Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 8, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes AD 00-12.00: Parking Waiver (Craft, pp 484) PP 00-1.00: (Yorktowne, Phase III, pp 214) RZ 00-15.00: (Clevenger/Silvis, pp 437) AD 00-10.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Diana Varner Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr Sharon Hoover STAFF ABSENT None • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Odom. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the April 24, 2000 meeting. Are there any corrections or additions? Hearing none, they shall stand as they are. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 3 AD 00-12.00: Parking Waiver (Craft, pp 484) Item submitted by Norman Craft for property located at 102 N. Block. The property is zoned C- 3, Central Commercial. The request is for a Shared Parking Agreement. Odom: The first item on tonight's agenda is on the Consent Agenda which we will approve unless a member of the audience or a member of the Commission wishes to pull the item. The only item on the Consent Agenda is AD 00-12 which is a parking waiver submitted by Norman Craft for property located at 102 N orth Block. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and the request is for a Shared Parking Agreement. PUBLIC AND COMMISSION COMMENT: Odom. Does any member of the audience or member of the Commission want to pull that item from the Consent Agenda? Hearing none, call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon Roll Call, the Consent Agenda is approved unanimously. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 4 PP 00-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Yorktowne, Phase III, pp 214) Item submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Wade Bishop Trust for property located north of Yorktowne Square, Phase I, ease of Summerhill Addition, west and south of Brookhaven. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.86 acres with 29 lots proposed. Odom: The first item on tonight's agenda under new business is PP 00-1 submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Wade Bishop Trust for property located north of Yorktowne Square, Phase I east of Summerhill Addition, west and south of Brookhaven. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.86 acres with 29 proposed lots. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to eight conditions of approval Staff, I understand we don't have signed conditions of approval, correct? Conklin: That is correct. Odom: Do we have any additional conditions of approval? Conklin: Just with regard to condition number one with the determination of the connection of Stratford Drive with this phase of development up to Hillshire Drive. I met with the applicant on Friday and he is agreement that if we do not extend this street that the out parcel will become an additional lot as part of this subdivision and would show up in the final plat of the subdivision. However, he is in disagreement with staff's recommendation that the cul-de-sac on Devonshire Drive or Stratford Drive be reconstructed and the actual stub -out be removed. That's all I have on additional information relating to this. Odom. Mr. Milholland, would you please come to the podium and make your presentation. Milholland: I'm sorry I could not hear Tim's last comment about the property and the cul-de- sac at Stratford Drive. Odom. He said that he had a conversation with the applicant and they were agreeable for the out parcel to be made a part of, which development? Conklin: Yorktowne, Phase III. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 5 Odom: Of Yorktown, Phase III but they were not agreeable to completing the cul-de-sac of Stratford Drive. Milholland: That's correct. I'm sorry I couldn't hear him. That's what I understand also. He is agreeable to making it a part of this subdivision, this one large piece of land. He just didn't want to change his address. His address on the house has been there for a long time and in essence, you're getting control of the property without having to abandon the Stratford part of the cul-de-sac. Their address is Stratford right now and has been for five years So, we respectfully request that you allow us to add this to the subdivision on the final plat as lot number 93 and leave Phase I as constructed and approved. The only difference, and Tim can correct me, from what he is recommending, is to not close that cul-de-sac Odom: He is recommending to close and make it a cul-de-sac and your client is not in agreement. Milholland: We would ask not to because there is a house there that's been there five plus years with an address on Stratford. You do have control of this tract. If he does anything to it at all, he would have to come back to you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Hanson: Yes. My name is John Hanson and I live at 3375 Stratford Drive. I have lived there for four and a half years with my family. I also am a plumber and run my business out of my house. My accounts payable and receivable both come to that address. My wife also does property management and her business transactions go through that address also. Accounts payable, accounts receivable and rent checks that she receives. You assigned us that address over five years ago and we feel it would be quite an inconvenience to change our address at this point. We also realize that anytime that there is a curb and gutter installed in the street, there has to be a street cut made. All you are asking for then is trouble with water getting underneath the asphalt. In winter time you will have expansion and contraction and eventually the road will start deteriorating. There is also another problem there with water drainage. If you finish that cul-de-sac out there all the water goes to the east side of the property which would be going onto the neighbor's property instead of going out to the drainage at the end of the street. Thank you. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 6 Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience wish to address us on this issue? Bishop: I am Wade Bishop and I want to tell you we appreciate the consideration that has already been given to this preliminary plat. The spirit of cooperation is noted and recognized and again is appreciated. I do ask for one more consideration which is that Stratford Drive not be dissolved. There are many points for leaving it and not closing it. For one thing, one day Peggy and I will probably want to build on lot 21 of Phase I of this addition which is that area to the west side of the cul-de-sac in question. The ground slopes there from the north to the south. We like to put our driveway to the high side of the lot. If this is made into a true cul-de-sac it will not extend to the north side of that lot. So we would like to come off of Stratford Drive when we do build our house there which we anticipate in time to come. I live on Mt. Sequojah which is four miles from my daughter. We are approaching the age that we can see the time will come someday that we will probably be leaning on her and her family more for support. The other reason that I would like to request this not be done is if we are required to make this a true cul-de-sac we would be cutting the street as Mr. Hanson just told you. As we all know, when you cut a street, you have to put in a curb and gutter and you are leaving exposure there that water is going to get into your roadbed. What is now a beautiful blacktop street, there are no cracks or breaks in Stratford Drive or in the area immediate to it, we know it's going to crack and the blacktop is going to break up and we will have a bad situation there. I believe Mr. Hanson referred to the water problem that could happen next to Mr. Lawrence who lives in the northeast quadrant of this intersection of Stratford Drive and Devonshire. If we put a curb and gutter in there, the water now runs draining down from the north and west flowing to the south and the east and goes up against the east curb of Stratford Drive, so some of you have been out in that area and may recall Mr. Lawrence's yard, he has a very immaculate and manicured yard. This is going to present a water problem for him. So, for these reasons we would like to ask you to not require any change in Stratford Drive. If you make that a true cul-de-sac you do not increase the turning navigation area at all. In fact if you make it a true cul-de-sac it will lesson, we will lose some of the turning radius there for that spot. We see nothing really to gain by doing this but we do see reasons for not doing this. As Mr. Hanson noted, we have rental properties and our daughter manages those rental properties for us which means she has correspondence between her and the tenants, checks and so on, and they are all accustomed to the 3375 Stratford Drive. She is the office manager for Hanson Plumbing and sends out bills and receives correspondence on behalf of the Hanson Plumbing. This would involve confusion there. For those reasons, again I appreciate the cooperation you have given us in the past and we respectfully request that you leave Stratford Drive as is. Thank you. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 7 Odom. Thank you Mr. Bishop. Any other member of the audience like to address us? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I have a question of Staff. Tim, do I understand correctly that what Staff is proposing is that the Devonshire cul-de-sac be completed? Conklin: That is correct. That would remove Stratford Drive which is a 20 foot long street. Estes: What would be the purpose of completing the Devonshire cul-de-sac? Conklin: I was trying to get into compliance with our ordinances with regard to how long a dead end street can be which is 500 feet. I was trying to bring that into a cul-de- sac like the cul-de-sac down to the south or in any other subdivision we would have. It would be a complete cul-de-sac with curb and gutter. Estes: Now would the 500 foot dead end street be Devonshire? Conklin: That would be Devonshire. Estes: So we have Devonshire as a greater than 500 foot dead end street and we have an ordinance that says what? Conklin: Basically the Planning Commission would have to grant a waiver to have a dead end street over 500 feet. It does not allow streets over 500 feet that dead end. This is exactly 500 feet to the center of the cul-de-sac. Estes: If we so chose to approve this preliminary plat and one condition of approval would be that the existing outlot become a lot of Yorktowne, Phase III and that the cul-de-sac not be completed, how would we get to the waiver issue of Devonshire? Conklin: You would have to grant a waiver. Estes: Is that in our material? Conklin: No it is not. Staff did not recommend that but if you, as a Commission, would like to grant a waiver to allow a street longer than 500 feet that is permanently a • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 8 Estes: dead end and will never have a connection you can do that. You have done that in the past. That was my next question, have we done that and if so, can you give us an idea of how many times we have done this. I know this is extemporaneous speaking on your part but is this an isolated event? Conklin: Typically when you have terrain that will not allow connections a waiver is considered. At Marvin Gardens we granted a waiver of their cul-de-sac length. That is the most recent one I can remember. Hoffman: I believe that the continuation of the cul-de-sac and the treatment of proposed lot 93 are interconnected in that it's my understanding that the applicant now does not wish to further subdivide lot 93 and it's dust going to be a big lot, is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: If we grant lot 93 to be there, does that preclude any further connection at any time through to Bnghton Place? What I'm asking is if there is a possibility in the future that somebody would come in and request a split of lot 93 which would make it necessary to extend Stratford Drive through lots 88 and 89? This was something we discussed in Subdivision and I think it's real important that we understand how many times lot 93 can change. Conklin: We are asking that if you do agree to approve this preliminary plat with this outlot becoming lot 93 that no additional lot splits will be allowed on lot 93. Hoffman: And has the applicant agreed to that? Do they understand that? Conklin: Yes. I met with them on Friday and my understanding is that they have agreed to that. They want to keep that all as one lot with their garden and park area. Ward: How large is that lot? Conklin: I'm not sure what the acreage is. Hoffman: I just don't warn to make a mistake and say one lot is fine now but twenty years from now have someone come in and say well, lot 93 is so huge we want to put some more lots in there and not have a connection through to Brighton Place. If it's shown on the plat is it possible to put a note on the plat that says lot 93 may • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 9 not ever be split? Conklin: Yes. I would recommend that we have a note on the plat and a note on that lot that clearly shows up that it can not be further subdivided. Hoffman: I see that as a way to get the applicant's request then to leave the street as it is. I wouldn't have a problem with a waiver if nothing else were going to happen down there. If it were, then I think we would need to start conforming to street standards. Conklin: The only thing is, when you do approve this preliminary plat the street will never be able to connect up into Phase III once we plat those lots and they are built on. It could only be extended up into this out parcel that you see before you this evening. Hoffman: What about these drainage statements? Usually when you put in a cul-de-sac you have a storm drain and it takes the run off through the storm drain system rather than through people's lots. Can you answer that Ron? Petrie: I don't believe there is any existing storm drainage in this area I believe it could probably be graded correctly and have it drain into the cul-de-sac if it was closed in but there would be no storm boxes or storm pipes to drain this to. I think properly done it could function fine. Estes: Tim, if the Stratford Drive cul-de-sac was completed, how would Mr. and Mrs. Hanson have access to their home? Conklin: They would have a driveway. Estes: That would come out of the cul-de-sac? Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: And it couldn't be named Stratford Drive? Conklin: I have not talked to our 911 coordinator. There is a possibility that he would name that private drive Stratford Drive. I'm not positive he would do that, but it has been done in the past on private drives getting street names. Estes: Tim, do I understand that the only reason for Staff's recommendation is to comply with the ordinance that there can not be a dead end street of greater than 500 feet? • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 10 Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: MOTION: Estes: Yes. And to complete the cul-de-sac. If we are going to abandon the stub -out then in my opinion, the cul-de-sac should be completed. The bigger decision you are making tonight is that this street will not be extended in the future. Looking at the plat here, we have already got two accesses out of this 29 lots and you are talking about a stub -out four lots away also going south. Is that what you are asking for? No, I do not ask or make recommendations. I brought that to the Commission's attention and Subdivision Committee's attention that typically we don't block off future stub -out street connections. In this case if we decide not to require this street extension, it wouldn't meet our ordinance requirement. Devonshire is 500 feet and Staff recommended that the cul-de-sac be completed. The conversation in Subdivision Committee had to do with the long "L" on this, or whatever you want to call it, but the longer portion of lot 93. If it were split in the future you would not have complying or adequate access without a stub -out. Am I right? Yes. That is the concern. You are dealing with an area or outlot that could potentially be split in the future. Without the extension of the street at this time, it's going to basically require a waiver for any future subdivision because it's going to be over 500 feet. Staff recommended, actually Subdivision recommended the street be stubbed -out. The other issue or idea that was discussed was the possibility of including this outlot as part of the subdivision. They have agreed to do that. I'm trying to make sure that everybody understands, future owners understand that this lot will have a note on it that it can't be further subdivided, the cul-de-sac will be completed and this will be your dead end street, Devonshire Place. That's what I'm trying to accomplish with this recommendation. I move that we approve Preliminary Plat 00-1 with this condition of approval; that staff condition of approval number one be deleted and that as condition of approval number one the following be substituted: That the existing outlot become a lot of Yorktowne Phase II, that there be no additional lot splits to this outlot and that this restriction be noted on the plat. Also that there be granted a waiver of Devonshire as a dead end street for greater than 500 feet. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 11 Odom: Estes: Ward: Odom: Bunch: Petrie: Odom: Petrie: Bunch: Odom: Bunch: What about the other conditions of approval? And that the other conditions of approval be incorporated and included in the motion. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second to approve PP 00-1 subject to the conditions of approval as outlined by Commissioner Estes and the Staff. Any further discussion? This is a little bit different subject. Condition number four says that a private drainage agreement is required with Ron Connolly. Has that agreement been reached? No sir, it has not. With all due fairness to the applicant, I have to admit that when I was preparing this report, looking back into my notes, I did not make that statement at Plat Review or Subdivision Committee. I did inform them when I discovered it and added it to this report. They have only known about it for four or five days. But if this is approved, that is part of the agreement. They still have to get that agreement. Is that correct? Correct. Otherwise, we will have to have a detention pond and it would have to come back before you. Another question is whether the applicant approves the new conditions? They pretty much got up and agreed to that. It never has been answered since proposed. Milholland: I'm not sure what Ron responded to. Odom: Milholland: He said you agreed to pave these streets in gold. (Laughter). There is item number four on the conditions of approval, that you get the approval of Ron Connolly before any permit is issued with regard to the drainage issue. Over in the northeast corner? • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 12 Petrie: On the west side. Milholland: Okay. The drainage has to be worked out. We understand that. Odom: Mr. Bunch also wants to know whether or not you agree to the first condition of approval which is that this will be lot 93 to this subdivision and that will be put on the final plat and it can't be further subdivided at a later date. That you are not going to be required to cul-de-sac the street. Milholland: We understand that. Odom: And you are in agreement with that? Milholland: We agree with that. Odom. Mr. Bunch, did that answer your question? Bunch: Yes. Shackelford: Just a quick point of clarification. When Commissioner Estes was restating condition of approval number one he stated that lot 93 would be part of Phase II. It will actually be Phase III. Odom: That is noted. Hoffman: One friendly amendment would be that Stratford Drive not be extended any further to increase its non -conformity. It needs to remain in it's present configuration. Odom: Is that accepted? Estes: The mover accepts that amendment. Odom: . Any further discussion? Allen: I don't understand why there would be less room to turn around if there was a cul- de-sac. Odom. I don't think there will be less room to turn around, I don't think that was the main concern. It might have been one of the reasons. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 13 Bishop: There is a slight difference there. The curb and gutter is not configured as a true circle. If you make that a true circle, we will loose a little bit of the present blacktop that is there. Odom: Does that answer your question? Allen: Yes. Thank you Odom. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 14 RZ 00-15.00: Rezoning (Clevenger/Silvis, pp 437) Item submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Clifford and Mary Clevenger and Mary Silvis for property located at 831 N. 54th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Odom. The next item on tonight's agenda is RZ 00-15 submitted by Bill Helmer on behalf of Clifford and Mary Clevenger for property located at 831 North 54`h Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1. Staff's recommendation is approval of the requested rezoning to R-1. Previously there had been a request to rezone this to R-1.5. However, in discussions with Staff, it is my understanding that the request is now to R-1 and Staff is in support of that. Conklin: That is correct. This property currently is developed with one duplex on it. The applicant did request some type of zoning that would allow them to build an additional single family home. At the time they applied, we looked at R-1.5. There were some concerns in the general neighborhood regarding rezoning to R- 1.5. Staff has met with the applicant and looked at how to allow an additional single family home on this 2.97 acres. We are recommending and the applicant is in agreement with R-1 zoning. It will require a conditional use for the existing duplex. That is on your next agenda. The R-1 zoning will allow an additional single family home to be built and theoretically they could build two single family homes. Staff is recommending approval Odom: I would ask the applicant to come forward at this time. Do you have any presentation that you would like to make? Helmer. Not really. Basically Tim has made the presentation. We had applied for the R- 1.5 so that the duplex would be in compliance but the Planning Staff gracefully pointed out to us that we could do the R-1 and do a variance on the duplex and that it would work better for everybody concerned. It allows them to build a single family house which is all they are wanting to do. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you Mr. Helmer. Any member of the audience like to address us on this issue? Longing: My name is Mark Longing. I have a question. What restrictions are there on the • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 15 R-1 zoning as far as additional homes? You said earlier you could add two additional single family homes, correct? Conklin: Yes. The R-1, Low Density Residential District, allows single family homes by right. It requires a conditional use for a duplex. Therefore, with the recommendation for R-1 and if the City Council rezones it to R-1 the duplex would be considered non -conforming so they need to apply for a conditional use for the duplex. I guess your question is could they build more duplexes on this property? That would take Planning Commission approval as a conditional use. Odom: Not as a use by right? Conklin: Not as a use by right. Odom. It would be a use by right on R-1.5. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Odom: And that is the reason you recommended R -I. Longing: The conditional use permit they are requesting for later is for the duplex that currently exists and would not apply to any other structure on the property. Conklin: That is my understanding. That is correct. Longing: Okay. Odom. And if they wanted to build another one, they would have to come back with a separate application for another duplex. They would not if they just came back and asked for a single family home. Longing: Okay. Thank you. Odom: Also, just a quick reminder that this is nothing more than a recommendation to the City Council. It's the City Council that makes the determination on the rezoning request. Anybody else that would like to address us on this issue? I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 16 COMMISSION DISCUSSION and MOTION: Hoffman: I'll make a motion to approve RZ 00-15 with the stipulation that R-1 zoning be the recommendation. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion and a second to approve RZ 00-15 from A-1 to R-1. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. Thank you. • • • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 17 AD 00-10.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville) Item submitted by the City Planning Division to discuss updating the planning area boundary. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is AD 00-10 submitted by the City Planning Division to discuss updating the planning area boundary. Not surprisingly Staff recommends adoption of the revised planning area boundary. Staff, would you like to tell us about this. Conklin: This is basically a house cleaning item. We have been working on revising our planning area boundary to make sure it does not encroach into other jurisdictions' city limits. There are six revisions that have been made and I have included a map on page 4.2 and a larger map that is before you this evening. The first revision is where our planning area boundary encroaches into the city of Springdale to the north and east of Hwy 265. The second change is to accommodate a change in our city limits with the recent annexation just west of Double Springs Road. The third is to remove our planning area boundary out of the city of Farmington's city limits. That is shown on the map west of Double Springs Road also. The fourth is to accommodate a change in the Fayetteville city limits and that is a result of our annexation of the 300 acres for a sewage treatment plant. The fifth and sixth changes, which are south of Hwy 62, are removing our planning area boundary out of the Farmington city limits. We have not expanded our planning area boundary. The area that we are showing is what has been adopted since the early '70's. Basically it's to clean up our planning area boundary where it does encroach into these other city limits. Staff is bringing forward and working on updating our 2020 Plan with regard to our planning area boundary. This is one of the first plans we will look at with regard to any changes we will want to make to that and I'm looking at starting that in the next month. So we will have changes that potentially could be made to that boundary, however, this planning area boundary that's before you tonight, I really would like to adopt is and get it filed over at the county. It is a brand new legal description in the State Plane Coordinate system. It works with our geographic information system and basically it will be a starting point for us to look at a legal description that when we do make amendments we can actually amend this legal description that we adopt. That's all I have If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: I would like to ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 18 bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. COMMISSION DISCUSSION and MOTION: Bunch: Mr. Chairman, l move that we accept AD 00-10 and send it through subsequent approval processes. Allen: I second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and second by Commissioner Allen to approve this administrative item AD 00-10. Any further discussion? Hoffman: I would like to commend staff for checking and double checking the 300 some odd calls on our descriptions. That was quite a bit of work. Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. • ROLL CALL: Upon roll call motion carries on a vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 Page 19 Odom: Next item on the agenda is a house cleaning measure. Something that I forgot to do at the first meeting that I Chaired, I appointed the Subdivision Committee members and the 2020 Update Committee members. I failed to name the Chair so I'm going to appoint Laurel Hoffman to Chair the Subdivision Committee and Don Marr to Chair the 2020 Committee. Hoffman: Oh, thanks. Odom: Any other items on tonight's agenda. Warrick: I have a brief announcement. On behalf of the Historic District Commission you are all invited to the Historic Preservation Awards ceremony. They are honoring the Bank of Fayetteville's expansion project at the northwest corner of the square this year as their commercial awardee. That will occur next week on Wednesday, May 17 at 3:30 p.m. on site at the Bank of Fayetteville. You will get invitations in the mail within the next few days but I wanted to let you know that's coming up. • Odom: Any other parties or announcements? Then we are adjourned. •