Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 23, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of Minutes VA99-11: Coleman, pp411 AD99-17: Wedington Place Apt, pp401 AD99-18: Doe's Eat Place, pp 484 AD99-19: Nelm's Auto Park, pp248/249 RZ99-18: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-19: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-20: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-21: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-22: Fochtman, pp209 RZ99-23: Fochtman, pp209 LSD99-21: Bank of Fayetteville, pp401 RZ99-24: Robertson, pp439 RZ99-25: Robertson, pp439 • RZA99-2: Zamberletti, pp100 RZ99-26: Zamberletti, pp100 RZA99-3: DeWeese/Schmidt, pp474 RZ99-27: DeWeese/Schmidt, pp474 • MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved on consent on consent on consent on consent on consent MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of August 9, 1999 minutes. VA99-1I: EASEMENT VACATION COLEMAN, PP401 This item was submitted by Curtis and Kathryn Coleman for property located at 2922 Whippoorwill Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately .29 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a 20 foot utility easement along the north property line. AD99-17• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM WEDINGTON PLACE APTS, PP401 This item was submitted by Bruce Adams for property located at lot 4 of Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.73 acres. The request is for a waiver from Section 5.4.3 of the City's Drainage Criteria Manual to allow a building setback of less than 100 feet from a permanent water feature and also to accept the use of a permanent lake in lieu of the dry detention pond. AD99-18• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM DOE'S EAT PLACE PP484 This item was submitted by Jim Huson for property located at 316 W. Dickson Street. The request is for a waiver of 4 parking spaces in the C-3 zoning district. AD99-19: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM NELM'S AUTO PARK, PP248/249 This item was submitted by Audy Lack of Miller, Boskus, & Lack on behalf of Nelm's Auto Park for property located at the northeast corner of the I-540 and Hwy 112 intersection. The request is for a variance from Section 161.21(D)(7) of the Unified Development Ordinance concerning site lighting requirements for a development within the Design Overlay District. Committee Discussion Johnson: I will call to order the August 23, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. I see we have all Commissioners in their places tonight. We have several items on the Consent Agenda in addition to approval of the minutes. Is there anyone on the Commission who would like to pull from the Consent Agenda any of these items? Seeing none, is there • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 3 anyone in audience who would request that we discuss any one of these items and pull it from the Consent Agenda. Seeing none then, we will vote on the Consent Agenda consisting of 5 items. Roll Call Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 4 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. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the proposed C-1 zoning based on the findings included as a part of the staff report. 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. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the proposed R -O zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report and they recommended denial of the other rezoning requests. Staff would support a request to rezone the property with a mixture of residential zoning and R -O along Hwy 112. RZ99-20: 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 12.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request Staff recommended denial of the proposed R-2 zoning based on the findings included as part of the report and they recommended denial of the other rezoning requests. Staff would support a request to rezone a portion of the property as R-2 with a mixture of other residential zoning and R -O along Hwy 112. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 5 RZ99-21: 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 13.03 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the proposed C-1 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. 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. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the proposed I-1 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. 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 26.14 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the proposed C-2 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. • Commission Discussion • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 6 Johnson: This property is currently zoned A-1. We've had an opportunity to look at this and talk about this on several occasions recently. A portion of these rezonings came before the Commission some time back and then at our last meeting these rezonings were before us in the form they are tonight. We only had 6 commissioners present and since it takes 5 positive votes to pass a rezoning, the applicant decided to pull these from our agenda since we had a small group of commissioners that evening. So, it's back tonight. It's a total of 106 acres. We have discussed the tract as a whole so this evening, I want most of the discussion to be about individual tracts because there are individual rezonings that are requested. Conklin: RZ99-18 is a 18.06 acre tract along Highway 112 in the northeast comer and the request is from A-1 to C-1. RZ99-19 immediately to the west of this is 23.35 acres; residential - office is being requested. RZ99-20 is a request for R -O, so their proposal would have C-1 along Hwy. 112 on 18 acres, R -O on 23 acres and then behind that R-2 on 12.59 acres. Immediately south of that is RZ99-21. They are requesting C-1 zoning on 13.03 acres. If the Commission would like to follow along with the request, page 2.18 illustrates the 6 rezoning being requested on the 106 acre tract. For the area labeled tract 2 which adjoins the Research and Technology Park, they are requesting 1-1, heavy commercial/light industrial zoning on 13.05 acres. Along Hwy. 112 to the east, RZ99-23 is a 26.14 acre tract of land requested to be C-2 zoning. Staff has • recommended denial on all 6 requests due to the fact that the overall request is inconsistent with the land use plan and that it is not Justified or needed at this time. If there are any further questions, I will be happy to answer them. Johnson: Let me turn to the applicant and ask -- you may have something to say about the overall plan if you like but I'd like most of the discussion this evening to focus on individual tracts because that is how we have to vote. • Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I represent the applicant, Earl Fochtman on this and also Buddy Peoples. If you recall, we brought this before the Planning Commission in May. We tabled it at that time and decided to come back with a new proposal. On page 4 of my copy of the report from the planning staff, they have a comparison of the rezonings. If you'll refer to that. Vinson: Page 2.3. Jorgensen: In May of 1999, we had originally requested C-1 zoning on 16.8% of the total acreage. C-2 zoning was 9.3%, 1-1 was 9%, residential none, and then in August of 1999, which is basically this latest request, we moved to 29% of the total tract as C-1, 24% C-2, 12.3% of the total tract was 1-1 and 33% or almost 34% is residential. The reason for the revision is to conform to what we thought we were hearing from the Planning Commission in that they seemed to prefer what was referred to as a commercial node in that area. I think everybody in general agreed that the property in this vicinity does not exactly lend itself to residential. That's the • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 7 reason for the low amount of residential. We have asked for a portion of that to be R -O and another portion of the property to be R-2. We felt that it didn't fit in very well with the surrounding area, that being C-2 immediately to the east of Highway 112 and I-1 to the south of our property. In fact, the entire south is bordered by I-1. The property to the west is A-1 and to the north is A-1. I have talked to Mr. and Mrs. Benedict who own the property to the north. Naturally, they are not real happy about this. They do agree that it's not R-1 property. They would like to see a buffer zone between this property and theirs which may take place if the owners are able to rezone this property and purchase it and then it will be coming before the Planning Commission for large scale development. The property immediately to the northeast and east is all C-2 so we thought it would fit in fairly well with this area also. We also show our collector street passing through this property from the east to the west in order to connect Highway 112 with Salem Road to the west. Johnson: 1 have a question of staff. The page that was disseminated tonight, page 2.21, I believe is the first page I have seen that shows West Salem extended all the way through this property as a collector. Let me ask whether or not the applicant did this or whether the staff did and if so, what to make of that? Vinson: That is a reflection of the master street plan. Johnson: As presently shown? Vinson: Yes, it is. Johnson: And it presently dies at Hwy. 112 and does not go further east on the master street plan? Vinson: That is correct. Johnson: Initial questions of Mr. Jorgensen? Let me ask if there are those in the audience who would address -- I usually allow discussion from the audience on all of this tract and then nothing on the individual tracts, but I really think that probably is not the fair way to go. Let's move on to the first rezoning that is before us which is tract 6 or RZ99-18. Look back at your map and tract 6 is the southeastern most tract that is proposed to be rezoned to C-2. It consists of 26 acres. Public Comment on Item #RZ99-18 Kit Williams was present on behalf of Marti and Dale Benedict who are adjoining property owners. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 8 Williams: I would like to first note that we support the Fayetteville Planning Department's recommended denial of this rezoning and all of these rezonings for the reasons that they stated. We would even go further than that. Certainly we feel that this initial tract that we're talking about and all these tracts are inconsistent with the 2020 General Plan which was approved by this Planning Commission after numerous public hearings, much time, and much public comment. Then that planning document which took years to do and lots of city money also, was referred to the City Council where additional hearings were held and it was approved unanimously by the City Council and their resolution adopting this was signed by Mayor Hanna in the December of 1995. I think a lot of work went into that. There was a lot of call for trying to make sure that the roads of Fayetteville will be such that we could all be provided for in the future and this was a guiding plan -- not written in stone -- but certainly something that you should take a lot of consideration in. That is one of the objections that the Planning Department has that none of these rezonings are consistent with the 2020 Plan. We certainly agree with that. The second point that the Planning Department made is that additional commercial land is simply not needed in Fayetteville. I think that is very clear. There is a tremendous amount of undeveloped, already zoned commercial land. I think that's another violation of our 2020 Plan. We are supposed to direct our commercial development into the places that is going to be best for Fayetteville. You don't do that if you allow just speculative rezoning anywhere a property owner wants to put commercial land. There is much undeveloped commercial land throughout Fayetteville and I think it would be far better planning to continue to emphasize this land and not to allow such speculative rezoning as we have here. Now a third consideration that the Planning Department looked at and they found that the proposed rezonings would not create or appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion. We realize this is on Highway 112, a state highway, however, across the street from this particular development is going in a major new commercial development, Nelm's Auto Park. I understand also that across the street, the State Highway Department at some point in time might even be doing some development there, so there is going to be a lot of traffic there and certainly 106 acres with a requested R-2 zoning in some and commercial on the other and some industrial will create a tremendous amount of traffic and I think that is another consideration that you should think about. Finally, there was a fourth consideration where it talks about not undesirably increasing the load on public services. I wonder about that. I know that in the last 2 years when I was on the City Council, and before that we looked at rezonings very carefully -- major rezonings like this -- this is over 100 acres -- because we are facing a crisis with our sewer plant. We had reached capacity and we still are. There has not been a vote by the citizens to build a new sewer plant. The bonds are going to be used for financing. Obviously, even once there is a go ahead, assuming there is a go head for a new sewer plant, it would take years to construct and to make this sewer plant effective so it can relieve the burden that we now face with the restrictive capacity that we have Therefore, I think any rezoning that comes to you -- any major rezoning -- you should look at it very, very carefully to see whether is it real essential and unique to Fayetteville and I think that at this point in time with the restricted sewer capacity that we have, that persons seeking rezonings really have a higher standard than in other times. In other times, with plenty of capacity, I don't think they • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 9 should be held to such a high standard but at this point in time I know that in the last 2 years when I was on the City Council we looked at every significant rezoning and this certainly is one being over 100 acres, on whether this provides something unique to Fayetteville. Something that would be very advantageous. 1 imagine that the Planning Commission is doing that and I urge to you continue doing that. I think in this particular case, this is not anything specific and unique for Fayetteville. This is what I would term a speculative rezoning. It's got a lot of commercial. It's got the type of residential which I think is inappropriate for this area, R-2, which are apartments pretty much on the edge of town in an area that is mainly agricultural. If you look at the zoning map, you'll see agricultural around more than half of this land. One final consideration 1 would like you to make on this is that it adjoins the new technology park. This is a park that has been developed over the years that the citizens through their city government have invested a lot of time and money in trying to develop and make attractive so we can attract high technology clients that would provide the kind of jobs that Fayetteville needs to maintain itself at a high economic level. Therefore, since this adjoins that particular property, we need as the city and you are representing us as a planning commission need to be very careful that the land that's going to be immediately adjoining our technology park is going to be very compatible, attractive type of development so that when we bring someone in from silicone valley or wherever to try to get them to locate in Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will look out and see something that is a desirable location, that is pretty and is somewhere that they want to invest their money and locate their business. I think this particular rezoning is not such a project. I'm afraid I have talked about all of these. I'm sorry. I didn't know how to break it out. For those reasons, I won't be discussing each one. I hope that you would not approve this rezoning. I don't think it's needed. It's in violation of the 2020 Plan. I just don't think it's good for Fayetteville. Are there any questions? Thanks. Johnson: Look at page 2.18, this is the northeastern tract of 18 acres that is proposed to be rezoned to C-1. Then if you'll look at the new page 2.21, you'll see that it is cut almost in half from east to west by the master street plan street. The tract numbering confused me. We'll start with RZ99-18 which is tract numbered 6. Let me ask if there are others in the audience who would address this tract which is 18 acres rezoned to C-1. Perry Butcher, residing at 3412 Deane Solomon Road was present. Butcher: I have lived on Deane Solomon Road for 5 years. I'm interested in the development of the property around this. I feel that the area is agriculture. I apologize. I, too, am looking at this as a whole but I will be specific. The area is basically a swamp down through the valley and we begin to come off the swamp down at the west end already. If you would watch the foundations when they built those houses and the school out there, a lot of extra attention and effort -- I don't think that they'll last a long time. The school, I think, will be all right. The homes over a period of time will show the effects of where they are building. That would be true of almost anything down through that valley, roads included. If you'll look at • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 10 Deane Solomon you'll see that the road is sloughing off on each side. It's dangerous at both ends and this proposal will create traffic on that street. At the north end, you take your life in your hands every time you pull in or out of Deane Solomon. There are two 90 degree corners that are halfway down there. At the south end, you cannot get enough clearance for cars coming left to look like and know that you've got good clearance. It's a very dangerous intersection. Although this won't empty directly onto Deane Solomon, it's a step toward that happening. I feel as has been suggested here -- is one of my problems, too -- we have the technical park and we're talking about putting in something that in a way might be competing with that park and we've got a lot of money, time, and effort put into that and I think we ought to see that that's developed and brought forward rather than letting people build around it and take away from what is being designated for that. We also already have some industrial area down in there like where the trucks are going there for their station -- is that ABC? Then we'll have a lot of traffic added to from the Nelm's car lot and that's all car traffic. So, I think there will be a lot of added traffic there. I do not feel that there is enough residential people living in that area that they need to have a lot of commercial facilities out there. We're not that far away from what is convenient to us. We have a sparse number of people living out there. I think most of the people are that way because that's they way they thought that would be. To start putting apartments into the area and making it more dense is different than a use that has been shown by your planning and 1 • think that all of these things kind of go against the grain. I do like progress. I have to. I feel progress is right. I think it has to occur at the right places and the right time is a very important factor. This is a pretty good size development as to how much of it will be developed quickly, it may lay there and languish for many years and it waits for the people to catch up with it. I don't know that it's a really necessary project in that location. Thank you very much. • Johnson: Thank you. Are there others in the audience who would address us on the rezoning 99-18, the 18 acres in the northeast corner to go to C-1? Further Discussion on Item #RZ99-18 Hoffman: I'll say a few comments and then I'll try to keep it short. In general, I think that the Planning Commission is responsible to ensure and take into account the needs of the City and of the residents. I don't feel that this development in general does either. I have a concern about competing with the industrial park. I also have a concern about the hodge podge of commercial zonings proposed. So, I'm inclined to not do any of the proposed rezonings presently. Odom: I hate to admit this but I agree with what all Kit said and it used to be I was on the Commission with Kit and he used to do all the talking and I just never got to say very much and that holds true again today. I will try not to repeat what he said I am against this proposal primarily because it does not meet the criteria of the 2020 General Land Use Plan. That plan was adopted in 1995 and often times this Commission refers to that document as a simple guideline and that it's not set in stone. However, I think that is -- I have used that language in the past, too • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 11 -- however, I feel that is not giving the 2020 Plan the proper weight that it deserves. I feel that there are reasons why you tend to do that. I think some of it is because, perhaps, all of us are not as familiar with the plan as we should be. The 2020 Plan does have a long history. I'm not going to go into great detail and Kit sort of touched on it in his presentation but I think it is important to know that it is a document that is the work of numerous years of study and effort not only by the City Council and Planning Commission but the citizens of Fayetteville with their public input. In the beginning of the 2020 Plan document, there is a procedural history that outlines the number of meetings that took place to create that document and I would encourage you to go back and review those if you have not. I had forgotten about that and in reading this weekend was surprised about how long that process took and how careful everyone was in the consideration. So, simply to refer to the document as a guideline in my estimation does not do justice to all the work that was done. Currently, Phyllis Johnson and myself were present on the Planning Commission at the time that the City adopted that document. I would encourage all Planning Commissioners, including myself, I hadn't looked at it in depth in some time, to go back and review it in detail. There are many specific and general goals that the plan attempts to accomplish and I feel that those are self evident and I don't want to go into those in great detail at this time. However, it is clear that the overall purpose of the plan is to make sure that Fayetteville develops in a controlled manner without reducing the quality of life that we've all come to enjoy. Specifically, regarding this application, it is important to note that the land use map in this area is designated as residential. Now you have said a lot over the past several meetings as to whether or not this area could be or should be or ever will be residential but the fact remains that the general land use plan has marked it as residential. I know many of you feel as I do that if you look at this application, common sense tells you that it looks commercial in nature. Certainly using your common sense is something that we all must do and often times it is the most appropriate in rending the decisions that we make on a day to day basis as well as members of the Planning Commission. However, let's not forget that common sense was used throughout the entire process of adopting the general land use plan. The general land use plan is an holistic view of the development of the entire City of Fayetteville and not specific tracts. I think that is why you can see the discrepancy of a common sense approach to develop an area as commercial when in the land use plan it is not designated as such. Further, the general land use plan encourages commercial nodes. It has several areas within this realm of development that are designed as commercial nodes. For instance, the intersection once completed of Truckers Drive and Deane Solomon Road was noted as a community commercial area to be developed. Nowhere in the general land use plan does it say that commercial development is recommended along major or minor arterials. That map was developed in an effort to allow development in the future but maintain the quality of life and to prevent certain aspects of development that we find undesirable and encourage aspects of development that we put a priority on. Therefore, I implore you to remember that when we are looking at one particular tract, we must also remember that there is a plan in place for the City of Fayetteville as whole. To ignore that plan as a whole, discredits those who have worked so hard to see it's implementation and ultimately jeopardize the quality of life that we have here in Fayetteville. Not only does this development not fit in • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 12 with the criteria of the land use plan, it is also apparent from the statistical guidelines that we are way ahead on commercial development acreage in Fayetteville. The general land use plan indicates that by the year 2020, we will need an additional 1,098 acres of both commercial and industrial and that applies from 1995 to the year 2020. I don't have specific numbers as to how much has been passed since 1995 but 1 know of one development by the Northwest Arkansas Mall which alone has in excess of 300 acres and I was for that. But, that is nearly one-third of the amount of acreage that is required by that plan by the year 2020. Further, there are many areas that are zoned commercial and continue to be undeveloped. Further, the plan comments that the population will have increased by 32,000 and we would need an additional 13,000 residential units of which 50.8% need to be multi -family dwellings. There isn't a multi -family dwelling within a half mile of this project and while I certainly believe that there won't be multi- million dollar homes built right next to the industrial park, I do think the developer could find multi -family dwelling units very desirable in this area. I find a note with regard to what we need and what we have is that the general land use plan indicated in 1995 that at current we have for the next 25 years adequate industrial and research facilities. So, as it stands now, the plan indicates that we have enough industrial and research zonings. Now we all have opinions on where developments or housing additions should go and so forth. There are 9 of us here and there are 9 different opinions. The one nice thing that we have that can bring us together is this document so that we can work in the community together. If we discount these findings, we discount all the hard work and many hours again that went into making this document. Can this document be wrong? Yes, it can be wrong but corrections should be made through the policy makers which is the City Council, not the Planning Commission. Further, this plan is coming up for review, I believe, in the year 2000. Is that right, Tim? Conklin: That's correct. Odom: Lastly, I'd like to make a couple of comments with regard to some recent quotations that have come into the paper about our planning staff. I don't think any remarks were made toward the staff in ill will. I know that I have not always in the past agreed with the staff. I, however, think it is important to make a couple of observations. First and foremost it is within our bylaws that we make specific findings as to whether or not a certain area meets our land use plan. The staff is required to make those finding for us and report to us We've had some criticism with regard to their recommendations. It's important to note that their recommendations aren't just recommendations, they are more findings with regard to whether or not they meet the plan. It's important not to criticize them for making those findings and recommendations not only because it's unfair but it sets up a bad precedent. We don't have and we don't want their opinion with regard to how they feel a development should develop. This is setting policy which is something that they don't need and we don't want. Therefore, I encourage everyone to keep in mind with regard to the staff's recommendations that they are simply doing their job. If they look up on the land use plan and the area is marked as residential, they may feel it ought to be commercial, but fortunately they are forbidden to give us that • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 13 opinion. I'm going to be voting against and those are comments for every one of these requests. I know that is not what you wanted to do, but I don't want to make those feelings known on each and every point. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-18 Johnson: All right. Are there other commissioners who want to address this first rezoning which is the C-1 at the northeast? Ward: This property really does lend itself strictly to commercial along 112 highway. We have regional commercial across the street from it. It's the highest and best use for this property and it is definitely not residential. It is definitely commercial. There is a need out on Hwy. 112 for commercial property. Everything across the road there is pretty much developed now. It doesn't make sense to try to keep this pasture land. That is only taking away the property rights of the owner. That whole strip along 112 highway should be zoned be C-2, not Just C-1 like we're asking for here. Those are my thoughts. The 2020 plan is a plan. It's not the bible. It's not something that has to be followed. Things have changed dramatically in the last 24 months/36 months as far as the growth and what potentially is going to be there. My opinion is that this property does meet it and we do need commercial out there on 112 and we do need to rezone this property to C-1 or C-2 along there. That's the highest and best use for it. Johnson: Other commissioners who want to address this rezoning. One observation I had is that so far as I know, this sheet that we were given as we arrived tonight, page 2.21, is the first sheet that has shown the master street plan street. I hope we are more careful about that in future because in my mind that makes a difference in how we might consider this property. The northernmost 3 tracts are cut by this master street plan street, that is the extension of W. Salem and I believe because of that that you can make an argument within the confines of the 2020 plan and the general plan in the guidelines that we use that this tract 99-18 of 18 acres which is proposed to be rezoned to C-1 indeed does fit in. We would allow for a commercial node, that is it is split pretty much down the middle by the master street plan street. We know that it might move but we know in general it will cut through that particular 18 acre tract very probably. We try to avoid strip commercial. This tract which is before us does do what we say we want to do which is to provide a node which this could well be. I do think that a case can be made for this particular rezoning. Other comments on this one? Hoffman: In regard to the C-1 proposed zoning, taken on its own merits, I agree with you. However, we are looking at a very large tract of land and I feel it imperative that the Planning Commission consider not just that we are going to say rezone 1 tract to C-1 and then deny the rest of them, I think that it's real important that we keep in mind that this will be coming back before us either before or after the 2020 plan has been revised. I think it's important to view this in context. Yes, we do have a collector street going through here. What's going to happen on • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 14 down the other 2 tracts? I don't see that we are given a clue on that. I still don't see the reason to rezone one small portion of the large tract shown when the other portions are so clearly unacceptable and outside of the confines of this 2020 plan. So, therefore, taking the one C-1 zoning out of context, I can't support it without seeing a more conducive master plan. Johnson: Thank you. I think that can be a catch 22 and I think the applicant may have felt like he's gotten into a bit of a catch 22 because indeed we asked for a proposal on the entire 106 acres. It's my sense there's no proposal to rezone the whole acreage that would pass the Commission. 1 think that there may be a bit of a double bind that we perhaps helped get that applicant in. So far as 99-19 immediately west, also a master street plan street, that is proposed to rezone to R -O; 99-20, the westernmost which is just over 12.5 acres is proposed to be rezoned R-2. It seems to me that those 2 proposed rezonings number one, do comply with the 2020 plan. They are both proposed to be residential. They seem to me to comply with what the staff has said it thinks is in general a good idea which is to buffer the commercial rezonings with the residential and to step down from R -O and then to R-2 and so I do believe on those 3 tracts that a strong argument can be made that they do comply with the 2020 plan and common sense as applied to RZ99-18 which sits on Hwy. 112 and is across from the drive in theater and the other C-2 property across the street. I guess the reason I feel that we must take each of these and of course, you vote as you wish and if you vote against one of them that may cause you to vote against every one of them. We have before us 6 rezonings. I don't see that we can in fairness go against some that are appropriate just because number 6 isn't but that's my view. Ward: This is neighborhood commercial, C-1. It's not C-2. They are asking for that out there on basically a major arterial road I feel like there is a need for it because across the street all along Hwy. 112, there is nothing left out there. MOTION on Item #RZ99-18 Ward: I'll move for approval of RZ99-18. Johnson: Is there a second? Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Marr to approve the rezoning 99-18 which is the 18.06 acres from A-1 to C-1. It's the northeastern most tract. Is there additional discussion of this motion to approve? Hoffman: I'd like to try to make myself clear. I go back to the last time we heard this in May and I think there was a general sense at that time that we consider the entire back tract as residential with the front and I thought that we had achieved a certain amount of consensus on • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 15 that. I reluctantly will not be voting for the C-1 because I don't feel that we have the contiguous residential view that we had discussed back in May. Johnson: Other comments? Estes: Very briefly, I have served on this Commission for less than 2 years so I come with very little institutional history. I was not a member of this Commission when the 2020 plan was adopted. As I view this, there has been ample discussion that the 2020 plan required residential use of this property. If you set that aside, and I'm not saying that we're ignoring it if you vote for the proposed rezoning. I'm simply suggesting that we set the 2020 plan aside which is what we must do for approving each of these proposed rezonings then I think we have ignored a very important planning document with no viable alternative in place and I am troubled by that. I will vote against each of the rezoning requests for those reasons. Johnson: Other comments? Hoover: I am in agreement with Commissioner Estes. I also believe that the amount of commercial zoning that we have in the north part of town here is quite adequate. Any more would be irresponsible. I think it's a misconception that only commercial property can be along highways. There are other cities that successfully have residential neighborhoods along highways and then at their major intersections are commercial which I believe is what our land use plan is trying to do. I'll be opposed to all of this zoning. Johnson. That raises a question in my mind that I would like to raise to staff. What other C-1 zoning is there in this area? Conklin: I'm not aware of any C-1 zoning in this area around 112. Johnson: Or even a bigger area I can't think of anywhere close. Perhaps across the bypass but I'm trying to recall any C-1. The mall of course is not C-1. So, to me, the argument that there is way too much C-1 out there is not persuasive because I couldn't find it. Conklin: There is no C-1 shown on the 1 mile diameter zoning map on page 2.20. However, the general plan does designate a commercial node at Truckers Drive and Deane Solomon Road for the future. Johnson: Thanks. Other comments or questions? We have before us the motion to approve RZ99-18 which is to rezone to C-1, the 18.06 acres. Roll Call on Item #RZ99-18 • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 16 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-5-0. Commissioners Johnson, Marr, Shackelford, and Ward voted for the motion and Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, and Odom voted against the motion. Johnson: The motion fails on a vote of 4 in favor and 5 opposed. The Council has final determination of all rezonings and this vote can be appealed. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-19 Johnson: The next item is RZ99-19 which is the tract immediately west. It is proposed to rezone 23.25 acres from A-1 to R -O. Let me ask whether there is anyone in the audience who wants to direct comments to this particular tract. Public Comment on #RZ99-19 Williams. I'd like to reiterate that we are opposed to the residential zoning also. This is residential office which could allow other things and my clients Marti and Dale Benedict who adjoin this particular property oppose any rezoning on this. Thank you. Johnson: Is there any else in the audience who would address this rezoning to R -O. Further Discussion on Item #RZ99-19 Marr: Since the agenda session back in May I have struggled with how to approach understanding the importance of the 2020 plan. Understanding it is a 1995 best guess of where things will be. I also am concerned that when we have an opportunity as a City to be able to direct development -- I look at this as a major transportation center possibility. I look at it as whether to be a mixed use or whether it should be industrial. I, too, was not on the Commission at that time the general land use plan was adopted. 1 look at it as being able to go into an office complex off of a strip type of environment and have businesses. So, I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. When I listen to the argument of residential being a directive of the 2020 plan, it makes it also that if I choose to have that as my "all means document" to not be able to support that development in other tracts. I don't think it's our job if we go to the plan to say we don't want to look at anything unless it's all this way because the applicant certainly has a right in my opinion to bring land as they see fit. The same way, I would probably vote against it on this residential office simply because I also with my first vote believe that it is an opportunity to gear and direct the commercial planning in what I feel would be a future potential transportation artery and development. All the way across there is regional commercial, so, those are my comments if people want to know why I'm up here voting. • MOTION on Item #RZ99-19 • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 17 Marr: I would like to move that RZ99-19 be denied. Johnson: Is there a second? Estes: Second. Johnson: We have a motion by Marr, seconded by Estes to deny RZ99-19 which is to rezone 23.3 acres to R -O. Is there further discussion? Shackelford: With page 2.21 showing the collector running through this property, I really feel that with that road it could be a commercial node which is what we strive for when we vary from the 2020 plan. I believe that tract 6, A-1 to C-1, and this tract which would be R -O would be a buffer zone away from that. I think about the next being R-2 and if it would serve that. I believe, in my opinion, we're somewhat punishing the applicant when we disagree with some other tracts and 1 think we should be looking at it on a tract by tract basis. I think if you believe the commercial node is a viable solution here, I think you should support tract 5 and 1 will at this point. Johnson: Other comments on this rezoning? Odom: the denial. I have a question of staff. You recommended denial but I don't fully understand Conklin: The recommendation for denial on all the rezonings was based on the fact that we do not support the commercial or industrial zoning up front and that to have a portion of the property zoned R -O surrounded by A-1, we do not feel like that was in the best sense of planning to rezone that professional office in the middle of A-1 zoning. We did support R -O zoning along Hwy. 112 and we would prefer to see R -O zoning in that location and not in the center of this property. Johnson: What would you prefer to see at this tract? Conklin: We talked about different types of residential uses that possibly could be back behind the R -O. For example, like the R-2 zoning which is further to the west as a part of a transition down to either single family or duplex type zonings. Johnson: On this tract then which is 23 acres, are you saying that you think R-2 would be appropriate for this tract or do you oppose any rezoning since the tract RZ99-18 wasn't rezoned in a way that you believe is appropriate? Do you oppose this rezoning for that reason? • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 18 Conklin: When we looked at the entire 106 acres, if it were to be rezoned residential -office along Highway 112, we would like to see some type of transition back behind that. Therefore, staff recommended denial on the R -O and the R-2 that go further back to the west. We would prefer to see some type of multi -family closer to Highway 112 and as we go back further to the west have some lower density residential development. Johnson: Are there any other questions or comments on this particular tract? If not then, we have the before us the motion to deny RZ99-19 which is to rezone to R -O this 23 acres so we'll vote on the motion to deny. Roll Call on Item #RZ99-19 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Commissioners Marr, Odom, Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, and Hoover voted for the motion and Commissioners Shackelford, Ward, and Johnson voted against. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-20 Johnson: That brings us to RZ99-20. This is just over 12 5 acres and this is proposed to be rezoned to R-2. Is there discussion or motions on this tract? MOTION on Item #RZ99-20 Hoffman: I'll make a motion to deny RZ99-20. Johnson: Is there a second? Odom: I'll second. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Odom that we deny RZ99-20 which is Just over 12.5 acres on the northwestern most part of this property that is proposed to be rezoned to R-2. Is there discussion? This is a different rezoning but I think we have seen this particular horse and we've talked about this horse for every direction so it doesn't offend me if we don't all have to talk again. Are you ready to call the question on this? Okay. We have before us the motion to deny RZ99-20. Roll Call for Item #RZ99-20 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote 6-3-0. Commissioners Marr, Odom, Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, and Hoover voted for the motion and Commissioners Shackelford, Ward and Johnson voted against the motion. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 19 Johnson: Rezoning 99-20.fails. That is to say it was denied on a vote of 6-3. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-21 Johnson. This is just over 13 acres and proposed to be rezoned to C-1. This is over on the west edge. Does anyone want to address this rezoning which is 13 acres to C-1? Are there motions or discussion? Hoffman: I would like to just ask staff another question. What would be a good procedure to relook at the 2020 plan when we have a specific problem or issue such as this prior to the scheduled review? Can that be revisited? Conklin: I know of 2 cities in Arkansas that currently allow developers to bring general plan amendments forward to the Planning Commission prior to rezonings. That allows the Planning Commission to make recommendations on the general plan and discuss it with City Council. That is the method that the City of Little Rock and the City of Maumelle use. Developers and the Planning Commission are able to take a look at the general plan, make recommendations, and take it before the City Council. Hoffman: So do they have a public hearing? Conklin: That's correct and they ke p them separate. They don't allow the general plan amendment to go along with the rezoning. You have to look at the policy, make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and go to the City Council and have them vote on that and after the Council makes that decision then they allow the rezoning to come forward. Hoffman: Thanks. As much as I agree with the amount of work that was put into this general plan -- it took a great deal of thought -- it's not etched in stone so we should be able to deal with areas such as this in a more positive manner. MOTION on Item #RZ99-21 Hoffman: With that, I'll make a motion to deny RZ99-21. Johnson: Is there a second? Hoover: I'll second that. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman being seconded by Commissioner Hoover to deny 99-21 which is to rezone 13 acres to C-1. Is there discussion? The motion is to deny. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 20 Roll Call on Item #RZ99-2J Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioners Odom, Shackelford, Ward, Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, and Johnson voted for the motion and Commissioner Marr voted against. Johnson: The motion to deny carries on a vote of 8-1. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-22 Johnson: The next tract is 99-22. It's 13.05 acres to rezone to I-1. Is there discussion from the audience on this rezoning? Are there motions or discussion? Ward: What's the difference between I-1 and 1-2? Conklin: 1-1 is going to allow heavy commercial type uses. I-2 you'll have more manufacturing type uses such as facilities emitting odors, anything that could negatively impact surrounding businesses would be put in I-2 manufacturing uses. Johnson: I think there's a discrepancy in a couple of our maps. This map, the new one tonight at page 2.21 doesn't tell what the rezoning is immediately south of this tract. Is that an error so that the technology park comes up and adjoins this property? Conklin: On 2.21, you're looking at the future land use plan. Johnson: It's the zoning that I'm asking you about. Conklin: Zoning of that is currently 1-1. Johnson: So the city's high tech park does adjoin to the south? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: Is there a motion on this tract? Marr: This is one zoning that I do not support and I don't think we should be encouraging industrial development adjacent to our technology park. MOTION on Item #RZ99-22 Marr. I would like to move that we deny RZ99-22. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 21 Johnson: Is there a second? Estes: I'll second. Johnson: The motion is by Commissioner Marr and the second is by Commissioner Estes to deny this rezoning. Is there discussion of the motion to deny? Odom: I want the record to reflect that I'm voting to deny based on the general land use plan indicating that there is currently enough industrial land that we have now. Johnson: Any other discussion of the motion? Shackelford: I would like the record to also show that I believe we could develop a commercial node out of this. I think tracts 4, 5, 6, and 1 would support that. I think tracts 2 and 3 do not. I think tract 2 which is the I-1 zone would be in direct conflict with the city's industrial park. That is why I have voted against the last rezoning and I'll vote against this one as well. Johnson: Thanks. Other comments? We have before us the motion to deny this tract which is to rezone to I-1. Roll Call for Item #RZ99-22 Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Commission Discussion on Item #RZ99-23 Johnson: We're now back to Highway 112 with 26 acres proposed to be rezoned to C-2. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to discuss this proposed rezoning? Are there motions? MOTION on Item #RZ99-23 Ward: I'll make a motion that we approve RZ99-23. Johnson: Is there a second to that? Shackelford: I'll second that. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Shackelford that we approved rezoning 99-23 which is 26 acres to C-2. Is there discussion of this motion to approve this rezoning? • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 22 Roll Call on Item #RZ99-23 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0. Commissioners Marr, Shackelford, and Ward voted for the motion and Commissioners Odom, Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, Hoover, and Johnson voted against. Johnson: This rezoning failed with 3 members for the rezoning and 6 members opposed. The net effect is that the Commission recommended denying all of these rezonings. The Council will have final say if the applicant takes it to that level. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 23 LSD99-21: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Bank of Fayetteville for property located at Lot 2, Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.00 acre. Roger Trotter, John Alan Lewis, Gary Gartner, and Shahin Riahi were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the Design Overlay District requirements of 250 feet between an intersection and the closet curb cut, and for minimum spacing of 200 feet between cub cuts. A cub cut is proposed approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Wedington Drive and Steamboat Drive An access easement has been dedicated to provide access to this lot as well as to the lot to the north. This easement is located approximately 60 feet north of the proposed curb cut. The owner of the property to the north has submitted a letter requesting that any action taken in regard to this curb cut location will not preclude him from using the dedicated access easement for development of adjacent properties. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Request for rear setback variance must be decided by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant shall submit the property application and materials in order to have this request placed on an upcoming agenda. This must be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. (This item was removed because the setback variance issue was resolved and all fees were refunded.) 4. Payment of $14,033.25 (for 225 feet of road frontage times 14 feet in width times $4.455 per square foot) towards the Wedington widening project. 5. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 24 approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following are required. grading and drainage permits and completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. All improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson. There is a waiver that the Commission must deal with asking for waiving of the requirement of 250 feet between and intersection and the nearest curb cut and the distance we are looking at this curb cut is 150 feet north of the intersection of Wedington and Steamboat. Commercial Design Standards apply to this development and this large scale would have to be found in compliance. There are setback variances that would have to approved by the Board of Adjustment. Let me ask whether the applicant has seen these conditions of approval and whether or not the applicant has agreed to all 8 of the conditions of approval. Trotter. We agreed with items 2 through 8. Johnson: Let me turn to the staff and see what you have to tell us about anything we need to know on this particular large scale. Conklin: Condition number 3 can be removed. They do not need a variance from the north setback. That is considered a side setback under C-2 zoning reducing that requirement to 0. That's a correction. This is a proposal for a 3,372 square foot branch bank facility located in Wedington Place. Staff feels the curb cut distance will not be problem. Clary Development, Inc. wanted to make sure that the 50 foot access easement to the north of this site will allow them to have a drive that will connect across the back of those lots to provide access to those businesses, that granting this curb cut will not prevent them from providing that common access drive on the north side of this lot. Staff does recommend approval. Johnson: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Trotter? Trotter: You have the drawing in front of you and we're simply asking for a waiver from the 250 foot distance required by the design overlay district. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Johnson: Thank you, very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Trotter? Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 25 Hoffman: I can go ahead and brief you on the subdivision committee. We found this parking lot and driveway plan better than what was previously submitted to us. We questioned the city's traffic engineer who also agreed with that point. We found specifically that the commercial design standards had been met. I think you have some elevations in your packet that do show a triangular shaped building in the brick and that is going to be a part of the unified development design for the center. We talked about that. I do have a question for Dawn. Do we have Kim Hesse's landscaping approval? We did not get that at agenda session. Has she approved a landscaping plan for this development? Warrick: She requested revisions at the plat review meeting which are reflected in this plan. She required that the trees along Wedington Drive be moved further away from the water line that runs adjacent to the street. Hoffman: Have you made those changes? Trotter. Yes. Hoffman: I think we were willing to be compensatory in the lot limitations because in the original plat, the condition had denied access to Wedington from the front lots. MOTION Hoffman: I'll move approval of LSD99-21. Odom: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Odom to approve LSD99-21. Public Comment None Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 26 RZ99-24: REZONING ROBERTSON, PP439 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Butch Robertson for property located south of Wedington Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 2.05 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Dave Jorgensen and Bruce Robertson were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning from A-1 to C-1 based on the findings included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: The request is to rezone to commercial and the next rezoning is by the same applicant, the property is not contiguous. Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning on this 2.05 acres. Staff, do you want to explain your reasons for recommending denial of this rezoning. Conklin: Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning from A-1 to C-1. This is not located at a commercial node. In January of this year, the city did rezone property for this same applicant at Rupple and Wedington further to the east and that was approved by the City Council. This property is west of Meadowlands Drive and is located between a church and what used to be, I believe, a Mr. Burger office building. It's a Quonset hut. Staff feels that C-1 zoning is not justified or needed at this time. Johnson: Does the applicant want to address us on this rezoning? Jorgensen: I represent the applicants Butch Robertson and Hayden Mcllroy on this project. As was pointed out, the request is to rezone from A-1 to C-1. With the activity and all of the businesses and growth out in that area, we thought it would be appropriate to request this rezoning to C-1. We realize that the planning staff does have a document, the 2020 Plan, that they wish to abide by and I suppose if I worked in the planning department, I'd probably be recommending the same thing to go with the 2020 Plan. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 27 Estes: I have a question of staff. Is there C-1 property that is located to the west of this property? My memory is that there is an intersection to the west and there is some undeveloped C-1. Am I confused? Conklin: To the east there is currently property zoned C-1 at Rupple and Wedington Road intersection. Estes: How about to the west? Conklin: There is no C-1 zoning. Refer to page 13.11. Estes: Is there developed C-1 property to the east? Conklin: It is currently undeveloped. Johnson: All of the C-1, the 3 tracts on the highway east of this tract are all undeveloped? Conklin: Excluding the E -Z Mart that is on the northwest corner of Rupple and Wedington. • Johnson: So everything on the south side of Wedington is undeveloped. Are there questions from Commissioners? Ward: Will the new 5 lane road be out to this part at the time it opens? Conklin: Yes. I believe the road will go out to 54th Street. Johnson: The 5 lane will go all the west to 54th? Conklin: I'm not positive. It may be Meadowlands Drive. I'm sorry. I'm not sure exactly where it's going to end. It's going to be 4 lanes and 5 lanes at different sections starting from the bypass. I don't have that information. Vinson: I believe it's 5 lane from Rupple Road to the bypass. Conklin: I don't believe it goes past Rupple Road. Robertson: The 5 lane goes to Rupple Road and the 4 lane goes to Meadowlands Drive. The corner of Meadowlands Drive is currently zoned R -O. Then you have the quonset hut and I'm not sure what the zoning is on the quonset hut -- • Vinson: It's C-1. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 28 Robertson: It's C-1 which would be next door. Johnson: Is Meadowlands just to the east of this tract? Robertson: No, ma'am. The quonset hut is in between Meadowlands. Johnson: I don't mean it joins but I mean it's near by. Robertson: You have Meadowlands Drive. The southwest comer of Meadowlands is zoned R -O. The next is C-1 which is the quonset hut and then there is the 2.05 acres which is currently A-1 and we're requesting C-1. Then there is the church parking lot and the church immediately to the west. The 4 lane will go all the way to Meadowlands Drive. Johnson: Does the church's property extend all the way from your property west to 46th Street? Robertson: I don't know. They have 4 acres there. I'm not sure how far it goes to the west or what the exact frontage is on that. Johnson: Staff, do you know? Vinson: Yes, it does. Johnson: So, west of this tract is the church and it's built. Vinson: Yes. Johnson: All right, thanks Mr. Robertson. Discussion? Motions? Ward: I personally see nothing wrong with the C-1 zoning. They're asking for neighborhood commercial which limits it tremendously from C-2. Mr. Robertson already has a lot of other R -O land out there on Wedington Drive. 16 West is a major state highway. I don't see that being zoned or used for anything else except neighborhood commercial. There are lots and homes in there. There is a need for neighborhood commercial. There is nothing west of that at all as far as I know. Most of the commercial to the east has already been sold off. MOTION Ward: I move to approve RZ99-24. • Johnson: Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. The motion was by • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 29 Commissioner Ward, seconded by the chair that we rezone this tract from A-1 to C-1. The reason for my second is I'm not sure of the benefit that there is to having one 2 acre tract along this entire stretch there on Wedington that is A-1. It could become residential but with everything else either being R -O or C-1 or a church, I think the logic of having one 2 acre site as residential on this side of the highway, that logic really escapes me. Is there any other discussion on the motion to rezone. Hoffman: I want to go on record for this. I'm generally in favor of adding commercial zoning in this neighborhood but typically we've done this at intersections and I feel that this is too intense of a zoning not to be on an intersection because when it's developed, we will have a traffic problem in and out of the site. I think that an R -O designation would be more appropriate because it would allow for some limited neighborhood services without the heavier commercial traffic that would be generated by C-1 zoning. Johnson: Other discussion or comments? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 2-7-0. Commissioners Ward and Johnson voted for the motion and Commissioners Marr, Odom, Shackelford, Bunch, Estes, Hoffman, and Hoover voted against. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 30 RZ99-25: REZONING ROBERTSON, PP439 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen of Associates on behalf of Butch Robertson for property located west of Rupple Road and east of Meadowlands Subdivision. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 17.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Dave Jorgensen and Butch Robertson were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5 based on the findings in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Tim do you have rationale for your recommendation to approve this rezoning? Conklin: Staff has recommended approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5. It is adjacent • to Meadowlands Subdivision which part of it was developed as R-1.5. To the east, it is adjacent to an R-2 zone which was approved in January of this year This is located on the west side of Rupple Road and it will be extended per the Master Street Plan. There has been discussion regarding a new youth center and if you'll look at page 14.9 you see the proposed location of the youth center. Our general plan does recommend a mix of residential uses and therefore, staff does recommend approval. • Johnson: This is pretty straight forward. Mr. Jorgensen, do you have anything to add to the staff's presentation? Jorgensen: Nothing other than in this case, we happen to agree with the staff comments. Public Comment None. MOTION Odom. I'll move approval of rezoning 99-25. Johnson: Is there a second? Bunch: Second. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 31 Johnson: I have the motion by Commissioner Odom, seconded by Commissioner Bunch to approve RZ99-25. Is there discussion of the motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Johnson: The rezoning is recommended to the Council. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 32 RZA99-2: ANNEXATION ZAMBERLETTI, PP100 This item was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney on behalf of Valerie M. Zamberletti for property located on County Road 92 (Zion Road.) The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 34.72 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Micki Harrington was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: On page 15.1, is this correctly numbered? RZA, is that for annexation? Conklin: Yes, that is correct. • Johnson: I believe that this property along one entire line does adjoin the city all along the west. It adjoins which subdivision? • Conklin: That's Stonewood Subdivision to the west. Johnson: Does it adjoin the city on the south? Conklin: It only joins the city limits on the west side. Johnson: Would you explain the staff's rationale for recommending this annexation to the city? Conklin: This is approximately a 35 acre annexation. It does have approximately 190 feet of frontage along Zion Road. The county judge did approve the Order of Annexation on August 17, 1999. We also included in your packet on page 15.20, a new map showing Stonewood Subdivision in the preliminary plat that was approved. It does provide access through 2 streets to this property. Stonewood Subdivision currently is under development and would allow for future connections into this 35 acres. Staff has recommended approval and annexing this property in the City of Fayetteville would require them to comply with our subdivision regulations which provides for fire protection, street lights, park land dedication, water and sewer. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 33 Johnson: I have a question about the drawing on page 15.19. The area that is not a part of this acreage along Zion Road, what are those buildings in essence to help me get oriented? Conklin: Those are single family homes on large lots. Harrington: Good evening. I don't really have anything else to add. The property across from this is owned by Youth Bridge, I believe. There are residential houses on the corner there but it is a residential use even though it is a Youth Bridge owned property on the comer where Zion turns to the east. Everything else there is single family. We hope that you will support the request for annexation. Public Comment Mark Foster, the developer of Stonewood Subdivision, was present to address the commission. Foster: I'm not for this. Johnson: Now you realize this is an annexation. Foster: Yes. I don't think there's a need to annex more. If they annex it they are going to develop it. I think that would create too many lots in one spot. Johnson: At this point, we are limiting the discussion to the annexation of the 34 acres into the City. You need to give us insight into that. Do you have the subdivision to the west? Foster: I just brought it through the approval process last month. MOTION Marr: I would like to recommend approval of RZA99-2. Hoffman: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve annexation RZA99-2. Is there discussion of the motion to annex? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Johnson: The recommendation to Council is approved with a vote of 9 to 0. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 34 RZ99-26: REZONING ZAMBERLETTI, PP100 This item was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney on behalf of Valerie M. Zamberletti for property on County Road 92 (Zion Road.) The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 34.72 acres. The request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Micki Harrington was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the proposed R-1 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. Committee Discussion Johnson: This is the rezoning on the same tract that was recommended for annexation to the Council. The request to rezone is from A-1 to R-1, low density residential. The staff has recommended approval. Staff will you give us your rationale behind your recommendation to approve this proposed rezoning? Conklin: Staff is recommending approval of the R-1 zone immediately west of and adjoining Stonewood Subdivision. This borders approximately 1,200 feet along that boundary. R-1 is consistent with the existing zoning inside the city of Fayetteville and therefore staff is recommending approval. Johnson: Ms. Harrington, you represent the applicant on this property, too? Harrington: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Do you have anything to add other than to be available to our questions Harrington: No. It's obvious from the approval of the plat that the streets were stubbed out to the east and those streets would access this property and it will be a very comparable development with the size of lots and the size of houses as an appropriate development for this area. It's very similar in nature to the rest of the area. Johnson: Initial questions? Hoffman: How many lots can be supported on this? Conklin: R-1 allows 4 units per acre Typically in low density residential development • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 35 we're seeing about 2 to 3 units per acre. That would be about 140 units. Harrington: There will not be that many because larger lots than that are anticipated here. We will not be doing the minimum lot sizes and it will likely be 85 lots or less. Hoffman: 85. Okay, thanks. I ask that question because I do want to remind everybody that we are close to capacity on our sewer plant and should this be approved, I don't think you are guaranteed utility availability. Johnson: That might have been a reason for it to stay in the county. Harrington: It is my understanding from Mr. Crosson that normal growth would continue including this type of development and it's relatively small compared to some of the other things that you look at. Johnson: The last time I guess I was at a Subdivision Committee meeting where this kind of thing was discussed, we had sort of gotten into the business of warning developers of new property that you proceed at your own risk and if a development stalls because we don't have adequate sewer facilities, then you suffer along with all the rest of the folks who are trying to develop. It's a heads up in case a worst case scenario comes to pass. Public Comments None. MOTION Marr: I would like to recommend approval of RZ99-26. Johnson: Is there a second? Odom. I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr, seconded by Commissioner Odom that we approve RZ99-26 of the 34.72 acres to R-1. Any concerns or questions about this proposed rezoning? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 36 Johnson: The rezoning carried on a vote of 9 to 0 so the Planning Commission recommends the rezoning and it will go forward to the Council for final action. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 37 RZA99-3: ANNEXATION DEWESSE/SCHMIDT, PP474 This item was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney on behalf of John DeWeese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double Springs Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 47.98 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Michele Harrington was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the request annexation based on the findings included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Conklin: The applicant originally came to the City with a subdivision in our growth area. At that time, staff checked our regulations and determined that being adjacent to our city limits, we required them to put in curb and gutter, storm drainage, and more urban type infrastructure than would be required for a subdivision that does not adjoin our city limits. Based on that, when they came through the technical plat review process, they withdrew their subdivision request and petitioned to annex into the City of Fayetteville. Once again, if annexed into the City of Fayetteville, they come under more stringent subdivision regulations which will require fire protection, street lights, park land dedication or money in lieu and staff has recommended approval. It does have approximately 200 feet of common boundary with our city limits and is located on Double Springs Road. Johnson: Where does it touch the city limits? To the east on Double Springs? Conklin: It's going to be touching our city limits if you refer to page 18.6, it will be right in the center of the tract. Johnson: You mean 17.6 or 18.6? Conklin: 17.6. The city limit line is the thicker dotted line right in the center part of the north boundary. Johnson: So, it only touches a small portion. Conklin: Once again, our staff encouraged them to annex into the City of Fayetteville in order to develop their subdivision under urban subdivision standards. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 38 Johnson: Do you see any draw backs from the staff's point of view to this annexation? Conklin: I think it benefits the city and the citizens anytime we have a development that adjoins our city limits, for them to come in and provide water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, and become part of our city. Johnson: Do you have anything to add, Ms. Harrington? Harrington: I'm representing John DeWeese and Mike Schmidt. 1 don't think I have anything further to add because Tim explained it very well. We ask you to support this annexation. Public Comment None. MOTION Ward: I'll make a motion that we approve RZA99-3 for annexation. Johnson: Is there a second? Bunch: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward, the second by Commissioner Bunch that we approve RZA99-3. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Johnson: The proposed annexation does get a positive vote of 9 to 0 and it will go forward to the Council for its action. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 39 RZ99-27: REZONING DEWEESE/SCHMIDT, PP474 This item was submitted by Michele Harrington, attorney on behalf of John DeWeese and Mike Schmidt for property west of Double Springs Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 47.98 acres. The request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Michele Harrington was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommends approval of the proposed R-1 zoning based on the findings included in the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is related to RZA99-3. This is a request to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. The staff has recommended this. The reason being, I take it, since the whole idea was to subdivide this tract and the City feels like it does better when a subdivision is on it's border that it be brought into the city so that the more stringent city requirements apply and the greater city services that are available. Tim, what do you have to add to your positive recommendation for this rezoning. Conklin: Once again, this is an opportunity to develop this land under our urban subdivision regulations. Once again, they get city services plus we get streets to city standards, street lights, and the other things that go along with those more stringent standards. We did recommend approval Johnson: I don't recall that we've mentioned yet but I believe that at agenda session on Thursday, you told us that you had spoken with the City of Farmington and the City of Farmington has no opposition to this annexation coming into the City of Fayetteville. I should have brought that out on the previous vote. Conklin: I did speak with the City of Farmington. Actually, this developer did approach the City of Farmington about possibly being within their city. They were not contiguous with their city limits. They are contiguous with the city limit of Fayetteville. Therefore, they chose to come into Fayetteville. Public Comment None. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 40 MOTION Shackelford: Johnson: Hoffman: I'll make a motion to approve RZ99-27 to rezone this. Is there a second? I'll second that with the same admonition about utility availability. Johnson: First, let me restate the motion which is for approval of this rezoning 99-27 moved by Commissioner Shackelford and seconded by Commission Hoffman. Is there discussion? Hoffman: For the record, utility availability is a subject of concern. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Johnson. The motion carried with a vote of 9 to 0 so that we recommend the rezoning to the Council which has final say on rezonings as well. Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.