Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held November 24, 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, and Bob Reynolds. STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. RZ 97-21.00: Rezoning (Mid -Southern Enterprises) Denied 2. RZA 97-17.00: Annexation ( Gary Atha) Approved 3. RZ 97-20.00: Rezoning (Gary Atha) Approved APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. RZ 97-21.00: (MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC.) MID -SOUTHERN- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF SALEM RD The rezoning 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 original request was to change the zoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant's new proposal is to rezone 5.45 acres to C-2 (RZ 97-21.10) and 3.34 acres to R -O (RZ 97-21.20). Recommendation: the staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning as being inconsistent with General Plan 2020 and was not Justified or needed at this time. Planning Commission considered this tract for C-2 zoning in 1989 deciding to recommend only the east side of Salem Road (6 47 acres) and that tract remains undeveloped. Additional commercial zoning may be appropriate at a future time when improvements to accommodate additional traffic on 1 6W are made. If the Planning Commission recommends C-2 zoning in this area, staff recommends that access to the entire tract be limited to one curb cut on Wedington Drive and Salem Road for the proposed loop street. The applicant has presented a schematic subdivision plan. Staff comments on the plan follow: ••\ • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 2 1. Access to each lot should be provided by either cross access and/or public streets within the project. 2. The proposal (which is recognized as being very preliminary) appears to separate the tract into 20 independent lots. A common design theme for the development should be required. 3. The schematic subdivision proposes the bulk of the property to be C-2 with a small amount of R-0. Staff feels these proportions are inappropriate. 4. For general consideration, staff has made notes on the plat. Mr. Marshall Carlisle, representative, noted there was existing C-2 land along Hwy 16, however, this tract was ready for development by the owner of the property, Mr. Rogers. If the rezoning were accomplished Mr. Rogers would develop a bank building. The purpose of the request was to be able to develop the land in the manner which would be compatible with what the city's ideas for this part of the community. The portion of the plat designated as R-0 had alternatives. The north side could continue to be R-2, however, the property on the west side would be best zoned R -O. There was no public comment. Mr. Fomey asked if R -O zoning would allow for a bank development. Ms. Little replied R -O zoning would allow a bank. Mr. Carlisle replied the owner had offers for the remaining C-2 property, which was contingent upon the rezoning. The possible businesses would required C-2 zoning or a conditional use. He was aware that a bank could be developed within an R -O or a C-1 zoning, however, there were other considerations involved. Mr. Forney asked how the R -O and the C-2 uses compared. Ms. Little replied restaurants were allowed in R -O with a conditional use. Mr. Forney added many of the uses suggested by the applicant could be allowed under a lesser zoning than C-2. He added he would not support any portion of the property being rezoned to C- 2. MOTION • Mr. Forney moved to deny C-2 zoning for RZ 97-21.10. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 3 The motion carried by a vote of 6-1-0. Mr. Ward voting nay. Mr. Watkins moved to deny the RZ 97-21.20 request for remaining portion of the tract, in order to consider another possible rezoning for the entire tract. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Odom asked the staff if the motion carried to deny the R -O zoning would the applicant be prevented from asking for the entire tract to be rezoned to R -O. Ms. Little replied the applicant could change the change the configuration of the R -O rezoning request, and reapply this year. Mr. Carlisle asked if the applicant could request another rezoning for the entire tract. Ms. Little replied the applicant could request rezoning for the entire tract or smaller tracts. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 4 RZA 97-17.00: ANNEXATION (GARY ATHA) GARY ATHA- N. OF MISSION BLVD AND E OF BLUE MESA DR The annexation request was submitted by Marc Crandall on behalf of Gary Atha for property located north of Mission Boulevard and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The order of annexation was signed by Washington County on August 25, 1997. The request is to annex approximately 76.95 acres. Recommendation: The staff recommended approval of the requested 76.95 acre annexation. Mr. Marc Crandall, representative, introduced Dave Jorgensen and Tom Henley who had been working on the preliminary site analysis, and Mr. David Glasser, University of Arkansas Community Design Center, who had been working on site analysis. Mr. Glasser presented a series of drawings illustrating the conceptional plans for the property. The developer had planned to develop a high quality development. He referred to the subdivision as a "new neighborhood". They had met with Ms. Little several times who emphasized the need to make street connections. He noted the site could be developed more heavy than shown. They were considering 160-164 units, the land could handle over 200 units. He noted over 20% of the land would be conserved within an internal park. The land was potentially land locked. The developer was proposing three connections. There were proposed connections to Old Wire Road, Brookbury, and Township All streets would be constructed as tree Tined boulevards with sidewalks. There would be pedestrian and bicycle trails to allow people to travel from any point in the development to the central park. It was not possible for the developer to connect to the near by Timbercrest Property. He added all the homes would have a rear alley. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney questioned if a bill of assurance was needed for the reduced density. He expressed concern about the access to the property. He questioned which connections could be made in the near future. He would support the annexation because the land was surrounded by the City's limits. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the annexation. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 5 RZ 97-20.00: REZONING (GARY ATHA) GARY ATHA- N. OF MISSION BLVD. & E. OF BLUE MESA DR. The rezoning was submitted by Marc Crandall on behalf of Gary Atha for property located north of Mission Boulevard and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The property contains approximately 76.95 acres The request is to change the zoning from A-1 to R-1. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested 76.95 acre rezoning from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, with the provision that a second point of ingress/egress to either Highway 265 or Skillern Road be provided. In the event a second point of ingress/egress is not provided, the staff recommends A-1. Mr. Crandall, representative, stated the applicant had made every effort to make additional connections within the bounds of the property. He had contacted several of the adjoining property owners in attempts to acquire land for an additional access. The developer had been unsuccessful in his endeavors. The land was surrounded by Timbercrest to the south and two phases of Savannah to the north, which had no provisions for access. The developer was forced to go outside the property for additional access. He added there was a proposed street on the western boundary. Stubouts to the west and to the north had been provided in anticipation of the possible connection. Mr. Odom asked the staff if they were satisfied with the developer's attempts to address the ingress/egress issues. Ms. Little replied the density issue was independent of any design that may or may not be presented on this property. There was 76.95 acres before the Commission with a request to rezone to R-1. R-1 property could be developed to a density of 4 units per acre. The staff had calculated the units at 3 units per acre times 75 acres for a possible total of 225 lots. The Planning Commission had required additional access points for Serenity Place, which had less than 100 lots. They had also required Crystal Springs to acquired additional property for access because of the number of lots (under 200). The Commission had also passed a resolution supporting the condemnation of property to the east for additional access, to Dean Solomon Road. The staff had recommended a second point of entry for this development because of the other decisions the Planning Commission had made. She believed the developer had put a lot of effort in his design, however, there were other possible connections. She added traffic should be one of the most important considerations the Planning Commission made at a rezoning. It was a density issue. She questioned if the infrastructure in the area could support the requested density at this time. • Mr. Odom asked if a condition of approval be that an ingress/egress for additional access could be required at rezoning. �V� A • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little replied the Commission was unable to place conditions of approval on a rezoning. The Commission could deny the rezoning until the additional access was provided or pass the rezoning with the caveat that a additional connection be provided at the time of development. . Mr. Crandall added the developer wanted an additional access as well, however, he had not been able to acquire one. In response to questions from Mr. Odom, Ms Little explained the Planning Commission could ask the City Council to incite a condemnation to allow access. The issue would need to be address at the preliminary plat. Mr. Crandall added there was a possible access from Mr. Browns property, although it was not ideal. Ms. Johnson asked if the adjacent land preserve was within the city limits. Ms. Little replied the proposed land preserve was outside the city limits. She added the property was surrounded on three sides by City Limits. Ms. Johnson did not see a problem with the rezoning, however, she would not support a development on the property without two entrances at the time the subdivision opened. It was too large of an area She added she would not favor having the city condemn land. Mr. Watkins stated the problem with additional access had been created by the Planning Commission in the past which had approved developments without provisions for additional connections. If house connection had been provided then the connections would not be a problem. He did not believe the developer should be penalized for the Planning Commission's mistakes. In response to comments made from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Crandall replied they only looked at the possible stubouts. They were anticipating two stubouts to the west because of the proposed Master Street Plan street that would connect Skillern and Hwy 45. They were suggesting alternatives. Mr. Tucker commented Vandergriff School had been a consideration in the Skillern Rezoning. The school was at capacity. He did not believe there would be room for additional children and they would attend other schools. Mr. Odom thought a Middle School would be constructed at the same location, which would free up some rooms. tt • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Johnson did not believe the problems could not be resolved at this stage. The commission could only make a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the rezoning 97-20.00 to R-1 from A-1. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. �7�