Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-09 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held February 9, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. VA 97-11.00: Virginia Davis 2. AD 98-1.00: Transient Merchants 3. CU 98-4.00: Lamar & Donna Pettus 4. RZ 98-3.00: Drake Field 5. RZA 98-4.00: Serenity Place Phase II 6. RZ 98-5.00: Serenity Place Phase II Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee .Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, John Forney, and Bob Estes. Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ACTION TAKEN Approved/Fwd to City Council No action taken Approved w/waiver Approved/Fwd to City Council Approved/Fwd to City Council Approved/Fwd to City Council APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA VA 97-11.00: EASEMENT VACATION (VIRGINIA D. DAVIS) VIRGINIA DAVIS-3033 NORTH QUAIL DRIVE The utility easement vacation as requested by Virginia Davis for property located at 3033 North Quail Creek Drive, Lot 5 in the Quail Creek Phase I subdivision. The requested vacation is for the east 8 feet of the west 20 feet excluding both the north 10 feet and the south 10 feet of Lot 5. The application requires approval from the utility companies and the City's Water/Sewer, Street and Sanitation Divisions. The file contains approvals from: 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 MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the consent agenda Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • 0 • OLD BUSINESS AD 98-1.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (AMENDMENT REGARDING TRANSIENT MERCHANTS) Resolution by City of Fayetteville Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the zoning code to regulate transient merchants. Ms. Warrick introduced Marlin Edwards, County Clerk, and Karen Combs, Deputy County Clerk. Ms. Marlin Edwards stated only five of the Transient Merchant Licenses were filed last year. She added most of the transient merchants were not residents of Washington County. The County Clerks office did not pursue the licence. The police normally informed the merchants of the required license. Ms. Karen Combs explained the licence required an application, $250.00, a $2,000 bond issued in the State of Arkansas or a cash bond for $2,000 or 5% of whole sale value of goods The cash bond would be kept for one year to ensure that the State Sales Taxes were paid. She added arts and crafts and agricultural products were exempt. • In response to questions from Mr. Odom, Ms. Combs stated the application would take approximate 10 minutes to complete and was good for 90 days. • Mr. Odom recommended the item be left on the agenda for the next meeting. • CU 98-4.00 CONDITIONAL USE (LAMAR AND DONNA PETTUS) LAMAR AND DONNA PETTUS- 377 ST CHARLES AVE The conditional use was submitted by Robert Sharp of Hoffman Sharp on behalf of Lamar and Donna Pettus for property located at 337 St. Charles Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains .32 acres. The request is to renovate a four -unit apartment building into a two -unit townhouse and to build a two- unit townhouse south of the existing building. A conditional use is required to allow a multi -family dwelling in the R -O zone. Recommendation: the staff recommends approval contingent upon the following. 1. Compliance with §160.195, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, of zoning code. 2. Construction and renovation of buildings as shown on the site plan and building elevations with the exception that the connection of the building is not recommended. 3. The conditionals use shall be limited to a total of four dwelling units with each structure containing two dwelling units. 4. Construction of eight paved parking spaces as shown on the site plan. • 5. A decision by the Planning Commission as to whether the overhead electrical (phone and cable) lines have to be placed underground. Mr. Conklin recommended a waiver be granted from the underground utility ordinance. Mr. Sharp, stated the Pettus' were interested in preserving the original house, which predated the civil war. They did not believe an office building would be appropriate for the neighborhood. He had recommended a second structure, the same scale as the existing building. He felt the lot was large enough to support both the buildings without looking too crowded or dense. In response to questions from Ms. Ho man, Mr. Conklin stated SWEPCO was unable to give the applicant an estimate on the relocation and the placement of the lines underground. Mr. Tucker questioned the connection of the two buildings. Mr. Conklin explained the original design showed the building connected. The connection was not required to meet building codes and was not currently planned. Mr. Ward felt the renovation and the additional building would be an improvement to the area. MOTION • Mr. Ward moved to approve the conditional use. • • • Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a 8-0-0 vote. WAIVER REQUEST Ms. Hoffman stated a waiver had never been granted from the overhead ordinance. She noted the scale of the development was smaller than normally presented. She expressed concern about the presence the waiver would be setting. Mr. Sharp explained no poles would be removed by placing the cables underground. He did not believe any aesthetic improvements would be made. Mr. Odom replied the commission had required developers to contribute money in lieu of placing the lines underground. Mr. Conklin explained the ordinance did allow the Planning Commission to grant waivers. Ms Johnson asked if it would possible to place the lines underground at a later date if adjacent properties were to redevelop. Mr. Conklin replied since the ordinance had been passed the city had not participated in placing any lines underground. He agreed with Mr. Sharp that there would still be a pole located on the property if the lines were relocated underground. Mr. Watkins thought it would be pointless to require the lines to be placed underground. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the waiver from the overhead electric. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-1-0. Tucker voting nay. • RZ 98-3.00: REZONING (CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-DRAKE FIELD CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE- 4500 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE The rezoning request was submitted by Dale Frederick on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 4500 South School Avenue. The property contains 525.40 acres and the request is to change the zoning from A-1, Agricultural and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to I- 1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 and C-1, to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Mr. Rudy Furr, Marketing Director for Drake Field, stated they were in the process of developing the property. The staff had recommend the entire airport property be rezoned to one zoning district. There was no public comment. Mr. Odom stated he was in support of the rezoning to help keep the airport economically viable. Mr. Forney suggested tieing the rezoning to the use as an airport. • Mr. Furr stated a large portion of the property could not be utilized because of the clear zone and safety areas required by the Federal Aviation Administration. • In response to concerns from Mr. Forney and Mr. Odom, Mr. Furr stated the property would always be used as an airport. They were planning to construct a cooperate hanger. Ms. Hoffman asked if the airport was attracting more air cargo uses. Mr. Furr replied DHL Cargo Services were now operating off the airport at this time. NW Arkansas had a lot of good airports, however, Fayetteville was the only airport with the convenience of the downtown area. Ms. Hoffman asked if the airport was following a master plan. Mr. Furr explained the airport was in the process of updating the 20 year master plan. They were developing the master plan with a three case scenario to be prepared for the future. They were trying to make sure Drake Field would be an asset to the community in years to come. Ms. Johnson asked if all the property in the requested rezoning was within the area fenced. Mr. Furr replied it was all within the fenced area. The airport did have additional property, however, they were not included in the rezoning request MOTION • • • Mr. Ward moved to approve the rezoning. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked if was possible to laps the rezoning if the airport should stop using the land. Mr. Conklin stated the staff did not recommend conditions on the rezoning. He reminded the Planning Commission had the ability to recommend zoning to the City Council. The property was owned by the City and not an individual. If the use was changed the Planning Commission could recommend a study be conducted to determine the appropriate zoning for the area. The 2020 plan did illustrate the area as Industrial. The rezoning request was consistent with the airport master plan. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0. • RZA 98-4.00: ANNEXATION (SERENITY PLACE, PHASE II) PRESTIGE PROPERTIES- N. OF MT. COMFORT & E. OF HUGH MOUNT ROAD • • The annexation request was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney, on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Hugh Mount Road. The property contains 203.05 acres. Recommendation: the staff recommends approval of the requested annexation. Mr. Conldin stated the applicant had been advised that connections to Mount Comfort Road would have to be made when the 203 acres developed. The applicant would also be financially responsible for the acquisition of property and construction of the streets used to service the development. One or more of the connections would be accomplished with the construction of the minor aerial, Rupple Road, to the south and provision of local streets witin the development to Mount Comfort Road and Lielry Lane. Ms. Harrington stated a number of details needed to be worked out regarding street connections. She noted there would be a street committee meeting on Tuesday. She added the potential middle school site and new city park were located on the property. PUBLIC Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mount Comfort Road, expressed concern about the heavy traffic on Mount Comfort. He suggested the City and the County work together on the traffic problem. He felt the heavy traffic along Mount Comfort had reduced the value of his home. He requested the commission to deny the annexation and rezoning. Ms. Bobby Hardin, 3670 Mount Comfort Road, expressed concern about the heavy traffic on Mount Comfort Road. She added the developer was proposing a street 20' from their bedroom window. She added the land was their personal property. She had no intentions of selling the land to have a street run near their house. In response to questions from Ms Johnson, Ms. Hardin stated the proposed street would provide access to the 203 acre tract of land. She did not believe Mount Comfort could handle any more traffic. Bill Ackerman, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, stated the proposed development offered an opportunity for the city of Fayetteville to obtain a 40 plus acre park. He recognized there was a traffic problem in the area, however, the city had plans to purchase land in the northwest quadrant for a park. The city would be spending $200,000 to $300,000 to acquire land for a park. He believed the community would benefit from the annexation and rezoning. Roy Carr, Assistant Superintendent Fayetteville School District, stated there were two possible locations for a new middle school. Both sites were located near the Salem Road One location was east of the current Holcomb School. The other site was located on this proposed annexation. • He felt the best, most economical site was located on this property. The extension of Rupple Road and the access through Serenity Subdivision, would provide two out lets. He noted the Middle School would only be adding one grade level to the area. The Middle School would consist of grades 6 and 7. Holcomb would become K-5. He did not believe the new school would create much of a traffic problem. Ms. Johnson questioned the number of acres in the proposed park site. Mr. Reynolds replied the proposed park would contain 44 acres. There would be 139 acres used in the actual R-1 development. Mr. Tucker asked if the park land would be useable or was it all in the flood plain. Mr. Tim Reynolds explained part of the park land was in the flood way, but the majority of the park was located in the flood plain, which could be built in if the terrain was raised The land could be used as a park without raising the elevations of the land. Ms. Hoffman expressed concern about the heavy traffic along Mount Comfort. She noted there was a need for new parks and schools in the area, however, the new annexations needed to be tempered with a real concern for traffic safety in the area. She asked how many of new roads would empty onto county roads verses city roads. Ms. Harrington replied they were expecting the Rupple Road extension (which would be installed as part of the develop) to relieve part of the traffic problem. Mr. Tucker asked if the Master Street Planned street would run through the park. Mr. Reynolds stated the Master Street Plan had not taken into consideration the creek or the terrain. He was expecting the collector, Serenity Way, to follow the creek. Ms. Hoffman asked if Rupple Road would ver to the west to cross the creek. Mr. Beaver stated the location of the street would be discussed in detail at the Council Street meeting tomorrow afternoon. He added for Rupple Road to cross the creek, and not interfere with Salem Village, it would have to bend to the west. Another option would be for the street to stay aligned and tie into the northwest corner of Salem Village. Ms. Johnson felt Clabber Creek would have be crossed on this property for Serenity Way to function as the Master Street Planned street. Mr. Reynold stated he had discussed with Mr. Venable the location of the street. The street would have to follow the terrain and the creek. If the street were to follow the Master Street Plan exactly it would have to cross the creek several time. Ms. Johnson replied if Serenity Way were to stay to the south of Clabber Creek then it would not • • function as a planned Master Street Plan street. She believed a developer would have to cross the creek. Ms. Harrington stated they would be better able to address the street issues after the Street Committee meeting on Tuesday. Mr. Estes noted the middle school would be located north of the Mount Comfort cemetery. He asked the number of ingress/egress to the middle school and the number of ingress/egress that which fed onto Mount Comfort Road. Mr. Conklin reminded the commission and the applicant recommendations could be made during the large scale development. Based on the staff recommendations the Planning commission was charged with the duty of requiring on-site and off-site improvements. During the large scale development the commission would be able to discuss access or numerous accesses and the applicant's proportional share of improvements. Ms. Johnson stated the staff was recommending one north south street which would connect with Mount Comfort. The street would "T" at Serenity Way and not continue north. Mr. Conklin stated that was correct. The recommendation was based on past action of the Planning Commission requiring Crystal Springs to make connections to Dean Solomon before any additional development could occur. Mr. Forney felt it was very important to address the issue of where the Master Street Planned street would cross Clabber Creek. He expressed concern that if the Planning Commission did not address the issue now, then they would loose the holistic view of the development. He wished the development would come before them as a PUD. He feared if they were to annex and rezone the property, then the applicant could develop the property in a series of lot splits which would create a piece mill development. Ms. Harrington stated it had been her experience in working with the city's staff that even if a development were to come before them in pieces, the staff did a good job of keeping the big picture in mind. She added the development would be coming before the commission in part as a PUD. Mr. Conklin stated the staff did rely on the Master Street Plan for future connections. When the parcel developed the access would be provided for. He reiterated there would be a large scale development for the school and the development. Mr. Beavers stated the school would have to follow the normal procedure for obtaining a large scale development. Ms. Hoffman asked if a separate zoning would be required for the school site. Mr. Conklin stated he had spoken with Ms. Harrington. He reiterated as of that night there had • not been a firm decision on where the school was going to be located. He noted a school would require an P-1 zoning district. • • Ms. Hoffman stated she was generally in favor of annexation in the area because of the need for schools and parks, however, she expressed concern about the heavy traffic in the area. Mr. Watkins complained about receiving additional information. He requested all information be submitted at the agenda session. Mr. Odom asked Mr. Conklin if all the required information had been received to complete the annexation and rezoning request. Mr. Conklin replied all the information had been received. He explained the item handed out at the meeting had been brought by the applicant. Mr. Watkins suggested that the Commissioners not consider anything brought to them at the last minute. He did not like to make decisions on complex items without having a weekend to think about it. Ms. Harrington stated they had considered not handing out the drawing because it was not relative to the rezoning and annexation. They had distributed the drawing to illustrate the surrounding area. She reassured all the information had been submitted to the staff on time. Mr. Watkins did not want anything presented at the Planning Commission meeting that had not been presented at the agenda session. He added he did not believe the city's infrastructure could support the additional land. He noted the lift station would have to upgraded and the traffic controls were not in place to handle the additional traffic. He opposed the annexation. He added the Planning Commission's recommendation did not matter anyway, because the City Council would do what ever it wanted, irrespective of the commissions recommendation. Mr. Forney stated he would support the annexation. However, he thought the location of the school should be next to the park, so the children did not have to cross traffic ways. In response to concerns voiced by Mr. Forney, Ms Harrington stated the developer had agreed to provide an access from the school to the greenspace, even though, the school board had chosen not to locate next to the park. The school board had determined the siting for the school. Ms. Hoffman felt the commission should develop a better ordinances for PUDs. She noted this site had problems with wetlands and floodplain. She felt there would be stringent regulations regarding roads adjacent to the wet land area. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Harrington stated the developer would have brought the project forward as a PUD development, but it was not allowed by ordinance. Springdale had an ordinance that allowed PUD to be a separate zone. Fayetteville did not allow them to do that. The developer was constrained by the city's ordinances. They were required to • • • chose a zone or zones before they could present the development. She explained PUD's could not be done at the rezoning stage, because of the structure of the ordinances. They also did not have the option to determine the location of the streets. The city attorney had told her, he could not consider the streets until the property had been annexed and rezoned. Mr. Forney felt the Master Street Plan street should cross Clabber Creek on this property. He questioned if the creek crossing should be required during the annexation and rezoning process. Ms. Johnson stated if the Master Street Plan were adhered to then Clabber Creek would be crossed by Serenity Way on this development She did not believe the school should be located South of the street, forcing children to cross the street to get to the park. She felt the safety of children should be one of the school boards first concerns. She did not believe the school's location was a logical location, if Serenity Way were to cross Clabber Creek. She felt the creek crossing needed to be looked at soon. The school officials needed to considered where the city's street was going to be located. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the annexation request. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2-0. Watkins and Forney voting no. • RZ 98 5.00: REZONING (SERENITY PLACE, PHASE II) PRESTIGE PROPERTY -NO OF MT. COMFORT ROAD ND E. OF HUGH MOUNT RD. • The rezoning request was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney, on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road the east of Hugh Mount Road. The property contains 203.05 acres and the request is to change the zoning from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Recommendation: the staff recommends approval of requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1. Ms. Harrington stated the development would probably be submitted as a PUD. She noted R -I had been the lowest density zoning in the city. She felt some of the traffic problems would be resolved by the new connections. Ms. Bobbie Hardin questioned the location of the access road. Ms. Harrington illustrated the location of the proposed street. Wilson Kimbrough stated the staff and the Planning Commission had made life nice for people in cul-de-sacs. In response to comments from Mr. Kimbrough, Mr. Odom stated the Planning Commission was anti -cul-de-sac. The commission had required developers to replace cul-de-sacs with through streets. The commission felt connectivity was very important. Ms. Warrick stated one citizen had expressed concern about vandalism to the nearby cemetery. Mr. Watkins suggested delaying the rezoning until Fayetteville had a PUD ordinance which would allow them to bring the entire property into the city as a PUD zone. He believed the new ordinance would allow the commission to engage in a holistic planning. Mr. Odom agreed the commission was not required to rezone a property when it was annexed. However, they were required to address the applications before them. Mr. Watkins felt they were rushing the development because there were no guarantees that the development would come through as a PUD. Ms. Hoffman noted the last two annexations and rezoning done in the area had been annexed, but not rezoned according to the initial wishes of the applicant. She did not want to hold up the development pending the passing of the PUD ordinance. She believed the development of the PUD ordinance would take some time. She requested a clearer picture of how the property would be used. She did not feel she could support R-1 zoning. • Mr. Forney did not want to penalize a developer which could do the city some good. He would not consider a lot split on the property if it were rezoned. He felt the development should come • • through the process as a PUD and not a LSD. He wished the application had been for more than one zoning district. He liked the school and park being on the property because it started to create a mix use on the property. Mr. Tucker stated he wanted to make it clear that the commissioners wanted a road across Clabber Creek. Mr. Watkins felt the commission could develop a PUD ordinance faster than the property would develop. In response to comments from Mr. Watkins, Mr. Odom stated most of the negotiations were done during the large scale development. In response to comments from Mr. Watkins, Ms Johnson stated she did not believe the city could pass a PUD ordinance in a reasonable amount of time. She believed the commission should only discuss legal options for the property. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the rezoning request from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Forney stated he did not support tabling the item in anticipation of a PUD ordinance. He asked Ms. Johnson if the commissioners needed to clarify any issues for the large scale development or did they only need to look at rezoning. Ms. Johnson replied if Serenity Way were to cross the creek on the property, then the proposed location for the school was crazy, because they would be sending children across a busy street to the park. Mr. Watkins felt the commission was rushing ahead to fast with the rezoning. He thought they should deny the rezoning to allow the commission time to negotiate with the developer to address some of the concerns with the location of the streets. Mr. Tucker stated the commission was asking to see a large scale development before the property was rezoned. He was not comfortable with that request. He questioned if it was appropriate for a large tract to come into the city as simply residential. He noted there was not much commercial development in the area. Mr. Odom referred to the general plan. He believed the request was in compliance with the 2020 plan. • Mr. Conklin added when the school petitioned the commission for the rezoning they would be able to make a recommendation on the location of the school. • • • Ms. Johnson stated the commission needed to vote on the applicant's request. Mr. Forney stated he would be supporting the rezoning. He did not want to penalize the developer for bringing in a large development. He added he would not support any Targe scale development of the entire property that did not include the crossing of Clabber Creek for the Master Street Plan street. He would not support lot splits. He strongly encouraged a PUD and other kinds of uses other than residential. If the commissions were wanting a revised PUD ordinance then they needed to start working on it. Mr. Odom clarified that Mr. Forney as talking about an east -west bridge crossing on Clabber Creek and not Rupple Road extension. Ms Johnson noted if Serenity Way did cross Clabber Creek then it might be possible for the north -south street in the middle of the property to intersect with Serenity to cross Clabber Creek. The motion carried by a vote of 6-2-0. Watkins and Hoffman voting nay.