Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held October 27, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, and Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. AD 97-14.00: Administrative (Summit Parking Waiver 2. AD 97-15.00: Administrative (Wedington Overhead Elec.) 3. CCP 97-1.00: Concurrent Plat (Wedington Place) 4. CU 97-16.00: Conditional Use (Steve & Karla Caraway) 5. CU 97-17.00: Conditional Use (Ken Shireman) •6. VA 97-9.00: Vacation (Andrew Fisher) 7. VA 97-10.00: Vacation (Greg Riley) 8. RZ 97-21.00: Rezoning (Mid -South Enterprises) • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. ACTION TAKEN Approved ` Denied Approved Approved Approved Fwd to City Council Fwd to City Council Tabled _ AD 97-14.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT PARKING WAIVER SUMMITT DEVELOPMENTS -N. OF WEDINGTON & W. OD SHILOH DRIVE The applicant for Summit Development's large scale development has requested a reduction in the required number of parking spaces for the project. The proposed development is for an elderly housing complex which includes five individual buildings (132 units with 162 bedrooms. Four of the buildings are 8-plexes, with each unit having one bedroom. The fifth building is a two story, 100 unit structure, which contains 30 two bedroom units and 70 one bedroom units. Staff report: The parking lot ordinance (§160.117) requires the following: Total parking spaces = 162 Parking ratio = 1/bedroom, 1.23/unit • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 2 The applicant is requesting the following: Total parking spaces = 125 Parking ratio = 0.77/bedroom, 0 95/unit The difference in the requirement and the proposed number of spaces is 37 spaces. The applicant has stated that there is sufficient vacant land available on site to accommodate adding these spaces in the future if the nature of the project were to change. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends development of at least one parking space per unit or 132 spaces. Staff makes this recommendation realizing that 132 spaces will be 30 less than what is normally required. Staff also has concern that less than one parking space per unit will not provide adequate parking for residents, employees and visitors. Note: This large scale development is currently being reviewed by staff and technical utility representatives due to substantial changes as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee. At the October 16, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting it was requested that the full Commission review the requested variances in order to make it possible for the Subdivision Committee to approve this development at its next regular meeting. End of staff report. Mr. Mark Rickett represented the item. Ms. Little explained 162 parking spaces would normally be required which was based on one parking space per bedroom. The staff recommended one parking space per unit to provide adequate parking for the residents, staff, and visitors. Mr. Rickett stated he was representing the applicant. It had been his understanding that the applicant was willing to reduce the number of parking spaces in order to provide additional greenspace. Ms. Little explained during the development of this project there had been a portion of the land that had been rezoned. This was an elderly housing project. Two issues had been discussed: Parks- the Council had agreed to take money inlieu of land because there was a park near by. The other issue had been parking and if this development would generate as much traffic as a normal development. Staff was in agreement that it would not generate as much traffic as a normal development. Elderly people tend to avoid peak traffic times and made fewer trips. The project had been revised from the original submittal. The number of units had been reduced from 225 to 162 units. The arrangement of the buildings had been changed and a new street had A: IMINUTESI! 0-27-97. WPD • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 3 been configured. The staff had been amendable to additional greenspace, however, the staff had not requested the additional greenspace. They were amendable to the reduction of parking, but not to the amount requested. The staff requested 132 parking spaces. There was no public comment. Ms. Little stated the project was currently going through plat review and subdivision. The parking issue and the underground utilities had been elevated to the Planning Commission so the decision could be incorporated in to the revised plat in hopes of receiving approval at Subdivision level. She noted a large scale development could not be approved at the Subdivision level if the applicant was requesting a waiver. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to deny the waiver for 125 parking spaces and approve a waiver for 132 parking spaces. • In response to questions from Mr. Ward, Mr. Rickett replied he would not be opposed to installing an additional seven spaces. • The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the waiver for 132 parking spaces. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. A:IMINUTES110-27-97. {VPD • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 4 AD 97-15.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (WEDINGTON PLACE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC WAIVER CLARY DEVELOPMENT- N. OF WEDINGTON AND W. OF SHILOH Staff report: Wedington Place Subdivision, a commercial development located west of Shiloh and north of Wedington Drive is being reconfigured with a concurrent plat at this time. A large scale development is currently in process for lot 4 of this subdivision. Due to the existence of overhead utilities on the eastern property line of the subdivision, both the concurrent plat and the proposed large scale development are subject to Ord. No. 3997 (see attached). The ordinance title and purpose is "to require underground utility wires, lines and/or cables...in new commercial developments." A waiver of the ordinance requirement for underground utilities may be granted by the Planning Commission in the "case of hardships, (including by not limited to financial, geological, environmental, or regulatory) unique to the subject property." A waiver, if granted, may be permanent or temporary. Staff believes that a waiver is necessary for this subdivision. The alternative to seeking a waiver is to relocate all overhead lines underground. End of staff report. Ms. Little explained the waiver was related to two items Wedington Place Subdivision and Summit Development. Wedington Place Subdivision was a 25 acre subdivision mostly zoned C- 2, located at the intersection of Wedington Drive and Hwy 71 bypass. There was currently, on the eastern boundary line, an overhead electric line. Mr. Jim McCord, representing Clary Development, stated the developer had only been made aware of the ordinance recently. It had not been brought up during the Plat Review or Subdivision meetings. Placing the overhead electric line underground had been brought up in a telephone conference with the Planning Staff. He questioned if the ordinance applied. He explained the overhead line in question was along the east boundary line, it was not within the subdivision. The developer intended to comply with the ordinance for all the utility lines within the subdivision. He questioned if the ordinance had intended to include existing overhead lines along a boundary line. The overhead line would not be adjacent to the new street Steamboat. If the Planning Commission determined the Planning Director's interpretation was correct then the A: I MINUTESI l 0-2 7-9 7. WPD • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 5 developer would asked for a waiver because the line had been in place for many years and could be maintained and would not have to be buried at a cost of $24,000. Mr. Odom asked Ms. Little if she felt the ordinance applied. Ms. Little stated it was her responsibility to interpret the zoning code; it was her interpretation that the ordinance did apply. She explained the existing power pole and line was located on the property. The line was on Wedington Place property as well as a portion of the property subject to Summit Development. The line was also located within the proposed right-of-way for Steamboat Drive at its northern most point for a distance of about 280 feet. The power line then continued south along the eastern property line. Mr. McCord replied he had not intended to mislead the Commission. The overhead line was adjacent the property line. He asked if the Commission agreed with the Planning Director's interpretation that the ordinance applied Ms. Little called a point of order. She stated her interpretations were not subject to review by the Planning Commission. Her interpretations were subject to review by the Board of Adjustments. She added if the applicant had an issue with her interpretation then he needed to appeal to the Board of Adjustments. They only item the applicant could ask the Planning Commission for was a waiver. Mr. McCord requested a waiver. He explained the cost of the relocation of the line would exceed $24,000 and could be considered a financial hardship. He noted the line was located along the perimeter of the property. He requested a variance to allow the maintenance of the existing line to continue. There was no public comment. Referring to the ordinance, Mr. Tucker stated the financial expense was common to every commercial development. He did not believe financial hardship was sufficient to approve a waiver. Ms. Johnson asked why the Planning Commission did not see many waivers of this kind. Ms. Little replied the ordinance had only been in place for a year. Usually a developer preferred to have the utilities located underground. Most developers placed the utilities underground. Mr. Forney noted there was a letter from Mr. Burrack, SWEPCO, stating it had been his A: UfINUTESV 0-27-97. WPD • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 6 understanding that the ordinance applied only to new utilities. Ms. Little responded there had been a number of people involved in the development of the ordinance. Once the ordinance had been pasted it became her responsibility to enforce the ordinance. Ms. Little stated the Planning Staff would make the utility companies aware of the interpretation. MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to deny the waiver request. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2-0. Johnson and Ward voting nay. A: LNINUTES110-27-97. WPD Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 7 CCP 97-1 00: CONCURRENT PLAT (WEDINGTON PLACE) CLARY DEVELOPMENT- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF SHILOH DR. The concurrent plat was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approx. 32.36 acres This plat will create lots 1R, 4 and 5. Staff report: Findings: This project is a concurrent plat (preliminary and final together) which creates three new lots in the Wedington Place commercial subdivision. This plat also calls for the construction of two streets. One street is an extension of the existing Timberline Drive which will run along the eastern property line of the subdivision and will connect to Wedington Drive. The second road is a continuation of Steamboat Drive which is the easternmost drive currently constructed. Steamboat is extended to the northeast corner of the Wedington Place subdivision. Several easements are adjusted or relocated by this concurrent plat due to the newly created lots. Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions: 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 - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a min. 6' sidewalk with a min. 6' greenspace as shown. Sidewalk construction on lots which are not developed at this time may be guaranteed per §159.34 "Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements." A: I MINUTES1 / 0-27-97. WPD • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 8 5. Dedication of right of way as shown on plat. 6. Construction of Timberline Drive shall be complete prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure within the subdivision. Construction of Steamboat Drive, or placement of a guarantee for said street prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure within the subdivision. End of report. In response to questions from Mr. Odom, Ms. Warrick stated no additional curb cuts had been discussed during the agenda session. She noted it had been a condition of previous approvals. Signage had also been discussed. Mr. Mark Rickett, represented the item, he stated it had been his understanding that all the requirements and recommendations had been met. Mr. Odom reiterated no additional curb cuts on Wedington would be allowed. There was no public comment. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the item subject to staff comments with the addition of no curb cuts on Wedington. Signage was to be in the form of one development sign, either a pole sign or monument. Ms. Little noted a portion of this development was in the Overlay District, where only a monument sign would be allowed. To the west of Overlay District a pole sign would be allowed. Ms. Hoffman added to her motion that the signage would be subject to the conditions of the Overlay District. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked for clarification on the sign part of the motion. He asked if her intent was for the entire development to comply with the Overlay Distnct requirement. Ms. Hoffman explained if a sign was placed in the Overlay district then there would be one monument sign. If a sign was not placed within the Overlay District then they would follow the • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 9 sign ordinance would apply. She had intended the development to have one unified sign. Mr. Jeff Maxfield, Clary Development, asked for clarification on the motion. Ms. Hoffman explained if the one sign allowed for the entire development located near the bypass then the sign needed to be a monument sign. If the sign was located out of the Overlay District then it could be a pole sign, but the developer could not place a sign in both the Overlay District and outside the Overlay District. She reiterated it had been her intent to have one sign for entire development. Mr. Maxfield expressed concern about conflicts between retail and office uses in regards to signage. He noted some of the inner office lots might want small monument signs in front of their offices. Ms. Little explained if the development was limited to one sign then the developer would have to allot a portion of the sign to each lot owner. She noted the one monument or pole sign would not limit the signage on the building. • Mr. McCord stated the developer would be willing to comply with the sign ordinance. • Ms. Hoffman noted several of the larger developments in town had one shared sign for the entire development. She thought one sign would be adequate with the additional signage on the buildings. Mr. Forney felt wall signs and monument signs would be okay for each individual property. He noted the motion was more restrictive than the sign ordinance. Ms. Hoffman explained to the applicant, the sign ordinance allowed one free standing sign per lot. Ms. Little noted the Overlay District did not affect the wall signage. Mr. Maxfield stated the developer was unprepared to respond to a request for a signal sign for the entire development. In response to concerns voiced by Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Odom, Mr. Forney stated this would be the Commissions only opportunity to address signage. Mr. Odom noted the applicant would be allowed to request an administrative decision on the 3)9 • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 10 signage when each property developed. Ms. Johnson asked if there were individual monument, what size would they be. Ms. Little replied the Overlay District only allowed monument signs, 75 square feet of area, located ten feet from any public right-of-way. If the property was not within the Overlay District, the minimum setback would be 15 feet. She added at a fifteen foot setback the size of the sign could only be 10 square feet. She noted the regular sign ordinance worked off a sliding scale. The maximum size allowed was 75 square feet which would required a minimum setback of forty feet. She noted the overlay district was more permissive and more restrictive than the sign ordinance. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the public being able to locate offices if the signage was too restricted. She felt small signs would contribute to public safety. In response to comments from the Planning Commissioners, Ms. Little stated both Colt Square and North Hills Medical Park were located in R -O zoning districts, which limited signage to 16 square feet. She added Wedington Place and Summit Development were located in C-2 zoning districts, which had different signage requirements. She preferred a single sign for the development with additional signage on each building. Mr. Maxfield asked if the signage regulation were different for office and commercial. Ms. Little explained Fayetteville's sign ordinance was structured by zone. Size of the signage was determined by the zoning and not by the use. Ms. Hoffman commented each lot would have to come before the Planning Commission as a large scale development, she suggested signage waivers could be addressed at that time. Overall intent of the motion was for one sign. Ms. Little noted Commercial zoning district allowed one free standing sign per lot, shopping center, or mall. Only one on site free standing sign would be permitted for any business operating on two or more adjoining lots. The motion carried by a vote of 7-1-0. Ward voting nay. 3a\ • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 11 CU 97-16.00 CONDITIONAL USE (STEVE & KARLA CARAWAY) STEVE CARAWAY- 810 WOOLSEY AVE. The conditional use was submitted by Steve Caraway for property located at 810 Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately .79 acres. The request is to allow a detached second dwelling unit (Convert an existing garage into living quarters for an elderly relative). A deed restriction must be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit (see # 9 page 5 of this report). Staff report: Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: 1) Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions goveming applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2) The proposed modifications to the west elevation of the existing garage shall be completed as shown on the elevation drawing. End of staff report: Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was aware that the second dwelling unit must be constructed as shown on the elevation. He noted there was a letter from the Upchurchs concerning this item. Mr. Steve Caraway, applicant, stated they were converting their garage into an apartment for his wife's father who was developing medical problems and needed someone close by. Their home did not have adequate room for his father-in-law to live comfortably, with some privacy. He added his father-in-law's illness was not life threatening and they expected him to live a long time. There was no public comment Mr. Odom noted the Unchurchs' letter had requested a deed restriction stating the garage could not become rental property in the future. Mr. Caraway replied a he would not be opposed to a deed restriction. Mr. Odom noted there was currently a restriction for the conditional use that one of the units had to be owner occupied. Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Caraway stated he only wanted a place for his father-in-law to live. Ms. Johnson asked if the only change to the garage would be the addition of a window. Mr. Caraway replied the doors of the garage were located on the west side which would be replaced by a wall with a window. It would be the only change to the building. He added the garage had not been used in years. Ms. Little presented photos of the existing garage. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin replied the staff recommended the deed restriction as written in the ordinance and not to restrict the property any further. The ordinance provided safe guards to prevent the property having two rentals. One of the units had to be owner occupied. He felt the deed restriction would protect the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson commented having the owner live on the property was the best protection for the neighborhood. MOTION Ms Johnson moved to approve the conditional use with the two staff conditions of approval Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker asked why a material sample board had not been submitted. Ms. Little replied the photos had been accepted in lieu of the material sample board because it was an existing structure. The applicant was aware that the new siding in the area of the garage door would have to match the house. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had planned to match the existing siding and to maintain the color of the structure. In response to Mr. Tuckers concerns regarding the decisions made on an apparently similar situation, Ms. Little replied it had not been the same situation. The other applicant had torn down a structure and built a completely new structure. This was an existing building with only one change. Ms. Hoffman asked if the Unchurch's had been aware of the ordinance requiring one of the units 3a3 • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 13 to be owner occupied and if they were did they had any comments. Mr. Conklin replied he had not spoken with them. Mr. Caraway responded there were only three houses in the area that were lived in by the owners. There were three rental homes and two homes occupied by the owners' children. The Upchurchs had two properties in the area that were currently rented out. He noted the closet home to the garage was approximately 100 feet. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 14 CU 97-17.00: CONDITIONAL USE (KEN SHIREMAN) KEN SHIREMAN- 1701 MISSION BLVD. The conditional use was submitted by Ken Shireman for property located at 1701 Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.29 acres. The request is to allow an existing 960 sf. house to be used as an architectural office. Staff report: Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: 1) Compliance with § 160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of the zoning code. 2) The exterior of the existing home shall be maintained and no structural changes shall be made. 3) The Conditional use shall be limited to a maximum of four professionals and limited to the existing structure as shown on the site plan (tract 1 on survey). 4) The gravel drive and parking area shall be paved. End of report. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant wished to discuss the condition to pave the drive and parking area. He explained this was an existing structure and did not intend to change or modify the exterior structure. No sample board had been required. Mr. Ken Shireman, applicant, stated he was requesting a conditional use for a business in an existing older home. He stated he wished to preserve the existing wooded area He noted the Arkansas Highway Department would require the installation of an 18 inch culvert, if any work was done in the highway right-of-way. He felt improvements would have to be made on Hwy 45 in the near future and any work done by him would be replaced. He preferred to leave the gravel drive and develop a gravel parking area. He wished to develop a low impact project. He noted the property was well screened from the road He noted the home was set back 118 feet from the right-of-way. If the commission required the parking area to be paved, he requested them to exempt the work required in the right-of-way, so he would not have to install a culvert and ditch. He noted the site was not 1.29 acres, he corrected the site was .38 acres. Mr. Thad Kelly, area resident, asked for the wooded area to be preserved. 34 • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 15 Ms. Hoffman asked the number of cars that would be there at one time, including staff and visitors. Mr. Shireman replied the maximum would be four. He added he usually went to see his clients. It was rare for someone to come to see him. Mr. Watkins moved to approve the conditional use with the first three conditions of approval. Condition #4, requiring the parking lot and drive to be paved, would be removed from the conditions of approval. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Mr. Forney questioned the precedent this decision would be setting. Ms. Little replied the Commission had required a conditional use on Lafayette for a bakery and Steak for U to be pave a joint access. She noted the Commission had restricted the parking on a home used for counseling, when the staff had recommended paving the parking lot and drive. The staff recommended the driveways to be paved. She did not believed it would destroy the residential character. She noted most homes had paved driveways. She noted in our climate it was better to have paved drives because it limited the amount of runoff of gravel into the storm sewers. She added the paved drives were safer in bad weather. She added most subdivision have paved driveways. Mr. Forney asked if there was a requirement that residential lots have paved driveways, Ms. Little replied it had been a condition for new resident development to pave the driveways 12 %3 feet, 25 feet in commercial areas. She noted it had been an administrative rule and not a regulation. Mr. Shireman commented there were 26 gravel drives on Mission. Mr. Tucker noted paved parking had been required at the Tea House because to the steep slope and the baker had heavy traffic. Mr. Watkins comment the conditional use would not change the amount of traffic in and out of the property. He felt it would be overkill to require paving. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. 1)6 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 16 VA 97-9.00: VACATION (ANDREW FISHER) RICK NELSON- 2823 BOXWOOD DRIVE The utility easement vacation as requested by Rick Nelson (applicant) for Andrew Fisher (owner) for lot 2 in the Boxwood Addition, 2823 Boxwood Drive. The requested vacation is for 5 feet of uniform width off of the east side of the 25 ft. utility easement. Please refer to the survey and description. The application requires approval from the utility companies and the City's Water/Sewer, Street and Sanitation Divisions. The file contains approvals from: Utilities SWEPCO - no objections subject to retaining the remaining easement. Arkansas Western Gas - no objections. SW Bell - no objections. TCA Cable - no objections. City of Fayetteville: Streets - no objections. Water/Sewer - no objections. Sanitation - no objections. Recommendation: Approval of the requested vacation. Mr. Rick Nelson, applicant, stated he had built home. He admitted to making an error and apologized. He stated he did not expect this type of error to happen again. He had hired Alan Reid, surveyor, to layout his lots. Mr. Forney suggested charging Vacation applicants for the portion of land vacated. Ms. Hoffman was in favor of discussing the problem in hopes of developing an ordinance or city policy requiring applicants to reimburse the city for the land vacated. Mr. Watkins replied vacations were often only a sliver of land which would not have a monetary value • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Nelson replied he had hired Alan Reid to prevent this type of error from happening again. He suggested the Commission consider requiring builders to hire surveyors to layout homes, rather than penalizing people after they had made a mistake. He suggested the builders should hire someone, bonded, to layout a house that would be held accountable for this type of error. He added the biggest punishment anyone could endure was going through the vacation process. He reiterated he had taken the steps to prevent this type of error from occurring again. Ms. Johnson moved to approve the vacation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. -9t1 • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 18 VA 97-10.00: VACATION (GREG RILEY) RICK NELSON- 2784 RAINTREE DRIVE The utility easement vacation as requested by Rick Nelson (applicant) for Greg Riley (owner) for lot 30 in the Boxwood Addition, 2784 Raintree Drive. The requested vacation is for 2.5 feet at the encroachment of the house on the side utility easement. Please refer to the survey and description. The application requires approval from the utility companies and the City's Water/Sewer, Street and Sanitation Divisions. The file contains approvals from: Utilities SWEPCO - no objections. Arkansas Western Gas - no objections. SW Bell - no objections. TCA Cable - no objections. • City of Fayetteville: Streets - no objections. Water/Sewer - no objections. Sanitation - no objections. • Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Rick Nelson, applicant, stated he had made an error in the layout of the house. He added he had taken steps to prevent this type of error from occurring again by hiring Alan Reid, Surveyor, to layout his homes. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward moved to approve the vacation. Mr. Watkins seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. Mr. Watkins asked the staff to look for ways to prevent this type of error from occurring. He suggested adding a step to the permitting process. allh • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 19 Ms. Little replied she would have to pass the request onto the Inspection Division. She added the Commission had requested a solution to this problem in February of this year Mr. Venable, Mr. Rakes and herself had meetings on the topic. The problem had been assigned to the Inspection Division. She stated she would bring the issue back up and hopefully the Inspection Division could come forward with a recommendation. Mr. Odom requested the minutes to be forwarded the Inspection Division, noting the Commission was again requesting a solution to the problem. Ms. Little added Mr. Rakes had made a presentation to the Planning Commission in February. Mr. Odom did not believe the city had to pay for the cost of a survey. Ms. Hoffman noted the Commission was considering a survey for every new house. Mr. Odom suggested collecting the fair market value of a piece of property vacated. He stressed something needed to be done or the city continue vacating easements. 33° Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 20 RZ 97-21.00: REZONING (MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES) MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. AND W. OF SALEM The rezoning request was submitted by Marshall Carlisle of Murphy & Carlisle on behalf of Mid -Southern Enterprises, Inc. for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 9.966 acres. The request is to change the zoning from R-2 Medium Density Residential to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff report: Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from R-2 Medium Density Residential to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. This request is inconsistent with General Plan 2020 and additional C-2 zoning is not justified or needed at this time. End of Staff report. Mr. Marshall Carlisle represented the item. Mr. Carlisle stated the applicant Sam Rogers had planned to construct a bank branch if the property could be rezoned. He noted this was a 10 acre tract at the corner of Salem and Wedington Drive. He added the property to the east was zoned C-2. He felt if the property was rezoned it could serve the community with small services. He noted there were no small services, such as a bank, in that area of the town. There was no public comment. Mr. Ward felt the C-2 zoning would be consistent with the current zoning in the area. He noted it was on a major highway near a major interstate. He could not see residential use being developed on the property. Mr. Forney confirmed the area was not planned to be commercial in the 2020 Land Use Plan. He stated the purpose of the land use plan was to limit the commercial development to nodes. He supported the commissions attempts to concentrate commercial uses in limited areas at intersections. He would not be supporting the rezoning. Mr. Watkins agreed with Mr. Forney. He expressed concern about the development adding congestion to the heavy traffic. 35\ • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Odom stated there did not seem to be a lot of commercial development in the area. He did not feel the area was consistent with the general land use plan. The land was outside the area marked for commercial development in the 2020 plan. He would not be supporting the rezoning for those reasons. Ms. Johnson noted all the nodes intersecting with Wedington were designated as community commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the majority of the area shown as commercial on Wedington Drive existed as C-1 or C-2. There were a few nodes that were currently not zoned commercial that could be rezoned. Mr. Carlisle stated the property was currently zoned R-2. If the property was to develop as R-2 it would generate more traffic than a commercial development. He added it would be possible to establish a buffer between the C-2 zoning and residential use. Northwest Engineers would be the consultant. He would be willing to rezone only a portion of this property to C-2. Ms. Hoffman stated she would be supporting the rezoning because she felt it was consistent and appropriate for the area. She added she did not want to see the land develop with apartments. She expressed interest in the buffer zone Mr. Carlisle had suggested. Mr. Watkins expressed concern about the road developing as a strip commercial development. Mr. Reynolds asked how much of the C-2 land in the area that had not developed. Ms. Little noted the C-2 area from the bypass to Salem Road which was approximately 25 acres. There was a small portion of that land which had been rezoned to R-2. There was a large piece of property, Marinoni property, on the east side of the bypass that was vacant. She estimated the tract to be 20-30 acres. The vacant C-2 property in the area had existed for some time. She did not believe additional C-2 property was needed or justified at this time. Mr. Carlisle asked to table the item to give the applicant time to develop an alternative layout for rezoning which would include C-2, R -O, and Residential. He stated the traffic and the population of Fayetteville was not going to decrease. The services available on the west side of town needed to be improved. Mr. Odom felt Salem Road would be a good buffer between residential uses and commercial uses. • Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1997 Page 22 Ms. Johnson noted the Marinoni property had not developed because it had not been sold. It had been under one family's ownership for years and it did not provide any services for the area. She did not believe it was logical to say there was adequate C-2 zoning in the area because there was a large tract of land undeveloped. She added she lived on this side of town. She agreed there were not any small services on this side of town. She added the traffic was so heavy because of the all the residential development. She felt there needed to be some commercial development in the area to provide small services. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to table the item to give the applicant time to develop another plan. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Forney felt the commission needed to be guided by the 2020 plan. He would not be change his mind on the rezoning. • The motion carried on a vote of 6-2-0. Watkins and Fomey voting nay. • 39