Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held Apt 128, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Lee Ward, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, and Mark Sugg. MEMBERS ABSENT: Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison and Gary Tucker STAFF PRESENT• Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, and Sharon Langley APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the April 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. LSD97-5.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE CO. -N. OF CATO SPRINGS RD. & W. OF GARLAND The Large Scale Development for Fayetteville Warehouse was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Warehouse Co., LLC for property located north of Cato Springs Road and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial) and contains approximately 8.10 acres. The staff recommended the approval to be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review proccss was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection requirements, including hydrants and supporting water mains shall meet the Fire Chiefs requirements. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 2 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot green space along Garland Ave. Access to the bridge, along with pedestrian safety rails will be required. 4. Relocation of all dumpster pad sites to be outside of the floodplain. 5. Dedication of right-of-way along Garland Avenue to equal 35 feet from the centerline and to also include area east of the centerline at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the plat. 6. Dedication of 15 feet of right-of-way along the south property line, varying right-of-way at the southwest corner and 20 feet of right-of-way along approximately 145 feet of the south segment of the west property line as shown on the proposed site plan. 7. The developer must improve the segment of Garland Avenue contiguous to the development property to one-half of City Standards for a standard City Street. The improvements will require street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks (see no. 3 above), drainage and vehicular guard rails at the bridge approaches (west side). The improvements will not include the widening of the bridge. The City may, or may not, elect to participate in the widening of Garland to "Collector Street" standards. The city may, or may not elect to improve the existing street section between this development and Garland Square Apartments under construction to the south. 8. Revision of existing easements to meet current City Standards of a minimum 20 -foot easement. 9. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. The developer shall provide covenants in the lease agreements that the storage of hazardous material shall not be allowed. 11. Area lights shall be shielded and directed inward. 12. The Large Scale Development approval shall be valid for one year. Ms. Little stated staff had no additional conditions but they also had not received a signed agreement to the Conditions of Approval from the applicant. Mr. Harry Gray advised that on Item No. 4 the pads were outside the flood plain or located above the flood plain. \)• • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Little stated that on the surface that sounded reasonable but staff would need to see the grading plan. She also noted there were two owners on the project - Ray Green and Ken Mourton. She advised there had been discussion regarding dedication of right-of-way and staff wanted to be assured neither owner had a problem with that dedication of right-of-way. Ray Green stated he had authority to speak on behalf of Mr. Mourton and they both agreed that, provided the plat could be approved in its present form, they would consent to the granting of the right-of-way even though they were hesitant to do it since the roadway was a private road and would probably remain a private road Ms. Little stated at the agenda review session Mr. Reynolds had asked if it would be possible to get letters of intent from the property owners to the south of the private road She advised staff was able to contact Mr. Lewis who was happy to provide a letter of intent but they were unable to contact Mr. Gately. She added Mr. Hunnicutt's property did not directly touch the private road Mr. Reynolds stated he wanted the letter of intent pursued. • Ms. Hoffman pointed out they could take care of obtaining additional right-of-way when the property on the south side of the private road developed. She asked if, with the taking of additional right-of-way, the applicant was able to meet the setbacks. Mr. Gray stated the revised plan allowed for the additional setbacks. Ms. Little explained the plat had been revised to show 25 -foot setbacks with landscaping. She explained the normal setback in I-1 was 50 feet but could be reduced to 25 feet with landscaping. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Mr. Sugg pointed out the entrance was at a different location. He asked if the location of the new entrance would cause a problem since it was closer to the bridge. Mr. Gray stated there was no sight distance problem. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated the entrance location had been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and the Committee had forwarded the issue to the Planning Commission without recommendation. • <oz • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 4 Ms. Hoffman advised the Subdivision Committee had reviewed in detail the taking of the right- of-way and moving the entrance. She expressed her belief the new entrance was in a better location. Don Hunnicutt stated he had been present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, reviewed the plat, and was not opposed to the project. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve LSD97-5 subject to staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 5 CU97-7.00: CONDITIONAL USE (PARKING) PINE TREE INVESTMENTS - 305 W. LAFAYETTE The next item was a conditional use submitted by Morgan Hooker for property located at 305 W. Lafayette Street. The request was for a conditional use to allow off-site parking and a shared parking arrangement between University Baptist Church and 305 W. Lafayette Street for a proposed 7,200 square foot office building. Mr. Odom advised the staff was recommending approval of the request contingent upon the following conditions of approval: 1. Compliance with Section 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2. An informational sign is installed in the proposed on-site parking lot identifying the location of the additional off-site parking for the office building. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little advised they did not have a signed copy of the Conditions of Approval. She provided the Commissioners with additional materials relating to the request - a rendering of the proposed building and a copy of the Board of Adjustment minutes relating to the project. She pointed out the proposed building would be larger than the existing building and advised the variances granted were: Lafayette Street - 15 feet (15 -foot setback); Rollston Street - 17 feet (13 foot setback); south side of the property - 2 feet (8 -foot setback); and Campbell Street - 18 feet (32 -foot setback). She advised the proposed building would be two stories with a basement area underneath with a proposed square footage of 7,200. She noted 24 parking spaces were required and there obviously was no room for parking. Ms. Little stated the applicant had also requested variances for the parking areas and the Board of Adjustment had granted a 15 -foot setback on Lafayette Street and a 5 -foot setback on Campbell Street. She noted the existing structure at the site was unsound and the applicant proposed to completely demolish the structure. She explained the applicants were asking to locate parking off-site and had secured a shared parking agreement with University Baptist Church. She stated they planned to locate 6 of the required spaces on site with 18 spaces off-site. Mr. Odom asked if the property would fall under the Waiver of Parking District if it was zoned C-3 or C-4 instead of R -O. ti� • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little stated the Waiver of Parking stated the owner could raze the existing building but could only build back to the same square footage and parking requirements would apply to any additional square footage. She advised that, while the property did not fall into the Dickson Street area, it was very close. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated she judged the new building to be 25 - 30% larger than the existing building. Ms. Hoffman asked if they knew their proposed tenant. Rob Sharp stated Morgan Hooker owned the property and would have his offices in the second floor of the building and would be leasing the first floor to an office tenant. Ms. Little asked if they intended to keep vehicular access from Rollston. Mr. Sharp stated that, if on -street parking was allowed on Rollston, they planned to use the on - street parking and construct a curb along Rollston. • Mr. Odom asked if the applicant was agreeable to placing a sign on-site identifying the location of the additional off-site parking lot. • Mr. Sharp stated they were in agreement with that condition. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated staff had a copy of the signed parking agreement with University Baptist Church. Mr. Fomey stated the existing property appeared to be approximately 2,400 square feet so the proposed building would be tripling the size of the building. He stated he believed the Planning Commission needed to consider the uses along Lafayette and Rollston Streets which were essentially residential. He pointed out it would be difficult to park 24 cars on the site even if there were no building on the site. He pointed out that, if the Commission required the applicant to put more cars on site, it would reduce the building size. Mr. Odom advised that, in reading the ordinance applicable to off-site parking, they needed to determine the off-site spaces were not more than 600 feet from the principal use. Mr. Sharp stated they were adjacent to the UBC parking lot. He also noted the site sloped 10 feet from the street to rear He explained the slope allowed the structure to have a basement but it • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 7 would be used for storage only but the area was being counted for the parking space determination. He advised the actual inhabited area would be 4,800 square feet. He also noted that, at the current time, the basement in the existing structure was inhabited. Ms. Hoffman stated that, while the proposed building was much more attractive than the existing building, she was concerned about the size of the building. She pointed out they had recently approved two retail uses a few blocks to the west and those buildings were now vacant. She also noted there was a parking lot which had not been completed. She expressed her belief they were stepping out of the character of Lafayette Street and possibly getting too much office space. Mr. Sharp pointed out the area was zoned R -O and they had planned the structure so that it looked residential in character Mr. Forney stated he would prefer to see fewer parking spaces on site and the building moved to the west so the existing setback on Rollston was not disturbed. He pointed out the building would be closer than any of the houses along Rollston. Ms. Little advised the Commission they did not have the ability to change the variances granted by the Board of Adjustment. She further noted the applicant could not use the variances granted by the Board of Adjustment until the off-site parking request was approved by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Mr. Odom pointed out they did encourage shared parking. He noted the code, under shared parking, specifically stated that formal arrangements between intermittent uses with nonconflicting parking demands were encouraged as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. He stated there was an agreement with UBC to park 24 cars from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Sharp stated the businesses housed in the proposed structure would not be open after 5 p.m. nor on weekends. Ms. Little stated that, if the request was approved, the Planning Commission should restrict use to those hours as a condition of approval. Mr. Forney asked if the commercial design standards applied to this project. �)& • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Little stated staff had applied commercial design standards to office buildings. She explained staff would invoke the commercial design standards when the applicant applied for a building permit. She went on to say that, if the Commission wanted to tie their approval to the configuration of the building, she saw no problem in doing so. Mr. Sugg stated he would like to discuss limiting the hours of use. He pointed out the building could also be used for multi -family residential under R -O zoning. Ms. Little stated that, if the property were used residentially, the 6 existing parking spaces would probably be adequate. She pointed out that, for residential use, the parking requirement was one parking space per bedroom. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff comments; limiting the hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; and that the configuration of the building remain as shown. • Mr. Forney seconded the motion. • The motion carried unanimously, 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 9 RZA 97-5.00: ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR PACESETTER PROPERTIES N. OF MT. COMFORT & W. OF SALEM RD. The annexation request was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of Pacesetter Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort (and the Salem Village P.U.D.) and west of Salem Road. The request is to annex 39.95 acres. The property, if annexed, will be zoned A-1, Agricultural. The staff recommended approval of the request noting it was consistent with the General 2020 Plan showing residential use in the area. Ms. Harrington advised this was a straight forward annexation request and she would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Sugg asked the maximum density of the tract if it stayed in the county. Ms. Little advised that, with housing, it depended on the number of units which could be served by septic. She explained the County Department of Health made that determination based on percolation tests. She went on to say that, if the property were annexed but remained A-1, the City's requirement for development was one unit per two acres or, in this case, 20 houses. Ms. Harrington stated they would like to be in the city for all the obvious reasons: city services, city sewer, and to help the city with the tax base. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated it took 5 affirmative votes for approval of an annexation. Mr. Forney pointed out they had seen a similar annexation request at their last meeting. He advised that, since the city had made an investment in the school in that neighborhood, he favored annexing the land. He did, however, question whether this would create additional problems regarding wastewater treatment. He advised he believed it was important to annex properties near public infrastructure. Ms. Harrington stated she was sure that, during the subdivision process, discussion would arise regarding anything dealing with the upgrading of lift stations, etc. Ms. Hoffman asked if any of the site fell into the flood plain. Ms. Harrington stated approximately 3/4 of an acre in the corner was in the flood plain. Ms. Hoffman noted she had re -thought her position on annexations since the last meeting and • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 10 advised she was in favor of the annexation. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE ANNEXATION REQUEST There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve annexation request RZA97-7. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0-0. • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 11 RZ97-8.00: REZONING REQUEST FOR PACESETTER PROPERTIES PACESETTER PROPERTIES -N. OF MT. COMFORT & W. OF SALEM RD. The rezoning request was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of Pacesetter Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort (north of Salem Village P.U.D.) and West of Salem Road. The request is for a zoning map amendment for property, if annexed, from A-1 (Agricultural) to R -S (Residential Small Lot). Mr. Odom advised the staff recommended denial of the rezoning request in light of the recent Planning Commission decision made on a 30 -acre tract of land south of Salem Village. He noted staff would recommend R-1, Low Density Residential, as an appropriate zoning classification. Ms. Harrington advised her client was downgrading their request from R -S to R-1. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Rebecca Latourette, 3340 Mt. Comfort Road, asked if the applicant could apply for other rezoning at a later time if they received the R-1 zoning now. Ms. Little advised they could, noting the same notification procedures would be followed. Ms. Latourette stated the area was still in need of sidewalks on existing developments and consideration needed to be given to correcting the dangerous intersections at Mt Comfort Road/ the Bypass and Highway 112. She noted both of the intersections would be affected by increased development. She further requested a demonstration of the need for additional lots in the subject area expressing her belief it did not promote an image of prosperity for the City to have half developed subdivisions which were not developing at an adequate pace. She pointed out Crystal Springs had some undeveloped land which, if developed, would make a connection through to Shiloh and asked that those connections be encouraged. Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 N. Salem Road, stated he believed the Planning Commission acted correctly at the previous meeting regarding another rezoning in the area. He advised he had the same concerns regarding the subject development. He then showed a video of the intersection of Salem and Mt. Comfort, pointing out the difficulty school buses had in turning onto Salem Road (going across the centerline) and onto Mt. Comfort (due to the traffic). In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Kimbrough stated the video had been taken in the morning when the school buses were picking up children. • Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, stated he had identical comments regarding the subject rezoning as he had at the previous meeting regarding the 29 acres to the south which they • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 12 had annexed. He expressed his concern regarding the increased traffic. He asked they take into consideration the impact to the area with the increased traffic. Nathan McKinney, 3043 Apatite Drive, advised he had circulated a petition through Crystal Springs Subdivision opposing moderate density housing. He further stated he believed R-1 zoning would be fine. He also presented data showing availability of homes listed for sale according to school district. He pointed out the west side of town had a great deal of affordable housing which was vacant. He also noted he knew of 60 - 80 undeveloped lots in the area. He stated he had gotten his information from the Fayetteville Multi -List and did not include any "for sale by owners", "for sale by builders" or "under construction" properties. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. McKinney stated the petition was in opposition to the R -S rezoning (small lots or moderate housing). He advised he was not opposed to R-1 but there was a dangerous situation at the intersection and additional homes would not help the problem. Ms. Harrington stated that, when it came to the number of lots available and how the market was doing, it seemed the risk of not having a market should be on the developer. She advised her clients were going to take the risk. She pointed out they were asking for the lowest residential density. She noted that, with development, the infrastructure was improved. She stated her clients would be required to improve their portion of Salem Road when the property was developed. She also pointed out the sewer lift stations would also be improved because her clients would be required to contribute to such improvements. She also advised the video could have been taken in her neighborhood or any neighborhood in town; the entire city was experiencing traffic problems. She stated the only way for the City to catch up on the infrastructure was a moratorium. She advised she was not in favor of a moratorium and believed the city's infrastructure would catch up through the continued requiring of off-site improvements. Mr. Reynolds asked if all of the development along Salem Road would help in getting Salem Road widened. Ms. Little advised that Salem Village had contributed additional right-of-way, together with the installation of sidewalks. She noted Crystal Springs and the school had also given additional right-of-way and installed sidewalks together with the Fayetteville Girls' Softball Complex (under construction) would be granting additional right-of-way and sidewalks. She assured him the same requirements would be made of any developers along Salem Road. She pointed out the rezoning action would not require the additional right-of-way but, when the property developed, the requirement would be made. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Reynolds noted that, when Salem Road was widened, they could also asked for the intersection to be improved and a light installed. Ms. Little stated there were no development plans for the intersection at this time but the City could certainly look at adding it to the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Reynolds asked how long it would take to improve the intersection. Mr Beavers advised he did not believe it was on any schedule and suggested the Commissioners talk to the Aldermen from that ward. He informed the Commission they would be working on the 1998 C.I.P. next month. There was discussion regarding the construction of the roadway from Crystal Springs to Deane Solomon but no one knew the time frame involved. Mr. Reynolds stated there was a traffic problem in the area and he would like to hear from Fire Chief Mickey Jackson, the Street Department and the Water and Sewer Department regarding the infrastructure and the affect of additional houses. He advised he would like to know the Fire Department's response time to the area before adding additional housing. Ms. Harrington advised they would be bring a plat of the subject area before the Planning Commission and would be sure to have the Fire Chief's comments. Ms. Little stated the Fire Chief gave a written statement on all plats as a part of the plat review process. Mr. Forney asked if the other developments along Salem Road had been assessed off-site improvements. Ms. Little stated all of the developments had been assessed off-site improvements and an assessment for the Hamestring Lift Station but they had not been assessed any fees for the intersection. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr Beavers advised it was his understanding the subject tract had originally been a part of the Crystal Springs property and the lift station had been sized for this property and should be adequate. Ms. Little advised Mr. Beavers was referred to the lift station the developer had installed and, in addition, the developer had been charged for the Hamestring Lift Station. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Beavers agreed and noted there would be a $200 per lot charge for the lift station downstream. Mr. Forney stated the Planning Commission had not been proactive in the Capital Improvements Program plans. He added he believed the Commission needed to be more involved in that process to point the city towards problems that were arising. Mr. Sugg suggested making the Commission comments a part of their recommendation to the City Council. He was assured the City Council received a copy of the Planning Commission minutes. Ms. Hoffman asked about the possibility of a 3 -way stop at Mt. Comfort and Salem. Mr. Beavers stated she would need to talk to Perry Franklin, Traffic, to see if the intersection met the warrants of the Uniform Traffic Control Code. Mr. Sugg stated he was not in favor of the R-1 zoning but preferred the property be developed • with more variety and save some of the green space with smaller lots. He suggested a P.U.D. • Ms. Harrington advised her clients were considering a P.U.D. but would need the R-1 zoning to accomplish a P.U.D. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve RZ97-8 from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioner Sugg voting no. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 15 LSD 97-6.00: MEADOW BROOKS APARTMENTS JIM LINDSEY - N OF STONE ST.. W OF SANG AVE. The last item was a request for large scale development approval for Meadow Brooks Apartments submitted by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located north of Stone Street and west of Sang Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, (Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 13.27 acres. Mr. Odom advised the recommendation of the staff was consideration of the project based on the following conditions of approval: 1. The Planning Commission must accept the verification of the required public notification (refer to the minutes of the May I, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting). 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or is representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 3. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 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 plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. For example, the 8 -inch water line as shown may need to be extended approximately 120 feet to Stone Street and reinforce the existing 2 -inch water line. Fire protection shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $28,800.00 (120 units @ $240.00) in lieu of park land dedication per City Council decision 4/15/97. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along both Sang and Stone Streets. The sidewalk will be on both sides of Sang for the length to be improved north through the development entrance. The Planning Commission must confirm that the sidewalk will continue north from the driveway intersection with Sang to the north property line, or the sidewalk will follow the drive into the development to the parking lot as shown on the revised Large Scale Development plan. The new sidewalk along Stone will be on the segments contiguous to the development. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 16 6. Street improvements to include the total width of Sang Street from the intersection with Stone Street up to, and including, the entrance driveway for the project in lieu of construction of one- half of a street the entire length of the property. The improvements will be to reconstruct to a standard 28 foot street including storm drainage and sidewalks on each side. 7. Dedication of right-of-way along the entire south property line (Stone Street) to equal 25 feet from centerline. The Planning Commission must decide if right-of-way dedication along the project's east property line north of Maine Street (north of the development's entrance drive) is required. If required, the right-of-way width must be established. 8. Off-site sewer improvements are required. Approximately 881 feet of existing 6 -inch sewer line is proposed to be replaced with 8 -inch sewer line by the developer. All off-site sewer replacements or improvements will be the developer's responsibility and expense. 9. The preliminary drainage report was good but is subject to additional review prior to final approval. All drainage interior to the project, and all drainage outside of the street right-of-way will be privately maintained. A formal agreement in the format required by the Stormwater Management ordinance is required. 10. The intersection of the drive at Sang must be designed to have as small a slope as possible. 11. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The Large Scale Development approval will be valid for one year Ms. Little called the Commission's attention to an addendum to the agenda three letters (one from Tracie Slatterly, one from David Glasser and one from Al Hughes), a petition from staff members of Ramey Jr. High and a petition from area residents. Mr. Hopper appeared before the Commission contending the project had been designed to meet the city's ordinances. He advised they had no problems with the 12 conditions of approval. Mr. Forney advised there had been some question at the Subdivision Committee stage regarding proof of notification; Ms. Warrick had stated she had received proof of notification of all property owners but a member of the public had contended Mr. Pat McGetrick, an adjoining property owner, had not received notification. • Ms. Little stated staff had followed up after the Subdivision Committee meeting and had spoken with Pat McGetrick. She explained the previous owners of the property had received the • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 17 notification due to the records not being changed at the Courthouse. She stated Mr. McGetrick was present at this meeting. She further stated that Mr. Albertson, an adjoining property owner, had complained he had not received timely notification. She advised Mr. Albertson's notice had been addressed in care of another individual. She advised Mr. Albertson had been present at the first Subdivision Committee meeting. She also advised the developer had met the notification requirements. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, both Mr. Albertson and Mr. McGetrick stated they believed the Commission should hear the large scale development request. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Robert Albertson, an adjoining property owner to the east, advised he used Sang Avenue and contended it was too narrow for additional traffic. He further advised Sang was unsafe due to the slope and narrowness. He stated the developer had said the property was a 12% grade; he expressed his belief the property was more on a 20 - 25% grade. Mr. David Glasser, Director of the Community Design Center for the University of Arkansas, presented copies of diagrams of proper development on slopes. He stated Councilman Schapper had asked him to present diagrams which would encourage developers to use slopes in a better way. He further advised he was not present to comment on the specific project. Ms. Tracie Slatterly, a teacher at Ramey Junior High School, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern regarding the impact to the school the proposed development would cause. She stated she would like to see an impact study on the project. Ms. Little explained each division reviewed the large scale development in order to bring the project into compliance but they did not have a procedure for an environmental impact statement. She stated the Subdivision regulations set forth the items the City was empowered by the State of Arkansas to review. Ms. Slatterly suggested that, in the future, an impact study be made. She pointed out Ramey was one of the two junior high schools in town and were experiencing growth problems. She asked if the Planning Commission contacted the school system to see how prepared the school would be for the additional growth. She asked the Commission to look closely at the additional traffic that would be caused by the project and the safety of pedestrian traffic to the school. She expressed fear none of these items would be addressed. She suggested that, if an additional street were to be constructed, Stone Street be extended to the access road parallel to Highway 71 rather than extending Sang. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 18 Ms. Slatterly also addressed concerns regarding the design of the development stating it did not appear to be designed according to the land use ordinance. She stated the land use ordinance read "...the development shall conform to the natural contours of the land, natural drainage ways and other existing site conditions." She stated it seemed the developer wanted to gut the hillside and build flat which was in opposition to the land use ordinance. She also questioned the size of the slope and called attention to the 2020 Plan which said "...slopes which are 18% or greater generally should be kept free of development. Some passive recreation and low density residential may be permitted on slopes under 28%. The most intensive uses should be confined to areas where slopes are generally 8% or less." She contended that, if they supported the 2020 Plan, they should use it to make their decisions. She also contended the projected had been rushed along due to the possibility of a hillside ordinance. She claimed a bad idea was still a bad idea and asked the Commission to apply some reason to their decision. Ms. Slatterly stated she had no input in the decision to take money in lieu of land for a public park. She advised she would love a place to take her students for science projects in the field, arts projects, etc. She claimed she was astounded someone could offer money instead of land for a park next to a school. She noted a park would serve as a buffer between the school and the apartments and would be of great benefit to the students and surrounding neighborhood. She asked that the parks issue be re -opened. Mr. Odom explained the Planning Commission had no control over the parks decision. He asked what type of notification was given regarding a Parks Board meeting. Ms. Little stated she did not know if there was any notification. She pointed out this particular item had been appealed to the City Council and notification had been made of that meeting. Ms. Slatterly advised she had talked to a Parks Board member who told her there was land available for a park; however, the developer would lose 2 of the 12 apartments so the park lands would not be in the developer's best interest. Mr. Glenn Adams, 2215 West Haskell Heights, stated he had not been notified of the meeting and had not been aware of the project until he came across some large excavation in the woods. He asked if the development met the R-2 density requirements. Ms. Little stated R-2 allowed up to 24 units per acre; this project was approximately 10 units per acre. Mr. Adams asked if the developer had already obtained excavation permits. \51 • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Beavers stated the developer received permission to excavate for the geotechnical report. Mr. Adams expressed disbelief that the amount of excavation had been only to obtain soil samples. Mr. Hopper stated they had gone in with a back hoe to obtain the soil samples. He stated he did not believe there had been any excessive excavation. Mr. Adams also asked the Commission to consider the grade of the slope. He stated the 2020 Plan called for no developments to be placed on anything over 18% in grade. He stated it was his understanding the apartments were targeted as low-income apartments and he found it difficult to believe the developer would go to additional cost to develop the hillside as it, in his option, should be developed. Ms. Lona Benedict, an area resident, expressed her belief the density was inappropriate for the hillside. She also opposed the proposed cut and fill that would need to take place. She contended water drainage would affect Ramey Junior High School. She also pointed out there did not appear to be any place for the children of the proposed development to play. She contended the ponds would be a potential attractive nuisance for the children. She also mentioned the narrowness of the streets. Mr. Albertson contended bulldozers had been on the site. Mr. Hopper advised the bulldozers had cleared a path for the backhoe. In response to a question from Ms. Slatterly, Mr. Odom advised he believed the only appeal on the greenspace issue would be to the Circuit Court. Ms. Marion Orton, an area resident, asked if it was usual that the park decision was made before the development. Mr. Odom stated it was, explaining it was a subdivision requirement. Ms. Little explained that, if land was to be dedicated for a park, the development would have to be designed around the park lands. Ms. Orton stated there needed to be changes regarding notification of the Parks Board meetings. She also expressed concern regarding the drainage. She contended the project was over- development of a sensitive area. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 20 Ms. Benedict advised the location given (north of Old Farmington Road and west of Razorback Road) was confusing. She pointed out the property was at the corner of Stone and Sang Streets. Ms. Little apologized for the location listed and agreed a better description could have been given. In response to a question from Mr. Sugg, Ms. Little presented Fire Chief Jackson's comments: "Need JBB's (Jim Beaver) advice on whether these mains need to be looped". Mr. Beavers explained that was whether the water lines could be a looped 6 -inch or a dead-end 8 -inch. Mr. Sugg stated apparently a concession had been made that there would be no parking spaces at the west end so the trash truck could turn around. Ms. Little stated she did not remember Chief Jackson making any comments regarding that area but did know a fire truck could maneuver in approximately the same amount of space as a trash truck. She also read a comment from Cheryl Zotti, Solid Waste: "This plat does not show dumpster pads locations. It is important that they dedicate space for these pads at this time." Mr. Sugg expressed concern regarding only one ingress/egress. Mr. Odom stated he would assume that, if the Fire Chief wanted additional ingress, he would have asked for it. Mr. Beavers advised Chief Jackson had stated that, because of the slope, there could be only one access. Mr. Odom stated there seemed to be a lot of concern that the project was on more than a 12% slope. Mr. Hopper stated they had always discussed it as a 20% slope; he did not know where the 12% slope had been discussed. He stated they would bring the slope to 3:1. Mr. Sugg asked the percentage of a 3:1 slope. Mr. Hopper stated it would be 33% on the areas that were not flat. Ms. Hoffman expressed her belief the developer could have followed the contours of the land better. She pointed out they were cutting and filling in excess of 20 feet in some locations. She stated she did not believe that met the intent of city ordinances. • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Hopper advised the street going through the center of the project followed the contours. He then answered comments previously made by area residents: there had been no discussion regarding low-income housing; the stormwater detention had been designed so there was no additional run-off from the site in quantities larger than pre -development; the detention ponds were designed to meet the city's ordinances and they were collecting the water and piping it to where it would not add additional water to Ramey, they were providing sidewalks along Sang and up through the parking area as requested by staff; the number of children in apartment projects varied but there were not a large number based upon past history of complexes of the same size; there had been numerous meetings regarding the parks land. He added they planned to sod the slopes and plant dense pine trees where any erosion would be minimized; and they planned to fence the area around the apartments. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Forney explained the Subdivision Committee had believed the sidewalk would better serve the area by going north along Sang to the driveway and then turn into the apartment complex. Mr. Odom advised they needed a resolution of the sidewalk location issue. • By consensus the Planning Commission decided the sidewalk should go from the intersection of Stone Street and Sang north to the entrance and then into the apartment complex. • Mr. Odom stated they also needed to decide if the right-of-way along the east property line, north of Maine Street was required and, if so, the amount. Mr. Forney stated the developer was proposing to provide a full width city standard street from Stone up to the entrance of the development. He stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed obtaining right-of-way north of the entrance to the development. He explained that, if right-of-way were taken, someday a connection to Sang could be made. He further stated he was not in favor of any connection being made at the present time; however, he believed they should always take right-of-way when possible. Ms. Hoffman pointed out the properties to the east were already platted in small lots so it was very unlikely there would be a large scale development to the east. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Hopper stated the applicant was willing to give either 20 or 40 feet, whatever the City wanted. Mr. Fomey expressed his belief the City should take 20 feet since he did not think the connection would be made. He stated he believed taking the entire 40 feet would be a very strong signal that the City was determined to make the connection. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Odom stated he, too, was in favor of getting some right-of-way. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the 20 feet would run beside a private drive and Mr. Albertson might, some day in the future, want to extend the street to his property. Mr. Odom stated there was a consensus among the Planning Commission that, should the large scale be approved, a 20 -foot right-of-way would be required from the entrance to the northern property line. William Combs, an adjacent property owner on the eastern boundary, appeared before the Commission and stated he believed Mr. Albertson would agree with his position. He further stated he would prefer the entire 40 feet be taken from the Lindsey property, advising they also used the private drive. Mr. Odom pointed out the developer was willing to give 40 feet. After discussion, it was determined the Commission should vote on whether to take 20 feet of right-of-way. The Commission, by a vote of 4-2-0 (with Commissioners Odom and Sugg voting no) agreed to take 20 feet. Ms. Hoffman expressed her feeling that all of the Lindsey apartment complexes were beautiful and well maintained; however, they were all on flat sites. She advised she had severe doubts the project was meeting the intent of Section 161.01 and 161.02 in terms of excessive grading, clearing, filling and cutting which would cause landslides, flooding, excessive runoff, degradation of water quality, erosion, sedimentation, etc. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to deny the large scale development Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Sugg advised he would be voting against the development since, in his opinion, the development raked the side of the mountain. He also advised he did not believe it met the intent of land development ordinances 161.01 and 161.02. He stated it appeared the plat showed approximately 80% of the lot would be graded and he believed that was excessive. Mr. Reynolds stated he believed the project needed to be redesigned. He pointed out the site was a beautiful hillside and he thought the applicant could do a better job of designing the project. • • • Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Forney stated he also would vote to deny the large scale He stated he was not opposed to the density since the zoning was R-2; however, he did feel R-2 was too heavy of a density for the slope. He advised he was also not too concerned about the school traffic since he liked to see development near schools. He stated that, if the project were redesigned and came before them in the future, he would like to see a study regarding extending Stone to the west. He advised there was a road (to the west of the National Home Center site) that was a north -south road with a city street sign. He further stated that, on the parks issue, he did not believe they wanted a park on every development and, since there was a public facility provided by the school, he believed the Parks Board had made the correct decision and the tract was not a good site for a park. He advised his objection had to do with the slope and to the lack of response by the applicant to the slope. Mr. Ward advised he was not opposed to the number of buildings since they were approximately the same size as a house. He stated he preferred the R-2 zoning on the site over R-1 since there could be many more single family homes than apartment buildings. He noted the Lindsey projects all were well maintained and well landscaped. Mr. Hopper agreed with Mr. Ward and stated he believed the apartments were much better than trying to place 55 houses on the side of a hill which would be constructed at separate times without a uniform effort to control erosion. He stated that, when the National Home Center large scale was approved, the school district had opposed the extension of Stone Street and therefore, they had not extended Stone on this project. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Odom voting no. Ms. Little advised John Watkins had been appointed to complete John Harbison's unexpired term effective the first meeting in July. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. \av