Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held May 11, 1998 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, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, Sharon Hoover MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Estes, Gary Tucker STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes for April 27, 1998, were approved as submitted. ITEMS: AD 98-16.00 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (ROBERT WHITFIELD PP 3662 NORTH OF POPLAR STREET AND EAST OF LEVERETT AVENUE This item was submitted by April M. Rye on behalf of the applicant for property located north of Poplar Street and east of Leverett Avenue, the Leverett Terrace Development. The property is zoned R-2, Medium -Density, Residential, and contains approximately 5.75 acres. The request is for a release of escrow funds deposited as a requirement of the large scale development. Staff Recommendation: Denial of request. Background: The preliminary plat for Leverett Terrace Subdivision was approved November 13, 1990 and the final plat was approved March 25, 1991. One of the conditions of approval for this development was a cash contribution for future off-site improvements to Poplar Street This assessment, $13,260.00 was calculated to cover the cost of one half of a residential street along the development's Poplar Street frontage (approximately 757.8 feet). On April 16, 1998, the Planning Division received a request that the Planning Commission reconsider the assessment and refund the developer his escrow money. April Rye, appeared on behalf of the Robert Whitfield and Gerald Jones, the developers. She stated about 7 years ago the developer deposited $13,260.00 to cover the off-site requirement for this development. It has been close to 7 years and no development has occurred and nothing has occurred on the property upon which the improvements were to be made. The money is still in escrow. Ordinance §159.33 of the City provides that if an off-site improvement for which the developer has deposited money is not constructed within 5 years from the date of payment, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing after notification to all prospective property owners to determine the disposition of all money in the escrow account. Ms. Rye stated technically this hearing could have taken place two years ago. At this hearing the commission can do one of four things: Planning Commission Minutes May 11 1998 Page -2- 1. Determine if improvement is still necessary and can be built within a reasonable time. If the commission makes this determination the escrow can be continued for a specified period of time. Ms. Rye stated she did not feel this option was viable because it has been seven years and a determination would need to be made to if this improvement was necessary. The design for this improvement is not completed and no definite time of projected time completion. She stated there was a three sentence memorandum from the engineer stating "design should be completed and the project bid this year " It does not give a definite time frame, a definite date, how far along the plans are etc. She stated since the City does not know if and when the design and improvements would be completed, the Planning Commission cannot continue the escrow account for a specified period of time. Therefore, this would make it difficult for the commission to determine a specified time to continue the account due to no definite dates. 2. Determine the improvement is not necessary or if insufficient development has occurred to render the improvement likely in the foreseeable future 3. Ms. Rye stated she felt this should be the fmding the Planning Commission should make at this time. The commission can find that insufficient development has occurred to render the improvement likely in the foreseeable future. It has been seven years since the money was placed in escrow and nothing has happened on the subject property towards improvement, and therefore, this makes this insufficient development. She stated if the commission makes this finding, the money can be refunded to the developer. She stated he wrote one check on August 2, 1991, for $13,260.00 to be placed in escrow. 4. The City can distribute the money to the property owners and the subdividers on a pro rata basis or direct the money be used for a different purpose to benefit the development - but only with the written consent of the property owners. Ms. Rye requested that the money be refunded - or at a minimum- a specified time be set which may be difficult since the engineer due has been not identified a time frame. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Discussion: ❑ Mr Beavers stated the reason the memorandum did not contain specific dates is because it was a memorandum from him to Don Bunn. He further stated that he and Mr. Bunn had inadvertently forgot that regulations required a public hearing. Mr. Beavers stated the plans are 99% complete at Milholland Engineering and anticipates receiving this in June or July. Mr. Beavers stated the project should be completed late 1999, and stated he has not read the contract to confirm this. Mr. Beavers also stated if there were easements or right-of-way acquisition problems this may delay the project a few months. ❑ Mr Beavers stated this is a necessary project and it has been in the CIP for years and was pushed back in its priority. He stated every year the council has the opportunity to change the priorities in the capital improvement projects. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated the preliminary plan was to widen Poplar Street from Gregg Street to Leverett Street and he had not reviewed the final plan. He stated he did not anticipate any questions regarding this agenda item and suggested the commission table this project and in two weeks he would come back with • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -3- the plans and the exact dates. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated if the escrow funds were allotted for this project it would not be wise to refund the money as opposed to if there were no plan for the street. Therefore, since there were plans for Poplar Street to be improved, funds in escrow should remain. ❑ Mr. Ward stated since this was one of the capital improvement projects and it has taken a lot longer than anticipated, he felt it was unfair to require the developer to pay $13,000 and have it sit there for close to a decade. Therefore, he requests a specific time be set for this project. Mr. Ward moved to deny the request on AD 98-16 at this time with the stipulation that if the City has not started the construction of the project by January 1, 1999, that the money be refunded at that time. Mr. Reynolds moved to second the motion as stated. Ms. Rye inquired about the word "started" and does this refer to actual activity on the road, physical ground- breaking as opposed to designing. ❑ Mr. Odom stated this would refer to construction being started. Ms. Rye further inquired if they could specify a person authorized to release the funds. ❑ Mr. Odom stated this could not be incorporated in the motion and this would be left to the staff. ❑ Ms. Little stated if and when the escrow required release, the mayor would be responsible to prepare the release of credit is done. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 1), 1998 Page -4- CU 98-10.00 CONDITIONAL USE (MCCAWLEY. PP 527) X701 WYMAN ROAD This item was submitted by Larry and Linda McCawley for property located at 2701 Wyman Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential, and contains approximately .43 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings included as part of this report and subject to the Planning Commission making the findings required by §160.091 and §160.195 subject to the following conditions: 1. The private drive shall be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from Wyman Road. 2. Trash pickup will be from Wyman Road and the owner of the tandem lot shall be responsible for bringing garbage cans to the street prior to pickup. Larry McCawley, the applicant, appeared before the commission and stated the purpose for the lot split request is to be able to build his son a house. ❑ Mr. Odom inquired if the applicant had heard and understood the conditions of approval for the tandem lot. Mr. McCawley stated he would be in agreement with the conditions of approval. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Discussion: Mr. Reynolds moved to approve CU 98-10. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -5- PP 97-5.10 PRELIMINARY PLAT (SERENITY PLACE. P.U.D.. PP 2841 WEST OF SALEM ROAD AND NORTH OF MOUNT COMFORT ROAD This item was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located west of Salem Road and north of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low - Density Residential and contains approximately 30.89 acres with 103 lots proposed (revised down from 116 proposed at the Subdivision Committee meeting 4/30/98 and up from the 99 lots on 30.04 acres approved for the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission on September 22, 1997). The proposed plat has been revised from the SDC meeting to delete 13 lots on interior cul-de-sacs and to add two private interior park areas. Findings: This project is a preliminary plat for the 30 acre Serenity Place PUD subdivision. The Planning Commission previously reviewed a subdivision in this location and approved a preliminary plat September 22, 1997. From the initial approval in September, 1997, the size of the development has increased (30.04 to 30.89 acres) and the number of lots has increased from 99 to 103. The proposed development is a Planned Unit Development, and therefore, contains smaller lots and a minimum of 30% open area (greenspace). Staff's Recommendation: Approval subject to the 25 conditions of approval given to applicant. The staff has not received a signed approval of conditions. Brian Moore, of Engineering Services, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated they have received 24 conditions of approval. 0 Mr. Odom stated the 25th condition of approval is "Maintenance of ponds shall be the responsibility of the Property Owner's Association and shall be included in the covenants for this subdivision." Item 25 was discussed and added at the agenda session and the engineer had been called and notified concerning the addition. Item 19 states there shall be no gravel on the public rights-of-way which has been taken care of and the plat does reflects this. Mr. Moore sated he did not know why this item is a condition. Item 20 concerned defining and paving all access points to the public and private parks. These parks are community parks and are not designed to have parking lots in them. The street is along the side and there is no requirement or any intention to make little parking lots in these parks. ❑ Mr Beavers stated this item was addressed on the preliminary plat of last September and the Parks Board last year asked for the access point to be defined. They may have changed their mind for this revised plat. This item was simply carried forward from last September. Mr. Moore stated Item 21 was not part of the requirement from last year, and referred to "covenants must provide that fences will not be constructed along Salem Road or Serenity Way". Mr. Moore stated he had not heard of this requirement before and could not find the ordinance which this referred to. Mr. Moore also had a question about the maintenance of the pond. If the park land which the ponds are located is dedicated to the public and deeded to the city, he was having trouble understanding how the property owners • • • Planning Commission Minutes May l t , 1998 Page -6- would continue to maintain publicly dedicated lands. If the parks in the interior were put back in by the Subdivision Committee, private to the neighborhood, then the property owner's association would be maintaining those private spots. But the part that would be deeded to the City as public park land, he is not sure how the developer can maintain park land deeded to the City. O Bill Ackerman, with the parks advisory board, came before the committee. He stated as far as access to the parks was concerned they had no plans to put in any parking facilities in the neighborhood park. Parking facilities were not customary for them to do and this would be a walk-in access. He did state he had no objection to a curb access for wheel chairs and ADA. There is no need for an access by a vehicle to the parks, and as long as parks has the ability to access it with their mowing equipment. ❑ Mr. Ackerman also stated in regard to the greenspace, as long as greenspace is taken within the ordinance in the parks system, the parks always maintains their own park. After it is taken as a greenspace designation, then the parks takes care of the maintenance. He further stated there would be additional amount of land if this is approved which would be contiguous with the parks. However, all the area taken under the greenspace ordinance would be maintained by the City and not the developer. Mr. Ackerman stated if the developer does what he has committed to do, this would be an asset to the parks. Mr. Moore also addressed No. 2 and No. 3 of the conditions of approval. No. 2 is the requested waiver of the requirement to place the existing utilities underground. The only problem with this is the property to the north discussed at the Subdivision Meeting was approved before the underground utilities ordinance was passed. This property contained above -ground utilities and the subject property would go below ground and have to go back above ground to the south. He showed a diagram of how this would look. The commission reviewed the diagrams and pictures. He referred to the diagram which reflected two poles that would be saved. In addition, the developer has talked with the utility company. He referred to a letter that it did not make sense to have part of the lines above ground and then go underground and then back up. Besides, it would be costly. He stated if utilities need to go underground then the client would do so. Tim Reynolds, the owner of the property, stated he had talked with the engineer of Ozarks Electric and stated the problem with having part of the lines over and part of the lines under is that this would create more problems involving more shorts and lightning damage. He stated Mike Pehosh was the person who he spoke with. He added this line was capable of serving several thousand homes and is a main feeder. If there were any problems, then repairs would require several hours of shut -down, time to dig it up and make repairs, as opposed to an overhead the repair which would require less time. O Mr. Forney commented when this ordinance was addressed with the power companies they liked the low - maintenance feature of underground power lines and wondered why was this not addressed at this time. Mr. Reynolds stated this would be a costly undertaking which was not anticipated when this project began. There would be two poles taken out and two poles would have to be installed on the north and the south of the property line. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired if there was a plan for widening or improvement to Salem Road to Mt. Comfort with CIP. ❑ Mr Beavers replied as far as he was aware at the present time there was not any at this time. ❑ Mr. Forney stated if there were development out at this site and road widening would have to be addressed and was it the policy of the city to have the utilities buried, and would it be better to take money in escrow anticipating improvement of Salem in the future. O Mr. Beavers stated when there is an in-house project to widen street the power is not placed underground. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -7- Mr. Moore addressed Item No. 3 regarding the requested variance from the minimum setback of 100 feet from permanent ponds to 60 feet. According to his understanding this is a drainage requirement. O Mr Beavers stated in §543 of the drainage criteria manual states "ponds or lakes used as permanent water features for detention carry with them a minimum setback of 100 feet to any structure. Mr. Beavers stated the engineer has visited with Ray Nilus of Corps of Engineers and even though the ponds are not considered wetlands, they are considered waters of the U.S., and therefore the Corps desires to minimize the grading of the ponds. Mr. Beavers further stated the liability apparently would be assumed by the parks board since they would be taking the ponds. Mr. Moore stated the council members liked the ponds and felt they were an aesthetic enhancement which people like. Due to the Corps requirements and the council the developer is requesting a waiver of this requirement. O Ms. Little responded this would affect 4-5 lots. Mr. Moore referred to the plat, Lots 24 and 25, and requested to draw those lines to allow those lots to come together and are making them a little larger. He stated the developer's concern would be if the space remained, it could be used for parking ad hoc, and the residents would not like this. ❑ Ms. Little stated the 30% open space is required to qualify for a PUD. Open space is calculated and referred to the right hand side of the plat. The develper has met the 30% open space required, and this island in the middle of the road is included. They are very close to their 30% requirement and would have to be made up in another location. She further stated she did not know if the parks staff had seen the plat and whether they had plans to utilize this for access. Mr. Reynolds stated the parks could address this issue. Public Comments: Jim Kimbrough of 2420 North Salem road. He stated since he came tonight and has reviewed the revised plat he had fewer objections than he did at the Subdivision Committee. He was asked what his thoughts were regarding the overhead utility power lines, and he stated (due to the fact was that he buried a power line the first opportunity he got), his preference was to have them buried. There were no further public comments. Discussion: O Ms. Little referred to the question concerning the fences noted in Item No. 21. She found a previous approval which does not read the same. The sentence pertaining to this states "further the covenants must provide fences will not be constructed along Serenity Way for the portion adjacent to the private park." That wording about adjacent to the private park was omitted from the plat report and would make a difference. o Mr. Ward inquired if there was a safety issue concerning 100 feet from the building to the pond vs. 60 feet. o Mr. Beavers stated that would be the only concern. He further stated it is his understanding the drainage would be routed through the ponds and does not know how this would affect the safety issue, but parks would have to work around the ponds to keep the sediment out of the ponds since they were designed as • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -8- part of the drainage system. He further stated he hoped this would not require a dredge permit every time and noted Brian talked to the Corps and hoped they would be able to get a general maintenance permit. Mr. Moore stated he did not talk to the Corps of Engineers concerning the issue of maintaining the ponds, but he did talk to them about putting the ponds together and connection and cleaning them to make them more aesthetic. ❑ Ms. Little stated her concern regarding the ponds is every time it fills up with sediment would the parks department have to obtain a permit to dredge it out since it is classified as waters of the U.S. Mr. Moore stated he did not know at this time. ❑ Mr. Reynolds, Item 20, inquired if Mr. Ackerman was aware of the points of access to the public and private parks and greenspace. ❑ Mr. Ackerman stated the parks did not need anything out of the normal to access the parks, whether it was a sidewalk, a curb, or handicap accessible that would be part of their requirement. As far as a proposed or potential parking lot, this would not be required for maintenance of the parks. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired about Item No. 4 regarding the contribution for the street improvement. According to staff's calculation it would be around $130,326.00, and whether this was acceptable or if they were in opposition. Mr. Moore stated it was his understanding this matter would have to be taken to the council to be addressed. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated a recommendation should be made to deal with this issue and then the council would have the power to deal with it. ❑ Mr. Odom stated according to the methodology of staffs calculation was based on the number of lots a linear calculation and this was the reason for the difference. It was identified the agreement that the contribution for Serenity would be set off against the rest of the agreed improvements any way, and the developer would like to go with the linear calculations that were discussed. Mr. Odom moved to deny the waiver request for the existing utility lines to be placed underground. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he would support the motion but felt it was worth considering taking money in anticipation of improvement of the road. He was not sure if there was any anticipated development to the south, but may want to allow additional consideration of this. Mr. Moore inquired if he could come back later and ask for money in lieu of. ❑ Ms. Little stated he could come anytime before the final plat. The final plat would not be signed off until this issue was resolved. ❑ Mr. Reynolds inquired if there were any further development on this area ❑ Ms. Little stated there is a 40 acre tract that is north of Salem Village but this project does not plan to go forward. To the south is 10 acres which entails a couple of homes on it which would probably subjected to additional development, but at the present time, there is nothing identified. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated he agreed with Mr. Forney's recommendation. ❑ Mr. Odom stated the developer has started with what he set out to do with an ordinance adopted by the City, and until someone starts, it will not happen. Mr. Odom stated he would support money in lieu of at • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -9- a later date if something was proposed, but at the present time there is no cost before them to address. ❑ Mr. Odom wanted to know when the developer would have to make the decision that the utility goes underground or it stays above ground. Mr. Moore estimated this would probably occur in 6 months. ❑ Ms. Little stated a typical subdivision takes anywhere from one year to two years to be completed and come back for a fmal plat approval. ❑ Mr. Odom stated his problem with the letter is it does not state a reason for a variance, it states two poles are stupid. If it stated our policy was not economically feasible, then that would be grounds for a variance. Saying that the policy is stupid is grounds for a variance. ❑ Mr. Odom stated that if the waiver is denied, the developer can come back before committee at a later date. Mr. Moore wanted to clarify the ordinance. He wanted to know if there is a difference between them withdrawing their variance request or having them to deny it. Is there a prohibition of the developer coming back if it was denied vs. withdrawing. ❑ Ms. Little stated it would not make a difference either way. The Planning Commission could hear it anytime they had additional information. Ms. Little stated there were several properties fronting Salem Road in Salem Village which are reserved for future development and are not residential which would be some opportunity in the future to review them and visit the issue of underground utilities in the future. She stated she would do some more research. The Hi -tech industrial park received a grant from Southwestern Bell to put all the fiber optic cable in that park because they had made a commitment to install their lines underground. She wanted to see if the City could would work Ozarks Electric for this subject road and additional developers as they come in. One concern she does have regarding taking the money in lieu, is the longer the time, the more wires are attached to the existing poles which would be problematic. Whatever monies are appropriate today would not be appropriate in the future if the lines were upgraded. The power companies are experiencing an increased work load and she recommended a meeting be scheduled on this issue with the utility companies. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 5-2-0. Mr. Ward and Mr. Reynolds voted nay. Ms. Hoffman moved to approved PP 97-5.10 subject to the conditions of approval as follows: 1. To include denial of Item No. 2 2. Item No. 3 variance would be granted to 60 feet distance from the pond to a building 3. Item No 4 use the regular staff estimate of the developer's cost for their share of street improvements of $130,326.00 and advise developer may want to bring this issue to the City Council for their approval when they were advised of Planning Commission's recommendation 4. Item No. 5 the park land shown is adequate and if park land is taken off the plat between Lots 24 and 25 then it would have to be made up somewhere else with staff's approval 5. Item No. 19 has been deleted from conditions of approval; Item No. 20 has been deleted per park's recommendation 6. Item No. 21 amend last sentence to say `fences will not be constructed along Serenity Way for the portion adjacent to the private park." 7. Item No. 25 will be deleted. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. Planning Commission Minutes May It. 1998 Page =10 - Ms. Hoffman amended said motion for clarification to Item No. 25 that the parks department will be responsible for conforming with Corps of Engineers requirement for dredging of the ponds to adequately maintain the drainage features of the subdivision. Mr. Ward seconded said amendment to motion. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he did not see the need for the amendment but is concerned about the overall project to combine drainage and park land for the reason that the drainage process those issues would be addressed and resolved and if not, then the project could not go forward. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated staff could make the parks aware of the maintenance responsibilities. Upon inspection of the drainage ponds were not functioning, then a city contract to maintain the drainage would be required. ❑ Mr. Forney addressed that the responsibility for dredging and whether the Corps would allow dredgining would have to be confirmed for the drainage plan to be approved. Ms. Hoffman stated she would withdraw her amended motion. She further stated she would require the vicinity map be corrected to delete an error the additional acreage to the northwest to make a park and it is her understanding that the park is no longer in this area. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he would like to support the motion however, he noted the staff did not support the 100 feet to 60 feet and was a concem. Therefore, the commissioners should either accept the waiver or inquire why it should not accepted. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated her feeling was that the commission needed to require the utilities underground and staff did not feel there would be a safety issue on the 4-5 houses which would be closer than 100 feet to the ponds, she felt like she should help them out in the area. ❑ Mr. Forney wanted some clarification as to why this ordinance should not be enforced ❑ Mr. Beavers stated when the drainage manual was written they were anticipating new ponds being constructed, and is an existing condition. The roll call was given and said motion carried unanimously 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May I f, 1998 Page -II- PP 98-2.00 PRELIMINARY PLAT (EASTON PARK SUBDIVISION PP 295 & 3341 NORTH OF HWY 45 AND EAST OF BLUE MESA DRIVE, This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Easton Development for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 76.72 acres with 169 lots proposed. Staff's Recommendation: Approval subject to 20 conditions of approval. Dave Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates, appeared before the commission on behalf of the owners to address any questions. He stated they were in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Public Comments: Manny Terminella of 1380 Township Street, addressed the commission concerning his issue regarding drainage into Mud Creek and inquired about what percentage of increased runoff of this development would go into Mud Creek at or above the Township intersection. Tom Henley, resident drainage expert, with Jorgensen & Associates and responded there would be no redirection of the drainage. There have not been any major changes in the water shed drainage coming from the existing property. In addition, they have required detention ponds to put areas off-site to alleviate any increase from the run off. Mr. Terminella mentioned his concern was the capacity of the water going down Mud Creek over the years. In 1989 there was a low-water bridge built across Mud Creek to allow him to get to his property which gave him a good reference point to gauge the point of the creek. Over the years the flow has steadily increased with the large development of Mcllroy at Hwy 45 and 265. He stated even though each development may meet the standards for the post - pre peak flow, when all of them are combined it has a substantially increased flow and he has shot some elevations. He stated before the Harps development went he had never recorded the level of water to be 11 inches above the bridge and the bridge surface is 2 feet above the bottom of the creek. After Harps went in (he has recorded it on video) the level went to 32 inches above the top of bridge which was an increase of 21 inches. Even though Harps was passed and apparently met the peak flow requirements in the drainage ordinance, he has personally monitored the creek, after a heavy rain. Therefore, his concern is any development that is built, and Mud Creek would be used for run off, that some consideration be given to developments down stream to improve it or maintain it to take the burden off of him. There were no more public comments. Discussion: ❑ Ms. Johnson stated she saw nothing regarding the conditions of approval from staff about the pond that is offsite. ❑ Mr. Odom read Item No. 16 "The developer's engineer shall determine the effects of a failure of Josh Brown's pond (stated as a 12' dam at SDC meeting) and trace the flow, along with the 100 year water surface across lots 128-135 and determine the safe buildable areas, if any, on lots 128-135. The building setbacks shall be adjusted if necessary, to provide a minimum setback of 100 feet from the pond. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with the condition of approval, but felt that 100 feet might be excessive • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -12- and referred to the previous development which had been approved. He stated had talked to Josh Brown and this pond has been in this location for approximately 50 years and has a well-established layer of grass and brush and there are no exposed ground or erosion from the pond. The pond drains in a southeasterly direction and then curves around. The drainage ditch leading from this pond has very little evidence of erosion and on the preliminary drainage report and plan they reflect they are going to pick up this drainage from the pond and direct it between Lot 131 and 132 and then it would eventually head up to the detention pond of the southwest corner of the project. Therefore, they have sized their detention pond to accommodate this drainage. ❑ Mr. Ward stated Item No. 16 does not deal with the drainage issue, but with the failure of the dam on that pond. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would abide by the 100 foot setback if requested. ❑ Mr. Odom stated Item No. 16 addresses the effects which would be involved if the dam were to break. Mr. Jorgensen stated he did not feel there was a problem with the failure of the dam, but was in agreement to do the study required in Item No. 16. ❑ Mr. Odom stated for the record that Josh Brown, the owner of the pond, had addressed his concern before the Subdivision Committee which brought this issue to the commissioner's attention. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve PP 98-2.00 subject to the 20 conditions of approval. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. Mr. Odom addressed the issues of drainage concerns from Savanna Estates and Brookbury Estates and those residents. He felt the requirements the staff was placing on the developer almost went over and above with the developer and worked on these issues. ❑ Mr. Beavers wanted to clarify the Harps development was actually Glenwood Subdivision. The engineers' calculation shows there are no change in the peak runoffs but drainage calculations are not very precise and even though engineers indicated there would be no increase in the peak flow, Mr. Terminella has documented there is. He further stated, according to Mr. Henley the detention pond would not allow an increase in the runoff from this property. He noted the one detention pond on the southwest corner was subject to being removed if the developer could show it was not necessary, but tonight they had indicated it would be necessary. Mr. Henley stated the developer's proposal is for detention. He sized it to handle the runoff in that area because of the time constraint for the meeting. He stated this was a major tributary and are in the process of analyzing the flows. He will give this information to Mr. Beavers when it is finished in order to determine if there would be an increase in the peak run off. If there will be, then they will provide the detention, if they find otherwise, then they would propose not to install the detention pond. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated the detention pond in the southwest corner may not be needed if their calculations show this development would not increase the peak runoff, just as the engineers for the Glenwood Shopping Center. Mr. Terminella stated he had no doubt the calculations would reflect the development would not increase the peak runoff. He further stated he understood engineering calculations are not always representative of what actually happens out in the field. He stated he knows from experience the flow has increased and the previous engineering • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -13- calculations had showed it would not increase. The creek is roughly 66 inches deep and he had seen a minimum of 21 inches in increase of flow in the Cozart Development upstream. O Mr Beavers stated the City is doing a major drainage study which would help answer some of the questions and you would be looking at a minimum of 3 years in the future. In the meantime, we don't want to punish the developer by asking him to lose 2 lots to a detention pond if this was not necessary. The developer had identified some drainage changes they were going to do to help the residents of Savannah/Brookbury, but this would not address Mr. Terminella's drainage problem. One of the requests that came from SDC was to analyze Mud Creek and the developer agreed to do this. It was identified that Mr. Terminella's bridge does get flooded with the development going on downstream and any fluctuation would make this more noticeable. He stated he was there for the purpose to change the drainage ordinance and see if what has been approved is actually correct. And felt there should be a follow up and have the City or the developer to fix the problem. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated this was a beautiful site and there was a lot of drainage off of it, and there was some method for the City to do a remedial study due to the drainage problem for the neighbors downstream. ❑ Mr. Reynolds suggested that the three lots be held until the developer decides whether the detention pond needs to be there and that Mr. Beavers should determine that. ❑ Mr. Forney noted there are 76 acres that are R-1 zoning and the developer is not developing this property to the maximum. Therefore this should be in favor of the developer. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -14- RZ 98-11.00: REZONING (WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL. PP 3231 NORTH OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND WEST OF SALEM ROAD This item was submitted by Hailey/Amirmoez Assoc. on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is for P-1, Institutioinal. Staff's Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings made in this report. The applicant was not present. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Mr. Odom moved this item be tabled to the end of the agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 1 !, 1998 Page -15- CU 98-9 00• CONDITIONAL USE (WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICA ERVI 1 SOUTH OF LONGVIEW AND EAST OF WIMBERLY STREET This item was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Services for property located south of Longview and east of Wimberly Street. The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural and contains approximately 39.20 acres. Staff's Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request based on the fmdings subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The conditional use approval is for the large scale development application LSD 98-13. 2. Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from the residential properties to the south. 3. The project shall be built according to the submitted elevation drawings, including colors shown or indicated, and the site plan. There are no further conditions of approval and applicant has provided the color elevations to this meeting. ❑ Mr. Odom wanted to let the applicant be aware that due to this item being a conditional use and would need to be approved by 5 votes. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, appeared before the committee. Mr. Jones stated their request was a conditional use for a 64 -bed assisted care unit on A-1 zoned property. The subject property is adjacent to the medical park and the next item on the agenda will show the proposal of their project. Public Comments: Charles Howard appeared on behalf of his mother who owns a home on Village Drive which is in a neighborhood to the south of the proposed facility. He inquired about the lighting and wanted to know about the road access to the subject property. Their concern is that Village Drive would be opened at the north end into that area and wanted that clarification. ❑ Ms. Little stated this was not part of the proposed large scale development, and the staff would not deal with the access on the conditional use, but will take comments on the large scale development. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Forney noted that a conditional use vs. rezoning and why it was going this direction. ❑ Ms. Little responded that the applicant had requested a rezoning which is a lengthy process and the conditional use gives Planning Commission more control and more protection to the neighbors. Under use unit No. 4 allows dormitories and hospitals. There is not a category for an assisted -living facility and between the two this would be in line with what is anticipated here. With the category hospital takes into account what other facilities would be developed. Washington Regional Medical Center is the owner of the property and they have built other hospital facilities in the area. ❑ Mr. Forney did not find a zoning which allowed this use by right in the zoning ordinance. ❑ Ms. Little stated this may be true but this is typical for categories such as antique stores, schools which can be placed either by conditional use in a P-1 rezoning. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he could not find a zoning district which would rezone by use. He further noted the Planning Commission Minutes May 1 J', 1998 Page -16- entire tract would not be developed and is assuming any addition beyond what is approved under the conditional use would have to come before the Planning Commission to govern any further development of the tract. ❑ Ms. Little stated this conditional use would be granted for the entire tract for hospital and hospital -like uses. All other proposals would have to come back before the commission except for additions to the facility less than 10,000 sf, which would create the need for less than 25 parking spaces, and it would not need an additional curb cut. Mr. Ward moved to approve CU -98-9.00. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion as stated. The roll was called and said motion carried unanimously on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 1.1, 1998 Page -17- ,LSD 98-13.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ASSISTED CARE UNITS 212/213) SOUTH OF LONGVIRW AND EAST OF WIMBERLY DRIVE This item was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Services for property located south of Longview and east of Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural and contains approximately 39.20 acres. Staff's Recommendations: Approval subject to the 11 conditions of approval. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, appeared on behalf of applicant before the commission. Mr. Jones stated there were no objections to any of the conditions. They are requesting a waiver of the overhead utilities. ❑ Mr. Odom stated there were two waivers being presented - one for the parking waiver and the other would be waiving requirement for overhead utilities to be placed underground. Mr. Jones stated the developer is also requesting that in lieu of building the street past this development to the east to provide a surety bond in lieu of construction of the street. Public Comments: ❑ Mr. Odom noted there was nothing proposed by the developer to go to Wimberly. Thomas Gill, 3195 Butternut, which is the intersection of Village Drive and Butternut to the south of the proposed development. He stated he received a certified letter from the engineer and from the City. He stated he attended the SDC meeting and expressed his concern about opening Village Drive into the project. He stated since that time he had visited with Mr. Jones and was told this was never proposed, and wanted to know if this was a viable solution. ❑ Mr. Odom responded the engineer of the proposed project does not always get to say where they want to build a road, and are required to provide access points He stated the staffs concerns were of future access. ❑ Ms. Little stated when subdivisions are platted for connectivity is addressed noted when the particular subdivision in which Mr. Gill is presently living was considered, the planning commission did plan for a connection to the north. That particular 50 foot right-of-way was removed from the development for the purpose of extension to the north. The current staff has the obligation to let the current Planning Commission know that in the part the staff and Planning Commission felt there was a need for access to the south. With this subject property being zoned A-1 it could have developed as a subdivision with residential lots, then there would have been a strong push for connection at that time. The property now has developed and since then that particular access has been dropped. That option is not viable due to the way the property has now developed. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Forney noted the MSP shows connection from Longview towards Monte Painter. Because he had not attended the SDC he wondered if there was any question to access to Monte Painter. ❑ Ms. Little referred to page 7.7 and noted the consideration was whether to try satisfy the MSP and the location that was planned which would have connected to Monte Painter and then angle to the northeast to connect to Longview. The applicant has proposed and staff is in agreement that the collector street be • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -18- constructed at Longview Street and intersect with Wimberly Drive. One reason this location for the collector is the County Health facility which has been constructed at the intersection of Wimberly and Monte Painter. The second reason is that there is a drainage way running along the southern portion of the 40 acres and if the collector street had been placed in that area this would have necessitated a bridge or another conveyance. The proposed location is a good location as opposed to the plan's location. Therefore, you are not abandoning the MSP but merely accepting a street in lieu of the MSP. ❑ Ms. Little noted that off-site directly to the east there is a site for a fire station, which the City has a plan to connect Plainview from the north down to Longview and this is shown on the map. The new Longview will connect to the new Plainview and staff felt this would be a good connection. ❑ Ms. Hoffman wanted to address the street connectivity and does feel it would be good idea to require a 50% contribution at this time which would steer traffic from here and the street be built to the property line. Mr. Jones responded regarding the parking waiver and noted this facility would not require that many parking spaces and the residents would not have automobiles on-site and the only people utilizing the parking would be staff and visitors. Therefore, they feel the 55 proposed parking spaces would be more than adequate which was based on discussions with the developer. ❑ Ms. Little stated staff was in support of the parking waiver request. Mr. Odom moved to approve the parking waiver for 55 proposed parking spaces. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion as stated. Mr. Jones stated he provided some information from SWEPCO and they were not able to prepare a detailed estimate and gave him a ball park figure which was half a million dollars. The total cost of the proposed project is estimated to be $4 million dollars. Mr. Jones also wanted to discuss the proposed 50% contribution for the extension and do not feel this would be appropriate due to the fact they are already building substantial road. He stated to require this developer to pay for off-site road. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. ❑ Ms. Johnson wanted to identify the curb cut issue. ❑ Ms. Little stated this was to be brought to the commission's attention. The normal recommendation is one curb cut per development. In this particular item in order to provide access to the drop out there the staff concurs with the applicant's plan. The item concerning the third curb cut is to provide access to the parking lot. This would not be necessary for the project but since there are no future proposals and with Longview being a collector street. The particular alignment of Longview Street has been placed where it veers back to the north to connect to Longview and it veers back to the north to allow buildable to the south for another development ❑ Mr. Odom stated with this project being a hospital he felt two would be amenable to allow for ambulance use. ❑ Ms. Little stated since this was an assisted care facility emergency vehicles would be adequately served by the two curb cuts. There is no rear access to the building. Mr. Jones referred to their layout and noted the two in front of the building is for the drive-thru area, and the third access to the east is mainly to provide service vehicles to the facility without routing through the front of the building. Also there is a fire hydrant located in that area which would be easier for a fire truck to access the Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -19- hydrant and felt these three accesses would be needed. ❑ Ms. Little inquired what their comment would be if they eliminate the middle curb cut. Mr. Jones stated there would be a lot of drive-thru traffic and their goal is to keep the traffic out of the parking lot as much as possible. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired about the conclusions the SDC members had. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated that since Longview may eventually be a private street and therefore supports an elimination of one of the middle driveways which would still allow delivery vehicles easier access. ❑ Mr. Forney has no objection to three and would support two as well. Mr. Odom moved to deny the waiver to place existing utilities underground. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion as stated. Mr. Jones stated that the cost is $500,000 for this project which is over 10% of the overall cost of he development. He stated one of the factors the Planning Commission is required to consider in deciding a waiver is the financial impact and burden and if $500,000 is not considered a hardship or burden, then what is, and feels this amount is excessive. ❑ Mr. Forney stated there are a number of other areas of development going on at North Hills and the issues of burying utilities and stated it is burdensome to go down and up and would not be cost-effective for anybody. He referred to the ordinance and feels that the ordinance needs to be followed. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired if the motion to deny the waiver was approved could the applicant appeal the denial to the council and this was affirmed. She further noted if the requirement was not followed to place the utilities underground in this subject area then when and where would it be required. Mr. Jones referred to the utility lines on the plat and stated that these utility lines were already on the property, the developer would be willing to install the new utilities underground, but felt it was excessive to require the developer to bear the burden of the cost for the existing utility lines. ❑ Ms. Little addressed another item concerning the difference of the line on the north side of the property and the line on the east side of the property. Mr. Jones stated according to SWEPCO there was no difference in the utilities. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired of staff regarding Staffmark and the project south of Millsap regarding burying the utility lines. ❑ Ms. Little responded that Staffmark requested a waiver which had been denied. This is the same line which is a major feeder which runs up north to Hwy 412. Staffmark eventually came back and would want to readdress it and accepted to bury the lines underground with the condition to come back at a future time. Staff has a letter from them and they are going to lay the lines underground. There is amount of the line that the other project North Park Phase II would have been responsible for. Staffmark would have their utility lines completely underground and would be putting up a lot of money for that installation. If we grant one developer a waiver and do not have any authority to go to the other developers to ask them to help this developer. • • Planning Commission Minutes May It, 1998 Page -20- O Ms. Little inquired concerning the other projects in this area and what SWEPCO's input was. Mr. Jones stated it makes sense to install the utility lines at one time, but his disagreement is the overall cost to this developer and it is within the rights of the Planning Commission to grant a waiver due to the financial hardship. Mr. Jones stated at the present time there were no plans for the rest of the 40 acre site. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he did feel the amount was exorbitant and wondered if the developer could put some of the money in escrow to be used when the other property was developed. ❑ Mr. Forney stated the developer had chosen the route of going conditional use but if the developer had done a lot split, then the developer would be addressing only the property subject to this development. The motion was restated by Chairman Odom. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-1-0, with Mr. Ward voting nay. There was a question concerning the off-site improvement. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jones provided him with an estimate to extend Longview to the east in the amount of $152,000 excluding the right-of-way. Mr. Jones addressed this issue and noted this was a collector street and did not feel the 50% was for a collector street or a city standard street, but if it was city standard street, the amount would be less. The estimate was based on engineering and some other factors. This is for this street over to Plainview east of the eastern boundary of the proposed development. The developer's preference would be for the developer not to be assessed this cost. ❑ Mr. Reynolds inquired if the city had acquired the land or if it had been donated. ❑ Ms. Little stated they did speak with Tom Lewis, representative of the Lewis family, and were willing to consider the dedication, but this has not been formalized and does not anticipate it would be a problem. She further stated she did not feel it was appropriate to charge this developer for a portion of the acquisition of this land since the development of the street would directly benefit the owners of land. If the owners do not want to dedicate the land, the city has the right to pursue this through eminent domain. The street is estimated to be 500 feet in length. ❑ Ms. Little stated since the estimate includes the extension of water and sewer, those numbers should not be in the street estimate numbers which calculation is based on $60/foot for street cost. Mr. Jones stated the cost for the street is coming out to about $300/foot excluding engineering and utilities which is not uncommon. He further stated Joyce Boulevard worked out to be approximately $300/foot with engineering which is a 4 -lane road, and the asphalt cost is $65/foot. The staffs recommendation came from the SDC and it is not unreasonable to require the applicant to construct 'h of the street off-site and the city contribute the other '/i of the street. Mr. Forney moved to approved LSD 98-13 with the following amendments to the conditions of approval: 1. That the parking waiver is granted. 2. The requested waiver for utility lines be installed be denied; 3. That two curb cuts be permitted; 4. The developer be responsible for building a 28 foot residential street for the length of • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -21- Longview from property line to property line and 1/2 of such street from east property line to connect with the existing Longview. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion as stated. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired about the extension of Longview and the fact that it does not connect with Kenray. Staff had said Kenray would ultimately be vacated so a future street would go up there and meet with Longview. She inquired if staff felt the street platted locates the eastern end of Longview where it should be. ❑ Ms. Little stated they were in support of this configuration. Mr. Jones inquired about the request of putting a portion of the cost of the street improvement in the surety bond addressed in the motion. Mr. Forney moved to approve the surety bond from the eastern edge of the property line to Longview street. ❑ Ms. Little stated the surety bond would be allowable and the question she would address was when the street would be built and there are two options: 1. Staff take to council a request the other half of the street be built at public expense; 2. Hold the bond until development of the property to the east occurs, then the developer of that property builds the other 14 feet and the surety bond would provide for the building of that street. There is no preference at this time. With regard to the request the street be built to the entry way and not to the property line, the staff does not support this request. Ms. Little stated property to the south is zoned R-1 and houses would be built on this property unless a developer requests a rezoning. Mr. Forney moved to amend his motion that the assessment for portion of the road to the east of the property line could be made as a surety bond. Ms. Hoffman seconded the amended motion. Ms. Johnson inquired if the street be built within five years or the developer could come back and request a refund. The roll was called and said amended motion and was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. The roll was called and said motion to approved the large scale development was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -22- RZ98-10.00: REZONING (DEMAREE MEDIA. INC.) 1780 HOLLY STREET Submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Demaree Media, Inc. for property located at 1780 Holly Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, the request is for R -O, Residential Office and the property contains 2.34 acres. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning from R-1 to R -O. Staff is unable to make the findings as required by the Planning Commission's Bylaws to recommend approval of the requested rezoning. Craig Hull, representing Demaree Media, Inc., came before the Planning Commission. He introduced Brett Hash, President of Demaree Media, who would give some insight into the property and the history. Brett Hash, President of Demaree Media, requests zoning for Residential Office for his building which has been in the present location for 20+ years. Demaree is not going to build or change anything to the present site, other than what might please the neighbors. Mr. Hash stated if their request was approved, Demaree would plan to move somewhere else in Fayetteville and would remove the tower and satellite dishes. The granting of conditional use in 1978 was for the use of the facility. He further stated the previous Planning Commission rezoning was not adequate for the facility and felt the City should take into consideration when doing land use what the land is being used for currently. He stated Demaree was high -traffic with 35 employees, 15 of which are sales people, 100 guests and is a 24-hour operation facility. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Discussion: Mr. Hash stated their intention for the subject property is to sell or lease the property to allow them to move elsewhere due to a need for additional room. ❑ Mr. Odom stated was giving consideration to R -O zoning due to the fact the business has been there for 20 years, but he is dissuaded and with their plans of moving and selling the facility, it may change the character of what is presently there and would allow for further development in the R -O zoning by right. Ms. Little stated that Demaree could offer a bill of assurance stating if they sold the property - the square footage in the building would not be expanded to address the concern of further development. Mr. Hash stated the neighbors who moved in that area knew the facility was present, and therefore, decided to change it from A-1 to R-1. ❑ Mr. Odom stated the guarantees the neighbors that did move in around the radio station that the conditional use is very restrictive use, and therefore, that is the reason that property was zoned R-1. To rezone it to something other than what they anticipated would be questionable. ❑ Mr. Ward stated according to the minutes in 1978, allowing a non -conforming use for conditional use for a radio tower which already existed stretched the logic of the predecessors on the board. Therefore, it • • • Planning Commission Minutes May Il, 1998 Page -23- put a false sense of security in the corporation and there was a mixed signal given which allowed them to build another story on the house. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated in the letter in 1978 and Demaree Media was asked if they would hire any more employees, they said no, and since then more employees were employed. ❑ Mr. Forney addressed Mr. Hash's concern about the fair market value of his property, but if it was rezoned to R -O, this would allow 6% of their lot covered in building which would give them 1.4 acres of building potentially on this project. He stated he would not support this issue. He recommended one way would be to do a lot split on this property so the building would have the maximum footage allowed on that lot for R -O and he would support rezoning that lot to R -O and the remaining property would stay R-1. This would be a different process but could possibly be addressed tonight. ❑ Ms. Hoffman inquired if the parking lot and the building would be one parcel. ❑ Mr. Forney stated they could allow this one built condition to be legal within the zone but not accommodate any substantial addition or expose the neighborhood to any other development. Mr. Hash asked if they provided the City with a bill of assurance - that no changes would be made - would this alleviate the concerns and allow them to approve the rezoning. ❑ Mr. Odom inquired if Demaree Media had a prospective buyer. Mr. Hash stated they had several prospective buyers, but at the present time they could not put it on the market until the rezoning was completed. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he would not have any problem rezoning the building to R -O and then leave the rest of the property residential, and this would solve the issue concerning the issue of rezoning. Ms. Little addressed three options that the property owner may utilize: 1. Bill of assurance for the building and property to remain the same. 2. Separation of property into possibly three lots with two remaining residential. 3. Non -conforming use of structure or structure and premise in combination at Section 160.139. "If no structural alterations are made, any non -conforming use of a structure or structure or premises may as a conditional use be changed to another non -conforming use, provided that the Planning Commission either by general rule or by making findings in this specific case shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing non -conforming use. In permitting such change the Planning Commission may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions of this chapter. ❑ Mr. Odom stated if Mr. Hash offered a bill of assurance and the property was purchased, could the new property owner come forward and request the bill of assurance be removed with a particular subdivision request. Ms. Little stated this has not happened before, but she felt that under the ordinance they would have to allow this application go through the due process. Ms. Little responded that the bill of assurance was never offered by Demaree Media. Mr. Hash stated if a bill of assurance is what it would take to allow for the property to be rezoned, he would be willing to give this bill of assurance. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -24- O Ms. Little stated that a Bill of Assurance, if it were offered, would need to state that the property, which is a lot of 300 feet x 340 feet was rezoned subject to a Bill of Assurance guaranteeing that the structure at 1780 Holly Street not be enlarged in square footage. Mr. Odom moved to allow the rezoning subject to the bill of assurance. Mr. Ward seconded the motion as stated. O Ms. Hoffman inquired about the parking lot and the tower. O Mr. Odom stated if the use changed the property owner would have to come before the Planning Commission for additional parking. Ms. Little stated the staff could calculate to verify if the parking was adequate. If additional parking for a new use was less than 25 spaces then the project would not come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Little further stated staff would enforce the requirement of the zoning ordinance that no more than 60% of the lot would be covered. There is also a requirement of the commercial design standards that 15% of the lot would be open space, therefore, the whole thing could not be paved. O Ms. Hoffman stated her concerns about the size of the parking lot. Ms. Little stated there was a paved parking lot at the north property line and an area has been graveled which contains 5-10 parking spaces and does not meet City standards. She further stated she has calculated if the building was office space there is adequate parking. If the next owners needed additional parking, this could be addressed without coming before the Planning Commission, so long as the additional number of spaces were below 25. O Mr. Forney stated he would support this motion but it was not his preference and the owner may find this out when they begin to market the property and felt the owner should split the lots and therefore advertise the property for their full and proper use as opposed to having to work with the bill of assurance. The roll was called and said motion to zone property to R -O with the bill of assurance carried with a vote of 7- 0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -25- 14Z 98-11.00: REZONING (WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL. PP 323) NORTH OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND WEST OF SALEM ROAD This item was submitted by Hailey/Amiroez Assoc. on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is for P-1, Institutioinal. Staff's Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings made in this report. The applicant was not present. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Mr. Odom moved this item be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. The roll was called and motion carried on a vote of 7-0-0. • • c Z �1 ci �u 2k CI 5!- o MOTION�h 9- • nt h c tS , SECOND th � � 0 �� ✓ , Phyllis Johnson V V / / t- V V 17 Lorel Ho Ilan Lee Ward_enil/ anttgalatac Bob Reynolds -(4:1✓ A/ Y John Forney _ems t/ ✓ Conrad Odom -60„ L./...-- v i V ra c Z a4:71 Scrag fatar ce ��,\3l% i v 5-4 lig PC 3123{9& - MOTION bOle:- e: -SECOND SECOND 0 P9 Phyllis Johnson ✓ t/ Hoffman i- t/- /LeeLorel LeeWard L V Bob Reynolds {P;i /✓ John Forney -term Conrad Odom -6,7y ✓ S'M90424) floouee. 44°7 —7'o -n I n -( a4:71 Scrag fatar