Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 26, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 02-6.00: Vacation (Nelms, pp 248) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 VAC 02-7.00: Vacation (Nelms, pp 248) Tabled Page 6 LSD 02-22.00: Large Scale Development (Premier Wine & Spirits, pp 177) Pulled by Applicant PPL 02-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Mission Place, pp 370) Approved Page 7 ADM 02-7.00: Administrative Item (Planned Zoning District) Tabled Page 12 ADM 02-23.00: Administrative Item (Minor/Major Subdivision Ordinance) Page 13 Tabled ADM 02-27.00: Administrative Item (MSP -Hollywood, pp 559) Forwarded to City Council Page 14 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Alan Ostner Alice Church Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 2 STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Matt Casey Tim Conklin STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Welcome to the August 26, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have seven items on our agenda tonight and we have a couple of changes that I would like to let you know about at the outset. Item three, which was LSD 02-22.00 has been removed from our agenda. That was for Premier Wine and Sprits. Items five and six, we will be taking public comment if there is any but those are also being pulled pending additional research by staff. With that being said, Renee, would you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, all Commissioners were present. Approval of the Minutes of the August 12, 2002 meeting: Hoffman: Thanks Renee. The next item of business would be approval of the minutes from the August 12, 2002 meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Shackelford: So moved. Hoffman: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Allen: Second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Allen. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. VAC 02-6.00: Vacation (Nelms, pp 248) was submitted by Brian Black of Black, Corley & Owens PA on behalf of Don Nelms & Millie Nelms for property located at 1384 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 13.10 acres. The request is to vacate 0.05 acres of a utility easement. Hoffman: Thanks Renee. Under new business our first two items are vacations for the Nelms property. We will discuss both items one and two together. They will be voted on separately. Item one is VAC 02-6.00, which was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Don Nelms for the Landers Auto Park located at 1384 W. Showroom Drive. The request is to vacate two portions of a utility easement within the auto park complex. We have attached maps and legal descriptions for the exact locations of the requested alley locations. Tim, could you fill us in on this please? Conklin: Sure. With regard to the first vacation, which is a vacation of a utility easement where an 8" sanitary sewer line is currently located, they have agreed to relocate the sewer line. Prior to the actual vacation being approved by the City Council that line will have to be relocated, installed, improved and inspected by the City Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 4 Engineering Division. Staff is recommending that you approve that vacation, which is the first one, VAC 02-6.00. With regard to VAC 02-7.00, we are asking that that vacation be tabled this evening. The Engineering staff is still working with their engineers with regard to the possibility of looking at the relocation of that sewer line to provide more distance between the proposed addition and that actual existing line. That is where we are at this evening. If you do make a motion for the first one it does need to be contingent on them relocating that line and having it installed and accepted by the City prior to the City Council vacating the actual easement. Thank you. Hoffman: That is on 02-6.00? Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: Ok, and it's a sewer line or a water line? Conklin- It is an 8" sanitary sewer line. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Is the applicant present? Please come forward, do you have a presentation or do you want to just answer questions? Black: My name is Brian Black and I am with Black, Corley and Owens Architects out of Benton and I am here to represent Landers Auto Sales for the vacation of two pieces of an existing easement on the Landers Auto Park site. What I was saying is that I do agree with everything that Mr. Conklin has said. We have expressed before that we will bear the cost of relocating that 8" sewer line and we will have that approved through the Engineering Depailment before we proceed with that. As far as the 02-7.00 vacating the easement directly behind the Chevrolet dealership, we also have no problem with that issue being tabled tonight and we will work with Engineering to try to come to an agreement on where the existing sewer and water lines that occur within that easement should be relocated. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on these vacations? Not seeing any, we will go ahead and bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for further discussion or motions. Motion: Estes: Vacation 02-6.00 is on our consent agenda and I would move that we approve the consent agenda subject to staff comments and comments and representations of the applicant. Hoffman: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 5 Allen: I will second. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 6 VAC 02-7.00: Vacation (Nelms, pp 248) was submitted by Brian Black of Black, Corley & Owens PA on behalf of Don Nelms & Millie Nelms for property located at 1384 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 13.10 acres. The request is to vacate 0.01 acres of a utility easement. Hoffman: On the matter of VAC 02-7.00. Motion: Estes: I move that we table VAC 02-7.00. Hoffman: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes. Hoover: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAC 02-7.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman: Thanks. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 7 PPL 02-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Mission Place, pp 370) was submitted by Geoff Bates, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of CTC Ventures, LTD for property located north of Mission Blvd. and east of Charlee Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.27 acres with 12 lots proposed. Hoffman: Moving on to item number four, this is PPL 02-14.00 for Mission Place. It was submitted by Geoff Bates, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of CTC Ventures, LTD for property located north of Mission Blvd. and east of Charlee Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.27 acres with 12 lots proposed. Tim, can you fill us in on this please? I'm sorry, we have eight conditions of approval, do we have signed conditions? Conklin- I do not have that information at this time and I'm not sure. With regard to this item, this is a Preliminary Plat, it contains 12 lots. Currently one lot is developed with one single-family home. There is an additional lot that will be used for a detention pond. They are proposing a 24' residential street in the subdivision so you will have a total of 10 lots that will be developed. With regard to the conditions, staff would like to add two additional conditions and at this time. I will go over those with you. Condition number nine should read as follows: The side setbacks for lots 1 and 12 shall show an 8' side setback instead of 20'. Hoffman: Has the applicant been notified? Conklin: No they haven't. It is something that I discovered reviewing it earlier. Hoffman: That is an 8' setback? Conklin: Yes, on the sides for lots 1 and 12. Then condition ten: Right-of-way dedication for Hwy. 45 will need to be by separate warranty deed. I would just like to add those two conditions. Hoffman: Is that a usual condition? Conklin: That is a standard condition that I discovered that we did not have that in the staff report. They did revise their Preliminary Plat, you do have that in front of you this evening. They delivered those to the City Planning Division this afternoon or this morning. Staff had some concern with regard to the minimum lot area. They have adjusted their lot lines so that each lot has a minimum lot area of 8,000 sq.ft, so that has been taken care of. They will be paying parks fees in the amount of $4,750 and they will be required to dedicate the right-of-way along Mission Blvd., which is classified as a principal arterial, 55' from centerline and they will be building a sidewalk. Sidewalk construction will meet current standards. Another amendment from the plat that you had Thursday to the plat that you have this evening is that they do show the sidewalk being extended to the lot line Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 8 between lots three and four so they have complied with that. Staff is recommending approval at this time. Hoffman: Ok, thanks Tim. I am going to go ahead and read the conditions for the applicant before you make your presentation so you understand what those are. 1) No curb cuts shall be allowed for lots 1 and 12 to Mission Blvd. 2) The preliminary plat shall be revised so that each lot has a minimum of 8,000 square feet of lot area and 70 feet of lot width as required by the UDO. Tim, did you say that was done on the new plat? Conklin: Yes. The revised plat does show a 8,000 sq.ft. lot area. Hoffman: Alright, thanks. 3) Vegetation removal and possible grading within the Highway 45 Right -of -Way east and west of the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat approval as directed by the City. The applicant will be responsible to notify the property owners of what vegetation and improvements will be required in order to provide adequate site distance. The cost of all associated work will be at the expense of the developer. 4) Sidewalk construction along Mission Blvd shall be completed prior to final plat approval. The sidewalk shall be extended to the lot line between lots 3 and 4. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 City's current requirements. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $4,750 (10 lots @ $470) 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 9) Side setbacks for lots 1 and 12 shall be set at 8'. 10) Right-of-way dedication for Hwy. 45 is to be by separate Warranty Deed. Is the applicant here and would you come forward please? Conklin: Madam Chair, I apologize for doing this tonight, I have one more condition. It is something that Matt and I saw that got left off of this plan that was on an earlier plan. Hoffman: Let me just say that y'all are a little short handed and we understand and we will be patient. Conklin: That is there should be a drainage easement shown with that 20' utility easement between lots 4 and 5 and over the detention pond. That was shown at an earlier revision of the plat. Hoffman: A 20' utility and drainage easement? Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 9 Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: Between what lots? Conklin: It should state 20' drainage...go ahead Matt. Casey: It should be a 20' drainage and access easement. Bates: We had that on there Matt, I think we just left that layer off. Casey: Between lots four and five. Hoffman: Ok, so condition number eleven is a 20' drainage and access easement is to be shown between lots 4 and 5. Thanks. Are there anymore? Can you say your name please? Bates: I am Geoff Bates, I am an Engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates I am representing the client tonight. I apologize for being late. There was a ton of traffic between Rogers and here. I wasn't expecting that much traffic on the bypass today. If you have any questions I can answer them. It is really easy, it is just a ten lot subdivision, nothing major. I will answer any questions you may have. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there public comment on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for discussion and motions. Ward: Madam Chair. Thompson: I wanted to speak if I could. I am Stanley Thompson. I live at 1656 Mission, just south of this property. I wanted to see about the drainage, there is a ditch that runs through my property that carries all of that water. I am concerned if there is going to be any more water dumped into it because it can't stand what it has got. Also, if there were any provisions for a fence to be built along there. Hoffman: I think Matt can answer your questions about the drainage or we can have the applicant either one. Casey: As far as the drainage, our current requirements are that they build a detention pond to detain the additional water that is going to run off from this site. They will detain that to match the existing flows off the site or it could be less. It will not be more. Thompson: It won't be joined into the ditch that I have now. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 10 Casey: No, it will be discharging directly into the inlet that the City of Fayetteville installed some time back. Thompson: Ok. Is there anything about any fence or something like that between the properties? Hoffman: Tim, is there a requirement for a fence for a new subdivision between two similar zonings? Conklin: We do not have a fence requirement between subdivisions. Hoffman: Ok, so no there is nothing currently shown on the plat in answer to your question. Thompson: Ok, I guess that is all I have. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Is there anybody else here that would like to talk about this Preliminary Plat? We will go ahead and continue the discussion between the applicant and the Commission. Motion: Ward: About the only problem this particular Preliminary Plat I had was the sight distance from down Hwy. 45, which I think still is going to be a little bit dangerous because of the traffic on Hwy. 45 getting in and out of there. It looks like the lots are a very nice size. I think it is a great place for infill so I will go ahead and recommend approval for PPL 02-14.00 for Mission Place, and this would be with all eleven conditions of approval. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Bunch: I will second the motion. Also, on item number seven, condition number seven, should that read 4,700 instead of 4,750 for the record? Hoffman: Ok, we will change that. Is that a second by Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Yes. Hoffman: I would just like to ask Tim about the sight distance again. Were we going to have to take out some large trees to improve the safety as you pull out from this road onto Mission? Bates: There is one large tree, a 30" I believe. Conklin- With regard to the vegetation removal east and west of this site, we did go out and take a look at this. I went with Paul Libertini with our Engineering Division and Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent. In our opinion it did look like some Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 11 trees would have to be removed in order to provide adequate sight distance. Hoffman: Is there a requirement for tree mitigation when you remove it from the right-of- way for a private development under our landscape or tree ordinance? Conklin: The trees in the right-of-way do not come under the tree preservation requirements. Hoffman. Ok, that is what I was thinking. Is there any additional landscaping proposed that you have thought about for the entrance that might mitigate the removal of those trees? Bates: They are going to do some landscaping in the front and maybe some brick columns and some fences with shrubs. I don't know about trees. Hoffman: I don't think there is an ordinance that I can fall back on to require you to do that but I would suggest that you take a look at it just because you are making it safe but on the other hand you are taking away some green space that already exists. Bates: Yes, well they want it to be an attractive subdivision so they can sell their lots. I am sure they will make it as attractive as possible. Hoffman: Right. I will encourage you to think about a couple of trees to put back in. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-14.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you all for coming. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 12 ADM 02-7.00: Administrative Item (Planned Zoning District) to adopt an ordinance to establish planned zoning districts that permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process; to eliminate §163.21 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses Within Residential Districts; and to eliminate § 166.60 Planned Unit Development. Hoffman: Items five and six, we will take public comment on those but they are going to be taken back to the staff for further research. We would like to be complete before we send these on up through the Planning Commission to the City Council. I will go ahead and read item five, ADM 02-7.00 to adopt an ordinance to establish planned zoning districts that permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process; to eliminate §163.21 Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses Within Residential Districts; and to eliminate §166.60 Planned Unit Development. Is there anybody here that would like to talk about this? Seeing none, I will entertain any motions to table or discussion if you guys want to at this time. Motion: Ward: I move to table. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table this, I will second it. Conklin: Madam Chair, just for the Commission's information and the public, we probably won't be bringing this back until November due to the lack of staff in my office at this time. Talking with my Associate Planner this afternoon, both of us are trying to just process the current Planning applications that are coming through. Unless I can find more time we probably won't be able to process this one or the next one until November. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. The staff, as I said earlier, is pretty short handed. They had a baby boom in the office. This administrative item and the next one are going to be tabled and I would urge the Commission that there has been a subcommittee on both of these and if you all would like to take a look at the ordinances in more depth than we would normally have time for you can do that. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 02-7.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 13 ADM 02-23.00: Administrative Item (Minor/Major Subdivision Ordinance) to adopt an ordinance to establish definitions, procedures and requirements for minor subdivisions and major subdivisions and delete the waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements for lot splits in Chapter 156.03 Variances. Hoffman: Item number six is ADM 02-23.00 which is the Minor/Major Subdivision Ordinance. An ordinance to establish definitions, procedures and requirements for minor subdivisions and major subdivisions and deleting the waiver of preliminary and final plat requirements for lot splits in Chapter 156.03 Variances. Is there anybody here that would like to address this? I assume Tim, that we will be looking at November for this. Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: Are there any motions? Ward: So moved. Hoffman: I will second it. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 02-23.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 14 ADM 02-27.00: Administrative Item (MSP -Hollywood, pp 559) to amend the Master Street Plan to relocate the extension of Hollywood Avenue from 18th Street to Best Way Street. Hoffman: Item seven on our agenda tonight is ADM 02-27.00, which is an Administrative Item to amend the Master Street Plan to relocate the extension of Hollywood Avenue from 18th Street to Best Way Street. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission amend the Master Street Plan to relocate the future extension of Hollywood Avenue south to 18th Street and to the west to connect to Best Way Street and forward to City Council for approval. Tim? Conklin- Madam Chair, members of the Commission, staff has brought this forward due to looking at a major potential development being planned at the south location where Hollywood Avenue would connect with 18th Street. The current alignment of Hollywood Avenue divides the property into almost four parts due to the creek with the floodplain, hundred year floodplain and floodway at that location would require a major bridge crossing and potentially channelization just to make sure you would not cause the water to rise above the base flood elevation. Staff has looked at ways of connecting Hollywood Avenue to different areas in this part of town. Best Way Street was built when the Best Western motel was constructed. It was built approximately 390' from Futrall Drive back to the west and would provide a connection for Hollywood Avenue, which currently is a dead end street. Staff also looked at the possibility of trying to connect it back over to 15th Street and Beechwood. However, there is current development existing and development being planned currently that did not take into account the Master Street Plan amendment that we would consider this evening or that you would recommend to the City Council. The best location to avoid going into a hundred year floodplain/floodway requiring a large bridge would be to connect it with Best Way Street. Staff also contacted the Highway Department at the request of one of the Commissioners at agenda session. I talked to Elizabeth Mayfield Hart with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department today. She stated that there are no future plans of making Futrall Drive a one way street and the reason for that at this location is that there is no way to cross 1-540 south of Sixth Street and the only way that they would make it one way is if there were some type of overpass that you would be able to get from one side to the other. Whereas, if you look to the north you have the overpass at Sixth Street and on Wedington. You actually can make a loop. If you made it one way in this location you could never get back over to the other side to come back up. That is why this part of Futrall is two way and that is why Shiloh Drive over by the Clarion is two way, because they were unable to have any type of connection. The likelihood of that happening is probably not great. Overall, staff is recommending approval of the Master Street Plan amendment. I think it will allow circulation within this area and also avoid another major creek crossing. Thank you. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 15 Hoffman: Thank you very much Tim. Is there any member of the audience? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Motion: Estes: The current alignment is located within a floodplain/floodway and as Mr. Conklin has explained, would require extensive engineering and mitigation to meet FEMA, the U.S. Corp. of Engineers, and city requirements and it is for these reasons that I would move for approval of ADM 02-27.00. Hoffman: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any further discussion? Ostner: Tim, my question is for you. If we are going to this effort and to this consideration to avoid an extra bridge and channelization, as Commissioner Estes mentioned. I suppose my interest is this major potential developer is not going to channelize and bridge? I know it is not your place to know all these details. Conklin: At this time with regard to the current alignment, if you look at that section line, which is the very thin line which makes the squares on the map, I am not sure if you can look at that. The alignment would create almost four separate parcels of land based on this current alignment. It pretty much bisects the property and then you have the creek at a diagonal. It makes it very difficult to develop that large piece of land. There may be creek crossings in the future going east and west but at this current alignment going north and south it pretty much breaks the property up into four or five pieces just because the creek being on a diagonal and the street running north and south. That is why I brought up the consideration of trying to turn it back to Beechwood and 15`h. However, the change at this point in time could seriously impact development that has not been processed yet but is in the works. Tom Broyles brought through a rezoning and it went to City Council and he got approval for a particular number of units to be built at this location and SWEPCO has a sub -station on that section line which we have issued permits for and they have expanded so the street would have to fall all on one property owner if we turned it back to the east in that location. I didn't think that was probably the fair thing to do at this point in time since I know that there is a development being planned. There also may be an opportunity in the future to get through what used to be Baldwin Piano and have some type of street connection there. However, that property is currently developed also. I wouldn't imagine that we are going to see any additional development at that location but there may be ways to get over to Beechwood but right now we are looking at existing development and a potential development that is being planned right now. Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 16 Ostner: Thank you. Bunch: Tim, in that same line, how wide is the easement for the major power line that runs north and south down through that property? It appears to be pretty much along the same line as the extension of Hollywood. Conklin- I am not sure. If it is a major line typically they like to see 100' easements for like 161KV so it could be 100' easement. Removal of the Master Street Plan would not necessarily mean that we would not see local streets developed in this area for access for land back in there. Removal of the Master Street Plan would allow property to be developed without dedication of right-of-way for a future street that may be built sometime in the future. I just wanted to make that point also because I would expect additional development to be located east of the creek, which would have access to Hollywood Avenue and Best Way Street also. I don't think we are eliminating any future local streets in that area. Going directly through the property, that is what we would be eliminating. Hoffman: Ok, thank you Tim. Does anybody else have any questions? I have a motion and a second on the floor. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-27.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously. Tim, are there any announcements before we adjourn? Conklin: No. Hoffman: Ok, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Meeting adjourned: 6:00 p.m.