Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-09 Minutes (2)• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 9, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED RZ99-18: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-19: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-20: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-21: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-22: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-23: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-24: Robertson, pp439 RZ99-25: Robertson, pp439 VA99-9: Clary Dev, pp402 VA99-10: McMahon, pp408 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Brent Vinson ACTION TAKEN Postponed by applicant Postponed by applicant Postponed by applicant Postponed by applicant Postponed by applicant Postponed by applicant Pulled from agenda Pulled from agenda Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Johnson: I have been informed by staff that a couple of matters have been pulled from our agenda. Those would be items RZ99-24 and RZ99-25 which is the Robertson rezoning request. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: Are there any other changes that we should be aware of? Conklin: No, there are no other changes. Johnson: Our first order of business then is the approval of the minutes. Are there changes or corrections? Seeing none, then, those minutes would be approved as distributed. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 3 RZ99-18: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located west of Hwy 112 and east of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 18.06 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Also see RZ99-19, RZ99-20, RZ99-2I, RZ99-2Z and RZ99-23. Dave Jorgensen, Earl Fochtman, and Melva Graves were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial of the proposed C-1 zoning. Committee Discussion Johnson: I believe this is all zoned agricultural. The total acreage of these 6 rezonings is 106 acres. There are various rezonings that are requested. Some C-1, R -O, R-2, some C-1, some I-1, some C-2. I think for purposes of discussion, initially, we can discuss the entire 106 acres. Then, of course, we can zero in on particular tracts at your pleasures. We will, of course, vote on each proposed rezoning individually. I'll remind you that it takes 5 positive votes to pass a rezoning or to recommend a rezoning to the Council and the Council always has final say about any rezonings. With that, Tim, if you would, I'll turn to you or to Brent to present these various rezoning to us. Conklin: Sure. The first rezoning is RZ99-1 8. It contains 18.06 acres. The request is C-1 zoning. If you will refer to page 2.17 in your agenda, this is located in the northeast corner of the 106 acre tract of land. The second rezoning is RZ99-19. It's 23 35 acres. The request is R-0 zoning. RZ99-20 is a request for R-2 zoning. It contains 12.59 acres. RZ99-21 is a request for C-1 zoning and contains 13.03 acres. RZ99-22 is a request for I-1 zoning. It contains 13.05 acres. The final rezoning is RZ99-23. It is a 26.14 acres requested for C-2 zoning. The C-1 and C-2 zonings are tract 1 and tract 6 and are located along Highway 112. The I-1 zoning is located adjacent to the High Tech Industrial Park currently zoned I-1. The remainder is adjacent to A-1 zoning. Johnson: Commissioners, I don't know to what extent you want to address these individually. Tim, did I interrupt you or had you -- Conklin: No. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 4 Johnson: Okay. A portion of this property was presented to us previously for rezoning back in May. I believe at that time, we only had about 28 acres that was proposed to be rezoned and at that time, we suggested to the applicant that there was so much property here that we thought it made better planning sense to see the entire tract and what the plan was and so it's now all back before us. I think I'll just open it to see whether you have initial questions. Is the applicant here this evening? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen. I'm representing the owner on this -- or actually the person requesting the rezoning. The owner is here, Ms. Graves. We had presented this to the Planning Commission back in May or at least a portion of this rezoning request was presented back in May of which we had kind of the eastern portion of it along Highway 112 and then we were going to proceed on to the west if they were successful in obtaining some commercial rezoning along Highway 112. This is backup plan B. Since listening to the Planning Commission and getting their ideas and thoughts on this, we have come to the Planning Commission tonight to request this rezoning and we feel that we are requesting something that we had thought we heard at the last Planning Commission in that we needed to see the total picture here so that we can actually come up with a master plan, you might say. Of the 106 acres, we are requesting 33% of it to be some sort of residential. You'll notice tract 1 is 26 acres with a request from A-1 to C-1. That is immediately across the street from C-2 property and north of some industrial I-1 property. Tract 2, is A-1 and the request is to rezone from A-1 to I-1 which is immediately north of I-1 property which is the proposed Fayetteville Industrial Park. Johnson: Technology Park. Jorgensen: Technology Park, right. North of it, we have tract 3 which the request is to go from A-1 to C-1, 13 acres. Tract 4 is A-1 to R-2, 12.5 acres. That R-2, naturally, is for apartments. Immediately to the east of it is tract 5 which the request is to go from A-1 to R -O, 23 acres. Then east of it is tract 6, A-1 to C-1, 18 acres. Here again, the property to the east of Highway 112 is C-2 and we have the Nelms dealership hub slightly to the south and to the east there at the main intersection. The property to the south is zoned all I-1. The property to the north is A-1. Property to the west is a combination of A-1 and as you go further to the west, I believe it continues to be A-1. We had thought we were bring something before the Planning Commission tonight that more closely resembled what we had received in the way of comments in the last meeting. I do know, at least I do have this feeling, that most everyone in this room will agree that this property is not exactly R-1 type property. The type of property that you would want to build a house on and have R-1 type use. The town is growing in that direction. Maybe this request is a little bit ahead of it's time. I feel like that the planning staff is trying to respect the 2020 Plan in that the 2020 Plan does call for this to be residential. I'm not positive about this but I think this calls for it to be residential at least for the most part. We just feel like we are trying to come up with a rezoning request that more closely fits the trends that are going on out there in that area. We do have water and sewer available for all this and we do have the • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 5 plan to extend the collector street east/west through here. Johnson: Dave, I understood you to say that about a third of the proposed 106 acre rezoning is residential. I didn't pick that up from my packet nor from your overview. Which tracts are you calling essentially residential in your proposal. Jorgensen: I referred to the residential as being tract number 4 which is the 12.5 acres, A-1 to R-2, request. Then the tract immediately to the east of that is residential office, 23 3 acres, just to the east of it. Johnson: So, the R -O is residential office and you're including that as residential. Jorgensen: Maybe it's a stretch for me to call that residential even though it's called residential office. We don't know for sure if residences are built in there or offices or a combination thereof. Johnson: At the agenda session Thursday, we visited with staff and took a look at this and we understood from Mr. Vinson that he did visit with the applicants early on as this new proposal was being contemplated and that the suggestion from the planning staff essentially was that the C-1 and/or C-2 probably would be limited to a portion of that fronts on Highway 112. Then a horseshoe perhaps wrapped that commercial property and the horseshoe property would be R -O as I recall, and then perhaps some R-1.5 and R-2 back further to the west and that no industrial tract be proposed here. Is that a greatly simplified overview? Vinson: That is correct. Johnson: That is not at all what we had before us. Dave, were you aware of that as a possible way to go and if so why did you decline to go -- certainly, it is for the applicant to say what he proposes, but, were you aware that might be a suggestion? Jorgensen: Actually, there are several ways of attempting to rezone this. 1 was not aware of a grand scheme that you thought would be preferable to the planning commission over another scheme other than the fact that we ought to have more residential in here than what we're showing tonight. Johnson: Are there initial questions from commissioners to the staff or to Mr. Jorgensen before I ask for public comment? Estes: Madam chairman, I have a question that would follow yours. When we had this before us earlier, there was some discussion on my part regarding a commercial node and regarding the residential character of the property. Did you give any consideration to a • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 6 commercial node and then the balance of residential or a commercial node in C-1 and the balance in C-2? Was any consideration given whatsoever to this idea of a commercial node on the east side of the property and then perhaps the remainder being residential or the remainder being commercial? Jorgensen: After we heard your comments from the last meeting, this is an attempt, we thought, to conform to your thoughts on this and then the owners got together and discussed it and this was their request. Now, Earl, do you know of any other idea that we could use right here that might be acceptable? Bob, do you have a suggestion on that? Estes: I'm hesitant to be responsive to your question because it is to the applicant to decide how they want to bring the rezoning request to us. In reflecting back on the comments that I personally made when it was brought to us in May, I mentioned the commercial node aspect of the property and I also mentioned rezoning the entire tract as commercial. For example, a C-1 rezoning -- to be very candid, what I see here is a combination of C-1, C-2, R -O, R-2, C-1 and I -I. Is there anything you left out? If there anything that is not here, I don't know what it would be. Jorgensen: If we were to request all C-1 on this, I have a feeling it would get shot down, too. This was an attempt to try for a mixture here that we thought might be more acceptable than straight C-1. Johnson: Let me explain my comments a little bit more. I think you weren't at the agenda session. Typically, applicants don't come to those Thursday sessions and all the Commissioners couldn't be there either. At that meeting, the general tenor of the conversation of those who were there is that probably this is more intensive development than those on Thursday seemed amenable to. The I-1 didn't seem to get much positive reaction. It is because of the responses in agenda session Thursday that I am posing the questions and I think that Commissioner Estes is posing questions, too. That is the reason for some of our comments. Any other questions before I ask for public comment? Public Comment Tona Demers was present representing one of the adjacent property owners. Demers: I have one questions that I would like to ask initially. I have a copy of the recent findings of the staff for this particular denial of the proposal that we are looking at tonight. Previously, they had also recommended denial but their findings were quite different than what we have in the report tonight. Initially, they had found that the proposed rezoning would appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Their finding on the report tonight is that the proposed rezonings would not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion and I • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 7 was wondering the reason behind such a drastic change in that particular finding. Johnson. This really isn't an opportunity to have lawyers quizzing the staff and it's not that kind of a setting. Let me ask, if you will, let us deal with all the questions and comments that you have. We'll ask staff, if we think it appropriate to clarify any changes. Really, we have only one proposal before us this evening. Although we have made reference to that earlier proposal, it actually, arguably it is totally irrelevant. Demers: I understand that. The problem is still the same. In fact, what they have presented tonight is a plan much more complete than what they had presented at the last meeting. So, certainly, there is even a stronger case for the fact this it is going to increase traffic and danger of traffic and it's also going to put a heavy burden on city services. That was a finding before but their mind has been changed with that respect. I know that we had extended an invitation for the commissioners to come and personally look at the scheme of this particular property. It's kind of an unusual setting and it's a little rural hilltop with a pasture and there are some other uses but not necessarily that closely connected to this particular piece of property. It is not something that is conducive to residential or commercial at this point. I don't see anything that would lend itself to either one because it's not that sort of an area. There is a drive-in theater and the businesses are sparse. It's just not consistent with the rezoning that they are requesting tonight. We have a real concern because the adjacent property owner that has the Bio Tech Pharmacal which is parallel to this particular property. Their property value is going to be significantly affected, more so than any other property in the area. We have some concems about what this is going to do to that particular area Johnson: It's certainly a major proposal but so far, I don't think there's any assurance that it would necessarily pass this body. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. We don't have the final say. It goes to the Council. Yes, it is a large tract but any time you go out beyond where the subdivisions and the commercial developments exist, you're going to have an impact on the adjacent property. Obviously, this region is going to change with a major auto park going in across the highway. What we see out there today and I have driven out to look at it again -- what we'll see today and what we'll see in 5 years out there will be very different. We know that. Demers: Thank you very much. Johnson: Are there others in the audience who would address us on this proposal? Marty Benedict, owner of property adjacent to the 106 acres, was present. Benedict: We have about a half a mile that is contiguous with this 100 acres and if they do what they're going to do, we will be landlocked. We will have to move. We have no choice. We'll have difficultly getting the value of our property. This is a speculative proposal. We have • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 8 no idea what's going to go in there. They just said they don't know if it's going to be offices or residential. What it looks like is they are going to back everything right up to our property. This was a problem when we bought this property. I first saw this problem. I note, "Buyer beware " We trusted many things that were said to us. We were told that was wetland and they would never build there. That would not be a problem. As Bob knows, I became very ill right after we bought the property. I think you know it, too, Ms. Johnson. I was sick for about 6 years. We had to scrap and scratch and I worked 7 days a week, 8 hours every day just to keep that property. We tried to get out of purchasing the property when I became ill and we couldn't and we've kept the property and for them to come along and not consider us at all in their development -- we have half a mile that is contiguous with them and they should have at least talked to us and considered us. It looks like in their proposal that they did not consider our property in the least bit. As you know, we have a very unusual piece of property there. If you were to visit our building, you would see how beautiful it is and how it looks out over the valley and the fields. We've hosted weddings there. We've had wedding receptions; graduation receptions -- John McDonald, the coach, asked us to use the facilities for a coach's banquet and we did. We were happy to. There were coaches from all over the southeast conference there. Don Tyson has had banquets in our facilities. United Fund had their banquet there. Mike Conley, the track star, has spent hours with us in that building. Fred Hanna has stood with us in that building and looked out on that pond and the 106 acre field. You would allow multiple, high density residential area right there by our property? Maybe your aren't aware that there is almost a 100 year old house up there that was built by the first president of the University of Arkansas. Some of you may have seen it, it's a beautiful house and it looks out over the field and they would put high density residential there? I was told by Buddy Peoples that -- I don't think he knew who I was when I was talking to him -- I told him that I didn't think he realized that if they don't get the zoning for commercial, they will put high density residential there. Dave Jorgensen has done work on our property and he know what it is and it looks like he did not consider that when he did the proposal for this property. Since it's speculative, we have no idea what will go in there. We wanted to purchase at least a buffer strip around it but we couldn't afford to because I had been very ill and it was all we could do to keep the property. Recently, a few weeks ago, we found out about growing medicinal herbs. As you know, we have a pharmaceutical company there. We do research and development. We do products. We ship to doctors and hospitals. We have developed products that have become copied by many, many companies and we were discussing with Frank of Nitron about purchasing the adjacent 106 acres to grow medicinal herbs so that we could recover an investment of the 106 acres because it's very costly for us to purchase that. That's one of the reasons we had not been able to purchase it. We found out that we could produce medical herbs in there and recover our costs. We have contacted herbalists around the state and out of state to make sure of the feasibility of our project. We're working very closely with the research DEPT at the University of Arkansas Food and Sciences Department. Two weeks ago, we attended a very large conference at the McCormick place in Chicago -- The International Food Technology -- seeking information for developing medicinal herbs. Arkansas would be proud of the contribution that the University of • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 9 Arkansas Food and Science Department had at this intemational conference. Within a few weeks, we were hoping to seek funding to get grants to purchase the 106 acres to grow herbs when we discovered the request for rezoning. We have an architect's drawing to develop our property into a spa? Johnson: The discussion this evening needs to address solely the proposed rezoning. Terms of adjacent owners interested in purchasing the property or the cost of the property is not a matter of which we have any input in. It's not a matter that is before us. It is not a public matter. That is a private matter. Certainly, your interest in the possibility of a purchase is pertinent to your interest but it is not something that this Commission has any input in at all. Let me ask, if you will, to address solely the proposed rezonings if you have more to say to us about the rezoning proposal. Benedict: I think, looking at our property, it has to be considered. This is speculative and if they build and we have no idea of what is going to go in there and if they put it up to our lot, we would be land locked and would not be able to use much of our property. Johnson: You say you will be landlocked. My understanding and perhaps I'm wrong, does • your property not adjoin 112? • Benedict: No. The property comes down and adjoins 112. Johnson: Yes, but they are to the north of you. Benedict: Yes. Johnson: Do you not adjoin Highway 112 on part of your east property line? Benedict: Partially, but we can't access it from where we are. Johnson: I thought perhaps I was in error. So, this property does adjoining 112 on the east. Benedict: Because of the lay of it, it can't be accessed. Johnson: But that is where you're drive presently is. Benedict: Our drive is along where the two properties are joining. Johnson: On 112. Benedict: No. It's off of 112. Our drive comes up where these 2 properties -- • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 10 Johnson: It's on this property's northern boundary. Benedict: Pardon? Johnson: It's on the northern boundary. Benedict: Yes. We do have to move if they do a high density development there because the way the land runs there is kind of a little burrow there and we're up on the hill. We'll have the exhaust fumes coming onto our property and we will have to move because there are several things that would happen. If they do this and put the residential adjacent to ours, we will lose the value of our property. If they are going to develop that property then we would like to know that they consider our property so that we can at least sell our property for a price enough so that we can purchase elsewhere. Our property has to be considered to the rezoning. Johnson: All right. Thank you. Let me ask whether there are others in the audience that would address us on the proposed rezonings. Seeing none, I will close discussion to the audience and bring the discussion back to the Commission for questions and motions and so on. Further Discussion • Ward: My feeling is that there is -- I'm not sure there is any perfect way to rezone this whole piece until we know what's going out there. At the last meeting, I know that several of the commissioners that are not here tonight voiced their approval or desire to have the whole thing brought to us with how it was going to be used and how it would be rezoned. Three of those commissioners are not here tonight. I'm not sure that we're in any position with only 6 of us here to make a total decision on what they are asking for tonight. MOTION Ward: I'll go ahead and recommend approval of RZ99-18, just to get the feel of the other commissioners and go from there. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward for approval of RZ99-18 which is an 18 06 acre tract to C-1 and that is the north easternmost acreage of this property that does adjoining Highway 112. Do we have a second? Marr: Second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Marr to rezone to C-1, the 18 06 acre tract along Highway 112 and it's the north easternmost parcel. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 11 Further Discussion Johnson: Let me say one thing to the applicant to restate the obvious. We are shorthanded this evening. You recall, of course, a rezoning recommendation must get 5 positive vote to pass. I don't know whether in the heat of the summer our being short 3 members causes you to not want to delay because obviously you have to have an overwhelming majority to succeed this evening. You must have 5 of 6 votes instead of 5 of 9. Although we have a motion, the chair would take the position that even now if you wish to delay this -- I'm just telling you what you already know -- Jorgensen: Sure. Let me ask that question to the owners one more time. Buddy and Earl, do you want to go ahead and go on with this? Fochtman: As far as I'm concerned, being short handed, I would think that it would probably be to our advise to wait and get the opinion of the others. I don't want to rush into it without having further discussion with everyone present. Johnson: I know it's an inconvenience to applicants, if ever we have a small number and not a quorum, but that is -- our rules require that we have 5 positive votes to recommend a rezoning and I know that -- I would see whether the Commission had problems with my position which is that if the applicant, even now, wishes to postpone that it seems to me appropriate because of having had 5 of 6 votes that they be allowed to -- so, the Commission seems to concur so the motion would be withdrawn in the event that you wish to bring this back at a time when we have more people. Jorgensen: Which would be 2 weeks from tonight? We don't know that for sure, do we? Johnson: No, Dave, we never know. Of course, the summertime is the hardest time to get 8 or 9 folks here. The odds are good 2 weeks from now that there will be a -- what is that the 23rd? School is back in session and so the odds are with you better. Jorgensen: I appreciate the suggestion and -- you want to do that? We will take you up on that suggestion. Johnson: It's not a suggestion. It's merely an observation. Then I understand, Mr. Jorgensen, that on behalf of the applicants that you do wish to postpone our further consideration of these 6 rezonings, 99-18 through 23, and you intend to bring it back at a time when we will probably have a larger contingent of commissioners present. Jorgensen: Yes, that is correct. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 12 Johnson: Then it will be done. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 13 RZ99-19: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located west of Hwy 112 and east of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 23.35 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office. For discussion see RZ99-18. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 14 RZ99-20: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behlaf of Earl Fochtman for property located west of Hwy 112 and east of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 12.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. For discussion see RZ99-18. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 15 RZ99-22: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located west of Hwy 112 and east of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 13.05 acres. The request is to rezone the property to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. For discussion, see RZ99-18. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 16 RZ99-23: REZONING FOCHTMAN, PP209 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Earl Fochtman for property located west of Hwy 112 and east of Deane Solomon. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 13.05 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. For discussion, see RZ99-18. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 17 VA99-9: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION CLARY DEVELOPMENT, PP401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corp. for property located at Lots 1 & 3, Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate a 20 foot utility easement between lots 1 and 3. Roger Trotter was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the requested easement vacation. Committee Discussion Johnson: Staff has recommended approval of the easement because this would be relocated to a common lot line for lots 1R and 5. Conklin: That is correct. When the revised final plat was brought through, that lot line was moved further to the north and this relocates that easement further to the north. Johnson: And there were no objections by any of the City departments or any of the utility companies. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: Is Mr. Trotter here? Trotter: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Do the Commissioners have any questions of the applicant on this? Ward: I'II have to abstain from this vote. Johnson: All right. Thank you Commissioner. Any questions before I ask if there is anyone in the audience who would address us. Public Comment None • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 18 Further Discussion Johnson: I would remind the applicant that our action is merely a recommendation to the Council. I believe vacations also require 5 positive votes to go forward. Tim? Conklin: No. It's a simple majority. Johnson: All right. MOTION Estes: I move that we approve utility easement vacation 99-9. Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and seconded by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve vacation 99-9 and forward it to the Council for it's final action. Is there discussion on the motion to approve? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-0-1. Mr. Ward abstained. Johnson: The motion carries on a vote of 5-0-1 and goes on to the Council for final action. Thanks. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 19 VA99-10: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION MCMAHON, PP408 This item was submitted by Tim McMahon on behalf of McMahon Brothers Construction, Inc. for property located at 1603 Jordan Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to vacate the northernmost 2 feet of the 10 foot easement along the south property line. Tim McMahon was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the utility easement vacation. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property is located in Hidden Lakes Estates. My understanding from our discussion of this at agenda session last Thursday is that the problem is that 2 feet of the roof line extends over into the utility easement and that this problem was observed when the City Inspector, Bert Rakes, was on site and the problem was observed prior to the footing being poured. The ditch for the footing had been dug and I think the rebar had been placed but the concrete hadn't been poured. The inspector observed the mistake and said that it needed to be corrected but the applicant opted not to do that. Vinson: I have a brief history that I can present to you. In April of 1999, the applicant was in the process of pouring footings for a residence at 1603 Jordan Lane. An inspector, Bert Rakes, from the City of Fayetteville informed the applicant that the footing was violating a utility easement setback. The plan the applicant was using showed an 8 foot setback but the setback was suppose to be 10 feet. Theinspector devised a way to alter the existing footing by increasing it's width, allowing the wall and roof overhang to be built outside of the utility easement. Later, the applicant decided the wall could not be placed on the footing at the location he and the inspector had discussed and the wall was constructed with a setback of 10 feet, 2 inches. The roof currently hangs 2 feet into the utility easement. The applicant is now requesting a vacation on the north 2 feet of the 10 foot utility easement setback to accommodate the roof overhang. Johnson: All right. Would the applicant identify himself for us and tell us what you have to add to the overview that has been given? • McMahon: My name is Tim McMahon and I am representing McMahon Brothers Construction, Inc. The only thing I have to add to Brent's comments are that the property is a Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 20 little bit unique because it is located immediately adjacent to a property that is on the National Historic Register which is know as the Jackson House and there are several very large and pristine pine trees located on this property and what we were attempting to do when we were locating the structure on the property was to avoid damaging the root system of the very large pine tree that is part of the Jackson Estate before the property was subdivided. The plat that we used to layout the house and which I used to submit to the planning department was mistaken used by me. It was a preliminary plat. During the process of obtaining a building permit, I didn't even realize I was using a preliminary plat. So, it was an honest mistake that I've made. We've built probably about 50 houses in the City of Fayetteville and this is the first time I've ever had a problem. We're very, very careful about this normally and it was just a mistake and an oversight. There are absolutely no utilities in the easement and there have been no objections by any of the utility companies or the City Engineering Department or any of the other parties that are involved. Johnson: McMahon: Explain to me why there are no utilities in this utility easement. Well, when I asked Ron Petrie about this -- actually, Ron was employed by the engineer who did the engineering on the subdivision. He told me that customarily an engineer would -- it's just a matter or keeping clean lines when the lots were subdivided. There are utilities that come of the back corner of the property along that property line but it's just partial. Johnson: Are you saying that there are no utilities in the 10 foot utility easement or there are no utilities in the 2 feet which you want vacated. McMahon: Along the property line that would be affected by the roof overhang, along that segment of the utility easement, there are no utilities in the easement. Johnson: And how long a segment of that utility easement is it? McMahon: It is approximately about 36 feet. It's right in the middle. Corning off the back of the property, there are utilities that come out in the easement. There is also another very large group of 3 or 4 big, pristine pine trees that are in that utility easement between the street and the back part of the property where there actually are utilities in the easement. Johnson: We have before us a plat or survey that you provided for lot 34 and it's at page 11.4 in our packet. Is it the section of the utility easement -- now I've confused myself -- is this easement on the south side of this house or is it on the north side of the house? The one that you are seeking to vacate. McMahon: It would be on the south side of the house. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 21 Conklin: What the applicant has stated is true There are no utilities in that easement. When I talked with Ron Petrie this afternoon regarding this easement, he indicated to me that at the time it was going through plat review that the utility companies requested this easement and an additional easement and when they actually went to install the utilities in the subdivision, they did not go this direction with the utilities and therefore they did not use this utility easement. Johnson: Tim, as you understand, what part of that south line that is 140 feet long doesn't have utilities in it? Where are the utilities? McMahon: I don't have the plat right in front of me but there -- I'm not sure it's shown on the drawing you have but there is a property line that runs north and south going off of the southern east/west property line and that is as far they extend. Johnson: There are 2 utilities easements and 2 property lines going north/south. Is it the one on the east boundary or the west boundary of this lot. McMahon: It would be the west boundary, I believe. Johnson: Tim, do you understand that along this south boundary that we are -- the south utility easement, that there will never be utilities placed there to your knowledge? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: In light of that fact -- let me ask whether there are other questions and I'm not sure I've asked for public comment. Bunch: In reading the petition and looking at the plat, it's not clear -- are you asking for a 2 foot vacation along the whole southern border or just in the vicinity of where the overhang of the house is? McMahon: We would be pleased if we were granted a vacation just along the portion where the overhang of the house exists. However, the utility companies, when they stated what they would agree with on the forms that they signed, they said just the northern 2 foot of the utility easement. Bunch: Basically, it's not really clear from this which request is being made. Whether is the overhang of the house area or along the whole, entire length. Public Comment None. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 1999 Page 22 MOTION Johnson: In light of the fact that there is no utility located in this easement and but for that, probably I would not have voted for this vacation because I think when the City Inspector is on site and says this is being built in the easement, I think the sensible course is to make the correction before the concrete is poured. But, if this utility easement is not being used, I take it we might even consider an application to vacate the entire easement along this section. In light of that, I will move that we approve vacation 99-10 and that we recommend vacation of the northernmost 2 feet of the entire existing 10 foot utility easement on the southern side of lot 34. Estes: Madame chairman, I second the motion. Johnson: I have a motion by the chairman, seconded by Commissioner Estes that we approve vacation 99-10 to vacate the northernmost 2 feet of the entire 10 foot utility easement on the south boundary of lot 34 and recommend that on to the Council. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m.