Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-27 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on January 27, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. NEW BUSINESS PP96-9.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONE BRIDGE MEADOWS (pp568 & 607) t' BILL MEADOWS- N. OF STONE FARM RD. & E. OF DEAD HORSE MTN. RD. The first item on the agenda was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Bill Meadows for property located north of Stone Farm Road and east of Dead Horse Mountain Road. The property is in the county and is currently going through rezoning/ annexation process. It contains approximately 37.97 acres with 78 lots proposed. Conditions of Approval 1. This preliminary plat shall be contingent upon the approval of annexation and rezoning requests which are currently being sought. In order for this project to be approved as shown, the annexation and R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning classification must obtained. The dedication of 1.95 acres of park land to the City by warranty deed prior to a final plat being signed by Parks Division. 3. Planning Commission determination for off site improvements including the master street plan requirements: Staff recommends that, in lieu of major improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road and Goff (Stone) Farm Road, the developer: • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 2 a. Dedicate a strip of right-of-way 100 feet in width for the entire length of the property from the intersection of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Goff (Stone) Farm Road north to the West Fork of the White River in accordance with the proposed minor arterial as shown on the adopted Master Street Plan. The City staff will work with the developer to provide the specific centerline route for the proposed right-of-way. b. Provide any necessary structural improvements for safety to the existing culvert on Goff (Stone) Farm Road (immediately upstream of the private lake) to include approved railing and other structural improvements if needed. Please note that the existing bridge on Dead Horse Mountain Road has passed a recent AHTD inspection (9/17/96) and no structural or foundation corrections or improvements are noted. c. Dedicate a total of 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline and also improve to one-half of the City's standard street the section of Goff (Stone) Farm Road adjacent to the development along lots 33 and 34. • 4. Construction of sidewalks, continuous through driveways and in accordance to current standards, including 4' sidewalks with a 6' green space between curb and sidewalk on River Meadows Drive and Goff Farm Road, 4' sidewalks with a 4' green space on St. Andrews Circle and River Bluff Cove. 5. A stub out to the east property line for connection to possible future development. The developer's engineer should present a location for this stub out based on characteristics of adjoining property. Staff requests that if the proposed location of a stub out is not presented for discussion prior to the Planning Commission meeting, this preliminary plat be tabled. 6. The developer's engineer must provide technical data concerning sight distance at the proposed new intersection with Highway 16 East. If there is inadequate sight distance to the east, then staff will not support the proposed intersection. Staff requests that if the developer's engineer has not presented data concerning the sight distance at the proposed new intersection at Highway 16 for discussion prior to the Planning Commission meeting, this preliminary plat be tabled. 7. Dedication of additional right of way as shown on plat - 55' from centerline on Hwy 16E which is classified as a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan. • 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, 22 • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 3 parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements and are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection shall meet the requirements of the Fire Chief. Minimum easement widths (or a combination of right of way and easement) shall be 20'. Wider easements shall be required for sewer lines over 10' in depth and must also allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. 9. The sewer layout as presented at plat review and the Subdivision Committee meeting is specifically not approved. Backyard manholes and sewer mains will not be allowed. The second lift station, added between plat review and SDC will not be approved. The single lift station will include SCADA charges of approximately $8,000.00 and payable to the City prior to the final plat. Further, the developer's engineer must submit data concerning the capacity of the receiving City lift station (no. 19). If any improvements to the receiving line or lift station are required, this total expense shall be borne solely by this developer and paid prior to the final plat. Staff requests that if the developer's engineer has not provided information concerning the sewer capacity for discussion prior to the Planning Commission meeting this preliminary plat be tabled. 10. All plat review and Subdivision Committee comments. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any changes in their information. Ms. Little stated item #5, the location of the stub out, had been located on the plat between lots 43 and 44. Item #6, the information pertaining to sight distances for the intersection with Hwy 16 had been furnished and was adequate. Ms. Johnson asked if Engineering had been given sewer and lift station information. Mr. Beavers felt they had adequate information. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant had agreed to all of the conditions. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, Engineer representing Meadow Enterprises, agreed to all of the conditions. i2 • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 4 Mr. McCord, referring to item #3, confirmed Mr. Goff would dedicate the right-of-way. Ms. Little stated that prior to accepting the 1.95 acres of park land proposed for dedication, the City needed to confirm it was not 100% in the flood way or flood plain, which would be unusable land. Mr. Sugg asked if the proposed street would bisect the park land. Ms. Little stated the proposed street would pass to the southeast. Mr. Jorgensen stated the park's exact location had not been decided by the Parks Board. He expressed hope it would be located where they could attach future park land dedications. Mr. Tucker asked if there would be any problems if the Parks Board decided they wanted land along the river front. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had discussed several options at the meeting but no decision had been made. Mr. McCord stated the specific park location was flexible. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were any provisions or ordinances to control the runoff of pesticides and fertilizers into the river. Mr. Beavers stated the drainage ordinance had one paragraph relating to runoff into wetlands. It was the only water quality ordinance. The ordinance stated they could not change the quantity or quality of runoff into wetlands. Mr. McCord stated their golf course architect was renowned for his environmental sensitivity. He reassured every effort would be made to minimize the impact of the development. Ms. Johnson commented all of the drainage would be running into the river. Mr. Reynolds asked if the survey stakes near the highway marked the property line or centerline of the proposed road. Mr. Jorgensen stated they marked the property comers for the Sim's property and the Hunt's property. • Mr. Reynolds commented that, if the stakes were correct, then the property line would be running through someone's garage. • 1» Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Jorgensen agreed noting someone had built their carport too close to the property. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern that the proposed road would cut through the Sim's garage. Mr. Jorgensen did not know the exact location of the carport, but defended the easement had been in existence for a long time. Mr. Reynolds commented the Sim's would have to lose several trees and a carport for the developer to get his 50' right-of-way. Ms Johnson asked if the developer owned the strip of land or if it was an easement. Mr. Jorgensen stated the land was owned by the developer and was part of the parcel of land. He presented a drawing of the entire development, including the golf course and the proposed entry. He felt there was adequate access to the property off Hwy 16 and off Roberts Road without the stub out between lots 43 and 44. Ms. Johnson asked the overall north -south dimension. Mr. Jorgensen thought it was approximately half of a mile. He added the owner preferred not to make the connection. Mr. Sugg thought it would benefit the development's residents to have more than two access points. Mr. McCord stated the cost was not the primary concern, but the potential amount of traffic coming through the single family development. The developer did not want to encourage thru- traffic Mr. Reynolds did not believe the stub out was necessary. Ms. Little stated there were two standards. Mr. McCord had correctly quoted one of them under street design principle. The other standard stated, "blocks shall be at least 400 feet long, but no longer than 1400 feet." Mr. McCord stated they had accepted all the conditions of approval. Mr. Reynolds commented he would rather see a bridge built on Stone Farm Road for safety rather than the stub out. He saw no advantage to the cut through. There was no public comment. • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Fomey stated he favored the stub out. He asked if the developer was committed to the amount and location of the park land indicated on the plat. Ms. Little replied the developer was not committed to donate more than 1.95 acres; although, it was her understanding, they intended to dedicate more. Ms. Johnson commented the final plat had to be signed by the Parks Department. She added the Parks Board still had the right to designate the location of the park land. Mr. Forney asked if a large portion of the park land would be in the flood way. Ms. Little confirmed about 1/5, a large portion, was in the flood way, making it less useable. Mr. Forney asked if the Planning Commission would review the golf course. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission would not get to review the golf course because the development had been started when the property was in the county. The City did not approve Large Scales Developments in the County. Mr. McCord stated the developer had submitted a large development for the golf course to the Washington County Planning Board since the property was not, at the that time, within the City Limits. The County had approved the plan and the golf course was presently under construction. Ms Little stated they would coordinate with the county to make sure all of the requirements had been met. Mr. McCord reassured the Commission the golf course would be a championship course and an asset to the community. Mr. Forney expressed concerns about golfers crossing the roads. Mr. McCord stated all of the safety precautions would be taken. Ms. Johnson stated there were no crossings or streets abutting the golf course shown on this plat. Mr. Tucker commented this was an ideal opportunity to have a trail along the river. Mr. Jorgensen stated he could not commit to the trail Mr. Harbison expressed concem about runoff into the river. Mr. Jorgensen stated the existing tree line would be undisturbed by the utility easements to the 31 • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 7 south. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any State requirements for building on the river's edge. Mr. Harbison suggested a policy change rather than an ordinance change. He suggested a buffer, including a trail system, would help reduce the runoff. Mr. Odom asked if they were required to control post development runoff. Mr. Beavers stated the City was more lenient with developments near major waterways. They would be allowed to increase the runoff to some extent. Mr. McCord stated they were complying with all the ordinances. They were not aware of any EPA or EPC regulations concerning the runoff into the river, although they would double check. If there were any requirements, then the developer would adhere to them. MOTION • Mr. Odom moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to all staff's comments, including the • stub out requirement, as shown on the plat. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman recommended to the staff the Planning Commission study water quality ordinances in conjunction with the proposed updating of the UDO. The motion carried 8-1-0, with Mr. Sugg voting nay 3Z • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 8 CU96-31.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RAFAEL CARBAJAL-335 W. LAFAYETTE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Tim Brooks on behalf of Rafael Carbajal for property located at 335 W. Lafayette. The property is zoned R -O (Residential -Office) and contains approximately 6,098 square feet. The request is to allow a bakery as a limited neighborhood commercial use within a residential district. Staff recommends denial of the condition use request based upon the following: 1. This property and the property to the east are zoned R -O. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of Sept 9, 1996 granted a conditional use under Use Unit 13, Eating Places, for a restaurant for the property to the east so that Steak 4-U could be established. Under the description for Eating Places it is stated that the purpose of Unit 13, Eating Places is to allow them to be located as needed without necessarily introducing other commercial uses. Allowing a second conditional use would introduce other commercial uses. 2. The granting of the conditional use to the east was accompanied by several conditions which have yet to be met, namely, the shared drive was to be paved and the four required parking spaces were to be paved In granting the conditional use, the conditions were prescribed to protect adjacent properties from adverse impacts. Additional conditional uses should not be considered until all of the conditions of the initial conditional use have been met. 3. In granting conditional uses, the Planning Commission under §160.195 is required to make "conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this chapter, or deny conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Staff does not find that the granting of an additional conditional use would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R -O zone for the following reasons: A. A bakery is a use by right under Use Unit 15 which is not a use by right or a conditional use under R -O. For zoning purposes, bakeries are grouped with other food groups and the use unit includes general retailing of food such as neighborhood groceries. B. The applicant has chosen to apply for the conditional use under § 160.098, Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses within residential districts, although the use is normally prohibited from consideration under the zone. C. With the exception of a C-3 parcel adjacent to West Street, the R -O zone is uninterrupted from Highland Street on the east to West Street on the west. As one conditional use for the Steak 4-U on the adjoining property has already been granted within the block, staff feels the integrity of the R -O district will be abridged if additional 3`� • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 9 conditional uses are allowed. D. The purpose of allowing consideration of commercial uses within residential districts was to allow for commercial uses to serve nearby residential properties (ie. Limited means not every parcel becomes commercial and serving residential properties means that a substantial portion of the zone must remain residential in order for the limited commercial to have any residents to serve). Should the Planning Commission find that granting of the conditional use would be in the best interest of the city, then staff recommends the following as minimum conditions: 1) Any proposed lighting be directed away from adjacent properties. 2) Any proposed signage be no larger than 4 square feet and approved by the Inspection Division. 3) The shared driveway being paved as well as the required 8 parking spaces* (one must be ADA accessible). * This number includes the required 4 spaces for the adjacent building which will be shared. 4) Obtain a building permit for the required parking lot (certificate of occupancy will not be • issued prior to installation of lot). 5) Installation of landscaping at least 3' high to reduce front setback or apply for a variance from the Board Of Adjustment for front setback obstruction. 6) Compliance with conditional use criteria, section §160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, and ingress/egress. • Mr. Forney stated he would not be supporting the conditional use. He had supported the Steak for U, because it was not a retail outlet. He stated there were empty store fronts on Dickson Street and around the square. Mr. Tim Brooks appeared before the Commission representing both the property owner, Eric Lloyd, and the tenant. He stated they were applying for a conditional use under § 160.089, Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use which allowed a bakery by conditional use. Mr. Tucker stated the property was zoned R -O, which would allow for offices, studios, and related services, as well as professional offices. Mr. Forney asked if this conditional use request fit in with the general plan. Ms. Little stated the area was in transition. She did not believe the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance had been drafted for R -O zoning, because they allowed other types of commercial uses. Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Reynolds commented the property was surrounded by C-2 and C-3, Commercial, property. He added, Mr. Lloyd owned the adjacent property and he would be making his own tenants mad if he made a nuisance of the property. Mr. Sugg commented the parking shown was not the parking the Planning Commission had approved for the Steaks -for -U. Mr. Brooks replied they had worked in conjunction with a contractor to design an eight space parking lot for both buildings. Mr. Forney did not believe the request fulfilled the last two requirements for neighborhood commercial, "... provide commercial uses that is accessible for individuals living in residential districts." and, "... reduce the length and number of trips generated by residential developments." He added he did not believe the conditional use was in the spirit of the 2020 plan or the village concept. He thought it was important for the Commission to protect the integrity of the uses on Dickson Street and the Square He added the R -O zoning did allow the owner the potential rent for commercial uses. Mr. Books responded the Planning Commission could not have it both ways. If the property was on the edge of a commercial district, then the bakery would not bother anyone. If on the other hand it was considered a residential neighborhood, then it was the type of business encouraged by the Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Paula Marinoni asked the Planning Commission not to compromise Lafayette Street anymore. She informed the Planning Commission that the Steaks -for -U had violated the sign ordinance, and they had not constructed the required parking lot. She added Mr. Lloyd was not showing good faith to his neighbors or to the City by allowing graffiti to remain on the walls of his building. Mr. Randy Zurcher asked what existed on the C-3 property on the corner, and suggested using it as an alternate site for the bakery. Mr. Eric Lloyd stated they wanted to sell bread out of the house. In response to Ms. Marinioi comments about the graffiti, he stated he was not going to remove it, because he was not the one who put it there. Mr. Tucker asked if the staff would still recommend denial of the conditional use, if there was parking. • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Little responded they would still recommend denial based on paragraphs one and three of the staff recommendation. Mr. Allred stated that, if they approved the conditional use, it should be contingent upon the parking being installed at both locations. Mr. Reynolds agreed the owner needed to install the parking lot before the bakery could be started. Ms. Little pointed out the staff's recommendations for approval MOTION Mr. Forney moved to deny the conditional use. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms Hoffman supported the motion. She did not believe a food establishment would be an appropriate use for this particular section of Lafayette. She felt there were other locations more suitable. The motion failed by a vote of 3-6-0. Johnson, Reynolds, Allred, Sugg, Harbison, and Odom voting nay. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the conditional use with the stipulation that the parking lot be paved before the City signed the Certificate of Occupancy, and the conditional use would be reviewed in one year. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman asked if there had been any complaints concerning Steaks for U. Ms. Little replied they had no formal complaints, although there had been several negative comments. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little advised four parking spaces would be required. Mr. Lane asked if the motion included the staff's recommendations. 111 • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Allred stated he meant to include them in the motion. Mr. Harbison asked to amend condition #5, to require landscaping rather then allow for a variance. Mr. Allred stated he would amend his motion to include the amendment to condition #5. The motion carried by a vote of 6-3-0 with Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Forney, and Mr. Tucker voting nay. • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 13 LSD96-42.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR RIO BRAVO CANTINA (pp 213) NORTH OF MILLSAP ROAD AND WEST OF N. COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was a Large Scale Development submitted by Geoffrey Butler of Butler, Rosenbury & Associates on behalf of The Ozark Rio, Inc. for the Rio Bravo Cantina. The property is located north of Millsap Rd. and west of N. College Ave. It is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 1.95 acres. Recommendation: Approval of the Large Scale Development based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval as detailed below. Findings: This project is subject to Commercial Design Standards It is exempt from Overlay District requirements. The applicant is requesting several waivers; first, a waiver of the number of allowable parking spaces, second, a waiver of the standard dimensions for a parking stall; and third, a waiver of the allowable width of the entry/exit drives. • Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission resolution of the three requested waivers: (a) Approval of a waiver of the number of parking spaces allowed. The number of spaces allowable by ordinance is 115, one space per 4 seats (210 seats) plus 20% plus one space per employee. The applicant is requesting 149 spaces. Based on typical occupancy and activity at nearby restaurants, staff supports this waiver request. (b) Approval of a waiver of the standard size for a parking stall. The applicant proposes 9'x18' stalls, standard is 9'x19'. Staff supports this waiver request. Most cars will fit into a 9'x18' parking stall. (c) Approval of a waiver of the width of the entry/exit drive. A standard drive would have either two 12' aisles, or one 12' aisle for ingress, a 10' landscaped median, and two 12' wide aisles for egress. The applicant proposes three 10' aisles, one for ingress and two for egress. Based upon additional safety from separating turning movements and to be consistent with other developments, staff does not support this request. 2. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 14 additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. "Large" trees will not be allowed on the sewer lines. The two trees shown on the sewer line must be coordinated between the developer, Landscape Administrator and Engineering. 4. Dedication of right of way - 30' from centerline on Millsap Road. 5. Submittal of easement plat prior to building permit being issued, any necessary revision of easement plat to be completed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 6. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 7. Construction of a 6' sidewalk, contiguous through driveways, with 10' of green space between the sidewalk and the curb, according to current sidewalk standards, which will have to be tapered to tie into existing the sidewalk on the east, as shown on plat, which was revised after Plat Review. 8. Fire protection including additional mains and fire hydrants shall meet the Fire Chiefs requirements. The drainage will be privately owned and maintained by the applicant An agreement to such, as required by the Stormwater Management Ordinance shall be required. 10. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. In regard to the third waiver request Ms. Little explained the internal drives shown on the plat were 26' wide. City standard for backup room was 24'. The reduction of the drives to 24' would not affect the parking layout, they could still achieve their 9'X18' stalls. She pointed out the drives exiting onto Millsap Road were currently shown to be 30 feet wide. She advised staff supported either a 24' wide ingress and egress, one-way in and one-way out, or one drive with 12' entry, median of 10', and two 12' isles for exit. Ms. Johnson added they were asking for 30% more parking than what was allowed by ordinance. Ms. Little responded the request was reasonable based on the staffs past experiences with restaurants. Mr. Forney reminded the Commission the property was exempt from the Overlay District. He did not believe there was a need for the additional spaces, because there were businesses on each side of the property that would not be heavy used at night. He thought that, if there was an overflow parking problem, the adjoining parking lots could be used. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Butler stated they preferred three 10' drives because it improved the safety condition on the street. He added the 30' drive had been adequate for all their other sites. He did not have a problem with three 12' drives without a median. He Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 15 • explained a 46' entry dnve would be too large and would reduce their parking. • Mr. Sugg asked Mr. Butler if he had considered a shared drive with the neighboring Eye Center. Mr. Butler responded his clients were reluctant to deal with shared drives or parking. The plat had not provided for or required cross accesses. He added he did not believe the other owners would be receptive to cross accesses. Ms. Johnson asked which of the two staff proposals he preferred for entry. Mr. Butler stated they preferred two 24' entrances. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the waiver for 154 parking spaces. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Harbison commented he thought the request was for too many spaces. Mr. Tucker stated he was concerned about Millsap becoming a landscape of parking lots. Mr. Allred commented he did not believe the developer would request additional parking spaces if he did not need them since it was average cost of $2,700 per space. He noted landscaping was a lot less expensive. Ms. Hoffman asked if there was a landscaping buffer between the north side of the parking lot and the bypass. Mr. Butler stated they had some landscaping. Mr. Odom amended his motion to allow for 154 spaces in exchange if the developer would plant and maintain three additional shrubs (per tree) on the north side facing the bypass. The roll was called. The motion carried by a vote of 5-4-0 with Tucker, Sugg, Fomey, and Harbison voting nay. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the waiver of the parking lots stalls to 9' X 18' provided the internal • driveways were reduced to 24'. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 9-0-0. Ua • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 16 MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to require two 24' driveways in accordance with city standards and to deny the waiver. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Butler withdrew his request for a waiver and stated they would comply with the City Standards. The 30' drives would be changed to 24' drives. Ms. Little stated the offer would meet the City's standards. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale, subject to all staff comments and two 24' driveways. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0 with Mr. Harbison voting nay. LII • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 17 VAC97-01: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION DAVE BEVIS- 670-672 MARTHA DRIVE IN DAWN ACRES SUBDIVISION The next item on the agenda was a utility easement vacation request submitted by Dave Bevis for property at 670-672 Martha Drive in the Dawn Acres subdivision. The duplex encroaches approximately 1.50 feet into the existing 20 -foot utility easement. The applicant has received the required agreements from the utility companies including the City of Fayetteville. Ms. Johnson commented they were not pleased to see Contractors and Builder building in the rights-of-way and utility easement. She added there had been discussion on the various ways to discourage this kind of carelessness. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms Little stated that the Planning Commission was not hearing a variance request. The property encroached upon was an easement, which the City and other public utilities had the right to use. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to vacate the property. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The roll was called and the item was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Ms. Johnson commented there needed to be a penalty for violating easements and/or setbacks. The ultimate effect would be to ignore the easements the City is entitled too. Mr. Sugg asked if requiring a survey when applying for a building permit would help the situation. Ms. Little stated it would help, but it would also be an additional expense. Mr. Allred commented some surveyors offered discounts to have a property resurveyed. Ms. Little stated the Board of Adjustments had also discussed requiring surveys for a building permit. They had been concerned about the additional cost to the builder. She added, the staff had drafted a letter to all the builders cautioning them not violate setback and/or utility easements. q2 Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 18 • APPEAL 97-1: ZION VALLEY ADDITION PUD • REOUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF STEARNS STREET. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Harry Gray for Zion Valley Addition PUD located south of Zion Road, east of Venetian Land and west of Stearns Street. The request is for reconsideration of the Planning Commission requirements to construct the portion of Stearns Street lying within the control of this developer. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission approved the development subject to the construction and connection of Stearns Street to Vantage. This requirement was different from what the staff had recommended which was to "provide a 50' right-of-way at a designed radius at the southeast corner of the property and then provide a 25' right-of-way continuing to the west as generally shown of the concept plat, and provide to the City the funds representing the costs on the standard 31' City street for the segment of Stearns entirely within the development at the SE corner and then %x of the cost of a standard 31' street for the remaining portion to the west." Mr. Grey, representative of the owner stated he had met with Mr. Beavers and understood he would be required to place the funds for this improvement in escrow or make other assurances to the City, rather than constructing the street at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reiterated the original recommendation to accept money for improvements rather than construction of the street. Ms. Johnson asked the staff why they supported the appeal. Mr. Beavers stated they support the request for two reasons: it was physically impossible to construct half a street to City's standards. The property line would be in the middle of the street and would interfere with both the grading, as well as the preparation of the subgrade, and the actual placement of the final pavement. The drainage would also be impacted. The second reason was three City Council members had promised the street would never be built. Mr. Odom asked when this promise had been made. He added the street was on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Beavers replied the statement had been made August 15, 1995. Ms. Johnson did not believe the comments of three City Council members carried any weight unless the Council had voted on something. Mr. Beavers stated the comment had been made in public. Mr. Grey stated it was impossible to build one-half of a street. Ms. Hoffman asked why they would want to build the street now, if no one wanted it. Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 1997 Page 19 • Mr. Grey stated they were proposing to place the money for the street in an escrow account. • • In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Grey stated they did not want to vacate the right- of-way. Mr. Harbison asked if they had a problem moving the road to the north. Mr. Grey replied, if they were to move the road, it would create a dog in the road. Mr. Reynolds thought they should keep the right-of-way and place the money in escrow. Mr. Tucker read the motion from June 10 that required the street to be constructed. Mr. Grey stated they did not own the all of the property required to construct a whole street. Ms. Little stated Mr. Grey was asking to give the money to the City to provide for the construction of everything he would have been required to construct. Mr. Forney asked how the City could be sure they were getting the full amount. Mr. Beavers believed they would receive an accurate estimate from NW Engineers, which the Engineering staff would review. The money could potentially revert back to the developer after five years, but there would be a public hearing. Mr. Odom stated he would support the staff's recommendation. He advised he supported building Stearn Street noting it was on the Master Street Plan. He thought Stearn Street needed to be built, and they needed to make sure they had the money to do it. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to grant the appeal. The applicant would pay into escrow the cost of the 31' city street for that part of Stearns entirely within the development of the SE corner and half of the cost of the standard 31' street for the remaining portion to the west. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0 with Mr. Tucker voting nay. The meeting adjourned at 8:15pm. cctik