Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held July 27, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Estes, Lee Ward, and Sharon Hoover MEMBERS ABSENT: Phyllis Johnson and Gary Tucker STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Debra Humphrey, and members of the press Chairman Odom called the meeting to order with five commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JULY 13, 1998 The minutes were approved with no changes. AD 98-18 00• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (WENDY'S'i • 2050 NORTH COLLEGE • This item was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Wendy's Restaurants for property located at 2050 N. College (formerly Ma77io's Pizza). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to waive the requirements to place all utilities underground. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate a 20' utility easement along the rear (east) property line and that the existing facilities remain in the current location until such time as they are replaced or upgraded. STAFF COMMENTS: Little: She noted the only additional piece of information since this item was presented at the last meeting she referred to page 1.3 of the agenda which was a letter dated July 16, 1998. This is a statement by SWEPCO saying they did not have any aerial facilities on this property. The lines are located within the highway right-of-way. The applicant has tried to obtain an estimate of the cost to remove the lines, but has had no luck in obtaining this information. • • • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -2- Staff has had an additional meeting with SWEPCO and have come to a conclusion. City will acquire an easement to the rear of the subject property and at such time as SWEPCO reworks these lines, they will remove the lines to the rear. This would mean the applicant would not be responsible for costs and no approval from the highway department would be necessary at the present time. Staff is recommending a 20 foot easement to the rear of the property. Odom: He noted this item was tabled due to waiting additional information concerning the costs in order to address the waiver request. Since this time, planning commission has visited with the utility companies. He felt this would be an alternative and accomplishes the spirit of the ordinance and would not create a hardship for the developer. Brent Massey with CEI Engineering appeared before the commission He introduced Mike Golden, who is a representative with Wendy's. Massey: He stated they do not own the property at this point and could not grant the City an easement. However, they may be able to incorporate this as a part of the contingency for the building permit in whatever fashion, they feel appropriate. He inquired if the City would be willing to divide the easement with the adjoining property owner (10 foot). He also asked that Wendy's be allowed to review the easement in order to protect their interests. Little: She noted there was a substantial elevation difference to the rear of the property. Massey: He stated the substantial elevation starts after the property line. He stated there was quite a bit of property between their property and the slope. Little: She stated staff has to address an ordinance that makes it incumbent upon the developer to do something about this line. She noted in C-2 there is a 20 foot rear setback. This request would utilize the 20 foot rear setback which this property would be required to have. She further noted if they were to develop with two property owners along the rear of every of those property lines. Therefore, staff chooses to stay with their recommendation. She also noted, this would be made a contingency and requirement prior to them receiving their building permit. Commissioner Ward moved to approve AD 98-18.00 with all staff comments. • • • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -3- Commissioner Estes seconded said motion. Commissioner Odom clarified that the motion to grant the utility waiver would be subject to a 20 foot utility easement in the rear and would be conditioned upon time of development. Forney: He inquired where the setback requirements which referred to the rear of the property. Little: She referred to Section 118(d) bulk and area. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioners Johnson and Tucker were not present. • • • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -4- RZA 98-13.00: ANNEXATION (PAUL AND GERALDINE BOND) 4070 HUNTSVILLE ROAD This item was submitted by James Wray III on behalf of Paul and Geraldine Bond for property located at 4070 Huntsville Road. The property is in the county and contains approximately 3.07 acres. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: RZA 98-13: Annexation. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation. STAFF COMMENTS: Little: She stated the applicant's request for this annexation was to allow the applicant the opportunity to receive city sewer. She referred to the map on page 2 & 3.6 which reflects the dimensions of the house. The heavy dotted line indicates an island which would be created by this annexation. State law provides at such time the City chooses to take this additional property into the city limits, the board may take action on this. Staff still recommends the annexation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Commissioner Estes moved to approve RZA 98-13.00. Commissioner Hoover seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion carried on a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioners Johnson and Tucker were not present. • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -5- RZ 98-14.00: REZONING (PAUL AND GERALDINE BONDI 4070 HUNTSVILLE ROAD This item was submitted by James Wray III on behalf of Paul and Geraldine Bond for property located at 4070 Huntsville Road. The property is in the county and contains approximately 3.07 acres. The request is for R-2, Medium Density Residential. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of requested rezoning from A-1 to R-2. Staff does support a zoning designation of R-1. STAFF'S FINDINGS: 1. The adjacent land uses are primarily single family homes zoned R-2. R-2 zoning would be inconsistent with the adjacent land uses and zoning. 2. R-2 zoning is not justified or needed at this time. 3. R-2 zoning has the potential to create or appreciably increase traffic danger and • congestion, however, without a development plan, it is not possible to estimate the effect of R-2 zoning. 4. Development of this land under R-2 zoning should not cause an undesirable increase on the load with regard to public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Public services and facilities would be evaluated in greater detail at the time of development to mitigate any impacts associated with development. Jack Butt, attorney at law, representing Paul and Geraldine Bond, the applicants, appeared before the commission. Butt: He gave background information regarding the rezoning application. The Bonds had retained his services for the purpose of estate planning. The applicants had presented information to him that they had approximately 7 acres that was located A in the city and' '4 in the county. They had already obtained Mr. Wray's services for the annexation process. The purpose of their estate planning was to divide the property for their children. He advised his clients go through the City process of getting the property split. This necessitated getting the property annexed into the city and then they could proceed with the lot splits. He expressed his appreciation to Ms Humphrey and Ms. Warrick for their help. • He had called the City and talked with Ms. Warrick who explained the process to • • • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -6- him for annexation. Because they had stated they had a four-plex and two single houses in the City zoned R-2, with acreage in the county behind their property he felt R-2 zoning would provide more flexibility and add value to the property. He stated the applicants have a 7 acre lot that fronts the highway. The front 3 acres is already zoned R-2. The property immediately to the east is zoned R -I and then further east is a large tract which is zoned R -S. Behind the subject property is a city park. Therefore, he felt this would allow for good community infrastructure for this development. He noted staffs concerns with regard to traffic. He further noted the applicant could not proceed with any building plans without going back before the City as part of the large scale development and any concerns could be addressed at this level. Therefore, he stated this area would not be inconsistent with fairly dense development. There would be a city park which would serve a dense development. Therefore, he requests the commissioners approve the applicant's request for R-2 zoning. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Reynolds: He inquired if there was a tri-plex already present on this property. Butt: He noted there was a four-plex on this property. Commissioner Estes moved to approve RZ 98-4.00. Commissioner Odom seconded said motion. Forney: He stated he would be voting against this. Because there is not a compelling need for this rezoning. He felt the commission needs to look into the future to make a zoning determination after it is known how this area develops. Ward: He stated normally he would vote against this zoning. However, this is a request for 3 acres. To the North there is a city park with the White River which could not be developed. He stated if this was larger acreage, he would probably not vote • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -7- Little: for it. She clarified the acreage in the park is 7 acres. There are approximately 96 acres which are in a conservation easement. The conservation easement is privately - owned and would not be open to the general public. Forney: He stated he was looking at the density and not so much acreage. The density would be 12 vs. 75. He felt without a plan as to what to do with the property at the present time, we would not be serving the city well to zone this property to R- 2. He felt traffic would also be another issue. Hoffman: She noted R-1 zoning may not be realistic in the future, however, she did not feel R-2 would be appropriate. Therefore, she recommended an R -S zoning. Hoover: She concurred with Commissioner Hoffman's zoning suggestion for R -S zoning. Butt: He inquired if they could amend their application to accept an R -S zoning. • Little: She stated this would be allowable. Butt: He clarified the park was 7 acres and apologized for his previous observation of the the conservation easement being part of the park. • Commissioner Estes amended his motion to approve RZ 98-14 for R -S zoning. Commissioner Odom seconded said motion. Forney: He stated the applicant would not have to present a zoning request at the present time. He stated he would vote against this as well, because he felt A-1 zoning would be fine. Hoffman: She inquired if staff could elaborate on the R -S zoning. Little: She stated R -S allows smaller lots for single family homes only. Duplexes could be allowed as a conditional use, but are not a use by right. The density allowed is 7 units/acre. This would allow for 21 additional units. The front 3 acres is already zoned R-2 and would support 75 units as it was currently zoned under redevelopment. Estes: He inquired what R-1 allowed. • • • Planning Commmission Meeting July 27, 1998 Page -8- Little: She stated on the 3 acres to the rear, it would allow 4 units/acre which could be an additional 12 units. Forney: He could not understand the distinction between the three zonings. Therefore, he suggests the applicant wait and pursue zoning at a later time. He stated there is not a law that states they have to rezone. Odom. He clarified there was no law that required the applicant to rezone at the time of development. Forney: He stated he would only support an R-1 zoning. Hoffman: She stated she would support R -S zoning. She further noted there are inadequate roads in Fayetteville which is a limit to growth. She stated R -S zoning allows first-time home owners to purchase property. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Forney noted nay. Commissioners Johnson and Tucker were not present. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1998 AD 98-18.00 RZA 98-13.00 RZ 98-14.00 MOTION 6 /th 1fi,..0e# 1, SECOND i.e P L. Hoffman ✓ / V L. Ward V / / G. Tucker B. Estes R. Reynolds V / / J. Forney 1' V ill C. Odom I/ S. Hoover / I/ P. Johnson / (1,-.44,-,.c..1 / / /n' ratalq Action 9-0- U Ilia --d 6-eF°