Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 8, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of October 25, 1999 Minutes VA99-13: Peoples, pp659 PP99-6.1: Silverthorne, pp474 RZ99-32: Thetford, pp439 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Forward to CC Approved Forward to CC MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 25, 1999 MINUTES Johnson: I'll call to order the November 8th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item on the agenda is last meeting's minutes. Are there changes? Seeing none, they will be approved as distributed last week. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 3 VA99-13: VACATION PEOPLES, PP679 This item was submitted by Mike Roetzel on behalf of Buddy Peoples for property located at 28th Court. The request is to vacate the undeveloped street right of way for 28th Court located west of Club Oak Drive within Edge Hill Subdivision. Buddy Peoples was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the street right of way vacation subject to the following items: 1. All easements shall be retained as requested by the City and utility companies. 2. A property line adjustment shall be processed in order to combine lots 20, 25 & 26 into one large lot. This is necessary in order to avoid the creation of tandem lots. Only one structure shall be permitted on this property which will be accessed from Club Oak Drive. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is an item of old business. We looked at this at our last meeting and we asked that staff give us some more information. Conklin: At the last meeting, staff was asked to look at Mr. Scott's property and determine where he has public access. He has 278 feet of frontage along Ravenswood Drive on the northeast corner of property. The property also has access along the western property line to undeveloped city right of way for Peach Street which is approximately 30 feet wide. Petrie: We have received a revised profile of the street which is proposed to be vacated. This was done by Jorgensen and Associates and shows the grade to be approximately 20% instead of the 40% that was shown on the profile included as part of a prior vacation request. I have included a memo of some items that were requested at the agenda session which was distributed tonight. This provided the grade for 24th Street which is shown to be 15.8% for a distance of approximately 400 feet. I have restated the minimum street standard which states: "The maximum allowable grade for local streets shall be 10% with a provision for a 15% grade for a maximum distance of 300 feet in the case of hilly terrain." Another item that was added on pages 2.3 and 2.4, is a memo from Jim Beavers that lists several • streets in Fayetteville and what there maximum and average grades are. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 4 Johnson: Page 2.4 is the listing of the maximum grades of existing streets. Under the current minimum streets standards, the maximum the City would allow is a 15% grade. Petrie: That is correct. Johnson: The City wouldn't allow a street to built where Rockwood Trails is now or where Rogers Drive is or several other streets exceeding 15%. Petrie: Only if a request was made by the applicant for a waiver of that requirement. These streets that are listed over 15%, to my knowledge, were built prior to the adoption of the minimum street standards. Johnson: I had a phone call today from an adjacent property owner who opposed the vacation of the right of way. Hoffman: If the property to the west of this were developed, could the street be regraded to meet our street standards if it were needed for a connection? Could 28th Street be regraded in the process of developing this property? Petrie: The problem with that is it continues down. You couldn't raise just one section without having to fill the entire road bed. Johnson: On page 2.9, it looks conceivable you might have a steep section and then veer to the north northwest, it might hit a contour which could be followed. Is that possible? Could the steepest part of the slope be avoided? Petrie: That is true. But, the problem is that the 20% grade on this property runs a distance of over 150 feet. That would make it 7.5 feet higher than what is existing now. You would have to make up 7.5 feet to some point that would make it viable to construct houses. Without getting the exact plan on how this is going to be developed, it is hard to be certain. Johnson: If you were sitting in a different chair and you were representing a developer, would it be likely you could come up with a feasible plan that you might try to persuade the Commission that this property could be developed. Petrie: If I was the engineer developing, I would take a much different approach and eliminate a street at this location. I don't think I would want to have to build that. Marr: slope? On page 2.6, the 20% on this chart, is that the average slope or the maximum • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 5 Petrie: That is an average. We only have elevations every 50 feet. So, if you start at station 2, every 50 feet, the actual grade would be 20.8, 19.4, 19.0. 20% is an average. Hoffman: Based on the memo distributed tonight, you made the statement that because you can access Mr. Scott's property from existing right of way in areas which do not exceed the maximum allowable slope, that the engineering department does not object to the proposed vacation. Is Ravenswood at the northeast corner? Petrie: Yes. Both those access would be below the maximum grade. Hoffman: I'm looking at a steeply sloped area on the western part of the Scott property. Petrie: Extending that straight on, I calculated that to be about 10%. Public Comment Sylvia Popejoy, residing at 2851 S. Club Oaks Drive, was present. • Popejoy: My property is on the north side of this proposed street. When I bought my home, I was unaware that there was a street. There is no guttering to identify that as a possible street. I was not very happy to find out that my house was going to be right beside a street. I would prefer that they vacate the street and have this as just a subdivision. The streets are quite narrow and no parking is allowed. Frank Scott, residing at 380 W. Ravenswood Lane, was present. Scott: identified. I would like to know who did the street profile? It is not dated and it is not Petrie: I previously stated that it was done by Jorgensen and Associates. Scott: Are they the same people that did the 40%? Petrie: Yes, sir. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Do we have any further verification on the street profile? Typically, we don't send our engineers to do a second opinion. • Petrie: At the last Planning Commission, I noticed the 40% didn't look correct with the • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 6 contours. At that time, I scaled it off and it showed it at 20%. The 20% matches our existing data without going out and actually surveying it. I have no reason to question the 20% we have now. MOTION Ward: Since Mr. Scott's property does have access on City right of way on Ravenswood and also has 30 feet of right of way on Peach Street, the property therefore will not be land locked. I move to approve VA99-13. Hoffman: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and the second by Commissioner Hoffman that we approve vacation 99-13. Estes: I will not vote for the vacation. The reasons are that when the subdivision was platted, this street was planned. It was platted as a stub out to Mr. Scott's adjoining property. Adjacent landowners have relied on that plat. Here in Fayetteville, we are in the business of building streets on hills. We have had some conflicting information as to the grade. We were first presented with 40% and then 20%. As we look at the streets that have been constructed in our city, we find streets that are at 20% and I believe there are 1 or 2 that exceed 20%. It's for these reasons that I will not vote for the vacation. Johnson. I also will not vote for the vacation. I concur with the reasons Mr. Estes pointed out. In addition, on a 40 acre tract of property, I think it is very unusual for the Commission to allow only 2 places of ingress/egress. I think we have worked hard to make connections and maybe the time will come when we decide this is impossible to build but we haven't decided that before in the City. We have granted exceptions to the 15% slope. We have major streets that have 20% slopes, I'm just not persuaded that this is realistically impossible to build. Ravenswood is at the northeast and that is just a gravel, 20 foot wide stretch down there. We did tour it. Conklin: If you refer to page 2.10, there is a close up of the right of way at Mr. Scott's northeast comer where it turns into a gravel drive. There is 25 feet of right of way on the north side and 50 feet total all the way up to the northeast corner. Odom: I normally don't like vacating streets because, I think, it's hard to get them in the first place. I don't think the ingress/egress is as much an issue in this situation as where it feeds into Club Oak Drive. It is nothing more than a street that comes out where another access to Mr. Scott's property could be developed. This has only 2 areas where access could be developed without waiver from the minimum street standards. I will support this waiver request. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 7 Johnson: I will remind everyone that our vote on vacations is a recommendation that goes forward to the Council regardless of what our vote ends up being. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Estes and Johnson voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 8 PP99-6.1: PRELIMINARY PLAT SILVERTHORNE SUBDIVISION, PP474 This item was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of John Deweese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double Springs Road and south of Highway 16 west. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 47.98 acres with 59 lots proposed. Brian Moore, John Deweese, and Mike Schmidt were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of improvements to Double Springs Road: A. Improvements adjacent to the proposed site. Double Springs Road is designated as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan (52 feet wide street with 90 feet of right of way.) The existing road is asphalt and 20 feet in width. Staff recommends that half of the street adjacent to this proposed site be widened to local street standards with curb & gutter (14 feet from centerline to back -of -curb) and 45 feet of right of way be dedicated for future expansion. B. Offsite Improvements. The replacement of the Owl Creek bridge on Double Springs is currently a federal aid project that is scheduled to begin in the Spring of 2000. Staff recommends that a payment of $6, 566 be assessed for this project. 2. Durango Place from Silverthorne Road to Mesa Street is a local street with a 28 foot side street, 50 feet of right of way, and sidewalks on both sides. This portion of the street is shown incorrectly on the plat. The remainder of the streets are shown correctly. Payment of sanitary sewer assessment in the amount of $11,800 for 59 Tots @ $200 each for a future force main exiting from Lift Station No. 7 in the Hamestring Creek Basin. 4. Acquisition of the off site utility easements for the proposed water and sanitary sewer prior to approval of construction plans. These easements must be located outside of the proposed AHTD right of way for the Owl Creek Bridge and Double Springs Road improvements. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,125 for 59 lots at $375 each prior to acceptance of the final plat. (Note: This assessment is based on current parks fees. As these fees are periodically adjusted, the amount will be finalized at the time of the final • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 9 plat.) 6. No curb cuts for residential driveways shall be permitted onto Double Springs Road. 7. All storm pipes, open swales, and channels outside of the street right of way to be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA, or similar entity All open swales must have concrete bottoms. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include 6 foot sidewalks with a minimum 10 foot green space along Double Springs Road; 4 foot sidewalks with a minimum 6 foot green space along all local street (Mesa, Silverthorne, and a portion of Durango Place); and, 4 foot sidewalks with a minimum 5 foot green space along one side of residential streets (Durango north of Mesa and Pagosa.) 9. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking Tots, and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 11. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Commission Discussion Johnson: There are 59 Tots proposed in this subdivision. This property was annexed into the recently and zoned R-1. I'll take note of the fact that the City Council did accept payment in lieu of park land dedication. There are several conditions of approval. Staff, do we have from the applicant a signed agreement to the conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Johnson: This property is in the most western part of the City to the south and is near Farmington. It is on Double Springs Road. Is there a road to the east that would locate us to about where this it? Conklin: Dot Tipton Road is the closest. • Johnson: The off site improvements are significant. I have a question on #2. "Durango Place from Silverthorne Road to Mesa Street is a local street with a 28 foot wide street with 50 • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 10 feet right of way and sidewalks on both sides. This portion of the street is shown incorrectly on the plat." Conklin: They were showing the residential street standard and they need to show a local street standard which is a 50 foot right of way and they are in agreement with that. It's a 50 foot right of way and 28 foot wide street. Ward: Is this in the Wedington Sewer District? Petrie: This is in the Hamestring Creek Basin. Ward: There was a sewer district and the residents were assessed per year. Petrie: I don't have any knowledge of that. Johnson: How far south of Highway 16 is this? Moore: About '/2 mile to 3/4 mile. This property was recently annexed. Petrie: They are being assessed $200 per lot for sanitary sewer. Hoffman: Did we get a letter from OMI regarding sanitary sewer as requested at Subdivision meeting? Petrie: Yes. They have accepted this. Hoffman: That was our main question in Subdivision about sewer capacity for the development. Bunch: About 80 feet west of Double Springs Road in the vicinity of the lots 26 and 27 and 28 and 29, there appears to be a ravine through there. Will there be any treatment for how the ravine crosses the road to avoid siltation across the road? Petrie: They have shown they are going to fill that. The grade in that area is approximately 4% as planned for the street. After the fill is placed that won't be a problem but we will revisit that issue on the construction plans to make sure they follow through with that. Public Comment None. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 11 MOTION Odom: I move approval of preliminary plat 99-6.1. Estes: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom and second by Commissioner Estes to approval preliminary plat 99-6.10 for Silverthorne Subdivision subject to 11 conditions of approval. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 12 RZ99-32: REZONING THETFORD, PP439 This item was submitted by Stephen Thetford for property located 3351 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Stephen Thetford was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from R -O to C-1 based on the finding as included as part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is on Highway 16 West beyond the bypass. It formerly was a photography studio and I believe it is located just to the east of the Farm Bureau Office. Tim, could you briefly highlight the reasons for approval of this rezoning. Conklin: Staff does support the rezoning and recommends approval We support the rezoning which will expand the commercial node at this intersection of Salem and Wedington Drive. This will allow additional services and goods for the residential population west of the bypass. Planning Commission and City Council have recently approved a rezoning for approximately 5 acres on the northwest corner of Salem and Wedington Drive and this would further expand that area of neighborhood commercial. Johnson: Page 4.9 of our packet has not been updated. Conklin: We have provided new maps this evening showing that change. Johnson: Page 4.9.a show the proper zoning in the area there at Salem and Wedington. Is the applicant here this evening? Thetford: I don't have anything to add I'm here to be available to answer any questions you might have. Johnson: Thank you. • Ward: Will you continue to use this as your photography shop and include a retail, sales, and rental of tuxedos? • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 13 Thetford: That is my desire. We will continue our photography business with tuxedo rentals. Public Comment None. MOTION Estes: I will move that we approve RZ99-32. Bunch: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Bunch that we approve rezoning 99-32. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Johnson: This will go to the City Council for their final action. Meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.