Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-09 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held March 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: Conrad Odom, John Watkins, Lee Ward, Gary Tucker, Robert Reynolds, John Forney, Bob Estes Jim Beavers, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Sharon Langley, and Debra Humphrey. ACTION TAKEN 1. LS98-5.00 & 6.00: Larry Robbins Approved/No further action 2. CU 98-5.00: John DeWeese Denied APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the February 23, 1998, meeting were approved with no changes. • LS 98-5.00 & 6.00: LOT SPLITS (LARRY ROBBINS) LARRY ROBBINS-70 EAST POPLAR STREET The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately one acre. The request is to create three lots (0.43 acres, 0.26 acres, and 0.30 acres). These are the first and second lot split requests. Recommendation: The staff recommends approval contingent upon the following. All existing and proposed utilities shall be placed underground or the Planning Commission shall grant a waiver of this requirement. 2. Sidewalk construction in accordance with the city standards to include the repair of the existing driveway approach on Lot 1. Construction for Lots 2 and 3 will be required at the time of development. Construction of an asphalt walkway within an access easement as shown on Lot 3 as condition of this lot's request, rest of the trail and the easements to be determined by the Planning Commission. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staff comments to be mailed to • applicant and/or his representative and all comments from utility easements. Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 2 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations were applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, 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 and shall comply with the city's current requirements 6. Payment of park fees in the amount of $750.00 for two additional residential lots. The sanitary sewer, (8 -inch main and manhole) will have to be extended to serve the newly created Lot 3. This requirement will have to be met prior to the issuance of building permits on Lot 3. Larry Robbins agreed to all of the conditions except the one requirement to put the utilities underground and had requested a waiver on this. ❑ Alett Little identified the options to allow the placement of the utility lines to the back of the lots due to the fact they are at the back of the lots to the west of this particular lot. ❑ Conrad Odom mentioned the Commissioners had discussed at Agenda Session the possibility of granting a waiver if Mr. Robbins would agree to put the utilities along the back of the lot lines. Mr. Robbins stated he had talked to Dennis Burrack, and Mr. Burrack indicated this option would not be feasible due to several huge 50-60' pine trees in the right- of-way and on the adjoining property. He noted the trees would have to be removed. Mr. Robbins indicated that, if there were any questions, Mr. Burrack could be contacted. ❑ Mr. Odom asked if the plan was to place the utilities in the front. Mr. Robbins stated they were, explaining the property was right across from Woodland School. He added the power lines were from the west, behind the houses as they approached the subject property, then they turned and came along the property line to the front all the way to Highway 71. He advised the cost from SWEPCO to change to underground would be approximately $10,000. He stated he had submitted the estimate to the Planning Department. He also informed the Commission the cable and telephone lines were also on the SWEPCO poles and the cost to change those utilities would be approximately the same amount which or a total of $20,000. Mr. Robbins stated that, if he was required to put the lines underground, he would not be able to do the project. ❑ Mr. Robbins indicated that children use the property to attend school and the walkway would be good for the children to have access to utilize while they go back and forth from school. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Sandra Parker, a neighbor, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had a problem with the utility lines being draped across the front because the rest of the neighborhood did not have that, and inquired as to the city policy to bury all new lines. ❑ In response to Ms. Parker's question, Mr. Odom stated the burying of lines was a subdivision requirement, but there were provisions for waivers of the requirement and had been granted to some in the past. The other item of concern was a trail going on the side, and Ms. Parker inquired about putting up a privacy fence. ❑ In response to Ms. Parker's question, Ms. Little stated that, at the Subdivision Committee, there was a discussion about the width of the easement that would be needed for the trail and one of the items discussed was how a privacy fence would affect maintenance. Ms. Little stated that Ms. Parker would be allowed to put up a privacy fence. Ms. Parker asked about the new plantings, if there were any plantings along the side, and landscaping. O Ms. Little responded the discussion on landscaping was due to the maintenance requirements of a trail and they were talking about the types of plantings that could be there. On the east side (Mr. Robbins' side), the person would have the right to plant right up to the trail and anything not paved. Ms. Parker mentioned that right next to their fence there was a whole line of plantings which had been used as a privacy fence. She advised they did not have any problem with a house being built next door, but did have concerns about lines going to each of them and the property fence. ❑ Mr. Odom asked if the lines were in the back of her yard, and Ms. Parker stated they were. Mr. Robbins stated that they come right up the side of her property and then back of her house and on the side and to the front. There was some discussion between Mr. Estes and Mr. Robbins about the estimate from SWEPCO of approximately $11,000 to put the utilities underground, and whether the other utilities could be put in the same trench. Mr. Robbins stated Mr. Burrack indicated they could be put in the same trench but they have to be conduited differently, and indicated that Southwestern Bell lines would cost as much as SWEPCO because the poles belong to Southwestern Bell. • Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 4 ❑ Mr. Estes inquired if Mr. Robbins had any other conversations with any of the other utility providers, and Mr. Robbins stated that he had only spoken with SWEPCO. Mr. Estes then stated that, if he had to spend $11,000, would it affect the feasibility of the project to the point that it would no longer be feasible, and Mr. Robbins affirmed this. There was further discussion between Mr. Estes and Mr. Robbins regarding the trees, and Mr. Robbins stated that, on the cul-de-sac coming off Ernstan Street, there were several trees that would have to be cleared and it would not work. ❑ Mr. Reynolds inquired as to how many trees would be affected by planting poles in the back. Mr. Robbins stated they would have to cut several of them and have to make a 10- foot entry way through the rest of them. Mr. Robbins stated he had not talked with the neighbors and their response to having the trees removed. ❑ Mr. Odom asked Ms. Parker if she had a comment regarding the trees. • Ms. Parker stated there were pine trees in the back of their lots and they were used for shade. She noted there was already an existing pole between the trees in her back yard. • O Mr. Reynolds inquired if the trees could be trimmed and lines run through rather than cutting them down. Mr. Robbins stated Mr. Burrack said several pine trees would have to be cut down and there would be some that they could go through and take a 10 -foot hole through them. O Ms Little responded to a question concerning if the trees were planted in the right-of-way, and stated the right-of-way that exists was the right-of-way for Emstan Street; it approached the property from the north and did touch the north property line of this property. Other than that, to Ms. Little's knowledge, there was no utility easement on the rear of the lots. O Mr. Ward inquired that, if they later put the utilities underground, would the poles still be out in the front of the property servicing other property, or would the poles be removed. Mr. Robbins stated that they probably would if there were houses built, and they would go underground anyway. There would be no poles sitting in the yards. Mr. Ward inquired about the poles in the corner, and Mr. Robbins stated that they would still be there all the way to Highway 71. It would just be this one little area that would be taken out. ❑ In response to a question, Ms. Little referred to page 1.7 of the agenda, and indicated where Emstan Street was on the plat and identified the utility easement coming from the west to Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 5 the east, and at the center of Ernstan Street, the line that turned south down to Poplar Street, continuing to the east along the front of the properties that were in discussion. ❑ Mr. Forney then asked if it was a correct statement that the utility easement on Mr. Robbins' property was to the west and to the south. ❑ Ms. Little confirmed there was a utility easement to the west, and utility lines to the south of Mr. Robbins' property, but not certain about any easements on the south as per the survey. She noted there were a number of areas in town where there are utilities but no easements to cover them and more or less are there by prescription. Ms. Little also stated the City of Fayetteville did franchise its right-of-way to utility companies and more than likely the location of the poles were within the right-of-way, so there would be no need to have a separate utility easement because there was approximately 9 1/2 feet allowance for utilities by franchise agreement. ❑ In response to a question, Ms. Little explained an easment would be required to place the poles and utilities in the back of the lots and against the east side of the eastern most lot to rejoin the utilities that existed on Poplar. Ms. Little also mentioned that, along the north and east side, there was a planned 20 -foot building setback and utility easement which was reflected on the plat, and had been anticipated. Ms. Little also stated that, at the Plat Review Committee meeting, the utility companies asked for the easement so they could serve whatever new development was taking place as well as older developments. Mr. Forney moved the motion to approve Lot Splits 98-5 and 98-6 with all conditions of approval with the following stipulations: that the Subdivision Committee recommendation for an 8 -foot trail and a 12 foot easement be followed; a requirement that the existing overhead lines be relocated to the rear of the lot and to the eastern edge of the eastern most lot; and Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 6 CU 98-5.00: CONDITIONAL USE (JOHN DEWEESE) FLORENE STREET AND DOROTHY JEAN STREET The request was submitted by John DeWeese for property located east of Florene Street and north of Dorothy Jean Street The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains .35 acres. The conditional use is requested to construct a duplex in a R-1 zone. Recommendation: The staff denies the request. The staff does recommend the following conditions if the Planning Commission approves the conditional use request: 1. Compliance with 160.195 conditions governing applications of conditional uses procedures of the zoning code. 2. Construction of the duplex as shown on the site plan in building elevation. 3. Construction of (6) paved parking spaces. Two spaces which will be located in a garage. 4. The conditional use shall be revoked within one (1) year if construction has not begun on the proposed duplex. 5. The duplex shall be oriented so that the garage doors face south on the lot, and not towards the street which is to the west. The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Mr. John DeWeese stated the duplex would be an owner -occupied duplex. There was some discussion between Mr. Odom and Mr. DeWeese regarding occupancy by owner, and Mr. DeWeese stated that he could not make any assurances beyond a year. Mr. DeWeese stated the duplex would cost approximately $130,000 and there were 15 duplexes or townhouses already situated in that area. PUBLIC Charles Smith who lives on the corner of Dorothy Jean and Doreen, came before the Commission. He stated he was not opposed to building of a house on the property, but did oppose apartments or duplexes. He explained that since the apartments had been built, Mr. Smith could not open his doors or windows because of the noise. • Minutes of Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 7 Don Hornsby, 104 Florene, also spoke in opposition to a duplex being built primarily due to the fact that Florene Street to the north had become almost all duplexes and he did not want to see any further deterioration of the neighborhood. Cindy Johnson, 105 Florene, came before the Commission and that he lived across the street from the property and that a street consisted of all single-family residences and they would like to keep it that way. Bob Estes inquired about the floor plan of the duplex which showed two 3 -bedroom units and the staff's recommendation to construct six paved parking spaces. He inquired how Mr. DeWeese proposed to configure those places. Mr. DeWeese stated he had received those requirements earlier in the day and he would have to resubmit it and get it approved. MOTION • Mr. Reynolds moved to deny CU98-5 due to the neighbors requesting that they wanted to preserve their neighborhood • Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0-0 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.