Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 10, 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, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others. Ms. Johnson stated the minutes were not distributed. Further, Ms. Johnson stated Annexation R95-23 had been withdrawn. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED OCCASIONAL SALES ORDINANCE Ms. Johnson stated the ordinance was being considered as a result of Council request. Ms. Little stated the items changed from the 1992 proposed ordinance including Section 160.096 Auctions, Section 160.097 Flea Markets, and Section 160.098 Garage Sales. Ms. Little stated garage sales on a continual basis were the requested purpose for consideration of an ordinance. She stated the only means to control same were to compile a record of activities and when the activities warrant commercial sale, cite the violation as commercial activity in a residential zone. Discussion ensued regarding locations, permits, frequency and term, and signs. Ms. Little stated garage sales were a call in type permit and auctions were fee permits. She stated auctions would be allowed one time per year, flea market would be allowed four times per year, and garage sales would be allowed four times per year. Ms. Little advised consideration of the item for several meetings before voting on same to allow for public • comment. Ms. Johnson inquired as to which proposed section would govern kiosk sales at intersections and Ms. Little stated Section 160.097 Flea Markets would regulate same as outdoor sales. Discussion ensued regarding defining kiosk sales. Ms. Little stated if there was any question regarding whether or not kiosk sales were covered same should be clarified and amended. Ms. Little suggested following county guidelines and defining same as "itenerate merchants." Discussion ensued regarding the Green River Ordinance and prohibition of door to door sales. Ms. Britton inquired regarding penalties and requested the ordinance address same. Ms. Little stated a penalty/enforcement clause should be added. Ms. Little stated the fine for failure to pickup sign was $25.00. Ms. Little stated the information required under the proposed ordinance would be distributed to the emergency services members due to traffic congestion. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the proximity of the intersection sales booths to the street which impedes view of oncoming traffic. Ms. Johnson noted a correction needed to be made under Auction in the first line, should be "sale barn". Under Flea Markets, she further inquired if "occasional sale activity" was appropriate. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little responded the definition included explanation of what a flea market was not as well as what it was defined as and read as follows: "...the term flea market does not include activities described elsewhere as garage sales or full time commercial activities which sell new and/or used goods from a permanent business address..." On page 1.3, Ms. Johnson noted an editorial correction for Section 160.096 Auctions, "...auctions in one location shall not exceed a frequency one time per calendar year..." Planning Commission Minutes July ]0, 1995 Page 2 Ms. Johnson noted under Section 160.098 Garage Sales (E) Signs, it would be good to limit the number of days signs could be posted and read as follows: "...after the permit for the garage sale has been issued, but no more than days before the sale begins, a maximum of two temporary signs are allowed..." Further she requested under the above referenced section the following words be stricken, "for each garage sale." Ms. Britton suggested a 2 day limit on garage sale unless one of the days is rained out. Ms. Little stated the three day provision was for holiday weekends and recommended leaving the section as written. Mr. Harbison suggested non -removal of sign fees for auction and flea markets in addition to garage sales. Consensus was to add same under the enforcement clause. Ms. Little stated additional discussion would be on the agenda for the meeting dated July 24, 1995. • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA FINAL PLAT -WINDY HILL HENRY AND LORITA SIMMONS - N OF JOYCE, E OF OLD WIRE ROAD The first item on the Consent Agenda was final plat for Windy Hill submitted by Landtech engineering on behalf of Henry & Lorita Simmons fro property located north of Joyce Street, east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 8 lots within 51.31 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. A bond for all unfinished improvements in accordance with City ordinances prior to the filing of the final plat, 3. Corrections and additions to the plat as noted, and, 4. County approval of the final plat and percolation tests for septic tanks. FINAL PLAT - HIDDEN LAKE ESTATES BMP DEVELOPMENT - N OF MISSION, W OF RAMSEY • Ms. Britton requested this item removed from the Consent Agenda, FINAL PLAT - MADISON AVENUE S & S DEVELOPMENT - S OF HWY 459 E OF STARR The last item on the Consent Agenda was the final plat for Madison Avenue submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of S & S Development for property located south of Highway 45 (Mission), east of Starr Drive. The property was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contained 10.18 acres. Staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Construction of a sidewalk along Highway 45, and Posting of a bond of 150 percent of the value of the improvements remaining at the time of the final plat filing. Ms. Little stated the Consent Agenda contained three final plats. She stated Alderman Young had presented an amendment to the Subdivision regulation providing an emergency clause stating final plat were not approved until all the improvements were completed. Further she stated the final layer of pavement to be installed provided there is a cash contribution to the city held in escrow or a bond is posted for 150% of the cost of the improvement. She stated review of the final plat on the subject Consent Agenda reflected that not all of the improvements are complete. Concluding she stated the plats on the subject Consent Agenda were in the preliminary plat stage when the ordinance became effective • and that some of the improvements were not completed. Further she stated beginning in 1996, final plats would not be accepted until all improvements were complete. Planning Commission Minutes • July 10, 1995 Page 4 Ms. Britton stated she would favor not considering final plats until all improvements are complete. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated it would need to go before the Council. Discussion ensued regarding difficulties developers had obtaining 1500/Gbonds. Due to lack of a motion, Ms. Johnson stated final plats would be continue to be considered. MOTION Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Mr. Head was abstained. CI CJ • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 5 FINAL PLAT - HIDDEN LAKE ESTATES BMP DEVELOPMENT - N OF MISSION, W OF RAMSEY The next item of discussion was the final plat for Hidden Lake Estates submitted by Milholland Engineers on behalf of the owner, Hidden Lakes, Inc. and BMP Development located north of Mission Blvd., west of Ramsey Avenue and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing 15.0 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: I. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. The posting of a bond for all unfinished improvements prior to the filing of the final plat, 3. All off-site improvements agreed to at the preliminary plat stage, 4. Submittal of the subdivision covenants, including provision to maintain island areas within the streets, 5. Dedication of parks land and highway right of way by separate warranty deed, 6. The dedication of a drainage easement over the storm water detention area, and 7. A change in the street names in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Superintendent • Ms. Britton stated she had requested the removal of this item from the Agenda on the grounds some of the improvements were incomplete. Further she stated prior discussion had addressed her concerns. Ms. Johnson inquired regarding staff requirement no. 5 and Ms. Little stated warranty deeds for park land were requested by the City's Land Agent, Ed Connelly. Mr. Milholland stated the developer would comply with staff' comments. Discussion ensued regarding completion of improvements prior to final plat approval. Further discussion ensued regarding alleged Tree Ordinance violation. Ms. Johnson requested that Tree Ordinance enforcement issues be addressed to staff during regular business hours. Mr. Schapper alleged violation of the Tree Ordinance including removal of trees on the preservation plan, encroachment on tree trip lines, and removal of equipment barriers. Ms. Little stated staff had investigated the complaint and required replacement. Further she stated the Landscape Administrator would assume the duty of enforcing the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Fran Alexander made a statement expressing her concerns and requesting enforcement of the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Johnson inquired if any significant changes had made to the final plat since the approval of the preliminary plat and Ms. Little no changes had been made. Mr. Allred inquired regarding trees along Old Wire Road and Ms. Little responded the city required the road to be widened and permission had been granted for removal of trees in the subject area. Ms. Melbourne requested explanation regarding the detention pond. Discussion ensued MOTION 40 Mr. Head made a motion to approve the final plat as presented. • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. AMENDMENT After discussion, Mr. Head made an amendment requesting staff review and if same reflected violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance that it be brought back to the Commission prior to filing the final plat. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton inquired if Tree Ordinance violations could be fined and Ms. Little responded the Ordinance's enforcement clause contained provisions for fines. Mr. Nickle responded it was his understanding all issues regarding the project were dealt with at preliminary plat stage. Mr. Reynolds stated no violations had been cited at Subdivision Committee meeting and inquired if staff was aware of any violations. Ms. Little responded she was not sure whether or not there were violations. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson requested all concerned parties who notice violations of the City Code should contact the proper authority and report same. AMENDMENT • Mr. Head restated his amendment that if the final plat did not comply with the Tree Ordinance, the final plat would return to the Planning Commission. Ms. Little stated she had the authority to comply with the amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allred opposed the amendment on the grounds the Commission was not an inspection entity. Discussion ensued regarding compliance with the Tree Ordinance and procedures and checks and balances in regard to filing of final plats. Ms. Britton stated she would like to table the final plat until a staff report regarding tree preservation issues was available to the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding a point of order. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to postpone the final plat until a staff report on tree preservation issues was available to the Commission. Motion failed for lack of second. AMENDMENT • Ms. Johnson restated the amendment as follows: "...if the subdivision does not meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, that is to say, if there Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 7 is serious violations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, then staff is directed to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission before the fatal plat is signed off on..." Discussion ensued regarding the amendment. Upon roll call, the amendment passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Ms. Britton, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Reynolds voted against the amendment. MOTION Ms. Johnson restated the motion as follows: "...for approval of the final plat with the additional requirement that the Planning Director review the subdivision to be sure that there are no serious violations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and if she finds those to bring those back to Planning Commission..." Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Britton and Mr. Reynolds voted against the motion. • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 8 REZONINGS 95-19, 95-109 95-21 BRYAN WALKER, III AND DON ENGLAND - S OF 19TH STREET The next item was rezoning requests R95-19, R95-20, and R95-21, submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Bryan Walker III and Don England for property located on the south side of 19th Street. Rezoning request R95-19 was to rezone 3.93 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommended denial of this rezoning request on the basis that the current zoning on the tract was R-1 which would conflict with the stated purpose of the request to create duplexes and affordable single family housing. Alternatively, the staff recommended rezoning to R-1.5 which would allow duplexes and affordable housing. Rezoning request R95-20 was to rezone 27.72 acres from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the request on the basis that I-1 had existed for approximately 25 years and the land had failed to develop industrially and use of the property to provide housing in the southern part of town with a future street connection directly to the industrial park is desirable in terms of providing affordable housing close to employment sites. Rezoning request R95-21 was to rezone 17.01 acres from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R-2, Medium • Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the request on the basis that the land has failed to develop as industrial property and the need exists for affordable housing in the subject area. Further, the staff alternatively recommended rezoning to R-1.5 which would allow for duplex and affordable housing. Ms. Johnson gave detailed information on the location of the subject property and the specified purpose of the rezoning request. Ms. Little stated the 3.93 acres had a stated purpose to be consistent with existing businesses along South College. Further, she stated there was currently 200 feet of C-1 zone along the highway and restated staff would not recommend the rezoning request. Ms. Britton requested clarification as to what was located on Nonamaker Drive and Mr. Forney responded there were several small houses. Ms. Britton stated she would support R-2 as a desirable transition area between C-1 and R-1. Discussion ensued regarding various businesses and residences in the subject area. Mr. Reynolds stated any development in the subject area would be a plus for the neighborhood and beneficial in providing a connection to Pump Station Road. Ms. Britton inquired as to why the rezoning did not extend to the edge of the industrial zone and stated she did not like leaving a small piece zoned I-1. Discussion ensued Ms. Little stated the structure located in the I-1 zone would be allowed to remain as nonconforming. Discussion ensued regarding the private drive and Ms. Little stated she was certain there were reciprocal agreements in place to protect ingress and egress to the area served by the private drive but • she urged caution. Ms. Britton inquired as to whether or not a public hearing should be held and Ms. Little stated it would be required Ms. Britton expressed she had a problem considering the rezoning request without publication of public hearing notice. • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 9 Discussion ensued regarding water and sewer service to the subject area. Ms. Little stated no sewer line was currently available but extensions could be made to serve the area at the developers expense. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic on South School and street extensions to the east. Mr. Milholland stated the subject property did not join Nonamaker nor was it adjoining to Nonamaker. Further he pointed out the tract as currently zoned has not developed. Mr. Harbison inquired if the developer would consider changing his request to R-1.5 and Mr. Milholland stated he felt R-2 density would be more appropriate. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated staff would not support zoning just the small tract as R-2 and requested uniform zoning as either R-1.5 or R-2. Mr. Mark Sugg representing Sugg Enterprises, owners of property located across South School and south of 20th Street, stated he supported development of the site as proposed. Ms. Johnson inquired as to when the railroad tracks were abandoned and Ms. Little stated she was not certain but would estimate the abandonment to have occurred within the past 7 to 10 years. Mr. Reynolds noted the subject property had been for sale for 10 to 12 years Mr. Head inquired as to available conditional uses for R-2. Ms. Little stated there was a parcel with 227 feet of frontage with 200 feet depth currently zoned C-2 and added the developer wanted to add 4 acres to that parcel. She stated if the • tract was zoned R-2 conditional use options included professional offices and cultural and recreational facilities including dance studios would be allowed. Mr. Forney added C -I would allow professional offices, studios, eating places, neighborhood shopping, gasoline service stations, and drive-in restaurants. Ms. Little added conditional uses for C-1 would include public protection and utility facilities, and cultural and recreational facilities. Mr. Head inquired if the staff and developer would consider C -I zoning as a option and Ms. Little stated the new ordinance would allow Neighborhood Commercial as conditional use within any R zone and further stated she would be comfortable with same. Discussion ensued regarding procedures to apply for Neighborhood Commercial uses. Mr. Nickle stated he supported mixed zoning in light of the potential for 816 families on the subject acreage and the impact same would have on infrastructure. Discussion ensued and Ms. Little stated the proposed use of the subject tract would be duplexes and affordable housing which would not exceed the 400 units allowed in R-1.5. Further she stated staff would support uniform zoning to R-2 because development of the area was desirable. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson inquired if the developer would consider zoning the entire tract R-1.5 and Mr. Milholland stated he needed the flexibility of the requested zoning but he would consider C-1 zoning of the front parcel, R-2 zoning of the middle parcel, and R-1.5 zoning of the back parcel. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve rezoning request R95-21 from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R- 1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Head seconded the motion Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes July 107 1995 Page 10 Mr. Head made a motion to approve rezoning request R95-19 from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roil call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Ms. Britton voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve rezoning request R95-20 from I - l, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding non-uniform zoning of the subject tract, and allowable density development. Ms. Britton expressed concern with allowing 24 units per acre. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney inquired if it was possible to rezone to R-1.5 and grant multi -family. Mr. Harbison made a motion to amend the motion to approve rezoning request R95-20 from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Discussion ensued regarding point of order on the amended motion. Ms. Johnson stated the motion from Mr. Harbison • was a substitute not an amendment. Ms. Britton seconded the substitute motion. Mr. Head objected to limiting the development to R-1.5 on the basis of the need for affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding encouraging development in the south of Fayetteville. Ms. Britton stated affordable housing was for owner occupancy. Discussion ensued regarding point of order on the motion and substitute motion. Mr. Allred requested a recess to confirm voting procedure according to Robinson's Rules of Order. After review of the rules, Ms. Johnson stated a substitute motion was synonymous with an amendment and further would be voted on prior to the original motion. Discussion ensued regarding uniform zoning and mixed zoning. Upon roll call, the substitute motion to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, the motion failed with a vote of 4-5-0. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Head, Mr. Allred, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Odom voted against the substitute motion. Upon roll call, the original motion to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Ms. Britton voted against the original motion. 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 11 ANNEXATION R95-23 JED DEVELOPMENT - W OF DEANE SOLOMON, N OF RAZORBACK GOLF The next item was annexation request submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of JED Development, Inc, for property located west of Deane Solomon, north of Razorback Gold Course. The request was to annex 4.59 acres. The staff recommended approval of the requested annexation under the condition the rezoning would be postponed until the moratorium on A-1 rezoning is lifted. Ms. Johnson stated the request was withdrawn • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 12 REZONING R95-24 - NANCHAR, INC. MARJORIE S. BROOKS - E OF GREGG, N OF 71 BYPASS The next item was rezoning request submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located east of Gregg Street, north of U.S. 71 Bypass, west of Skull Creek, south of Mud Creek. The request was to rezone 38.10 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The staff recommended an alternate zone of R -O for the parcel on the basis of creating a compatible development with the existing single family development to the south and duplexes to the north and to be consistent with the General Plan 2010. REZONING R95-25 - NANCHAR, INC. MARJORIE S. BROOKS - E OF SKULL CREEK, N OF 71 BYPASS, W OF SKULL CREEK, S OF MUD CREEK The following item considered for discussion with R95-24, was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located east of Skull Creek, north of U.S. 71 Bypass, west of U.S. 71 B, south of Clear Creek. The request was to rezone 276.67 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The staff recommended that the portion of the tract north of Mud Creek as well as that portion of the tract contained in is Section 23 and 26 of Township 17N, Range 30W be rezoned C-2. Staff recommended the balance of the property be rezoned R -O. This recommendation is generally consistent with General Plan 2010 and with former rezoning actions undertaken on behalf of Northwest Arkansas Mall. Additionally, staff the development pattern should maintain compatibility with existing uses in the general vicinity and allow for progression to Gregg Street. Ms. Johnson stated the items would be considered at the same time. Ms. Little gave an overview and stated additional information had been distributed including minutes of the January 11, 1993 Planning Commission regarding the CMN Properties relating to a proposed project for the subject area including maps, and proposed zoning classifications from the Fayetteville General Plan 2010. She stated no action was requested or taken at that time and subsequently, the developers delayed the project. She stated Joyce Street west extension was discussed with them and the property owners were contacted regarding the need for right of way for the Joyce Street west extension Ms. Little stated the Northwest Arkansas Mall currently has 118 acres and the area to the south, Spring Creels development contains 85 acres and both were zoned C-2. Ms. Little stated also included in supplemental information on the City's project to develop Joyce Street to the west. She stated the City was in cooperation with the Northwest Arkansas Mall and the developers of Spring Creek Center. She explained the cooperative agreement consisted of three phases including the Joyce Street extension, improvements to Highway 71 and Joyce Street intersection, and the Gregg Street bridge project which totaled a minmmurn of $1.8 million to a maximum $2.5 million and the developers are bearing a 39% share of costs. Ms. Little stated the Council had passed a moratorium in February, 1995 stating City Planning would not accept any additional rezoning applications from A-1. Further she stated the proposed developer of the subject project had approached the Council with an offer to construct streets now as opposed to waiting until the property is subdivided. • Ms. Johnson stated Joyce Boulevard was constructed and operational west of the existing mall. Discussion ensued regarding the overlay map provided in the supplemental agenda information. • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 13 Ms. Britton inquired regarding the overlay map and the Master Street Plan. Ms. Johnson summarized the petitioner's request to zone the 310 acre tract as C-2 and staff recommends rezoning of the western 132 acres as R -O and inquired if it was the major difference between petitioner and staff to which Ms. Little responded it was a point of contention. Further Ms. Johnson inquired if the proposed streets were a part of the petitioner's request and Ms. Little responded yes. Discussion ensued Ms. Johnson inquired of Ms. Little if it was her understanding the developer had agreed to do specific streets in exchange for a rezoning of the subject tract and Ms. Little responded that was her understanding. Mr. Schapper made a statement regarding why the Council had considered the request in light of the moratorium and stated the developer had offered to build certain streets in order for the project to be considered instead of complying with moratorium. Further he stated there was no specific mention of which rezoning was requested. Mr. Milholland stated he approached the Council on behalf of his client who wished to develop the subject tract as commercial property. Further he stated in order for development to move forward it would be necessary to construct a street and bridge over Mud Creek. He stated a concept plan had been submitted sometime in 1992 depicting stages for development. Discussion ensued regarding actions taken by the 1992 Planning Commission regarding Phase II of the subject concept plan/informal plat Ms. Little referred the Commission to the minutes of meeting included in the supplemental information to the agenda packet • Mr. Milholland gave a detailed account of improvements along the perimeter of the tract and the effect same would have on the proposed streets. Mr. Milholland submitted an agreement between the developer and residents of Centerbrook which agreed to a scaled down version of C-2 on the area 400 feet adjacent to Bel Air and their property. Mr. Davis representing Centerbrook made a statement in support of the proposed project and delineating the agreement between the Centerbrook and the developer which included type of construction, restrictive covenants, and buffer zones. Mr. Newman, chairman of National Home Centers which adjoins the subject tract to the north, made a statement in support of the proposed project. Mr. Irwin, appraiser, made a statement regarding land use trends and feasibility study of the subject project Discussion ensued regarding land use restrictions. Further discussion ensued regarding economic feasibility of the project and amount of buildable space. Mr. Irwin stated approximately 250 acres would be developed, 25% of the subject tract would be dedicated right of way and infrastructure. Mr. Milholland made a statement regarding 38 acres in the Skull Creek area regarding a bridge in the subject area. Discussion ensued. Mr. Harbison inquired if the agreement between the Centerbrook and the developer would be formally incorporated. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated the Commission should not required but could accept a Bill of Assurance to guarantee same. Mr. Milholland agreed to proffer a Bill of Assurance on same. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the agreement would constitute contract zoning. Ms. Little stated it would not be contract zoning is the Bill of . Assurance was not required. Mr. Milholland again stated he would proffer the Bill of Assurance restricting the uses allowed in the proposed C-2 zone. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 14 Discussion ensued regarding projected completion date of proposed street construction Ms. McCallen, Fayetteville resident, expressed concern regarding platted flood zone and runoff management and requested improvements to Gregg Street to handle traffic. Summarizing, she expressed opposition to development in general and particularly to development of the subject tract. Mr. Brandon, a Wilson Park resident, made a statement regarding street extension to the Gregg Street corridor and expressed his concern regarding the effect extension of proposed sheets to Gregg would have on the Wilson Park area and Gregg Street. Summarizing he opposed the subject rezoning at this time. Mr. Long, Ms. Marrow, and Ms. McKay gave statements expressing their opposition to the subject rezoning. Ms. Johnson stated the Commission would be good stewards by saving taxpayer monies in approving a rezoning with the agreement of street extension projects. Discussion ensued regarding the moratorium. Mr. Schapper made a presentation of various statistics and discussion ensued regarding the affect same would have on traffic and parking. Further, he urged more study prior to a decision on the subject rezoning. Dr. Kimbrough inquired as to what kind of information should be gather to facilitate a decision on the subject rezoning Mr. Emhoff inquired regarding flood easements and expressed concern regarding runoff. Ms. Little stated the discussion would be better suited during the development stage of the proposed project Further Ms. Little gave a brief overview of • the FEMA Floodplain program. Alderman Young stated it was his understanding the entire road would be constructed during Phase I of the proposed project. Mr. McKinney, representing the Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated the Sierra Club had no position at this time but requested more study on the matter. Mr. Reynolds requested further study of the matter. Mr. Nickle stated he would like to proposed R -O buffers adjacent to the existing residences. Further he proposed a curve route to connecting to VanAshe. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the road system proposal should be considered in the proposed rezoning request. Further discussion ensued regarding various needs to street extensions and connections and designations contained in the Master Street Plan. After discussion, Mr. Head summarized the Commission's requests including a traffic study, transition zoning, design standard of the proposed development, justification for changing the 2010 Plan, whether or not to do a mixed use development, and information on the intensity of use. MOTION • Mr. Odom a motion to postpone the item until the first meeting of August. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Forney objected and requested the item be postponed until after the moratorium is lifted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Harbison amended the motion to postpone the item until the first meeting in September. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding information the Commission needed the developer to provide. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Harbison made an amended motion to postpone the item until the first meeting in September. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of X". Ms. Johnson, Mr. Head, Mr. Allred, Mr. Nickle, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Odom voting against the amended motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-". • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE 9518 HELEN NOBLES -1725 WOOLSEY The next item was a conditional use request submitted by Helen Nobles for property located 1725 Woolsey. The request is for a second dwelling. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the "Lancaster" as shown in the submitted materials. 2. Decision by Planning Commission that 77 square feet of the proposed structure will not be considered as living area (total living area as shown on the submitted materials to be 1179 square feet.) This decision will be necessary in order for the applicant to meet the section of the ordinance which allows the structures to be no larger than 1200 square feet. 3. Presentation by the applicant of the northern and western elevations of the structure. 4. Presentation by the applicant of a material sample board indicating type of materials and colors to be used on the exterior of the building. 5. Information by the applicant sufficient to yield the building width to height ratio. is 6. Presentation by the applicant at the time of building permit application, of a deed restriction to run with the land, specifying that the use of the second dwelling unit as an independent dwelling may continue only as long as one unit on the property is owner occupied. Ms. Little stated this is the fust time consideration for this type of structure had been requested and she further stated there were several pieces of information which needed to be provided. Discussion ensued. Ms. Nobles made a statement and Ms. Little specified the information which she needed to provide including what all four sides of the structure would look like and what materials would be used in construction. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson requested Ms. Nobles contact the planning office to obtain specific information regarding the information which needed to be provided. Ms. Little stated she would call Ms. Nobles' architect and tell him what information to provide. Mr. Forney requested the CU95-18 be the first item on the agenda at the first meeting in September. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to table the item. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Mr. Harbison was absent for roll call JC -I Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 17 PRELIMINARY PLAT - EMERALD SUBDIVISION, PHASE H J.B. HAYES - N OF JIMMIE, E OF COLLEGE The next item was the preliminary plat for Emerald Subdivision, Phase lI submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.B. Hayes for property located north of Jimmie, east of North College. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage, 3. Approval of a drainage report and a grading plan, 4. Installation of Fire Hydrants an water lines in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Chief, 5. Approval of the Tree Preservation Plan, and 6. Resolution of issue regarding a possible monetary assessment for the repair of Emerald Street. 7. Compliance with conditions included in the Emerald Street Repairs report including: . a. All of the cracks be sawed out and sealed immediately, b. The developer be required to put up one-half of the estimated cost of removing and replacing every section that has a crack in it estimated at $9,000.00, C. The street be observed for a period of 1 to 3 years to see if additional settling occurs and that if settlement occurred, determination would be made as to replacement and repays to sections and refunds, if any, to the developer. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with the fast 6 recommendations and he further said an agreement could be worked out regarding recommendation 7. Ms. Little stated the contribution for sealing sections of Emerald Street was in the amount of $9,000.00 and the street would be observed for a 1-3 year period at which time a determination would be made as to which sections would need to be replaced and any unused funds, if any, would be returned to the developer. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would comply with the additional recommendations to resolve the Emerald Street issue. Ms. Little stated any additional costs over the $9,000 would be the responsibility of the City. Discussion ensued regarding the Tree Preservation Plan. Ms. Little stated the total acreage in the site was 2.13 acres and the existing canopy totalled 64% and canopy to be save is 48% which would meet the 25% provided by ordinance. Mr. Head inquired if the grade would make this project subject to the grading and hillside ordinance and Ms. Little stated each lot had the grade noted and Lot 3 would require a grading permit. . MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to stats comments. . Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 18 Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-". 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 19 VACATION V95-6 - RALPH BROPHY W OF KARYN, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a request submitted by Ralph Brophy for a street vacation located west of Karyn, north of Township and was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to retention of a 20 foot easement for existing sewer lines. Ms. Little distributed Mr. Rudasil's response to the request for information on how the lots would be divided if the street was vacated. Mr. Rudasil explained the color coded map. He stated the orange area was the proposed vacated area which contained grades which would prevent economically feasible street construction. He stated the brown area was a concrete private drive. He stated lot 4 would be a tandem lot with access dedicated to same from Westview and Karyn and width determined by city easement requirements. He stated the purple, blue, and yellow areas would have access from Brophy Avenue with 70 to 90 feet frontages with a drive to the main portion of the lot. He stated lot 1 (in yellow) would require a lot line adjustment. He stated the red area was currently a commercial lot. He explained the various zones contained in the subject tract and stated the proposed zoning was for two R-1, Low Density Residential lots, one R-3, High Density Residential lot, and a small C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial lot with access of the private drive. Ms. Britton inquired if a street cannot be built at the end of Brophy Avenue how could a driveway be built and Mr. is Rudasil stated the construction standards for driveways were more flexible. Discussion ensued regarding Gaddy Acres and Ms. Little stated the tandem lot would require the Commission's conditional use approval. Ms. Britton addressed connectivity with Hwy 71 and Drake Street. Mr. Rudasil stated if the property was sold as one unit, a rezoning request would be brought to the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the grade of the subject tract. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve vacation V95-6 subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 20 VACATION V95-7 - RALPH BROPHV W OF KARYN, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a request submitted by Ralph Brophy for a street vacation located west of Karyn, north of Township and was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. See discussion above. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve vacation V95-7 subject to staff comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 94/-0. 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Page 21 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Little announced the next public meeting on the Land Use Plan on July 20 at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Harbison stated there would not be a Land Use Plan Subcommittee Meeting on Friday, July 14, but one was scheduled for July 21. Written comments submitted to City Planning were encouraged- Meeting ncouragedMeeting adjourned at 10:25. I •