Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 23, 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, Mark Sugg, Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Sharon Langley Mr. Odom advised that Items 9, 10 and 11, concerning the annexations submitted by Jim Neill and Milt McKenzie on behalf of Randall and Rita Harriman, Stewart and Velma Liddell and Carle and Blanche Liddell had been removed from the agenda. He stated the Planning Commission would, however, review Item 8, the annexation submitted by Jim Neill and Milt McKenzie on behalf of Beverly Jeanne Skillern. • CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of the Minutes: The minutes of the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. VA97-3 00: VACATION OF AN EASEMENT KEATING ENTERPRISES - N OF SUNBRIDGE DR & E OF KEYSTONE CROSSING This item was submitted by Keating Enterprises for vacation of the 15 -foot utility easement on the lot line of lots 5 and 6 of Sunbridge Subdivision (7.5 feet on each side of the lot line). The Keatings are developing the two Tots as a single Large Scale Development (approved by the Subdivision Committee on April 3, 1997). Staff recommended approval of the requested easement vacation subject to: (1) retention of the existing 15 -foot utility or 15 -foot drainage easements on the north property line as defined on the final plat and (2) the applicant's legal description must be revised to accurately reflect the vacated easement. The corrected easement is required prior to the City preparing an agenda request for the City Council. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the Consent Agenda. l�� • • • imom- Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0-0 (Mr. Ward had not yet arrived at the meeting). • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 3 Old Business: AD 97-7.00: AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS Mr. Conklin advised there were three amendments to the By -Laws. He advised the first change was in order to allow for more than two alternate to be appointed to the Subdivision Committee. Two forms of suggested wording were presented; the first option left open the number of alternates which could be appointed but set a minimum of two (this option could be amended to specify any other number) and the second option allowed the staff, in the absent of a Subdivision Committee member, to call upon other Planning Commissioners who could then fill in for the absent Subdivision Committee member. He advised the second change was to modernize the By -Laws by substituting the word "chair" for the word "chairman". The final suggested changes were for simplicity regarding notice to the Planning Commissioners of meetings and wording changes for clarity. Ms. Johnson suggested the following alternative change to Article IV. C: "...makes recommendations to the Planning Commission; the remaining six members of the Planning Commission shall be named alternates who shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member." and "...who are absent from the meeting. The Chair shall designate the first alternate, the second alternate, etc." She explained the Chair could designate the order of the alternates. Mr. Odom suggested "The Chair shall designate the order of the alternates." Ms. Johnson agreed. She also advised the words "two altemates shall be named, one or both of whom" would need to be deleted from that section. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved that Article IV, Section C of the By -Laws shall read as follows: "A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioners shall serve as a standing committee that reviews development items after Technical Plat Review and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission; the remaining six members of the Planning Commission shall be named alternates who shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting. The Chair shall designate the order of the alternates..." Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Johnson advised the previous change to the By - Laws had been in order to have three regular Subdivision Committee members with two alternates. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 4 The motion carried unanimously, 7-0-0 (Mr. Ward was not present). MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the other changes proposed by the staff. Mr. Odom noted all of the changes except one were "house cleaning" changes. He pointed out the other change dealt with notice of meetings. Ms. Johnson advised that, since the change was notice to the Planning Commissioners of regular meetings, she would suggest "Notice of such meetings shall be mailed at least four days in advance of each meeting" be approved. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0-0 (Mr. Ward was not present). • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 5 LSD 97-10.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - McDONALD'S McDONALD'S - S OF HWY 45. E OF HWY 265 (GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER) The next item was a large scale development submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering and Associates on behalf of McDonald's for property located south of Highway 45 (Mission Road) and east of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) in Glennwood Shopping Center (pp 372). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 0.718 acres Findings: This project is located on the northwest outlot of Glennwood Shopping Center. Commercial Design Standards are in effect for this project as are the design guidelines for Glennwood Shopping Center. The proposed development has been previously considered at the May 29, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting, the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, and the June 12, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. Additionally, a special meeting of the Subdivision Committee was scheduled to consider the McDonald's proposal on June 19, 1997. • Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests the approval be conditioned upon the following: • Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and the Glennwood Shopping Center guidelines. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 3. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks 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. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 6 5. Sidewalks: a. Determination by Planning Commission if sidewalks from Highway 265 into the Glennwood Center will be required. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan dated June 12, 1997 with a sidewalk shown on the north side of the entrance drive. b. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six- foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Highway 265. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. 6. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utilities easements aree such that if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage, then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. 9. The letter of credit or other surety as required by Ordinance 159.34 to guarantee all incomplete improvements for the Glennwood Shopping Center must remain in effect or the improvements completed prior to issuance of building permit for this site. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be complete, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the McDonald's site. Mr. Odom reminded the Commission they had previously reviewed the large scale and had sent it back to the Subdivision Committee for the resolution of several issues. He advised the signage issue and sidewalk issue had been resolved. He stated Mr. Gary Brem, McDonald's, would explain why he believed the building was in conformity with the Glennwood Shopping Center. Mr. Conklin pointed out the applicant had provided elevations of the proposed building. He also pointed out they had received copies of the elevations of the shopping center. He also advised Laleh Amirmoez, the architect for the Glennwood Shopping Center, was present to compare the McDonald's renderings with the Glennwood Shopping Center. Mr. Brem stated the elevations had been revised based on discussion with the Subdivision Committee. He recognized there had been concerns regarding the aesthetics of the McDonald's • building and the view from both Highway 45 and Highway 265. He pointed out the changes • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 7 made to the roof line. He stated the conformity with the design of the shopping center had been through materials and colors. He pointed out the split face block at the bottom of the building which would be painted a color to match the brick within the shopping center; from the soffit line to the top they would have dryvit which was the same color and type as used in the shopping center; they had added the metal standing seam roof of color and type to match the shopping center. He also presented a rendering of the proposed monument sign, noting the guard rail would be between the sign and the retaining wall. He pointed out the guard rail would be 48 inches and the bottom of the arch section of the sign would also be at 48 inches and then would measure 5 feet, 4 inches from that point. Ms. Laleh Amirmoez, Hailey-Amirmoez Architects, the architect for the shopping center, appeared before the Commission and pointed out the diversity of the store fronts within the center. She advised McDonald's had tried to match the center by using the same materials and colors as used in the Shopping Center. She noted that, if the McDonald's were being constructed on Highway 71, it would not have to meet any guidelines. She stated the standards were higher for the buildings within the center. She asked the Commission to keep three things in mind when making their decision regarding the design of the McDonald's building: (1) the diversity of the store fronts in the center; (2) the importance of the trademark structure to McDonald's; and (3) the effort McDonald's personnel had made to match the theme of the center. Mr. Odom asked Ms. Amirmoez if she was confident the materials and colors used by McDonald's conformed to the Glennwood Shopping Center theme. Ms. Amirmoez stated that she believed McDonald's was putting forth their best effort while retaining their own identity. She also pointed out this was an outlot of the center. Mr. Odom asked if the playland area had been deleted. Mr. Brem assured him the playland had been deleted. Mr. Tucker asked if the deletion of the playland area would affect the parking calculations. Ms. Warrick stated the original submission the playland area was included in the calculations for parking; however, there was shared parking throughout the center and there would be some overlapping of spaces Mr. Odom asked if McDonald's would have to ask for a waiver on the parking. Mr. Tucker stated it appeared the total parking should be 17 spaces but they were requesting 45 spaces. • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Brem advised the number of spaces shown was in keeping with their experience of the number of spaces required by patrons. He noted the parking spaces had already been approved in the Targe scale development process for Glennwood Shopping Center. Mr. Conklin agreed. He reminded the Commission the parking had been looked at when the shopping center had been approved. Mr. Cozart stated he had asked David Glasser with the University of Arkansas Design Center if McDonald's blended into the center and the relationship of outlots in shopping centers in general He advised Mr. Glasser believed McDonald's blended into the center and presented a letter to the Commission from Mr. Glasser. Mr. Forney expressed his belief there had been some compromises made and that he was satisfied with the rendering of the sign. He stated he believed the added roof toward Highway 45 helped the building. He advised he believed the issues were whether they accepted the roof theme which was different from the roofs in the center, including the use of a specific lighting system. He also asked about the materials, noting the applicant was painting concrete masonry units to match the center. He suggested eliminating the light bars on the roof. • In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Brem explained the bar lighting had a flood light • at the bottom which lit the roof. Ms. Amirmoez advised there would be some concrete masonry on the buildings within the center and the masonry would have an opaque stain. Mr. Forney asked if the CMU on the McDonald's building would match the CMU on the shopping center. Ms. Amirmoez advised McDonald's was coordinating the colors with her for the shopping center. Mr. Sugg asked if the lighting proposed had been used on other standing seam metal roofs. Mr. Brem advised they had used the same system on the McDonald's in Rogers. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Ms. Johnson stated one of her main concerns was that the roof line did not compliment the design theme of the center. She pointed out the broken roof line; the extension of the roof line; the roof overhang; and the lighting of the roof. She noted the roof took up much more of the exterior compared to the other buildings. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Odom stated he believed the overhang was required for the walkway. He also pointed out there was a break in the roof on the Highway 265 elevation. He further advised the landscaping had also helped the appearance of the building. Ms. Hoffman stated she was inclined to support the building with a few minor revisions. She asked that the light bars be deleted since they were not consistent with the shopping center and possibly more landscaping on the Highway 265 elevation between the drive-in window and the front of the building. Mr. Odom stated he did not see it as the Commission's role to add, delete or modify the plan. He stated the petitioners had presented an application and had made it clear they were unwilling to change the plan. Mr. Brem stated the landscaping was not a major issue but the lighted roof was a major issue. He pointed out that was a part of the trademark roof. Mr. Tucker pointed out the "Golden Arches" was the second or third most recognizable emblem in the world. He also pointed out the building would be very recognizable within the shopping center by its location. He stated he believed that, if the building were constructed along the interstate, the roof would be much more important. Mr. Brem contended that McDonald's with non-standard buildings did not do the same amount of business as those with standard, trademark buildings. He stated it was a recognition issue. Mr. Odom stated that, while he believed the attempt for blending was minimal, it did meet the guidelines. Mr. Harbison stated he also would be much more likely to favor the application if the light bars on the roof were removed. Mr. Brem stated they could be painted to match the roof but he wanted the light bars to remain. Mr. Sugg stated he did not see any problem with lighting the roof but asked if there was not a less intrusive way to light it. Mr. Brem again stressed his belief that the light bars needed to remain. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the large scale development. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman stated she could support the large scale with a few minor changes. Mr. Odom pointed out the applicant had agreed to the landscaping. He asked if Ms. Hoffman would prefer the light bars be painted. Ms. Hoffman advised she would prefer the light bars be painted to match the roof. Mr. Forney asked if the motion were not approved, could another motion be made for minor amendments to the large scale. Mr. Odom stated he believed that, if the motion were denied, it would have to go on back through the proper channels. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had advised the presented Targe scale was all they were willing to offer. Mr. Brem advised he was willing to paint the light bars to match the roof. Mr. Ray Jones, the McDonald's franchisee in Fayetteville, contended the shape of the roof and building (including the lights) was very important for public recognition. Mr. Sugg stated he believed the proposal was somewhat of an improvement. He advised he believed the Commission was the conscience of the City and the building would be a part of the City. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioner Forney voting "no". • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 11 New Business: PLA 97-9.00 & LS 97-17.00: PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT & LOT SPLIT HENRY TUCK - N OF HIGHWAY 45, W OF GULLEY ROAD The next item was a request for a property line adjustment and lot split submitted by George Faucette of Faucette Real Estate on behalf of Henry Tuck for property located north of Highway 45 and west of Gulley Road The property is in the planning area. The parent tract contains approximately 62 07 acres. The property line adjustment will reconfigure the two tracts of land, one tract totaling approximately 20.43 acres and the other totaling approximately 41.64 acres after the adjustment. The 41.64 acre tract is the parent tract for the proposed split creating one parcel containing approximately 17.04 acres and a second parcel containing approximately 24.60 acres. Findings: The Master Street Plan shows a minor arterial bisecting this property in the approximate location of the requested property line adjustment (continuing to Sagely Drive on the east). A minor arterial calls for a total of 90 feet of right-of-way according to current street standards adopted by City Council September 1996. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 2. Dedication of 90 feet of right-of-way by warranty deed as shown on the plat reflecting future Master Street Plan street and matching the centerline of existing Sagely Lane. Mr. Faucette advised there was only one issue with the application -- the dedication of the 90 feet of right-of-way for an arterial street. In response to a question from Mr. Faucette, Mr. Conklin advised a lot split was a variance of the subdivision regulations. He added subdivision regulations required the dedication of right-of- way for the Master Street Plan. He explained that, if the lot met the standards on lot size, the property line adjustment could be approved. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Faucette asked if the conditions applied to both the lot split and the property line adjustment. Mr. Conklin explained that normally property line adjustments were approved administratively. He advised the Commission was reviewing both items because they were related. Mr. Faucette asked if the Commission would review the property line adjustment first. He pointed out the right-of-way was not an issue in the property line adjustment. Mr. Odom explained the appropriate way would be to address the lot split issue and then the property line adjustment. Mr. Faucette presented a map to the Commission which duplicated the Master Street Plan showing some reference points. He pointed out the area where Fat Gully Road and Highway 45 met and another point showing the extension of Zion Road. He advised Highway 45 was considered a principle arterial and the proposed road requested by the City would be considered a minor arterial, with a collector street to the north. He stated the distance between the Zion Road extension and the intersection of Fat Gully Road and Highway 45 was 1.9 miles. He pointed out the Master Street Plan showed 4 major streets serving the 1.9 miles. He also noted the distance from where Oakland Road and Skillern met to the area where Highway 45 and Oakland met was approximately 3/8 of a mile. He expressed his belief that, when the proposed road passed Oakland Road, it arbitrarily swerved back to the north making it run through the heart of the subject tract Mr. Faucette advised the property had been in the owner's family for 46 years. He stated the family did not want a subdivision with 30 or 40 lots. He pointed out there was no sewer on the property; a subdivision would not be in character with the surrounding area; and the density of the area would never be as dense as in town. He stated the surrounding area was made up of 2 to 10 acre tracts. He asked if there was a need for a major arterial starting at Old Wire Road, going on Skillern Road and then arbitrarily turning north rather than connecting back to Highway 45 along existing roads. He again asked if the right-of-way was necessary and, if it was necessary, did it have to be 90 feet wide. Mr. Odom advised he believed Mr. Faucette had made a good argument but, in order for him to support any amendment to the Master Street Plan, would require a compelling argument. He stated Mr. Faucette could be right that the property might never develop as densely as in town, but there would be continued growth in the area and there would be the need for the arterials. He pointed out it would be much harder to plan for those arterials in the future. He advised that, instead of dismissing an arterial at this time, the Commission probably needed to be looking for additional ways to get better traffic flow through and around Fayetteville. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Faucette stated he did not believe any one of the items he had mentioned was compelling by itself but, taken all together there were questions. He agreed the City needed traffic flow but he believed the proposed route was placed arbitrarily. Mr. Harbison asked if the application was dependent upon a change in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Faucette stated he knew the City Council was the entity which passed the Master Street Plan with the Planning Commission being the recommending body. He advised he was not sure what the applicant would do if the Planning Commission approved the lot split recommending the 90 feet be dedicated as right-of-way. Mr. Forney stated he agreed with Mr. Odom's comments. He urged the Planning Commission to get the right-of-way, pointing out there would be no place located nor right-of-way for another road. He further stated that, should the Master Street Plan ever be revised, he would support the vacation of the subject right-of-way. Ms. Hoffman asked if the newly adopted street ordinance affected the width of the rights-of-way on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Conklin stated the Master Street Plan had been amended in the Fall, 1996, and had increased the right-of-way widths on all streets and created residential and local streets. He explained minor arterials had, before the amendment, been designated to be 80 to 100 feet in width. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe they should recommend deletion of the right-of-way because she believed they needed more than one major east -west street between Highway 45 and Joyce. She advised the only way she believed the Commission should recommend to Council a change in the Master Street Plan was after serious study, not in response to a lot split. Public Comment: There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve lot split 97-17.00 subject to all conditions of approval. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission there was an existing driveway on the north property line and it was her view their action did not affect the existing right-of-way. She advised she believed the adjacent land owner needed to be aware that he might have to assert his rights in order to make the use of that drive permanent. \t • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 14 PP97-4.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOIS d'ARC TULIAN & JANE ARCHER - E OF SANG &SOF CLEVELAND The next item was a preliminary plat for Bois d'Arc (pp 442) submitted by Ron Petrie of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Julian and Jane Archer for property located east of Sang Avenue and south of Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential) and contains 19 lots on approximately 24.70 acres. Findings: The revised preliminary plat for the total Bois d'Arc subdivision is before the Planning Commission. The plat approval history of Bois d'Arc is: A preliminary plat for Bois d'Arc Subdivision containing a total of 19 lots was approved by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1995. On September 25, 1996 a request for a narrow street (26 feet in lieu of 31 feet) was approved. On January 8, 1996 the Planning Commission approved the phasing of Bois d'Arc and approved a preliminary plat for Phase I (10 lots) only at this meeting (Phase I was the only phase submitted for January 8, 1996). The current proposal for Phase I of this subdivision has changed from the January 8, 1997 approval, specifically in regard to lot dimensions and street configuration. Construction plans had not been approved and construction has not started on Phase I or 11. Waivers for street construction are requested as follows: 1)that the one-way portions of Osage Bend adjacent to Lots 5, 19, 11 and 12 be allowed to be 16 feet wide, and 2) to allow tangent length less than 100 feet for reverse curves as shown on plat. Staff supports the requested waivers for street widths and curve layout due to the topography, the intent to save trees and anticipated low traffic volumes. The applicant requests that Osage Bend be allowed to be classified as a residential street with a width of 26 feet, 5 feet of greenspace and one 4 -foot sidewalk where the standards for residential streets are a width of 24 feet, 5 feet of greenspace and one 4 foot sidewalk. The requested 26 -foot residential street is 2 feet wider than the established 24 -foot residential street. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: • Conditions of Approval: • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 15 1. Planning Commission resolution of the requested street and sidewalk waivers/request as detailed in the "Findings" above. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozark Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 3. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, 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. 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 feet. Wider easements shall be required for sewer lines over 10 feet in depth and must also allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. Access to all "backyard" manholes shall be provided. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $5,700.00 for 19 single family lots at $300.00 each at final plat. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards greenspace - 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum greenspace of 5 feet on one side of Osage Bend for a residential street, a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along Sang Avenue, and a 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Cleveland Street. 7. Signed agreement concerning the installation and maintenance of street lights must be submitted to Traffic Superintendent prior to the City accepting the final plat for processing. 8. The drainage improvements as proposed, and any additional improvements as determined in the final review by the City, will be required without regard or dependency upon the applicant's request that the City cost share in the drainage improvements to help resolve existing problems. 9. The City will work with the developer to allow the saving of trees in the right-of-way but • will not allow any tree to remain when such tree is deemed by the City to cause a safety • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 16 problem or to interfere with the installation or maintenance of any public improvement including water lines, sewer lines, streets and drainage. 10. All underground drainage including the inlets and head walls and all drainage within the street right-of-way will be publicly maintained. All open channel drainage, all swales and all detention pond(s) (if detention is required by the final analysis) shall be privately maintained by the developer, the POA or another private entity in accordance with the Stormwater Management (Drainage) ordinance. 11. Any and all materials used for street construction except plain concrete or plain HMAC shall not be maintained by the City. All non-standard or upgraded paving material such as patterned concrete or pavers shall be privately maintained by the developer, the POA, or another private entity. 12. The covenants shall provide for the maintenance of the detention facilities, open channels (swales or ditches), walls, island(s), non-standard paving materials and signs and must name the City as a third party to these covenants. The covenants must be approved by Planning, the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Mr. Milholland stated the applicant was in agreement with all conditions except item 12; he advised they would concur with the maintenance of the detention facilities if they were required. He explained he did not know, at this time, whether detention ponds would be required. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Milholland advised they would be asking the City to cost share in drainage improvements to help resolve existing problems. He stated they had met with Mr. Venable and staff and would be writing a letter setting out the cost for such drainage improvements. He further stated he understood approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission did not include approval of the cost share. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission would need to vote separately on the requested waivers. Mr. Tucker asked if the waiver on Osage Bend apply to only the one-way portion. Mr. Conklin stated that was correct. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Odom explained that, when the preliminary plat originally was reviewed by the Commission, the standard street width had been 31 feet; the applicant had requested and received approval for a 26 -foot street. He pointed out that, since that time, the street standards had been changed and there was now a 24 -foot street. `"6 • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 17 MOTION Mr. Odom moved to grant a waiver of street requirements and allow Osage Bend to be 16 feet wide at lots 5, 19, 11 and 12 and 26 feet wide in all other areas. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson stated it was her preference the street be 24 feet in width but, if the applicant was unwilling or unable to do that, she could live with the wider width. Mr. Milholland stated it would be a problem to cut the street back to 24 feet; the subdivision would have to be redesigned. Public Comment: There was no public comment. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to grant a waiver allowing the tangent length of less than 100 feet between the reverse curves as shown on the plat. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Public Comment: There was no public comment. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson stated she was pleased by the promise of the applicant to cure, through its drainage improvements, problems created by the subdivision downhill. She stated she appreciated the owner's willingness to cure the existing problem. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved approval of Preliminary Plat 97-4.00 subject to the waivers and 12 staff conditions. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Sugg asked if the Property Owners' Association would also maintain the island and entrances. • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Milholland advised the Property Owners' Association would maintain the island and entrances. Mr. Tucker asked if all new subdivisions had a signed agreement regarding installation and maintenance of street lights. Mr. Conklin explained that, when the subdivision was not installing standard street lights, an agreement was required for installation and maintenance by the developer. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Milholland stated the islands at the entries would be called "islands" on the plat. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 19 RZA97-10.00: ANNEXATION FOR NEILL/McKENZIE BEVERLY JEANNE SKILLERN - E OF SKILLERN & W OF ROM ORCHARD The next item was a request for annexation submitted by Jim Neill and Milt McKenzie on behalf of Beverly Jeanne Skillern for property located east of Skillern Road and west of Rom Orchard Road. The property is in the City Growth Area and contains 17.62 acres. The request is to annex this tract into the corporate city limits. Jerry Allred appeared before the Commission and advised he was representing both the developers and the owners. He stated they believed it was in the best interest of the City to annex the subject property so that any future development would be done under City standards rather than County standards. Mr. J. L. Lancaster, 3076 N. Lancaster Lane, advised he had lived in the area for 30 years and owned 10 acres immediately north and west of the subject tract He pointed out growth in the area had been steady and orderly by individuals who appreciated space. He contended the proposed annexation threatened their way of life and should not be imposed upon them. He noted the growth in the area had been single-family residential and the proposed rezoning was supposedly consistent. He noted "consistent", according to the dictionary, was "corresponding to or in a harmonious or matching relationship". He contended the tract in question cut a narrow swath between single family dwellings on acreages. He then directed his comments toward the density of the proposed annexation and noted the existing homes were on tracts ranging in size from 5 acres to 10 acres. He stated the density would be 15 to 30 times the density of the adjacent properties and that would not be consistent with the surrounding properties. He further contended Savannah Subdivision should have no bearing on their decision regarding the annexation except for traffic considerations. He advised the applicants had stated adjoining sites would not be adversely affected; he contended the noise, lights and traffic would affect the adjoining properties. He noted there would be from 60 - 90 additional vehicles for the 29 houses. He further advised that air pollution and undescribed situations arising from such density were his arguments against the development. He then presented a petition in opposition to the annexation signed by 109 people. He also asked those in the audience who were opposed to the annexation to stand -- approximately 30 people stood. Colene Gaston, 3270 Rom Orchard Road, presented a copy of ACA 14-40-604 regarding proceedings to prevent annexation. She read as follows: "(a)(1) No further action shall be taken for a period of thirty (30) days after the order for annexation has been entered." She advised she did not know the exact date the Order was entered but Judge Johnson had decided on June 12 to approve the Order. She noted it had clearly been less than 30 days after the Order had been • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 20 entered. She contended it was not proper for the Planning Commission to consider the annexation at this time. Mr. Odom explained the Planning Commission did not annex the property, the City Council did. He advised the only action taken by the Planning Commission was to recommend or not recommend the annexation of property. Ms. Gaston contended the statute was plain that no further action could be taken for a period of 30 days. She advised she believed the reason was to allow those opposed an opportunity to file an appeal in the Circuit Court. Mr. Odom advised the group would still have the appeal rights and he encouraged her to bring the issue up before the City Council. Ms. Gaston stated she would believe the City would take a conservative approach on this issue due to the concern of the neighboring residents and honor any feasible, construable time deadlines. She asked if it was not standard procedure for staff to take nothing before the Planning Commission until 30 days after the application had been filed. Mr. Conklin explained the time gap between the filing of the application and review by the Planning Commission depended upon when the application was submitted. He stated once the application was submitted and found to be complete, the item was placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda. He advised there was no 30 -day minimum. Ms. Gaston asked the date the notification sign had been posted on the property. Mr. Conklin stated it was posted approximately 17 days prior to the meeting. Ms. Gaston asked if he knew where the sign had been posted. Mr. Conklin stated he had posted the sign on Skillern Road. Ms. Gaston stated it was her understanding that the sign was posted on property owned by adjoining property owners who were opposed to the annexation but was later moved. She contended the sign had not been moved 15 days before the hearing. Mr. Conklin stated that, to the best of his ability and knowledge, he had placed the sign where it currently stood. ��1 • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 21 Ms. Gaston stated that, while the Planning Commission might not think it important, there was a regulation which required the sign to be posted 15 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Odom stated the Planning Commission always thought rules and regulations important and pointed out three annexation items had been removed from the agenda because proper procedure had not been followed. Ms. Gaston stated the regulation stated the sign was to be posted in conspicuous places. She advised there was only one sign placed on the tract which extended from Skillern to Rom Orchard Road. She stated there were several area residents that had not been aware of the annexation request since the sign had not been placed on Rom Orchard Road. She contended all of the reasons she had listed were enough to argue for postponing consideration of the annexation. She also presented the application for annexation/rezoning and noted it had not been signed by the owner of the property, only by the representative. She pointed out the application was to be signed by the owner or the authorized agent if a letter of authorization was provided. She noted there was no letter of authorization. Mr. Conklin agreed there was not a letter of authorization. He noted he had spoken with the property owners and they were aware of the annexation and rezoning request. He advised the signature block was a Planning Office policy not an ordinance requirement. Tom McKinney, representing the Sierra Club, advised he was related to some of the adjoining property owners and friends with other neighboring residents. He advised the Sierra Club was always concerned about the maintenance of greenspace and urban sprawl. He noted the neighborhood had traditionally been single family residences on multiple acre lots and he believed the annexation would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood. He also advised the area was the Last open space which did not contain a house. He also expressed concern that there was no topsoil on the subject property due to previous grazing. He explained any kind of disturbance of the property would result in some damaging runoff to the south. He expressed his belief the wishes of the area residents should be adhered to and the annexation should not be approved. Mr. Albert Baltz, 3502 Skillern Rd., advised his property was immediately south of the subject property. He noted he was currently in the process of renovating the Skillern house and had applied to have the house placed on the Arkansas Registry of Historical Places. He presented a poster showing the area drainage, including the drainage coming off of the subject property. He advised there was also a great deal of old growth timber on the subject tract He also stated he did have slides showing some of his concerns. Mr. Odom stated all of the Planning Commissioners had been on the subject property and were • familiar with the area. He stated he was confident that he was very familiar with the area. • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Baltz asked if the Commission understood the problem with the street and the traffic issue which needed to be addressed. Mr. Odom explained the traffic issues were usually not addressed until a development was proposed. He stated they did not consider traffic issues on annexations. Mr. Sugg stated he believed the information would be more pertinent if the annexation were approved. He explained they were not supposed to discuss the zoning of the property at this point. Mr. Baltz expressed concern regarding the sewage situation. He explained that, at the inter- section of Highway 265 and Old Wire Road, the sewer manhole would pop whenever there was a heavy rain. He stated most of the houses in the area went through the pump station. He asked why they continued to add on to the line when this happened so frequently. He contended the issue needed to be looked at. Mr. Kyle Baltz, Albert Baltz's son, asked the items considered for annexation. • Mr. Odom explained annexation was an action by a City to determine whether they believed it was appropriate to bring an area into its protection and control. • Mr. Baltz asked if that was based on the City's resources. Mr. Harbison stated the central question was whether or not something warranted annexation and whether the annexation was Justified by the cost the City would bear. Mr. Baltz asked if they had talked to the Fire Department. Mr. Conklin explained that, at the time of development, the Fire Department reviewed the proposal to assure that fire protection would be available. He advised the Street Department, Traffic Division, Water & Sewer, etc. also reviewed the development plans to determine if they could provide adequate facilities. Mr. Baltz stated he had talked to some firemen and was told the City was spreading much faster than the fire department. He pointed out the response time was 60% slower than houses in Fayetteville. He also stated there was a terrible odor coming from the sewage treatment plant and asked how they could justify putting even one more house on the line. He contended the Commission had not had an opportunity to witness the sewage problem nor the traffic problems. \ck • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Max Timmons, 2860 Rom Orchard Road, pointed out the front of the property (on Skillern) was 150-160 feet wide while the back of the property (on Rom Orchard) there was 300 - 600 feet of frontage. He advised the annexation would affect more people that traveled Rom Orchard than the people traveling on Skillern. He stated the people affected the most might not see the notification sign since it was located on Skillern and contended the sign should have been placed on Rom Orchard Road. Mr. Odom advised Skillern was designated a minor arterial. Mr. Conklin advised he had placed the sign where he believed more people would see it. Mr. Timmons stated his other problem with the annexation was facility support from the City. He pointed out the land would be surrounded on three sides by county property; an isolated strip of land 1 'h miles deep isolated from the City. He stated any emergency facilities would have to use a county road to access the majority of the property. He also pointed out only 110 feet of the subject tract was adjacent to any other city property. He advised he had a contract with the City for fire protection but the Goshen Fire Department arrived at his home before the Fayetteville Fire Department when he had a grass fire, contending city services would not be adequate for the subject tract Jan M. Sallings, 3430 Skillern, advised the driveway for the proposed subdivision went through the center of his house. He stated he rented the property but the developer had not contacted him. Ms. Susan Brisiel, 3150 Rom Orchard, stated she had moved to her home because of the large tracts in order to have space. She advised she had a difficult time separating the annexation from the zoning and development. Roy C. Rom, 3098 Rom Orchard, asked if it was necessary for the City of Fayetteville to annex 17 acres of land because a developer saw an opportunity to make money. He expressed his belief there was adequate area within the City Limits which could be used for residential development, some of which already had streets, sewers, fire protection, police protection, schools, etc. Colene Gaston again appeared before the Commission and stated she wished to document for the record the issue of the sewer system in the City of Fayetteville. She presented a copy of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan for the City of Fayetteville and read a portion: "Several sections of the collection system are near capacity during dry -weather periods. The treatment plant is also near, or in some case, exceeding its permitted average daily flow. During wet -weather periods, both the collection system and the treatment facility become overloaded, resulting in sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) at several locations in the collection system." She reminded the Commission Mr. Baltz had told them the sewer at the intersection of Old Wire and Highway 265 often overflowed when it rained. She advised the City had recognized these • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 24 problems. She asked why compound the problem by expanding the area for the both the collection system and treatment plant. She asked why they could not approach the problem of growth in a more orderly manner than allowing developers to select the sites. She contended there were R-1 areas of vacant land currently existing within the City Limits. 'She suggested the City Council could, if it was necessary to annex more lands, find areas more appropriate by being more compact or contiguous to the City Limits. Mr Carl Yates, 3420 Skillem, expressed his belief annexation of the subject tract would be bad planning. He compared the annexation to spot zoning. Ms. Nina Luther, 3179 Old Wire Road, requested the Planning Commission not annex the property. She further requested they recognize the area as a long-term, well-established neighborhood of homes on acreages. Wes Doss, representing the applicants, reviewed the two methods for the City to annex property: (1) election and vote by the citizens of the City and (2) petition by property owner. He explained Ms. Skillern was requesting her property be annexed so.she could sell it and have it developed. He advised it was Ms. Skillem's choice to have her property annexed and the City's choice whether or not to accept the property into the city. He advised he was not sure the objections raised by the neighborhood residents were relevant since the only two parties involved were Ms. Skillern and the City of Fayetteville. He further stated there had been substantial compliance with the requirements of the City. He advised that Ms. Gaston had read from ACA 14-40-604 that no further action would be taken for a period of thirty days. He contended the term "action", in this case, meant when substantial rights were affected. He pointed out there was an area under the statute which said "Purpose. The sole purpose of this section is to give to remonstrants an opportunity to appeal a county court order to the circuit court..." He advised no one was losing any rights by the annexation being reviewed by the Planning Commission. He pointed out the Commission was just making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Doss advised this was the last tract of land Ms. Skillern owned. He noted the right-of-way on the tract was 240 feet. He stated the Supreme Court had looked at similar cases and the concern was that when municipalities used a "shoestring" to reach a Targe body of land. He pointed out that was not the case on the subject tract Mel Milholland stated the frontage on the property was over 240 on the right-of-way and then, a short distance into the property , the tract widened into over 330 feet and eventually widened to 697 feet. He advised they would be able to make large lots on the tract. • Mr. Forney stated that, while they were not talking about the rezoning, he believed they needed to know to what density the property could be developed if it remained in the county. '2\ • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 25 Mr. Conklin stated the key to developing the site in the county would be the land necessary for septic systems. He advised that, if additional land would not be necessary for the septic system, the minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet. Mr. Forney stated that, in theory, the property owner could subdivide the property to the same approximate density as R-1. Mr. Jerry Allred, representing the applicant, advised that, if the property were developed in the county, there would be no requirements for sidewalks, tree preservation, street lights, etc. He stated it would be a much less desirable situation to have the property developed in the county. He asked what would happen in a few years if, after developing the property in the county, if the City wanted to annex it. He pointed out the sewer would have to be extended at the City's cost but, if the property were annexed now, the developer would be paying for the extension. He contended it was in the city's best interest to annex the property now and have the developer pay for the sewer extension and have the property developed to city standards. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were tracts of land similar in size and topography currently within the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Conklin stated that, when he did the general plan, he found undeveloped tracts of land which could be developed. He advised he did not know if any of the tracts were of similar size. He stated they would need to look at the County's plat maps since that was the only place the land was broken into parcels. Ms. Hoffman stated she had discussed the matter with Ms. Little who indicated much of the vacant land could be hillside property or, at least, steeper sites. Mr. Conklin advised there was land of similar size, zoned R -I, available within the City Limits. Mr. Harbison stated it appeared the bottom line was whether or not the benefit of the annexation presently outweighed the cost the City would incur. He asked if Mr. Allred had any other items as they related to City cost versus developer cost. Mr. Allred stated the streets and sidewalks would be developed to city standards if annexed now; there would be a tree preservation plan if the property were within the City; there was no zoning ordinance in the county regulating the design of the subdivision, etc. He pointed out the County was less stringent than the City as far as development requirements. He noted it would be less costly for the developer to develop to the County's standards. He stated he did not feel it would be in the City's best interest for the property to develop to County standards and the developer did not believe it would be in his best interest to develop in the County. Mr. Tucker asked if the City had a policy to not extend sewer lines outside the City Limits. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 26 Mr. Conklin explained that, by ordinance, the sewer lines could not be extended outside the City Limits without City Council approval Mr. Tucker asked if there was any way for the developer to gain access to the city sewer without being annexed. Mr. Conklin stated they could petition to the City Council and request they be allowed to tie onto the sewer system. Mr. Sugg asked if that had been done. Mr. Beavers stated the last couple of people who had made the request had been denied by the City Council. Ms. Johnson stated that, if they believed the City would not extend to the subject area, they might be persuaded against annexing; but, if they believed the City would continue in that direction, it would be best to approve the annexation. She explained she lived in an area which was not developed by a developer and there was a street nearby which had never been property developed. She advised there were numerous problems when the land was not property developed. Mr. Odom agreed. He advised he believed the City was growing in that area and had believed the City should begin some type of comprehensive plan for widespread annexation of the entire area, primarily for the purposes of safety. He advised he did not think spot zoning or annexation was good for the city because whatever the city gained they added risk in disservice to the citizens. Mr. Conklin stated the City Council had discussed, several times, widespread annexation but they had never adopted an ordinance requesting an election. He pointed out there were some issues of cost when dealing with low population in large areas and providing service to those areas. Mr. Odom stated he believed that was a valid argument but, when annexing piecemeal, it became confusing. He expressed his belief that, when they reviewed numerous requests for annexation, it was not smart to annex piecemeal. Mr. Harbison agreed with Mr. Odom. He stated he believed it was very difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of annexation on a piecemeal basis. He advised he believed they should be looking at larger parcels and a more comprehensive and rational approach to annexations. • Ms. Johnson pointed out that avenue was not available to the landowners. She stated she did not believe they could tell a landowner to use a procedure which did not exist within the City. • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 27 Mr. Forney advised they needed to take the City's interest and, while he believed in the property owner's rights, the property was not in the city yet; their interest was not his interest. He further stated he believed Mr. Harbison's comments were very apt. He reminded the Commission he had supported some recent annexations on the west side of town near the new school because he believed the annexations were rational and filled in some gaps at the city's edge. He stated he found those annexations made sense, given the infrastructure in the area. He stated on one hand, the subject tract was close to the waste water treatment plant but, on the other hand, it was further from schools and fire stations. He explained that contradiction reflected the poor process they were using. He advised he did not believe they could make good judgments until they had a rational system. He stated he did not plan to support the subject annexation because he did not think it was a rational process. Ms. Hoffman stated she would support the annexation but did have doubts about the rezoning of the same property. She advised she would look very carefully at the rezoning of the property. Mr. Sugg stated he agreed with Mr. Yates that approval of the annexation would not be good planning. He expressed his believe the subject tract was a shoestring to no where and he saw no rationale in annexing the property. • MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to recommend approval of the annexation RZA97-10. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. • Mr. Forney stated it was very important for the Commission to try to make a rational judgment and believed it had to be on a economic basis. He advised he did not believe the current infrastructure in the area was adequate. He further noted he believed there was plenty of land inside the city limits which could be developed. Ms. Hoffman stated she believed it was better to try to control what would happen (development of the land). Mr. Forney stated he did believe eventually development would occur but believed annexation would encourage the developers to request more annexations. He pointed out property costs were lower at the edge of the city. He again pointed out there was undeveloped lands within the City Limits and expressed his belief they should encourage the development of that land. He noted they would have to provide city services if the property were annexed which would expensive for the city. He agreed that, if the property was developed at county standards, the city might have to bring the area up to city standards if they annexed it in the future; but noted he believed that would only happen a few times. • • Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1997 Page 28 Mr. Sugg pointed out they were assuming the property, if left in the county, would develop to the same density as if it were in the city. He noted that might not happen. He also pointed out the additional costs to the city in fire protection, water and sewer service, etc. if the property were annexed. Mr. Odom advised the economic benefit of annexation was that the developer would be paying to bring the area up to city standards rather than the city. Mr. Ward stated the subject property was some of the most valuable in Northwest Arkansas so he did not believe property within the city limits cost more. He expressed his belief that, if the property were developed to city standards, it would be a beautiful and very expensive area. Ms. Gaston contended that, if the property were not annexed, she believed it would develop similarly to the neighborhood. She further stated she believed it was very unlikely the property would develop with 30 plus houses on septic systems. She also pointed out an area on Rom Orchard Road that would become a city street with county property adjoining both to the north and to the south. Mr. Doss reviewed a subdivision constructed in the County (in the vicinity of Prairie Grove). He stated the residents of that subdivision could not get occupancy permits nor sell their homes because the ground did not perk properly. He stated he did not believe that was what anyone present wanted; that the applicant was requesting to be allowed to comply with the city's regulations. The motion failed 4-4-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Hoffman, Ward and Odom voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Sugg, Harbison, Tucker and Forney voting against the motion. Mr. Odom advised the next item, rezoning of the same tract, would not be considered since the motion for annexation failed. Mr. Odom then recognized John Harbison since it was his last meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.