j NICLL� SECOND T7L::pZ 'I �qIbU)s (J� B PMS. T ABs9JT BRITTON v FORNEY \� 7 HARBISON HEAD JOHNSON \/ NICKLE V ODOM \ / REYNOLDS �J g•0,O DEMCD