Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-14 - Agendas - FinalPlanning Commission Officers Matthew Cabe, Chair Porter Winston, Vice -Chair Sarah Bunch, Secretary aye evtlle ARKANSAS Tentative Agenda City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 2011 Planning Commissioners Chris Griffin William Chesser Kyle Cook Hugh Earnest Craig Honchell Tracy Hoskins A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held on November 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Call to Order Roll Call Agenda Session Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items Consent: 1. Approval of the minutes from the October 24, 2011 meeting. n Room 219 of the 2. VAC 11-3970: Vacation (862 & 846 HODDLE PLACE/SLAVENS, 569): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for properties located at 862 & 846 HODDLE PLACE IN ADDISON ACRES SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.57 acre. The request is to vacate a utility easement. Planner: Dara Sanders Old Business: 3. LSD 11-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DR./KUM & GO, 402): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 2530 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is for a gas station and convenience store containing approximately 4,958 square feet. Planner: Jesse Fulcher THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 28, 2011. New Business: 4. CUP 11-3968: Conditional Use Permit (SOUTHWEST CORNER MLK BLVD. & HILL AVE./KUM & GO, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at the SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD AND HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The request is for parking in excess of that permitted in Chapter 172, Parking and Loading. Planner: Andrew Garner 5. LSD 11-3966: Large Scale Development (SOUTHWEST CORNER MLK BLVD. & HILL AVE./KUM AND GO, 522): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING. for property located at the SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD AND HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The request is for the development of a gas station with sixteen fuel pumps. Planner: Andrew Garner 6. CUP 11-3969: Conditional Use Permit (1421 E. 15TH ST./HANNA, 603): Submitted by THAD HANNA for property located at 1421 EAST 15TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 12.60 acres. The request is for Use Unit 28, Center for collecting recyclable materials, in the I-1 Zoning District. Planner: Andrew Garner 7. RZN 11-3971: Rezone (THE END OF BEST WAY ST. & HOLLYWOOD AVE./BARRETT, 559): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at the end of BEST WAY STREET AND HOLLYWOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 25.35 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RMF -12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Dara Sanders The following item has been approved administratively by City staff: LSP 11-3980: Lot Split (950 EASTWOOD DR./MOSELY, 447): Submitted by BLEW AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 950 EASTWOOD DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of approximately 0.57 and 0.46 acre. Planner: Dara Sanders NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official, staff or others for response. Please keep your comments brief to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers. A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 1 of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 24, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN Consent: MINUTES: October 10, 2011 Page 3 Approved Old Business: CUP 11-3918: Conditional Use Permit (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW (SALE BARN), 562) Page 4 Approved LSD 11-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DR./KUM & GO, 402) Page 5 Tabled New Business: ADM 11-3974: Variance (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW/SALE BARN), 562) Page 6 Approved ADM 11-3964: Variance (LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK/SMITH, 135) Page 7 Withdrawn CCP 11-3946: Concurrent Plat (1559 E. MISSION BLVD./VENEMA, 296) Page 8 Approved LSD 11-3962: Large Scale Development (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286) Page 9 Approved CUP 11-3965: Conditional Use Permit (2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING/BELCLAIRE POOL, 169) Page 11 Approved RZN 11-3960: Rezone (1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD/WILLIAMS & COOPER, 369) Page 12 Denied November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 1 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 2 of 16 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Chris Griffin Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Kyle Cook STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams, City Attorney 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe called the meeting to order. Commissioner Cabe requested all cell phones to be turned off and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call all members were present with the exception of Commissioners Bunch and Earnest. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 2 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the October 10, 2011 meeting. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 3 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Old Business: CUP 11-3918: Conditional Use Permit (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW (SALE BARN), 562): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 510 WEST 11TH STREET AND 989 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to utilize a trailer as a temporary leasing office, Use Unit 2, for an apartment complex. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Heather Robason, applicant, stated agreement with the condition. Commissioner Hoskins asked about condition of approval #4 regarding the height of shrubs. Heather Robason, applicant, stated that they have no problem agreeing to a minimum height of the shrubs. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CUP 11-3918 amending condition of approval #4 to state that the shrubs shall be a minimum height of three feet tall, and finding in favor of all other conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 4 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 5 of 16 LSD 11-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DR./KUM & GO, 402): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 2530 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is for a gas station and convenience store containing approximately 4,958 square feet. The applicant requested this item be tabled until the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. No public comment or staff report was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table LSD 11-3903 for two weeks. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 5 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 6 of 16 ADM 11-3974: Variance (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW/SALE BARN), 562): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 510 WEST 11TH STREET AND 989 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to allow a curb -cut on South School Avenue and a reduced drive aisle width within the parking lot. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Heather Robason, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve ADM 11-3974 finding in favor of all variances as recommended by staff. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 6 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 7 of 16 ADM 11-3964: Variance (LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK/SMITH, 135): Submitted by GENE PIERCE for property located at LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.50 acre. The request is for variances from Unified Development Code Chapter 172, Parking and Loading. The request was withdrawn. No discussion or comment was presented. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 7 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 8 of 16 CCP 11-3946: Concurrent Plat (1559 E. MISSION BLVDJVENEMA, 296): Submitted by BLEW AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 1559 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is for approval of a concurrent plat with four lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Mike Sebo, applicant was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CCP 11-3946 finding in favor of all conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 8 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 9 of 16 LSD 11-3962: Large Scale Development (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH AND EAST OF DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND MOORE LANE. The property is zoned C-PZD, SPRINGWOODS and contains approximately 25 acres. The request is to complete the remainder of Phase I of the Pines at Springwoods project, constructing nine new buildings with a total of 32 new multifamily dwellings (seven quad-plexes and two duplexes). Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Representative, discussed the background of the modified request and the reason for the variance request is a result of the applicant's agreement with the existing residents. He discussed variation in geometry of the building design proposed. Public Comment: Roland Broth, resident, is happy that the project will be completed. He supports the variance request. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins discussed the findings of the Subdivision Committee and stated his support for the variance request from the Urban Residential Design Standards based on the residents' support for utilizing the same building design. Commissioners Chesser and Hoskins discussed the detrimental effects of meeting the regulations. Commissioner Hoskins stated that the existing development of the site exceeded the landscaping requirements, which contributes to the overall design of the site. Staff stated that there is no condition in the report or recommended by the Subdivision Committee that would require the applicant to install additional landscaping with the requested variance. Commissioner Cabe discussed his support for staff's recommendation to require variations in materials and colors for the new structures. He doesn't find a hardship. Commissioners Hoskins and Winston discussed previous variance requests from design regulations Commissioner Honchell discussed the layout of the property. He finds that requiring the applicant to provide a variation in materials and colors will result in the loss of continuity throughout the development. He finds that the developer was attempting to create a specific type of built environment, and he supports the variance request. Kit Williams, City Attorney, Commissioner Hoskins, and Jorgensen discussed the possibility of the multi- family dwellings being single-family due to ownership and not being subject to the design standards. Williams provided the Commission with language to support the variance request. Commissioner Cook doesn't believe the Urban Residential Design Standards are heavy handed, and he expressed support for staffs recommendation. Motion #1: November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 9 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve condition of approval #1 to approve the urban residential design standard variances as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-0 (Commissioners Chesser, Cabe, and Cook voting `no'). Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 11-3962 with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, except for condition of approval #1 that was addressed in the previous motion. Commissioner Honchell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 10 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 11 of 16 CUP 11-3965: Conditional Use Permit (2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING/BELCLAIRE POOL, 169): Submitted by APPIAN, INC. for properties located at 2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acre. The request is for a conditional use permit for Use Unit 4, for the development of a community pool, pool house, and playground. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Evan Neihues, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion approve CUP 11-3965 with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 11 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 12 of 16 RZN 11-3960: Rezone (1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD/WILLIAMS & COOPER, 369): Submitted by JACKSON WILLIAMS AND TIM COOPER for property located at 1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 8.6 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Tim Cooper, applicant, discussed the proposed rezoning. Public Comment: Harry Jackson, property owner to the south and west, discussed that his concern is having access to his property after this subdivision is built. He does not want to be landlocked. Kevin Sanchez, 1273 East Ash Street, read an email that he sent to the Planning Commission objecting to the rezoning for a number of reasons. Aubrey Shepherd, discussed that this site is the beginning of the prairie. He discussed that flooding will get worse with this rezoning. We need to protect the watershed. Sallie Kelley, lives on Ash Street, moved there in 1994. She discussed that it took two years to work to resolve a drainage problem on her property. She stated concerns with making the drainage problems worse. Jonice Adams, 1630 Charlee Avenue, opposed to the rezoning because of the higher density will not fit in with the neighborhood. She discussed that there is a huge amount of traffic on Mission in the morning. It is very difficult to get out of Charlee onto Mission. She discussed concerns with Charlee being connected. There is angle and site distance issues with the intersection of Charlee and Mission. Ann Ratcliff, 1750 Charlee Avenue, opposes the rezoning request because of flooding issues and safety issues. On Charlee there are children before and after school. There are families that walk their kids up and down the street. I cannot imagine a worse safety issue. I ask you to retain the cul-de-sac on Charlee. The proposed homes would not be the same size as surrounding homes. We do not have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Laura Lindsey, lives on Charlee Avenue, I oppose this because we have children. There are 15-20 people that park on Charlee every morning and walk kids. You are going to take out someone, there is going to be a death and I don't want it to be my children. The safety issues are bad, we bought because this was a cul-de-sac and you are going to make it a cut -through. There are so many things wrong with this. We have so many cars parking on this street already. You would not want this on our street so why put it on ours. You are going to change the whole continuity of our neighborhood. You can't put that many cars on our street. She described the pedestrian crossing guards. You are talking an additional 500-1000 cars per day on our street. We bought in this neighborhood because it was a quiet safe street. You don't want this in your backyard so don't put it in our front yard. Tom Sawyer, lives on Ramsey Avenue. He described previous rezonings that were approved including Summit Place and Ruskin Heights that will put more homes on Mission. Root and Vandergriff Elementary are at capacity. This should go through the school boards. I don't want people cutting through on Ramsey. We bought or rent on Ramsey for a reason because it is a quiet dead-end street near Root. We don't want traffic cutting through. We get people parking on our street and running across Mission Boulevard not at the cross walk. Was November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 12 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Ramsey ever designed as a cut -through? Garner discussed that Ramsey Avenue was designed as a through street and the right-of-way stubs out all the way to the property line. He also discussed that Samantha Street and Charlee Avenue stub -outs also were intended to be through streets as well. He discussed that the location of street stub -outs and through streets is not something that is determined with a rezoning request. Cabe stated that we are only considering land use. We are not considering street connections. We are strictly looking at whether this property should be rezoned. We are just looking at land use. Development is not part of this proposal. Jana Berton, 1702 Charlee, lived there since 1992.1 have several concerns including children that live and play on Charlee. We bought on this street because it is a charming cul-de-sac. My children walked to and from school. She discussed that traffic is bad in the morning and afternoon around Root Elementary. We will have a lot of cars turning and cutting through our street. It will affect the safety of our children on Charlee and Ash street. I am concerned with smaller high-density units adversely affecting the values of our homes. We're concerned with protecting our homes and the size of units coming in affecting our property values. Kit Williams, City Attorney, clarified that roads are not evaluated now but traffic can be considered. He discussed other items that can be considered with a rezoning including compatibility. Dale Thompson, 1690 Charlee Avenue, we have been there since 2001. We bought here primarily because of the good school system. His primary concern is because of the smaller lot sizes. Part of the reason they bought on Charlee was because of the house size. The other thing is the traffic. He discussed traffic in the morning and the afternoon and kids being safe on Charlee. He discussed flooding in this area and that the drainage system needs to be evaluated closely. He is against this rezoning. Amy Rosetti, 1657 Charlee Avenue, my husband and I are opposed to this rezoning. There is a lot of traffic and it is unsafe. One time I had to call Root School because it was so tight cars couldn't even get through Charlee. One time on Saturday morning my daughter and I were in a wreck exiting Charlee onto Mission. There is speeding at other times of the day when the school is not in. The police do not patrol this area. I am concerned with the traffic. She discussed concerned with the proposed small homes and lack of greenspace and no place for the water to go. Michelle Hightower, 1645 Charlee Avenue. I am opposed to the rezoning primarily because the density is much different than surrounding neighborhoods. The density and look will be different. I don't think there is a need to put housing like that. I have concerns with those homes being closer to the road. I am concerned with safety. I have four children. We only have sidewalks on one side. If our road is a connector, we are not in compliance with sidewalks. She discussed concerns with the creek and changes in the end of the creek causing flooding on their homes. There are already some flooding issues. Has there been a study to address the creek? There should be some assurances that nothing will happen to our property because of the homes back there. Debbie Heller, 1621 Charlee Avenue, they are in the floodplain. She described flooding issues on her property. Everyday cars park in front of my house, I have to time when I am going to leave my home because it is so congested. Laura Lindsey (again) said she has pictures of the water and flooding and can show pictures right now. Andy Hightower, 1645 Charlee Avenue, discussed that you could consider traffic. We get a preview of what Charlee will be if it is it a cut -through about once a day when someone thinks it is a cut -through and it is November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 13 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 14 of 16 terrifying how fast they go. It is terrifying how fast they leave. I have four children and my concern is their safety. He talked about the vision of the City being a safe community and said Charlee is a safe street now and would like to keep it that way. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser discussed the potential for cul-de-sac streets being connected. Were the developer to develop right now by right could the developer connect those streets? Garner discussed that, yes, we described that in the rezoning report that all three of those streets were planned to be connected, and the City's ordinances would more than likely require all three of those streets to be connected with any residential subdivision on this property at the current RSF-4 zoning or the proposed NC zoning. The comments we're hearing about those streets being used as street stub -outs would be an issue whether or not the property were rezoned or not. Commissioner Chesser discussed that under the current zoning it appears they could develop 34 units and under the proposed zoning they could develop 50 units. Is that correct? Garner stated `yes', the proposed zoning would allow 16 additional homes over what is existing. Chesser asked about City Plan and connectivity. Garner discussed that it is a strong policy of our City Plan and ordinances for connections within and throughout neighborhoods and streets in the city and to try to prevent dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs. Chesser asked about schools and their input of a rezoning. Garner discussed that impacts to schools is one of the legal findings for a rezoning. The City notifies the schools of rezoning requests but he was not aware of the City ever receiving comments from the school districts for a rezoning. Chesser asked about the neighborhood being required to follow storm water requirements. Garner stated that we did bring up the flooding issues to City Engineering staff. Garner read a statement from the Assistant City Engineer that is in the rezoning staff report regarding storm water and drainage requirements at the time of development. Commissioner Winston asked the City Attorney about highest and best use. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that highest and best use is something you can consider along with many other factors. Compatibility is the primary consideration for a rezoning. Commissioner Winston stated that there will be some development on this land whether it is under the existing zoning or the proposed zoning, and there will be some connections through the streets that you all are concerned about. There is no way to imagine that is not going to happen. He discussed that he thinks about this in terms of development patterns. The NC development pattern is preferable to the RSF-4 development pattern. It will allow more diversity to the living situations in the City and I'm generally in favor of that. I do want to point out that the neighborhood is absolutely right that when these streets are connected people using these streets to get their kids to the school will use these streets in a way that is not safe. The condition is such a mess that I live November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 14 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 15 of 16 right around the comer that I avoid the situation. Something needs to be done with other developments in the area. There will be more traffic and more traffic. Root School is a mess and it is unsafe. I'm not sure that rezoning this to NC will have enough of an impact to say that we should not do it. There is another question that we have to deal with regarding Root School and traffic in the area. Garner discussed that City staff and administration and the alderman are aware of traffic issues in the area. He discussed that within the past year or so one of the alderman requested staff to do a street connectivity study in the area so staff completed an east -west connectivity study. We realize there are pinch -points where traffic is funneled all in to one area, such as Mission. So we looked at getting additional connections between and through neighborhoods to alleviate some of these issues. We are planning on installing a traffic signal at Mission/Old Wire Road as one of the first improvements along Old Wire Road. The City is aware of the traffic issues and we are trying to find some solutions. Winston discussed that when development of this site occurs there would be different storm water requirements than when this area was initially developed. Garner discussed the current storm water and detention requirements, and the possibility of downstream improvements depending on the extent of the project and status of the existing drainage system. Commissioner Winston asked about the streamside protection ordinance. Garner stated that it was in the streamside protection zone but that the creek doesn't really run through the site but barely cuts through the southwest corner. Commissioner Chesser asked about downstream improvements. Garner discussed that determination would be based on the development. Commissioner Chesser asked about public comment from the person that stated they may be landlocked. Garner discussed that location of streets would be determined at the time of preliminary plat. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. Jackson and it does appear that based on the dimensions and layout of the properties there would likely be one or two stub -outs. Harry Jackson came up and indicated his concern with being landlocked. Commissioner Chesser discussed concerns with the cul-de-sacs being extended but that even if we did nothing with the rezoning they could extend the streets by right. The question is will there be 34 or 50 houses built there. Given the goals of the City to do infill in sites just like this and to make that infill more walkable rather than less, and given the goals of the City to provide affordable housing he would like to make a motion to forward. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward RZN 11-3960 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Honchell asked about bringing a new subdivision into an older neighborhood like this and the sidewalk requirements. The destination of choice will be to walk or ride to the school. What is the ordinance for November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 15 of 16 Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 16 of 16 sidewalks? Development on this site will generate a ton of foot traffic down Charlee and Ramsey. Garner discussed that City ordinance requires that almost all street cross sections in our Master Street Plan requires new streets to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. In some cases a development might warrant offsite sidewalk improvements if the project generates enough pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Honchell asked about the maximum number of units per acre being four units? Garner stated `yes'. Commissioner Honchell discussed safety, traffic, and flooding. I won't be in favor of the applicant on this one. Upon roll call the motion to forward failed with a vote of 4-3-0 (Commissioners Honchell, Hoskins, and Griffin voting `no'). The rezoning failed to be forwarded due to a lack of five positive votes. Kit Williams, City Attorney, described the appeal process and requirements for the applicant to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. November 14, 2011 Planning Commission PC Minutes 10-24-11 Agenda Item 1 Page 16 of 16 ae evi le / AFKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of November 14, 2011 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Dara Sanders, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: November 7, 2011 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 VAC 11-3970: Vacation (862 & 846 HODDLE PLACE/SLAVENS, 569): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for properties located at 862 & 846 NODDLE PLACE IN ADDISON ACRES SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-7, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 7 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.57 acre. The request is to vacate a utility easement. Planner: Dara Sanders Property Description and Background: The subject properties are located in the Addison Acres subdivision at 846 and 862 Hoddle Place, north of Huntsville Road/Highway 16. Since this subdivision was platted in 2007 with 18 buildable lots, seven single-family homes have been constructed to date. Request: The applicant's request is to vacate an existing utility easement, as indicated on the attached survey. This utility easement is located between Lots 9 and 10 and currently does not contain any utilities. Utilities are located within 25 ft. utility easement that was dedicated along both sides of Hoddle Place. The applicant has submitted the required easement vacation notification forms to the utility companies and to the City with the result summarized below. UTILITIES RESPONSE Ozarks Electric No Objections Cox Communications No Objections Southwestern Electric Power Company No Objections Arkansas WesternGas NoObjections AT&T No Objections November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 16 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: RESPONSE Water/Sewer No Objections Transportation No Objections Solid Waste No Objections Public Comment: No public comment has been received. Recommendation: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 11-3970 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Any damage or relocation of utilities shall be at the owner/developer's expense. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required Planning Commission Action: ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled Date: November 14, 2011 Motion: Second: Vote: Note: November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 2 of 16 JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Str Fayetteville, AR 72701 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807 DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S. JUSTIN L. JORGENSEN, P.E. BLAKE E. JORGENSEN, P.E. 9/22/11 Att; Planning Re : Vacation Request Attached leas_ ♦ilia., vacation est This is lnrated along the property line between ALUll:11GLL please find a uuaaay easement aea request.�- lot 9 & 10 of Addison Acres Subdivision just North of Hwy 16 East. There are no utilities in this easement and our client owns both lots 9 & 10. All utilities have signed off on this vacation. Please place this on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Also please call concerning any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely; David L. Yargenstn, • PUBLIC WORKS • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • L ra 1l • Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 16 Petition to vacate a 20' utility easement between lots 9 & 10 of Addison Acres Subdivision, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas To: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council We, the undersigned; being all the owner of real estate abutting a 20' utility easement hereinafter sought to be abandoned and vacated, located between lots 9 & 10 of Addison Acres Subdivision, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, petition to vacate said 20' utility easement being described as follows; LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the NE Corner of said lot 10, thence S 02°19'50"W 10.00 Feet, thence N 87°56'23"W 10.00 Feet to the P.O.B. thence N 87°56'23"W 76.60 Feet, thence along a curve to the left 20.30 Feet, said curve having a radius of 83.00 Feet and a chord bearing and distance of N 10°59'21" 5 20.25 Feet, thence S 87°56'23"E 73.55 Feet, thence S 02°19'50"W 20.00 Feet to the P.O.B.; Containing 1.493 S.F. more or less. That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of said 20' utility easement and that the public interest and welfare would not be aversely affected by the abandonment of the above described'utility easement. The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate, and that the above describe real estate be used for their respective ftarther pray that the above described real estate be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law. Whereof, the undersigned petitioners respectfully pray that the governing body of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate. Dated this day of 0 20 / 1 . rt\ 5kvz. s Printed Narne yj /id(' Signature Cur, 1 c/7,----2,/e:`�it_i;�5 November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 16 SHEET IT. 1 SHEET: SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'--40 PROJECT: ADDISON ACRES 4230 HUNTSVILLE R0, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DATE 07.21-00 REVISION 5 PRJ. ND; NGA106010 ENGINEER:ACG DESIGNER: EIH HGM Consultants, Inc. 1757 CROSSOVER ROAD, SUITE S FAYE TEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72701 PH; (47D)411-7717 November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 16 Date: UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS Utility Company: Applicant Name: A t r (4, d abh►es e `6 D 0.5 -e -V) /14-g„- ILA f° 1k) Applicant Phone: 4-14 Lel — d— REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply): Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way. Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows: General location / Address (referring to attached document- must be completed'°) (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: No objections to the vacation(s) described above:- oN A TTA CU t E t3 1 ,S No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditions are met: Signature of Utility Company Representative OSP DES(64) ;106, 00-ce-- Title November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 16 09/14/2011 18:22 FAX la 003 UTILITY APPROVAL DORM FOR AWRY- 011- WAY, ALLEY, AM UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS Date: 9/2- zftt UtiltyCompany: f ,t}'Fi.tttt'kF_ �t%_jN,J,,,S�'iatAYr / Applicant Nor= eggiie d++$, hl3Jjt,. ! ;{y�fR Applicantflotw473 12.7-- {7i¢ REQUESTED VACATION eappllatnt Hurst cherskall that apply): cai Utility Easement Wit -of -way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- ef- way, Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the fogowing (alley, easement right-of-way), described as follows Genend location /Address lrefening to attached document most be completed") ) WTTACH legal d+sorfpltoa and graphic representation of what is baing vacstedsl17NEV UTILITY CCMPCOMMENTS: No objections to the vacations) described above. No objections to the vaouton(s) described above, provided fallowing described easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpom below.) No objections provided the following conditions are met: Signature ofU Company Representative Title November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 16 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM • ..FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND . .vrarrY11411143NT VACATIONS Date: Utility Company: Su reml-ftS• . Applicant Name: f S19Wsjk ,t se- AK9ti7% 1117 REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check alt that apply): f Utility Easement '.Eight -of -way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right - of. way, Alley Streetlight -of -way pplicant Phone: " 479 I have been notified of the petition to gpcate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows: General location / Address (referring to attached document -must be. completed**) (A TTAC?Llegai description anti graphic -representation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: 4 1 figiNoob)ectionstothevacation(s)descrtbed.above, No objections to the vacation(a) described above, provided following described easements are retained, (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditions are met: f Utility Com resection AA Anti /YIttAso4L November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 8 of 16 Date: UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS Utility Company: Applicant Name: C (J sa„3 egf4A REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply): �11 pplicant Phone: 4n 45) ^S24 - Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way. Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows: General location / Address (referring to attached document -must be completed") (AT EACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: No objections to the vacation(s) described above. No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditionsc/are met: Any tJnm 49 n r iP /n 04770 r n PPAi,S 71;-,c, -A will be /- -1-14F derie7&art 's e peonse re of Utility Company Representative fie/r/ Title November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 16 08/24/2011 14:28 FAX UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT'. OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS lawn 'pate: gitab/ UlItyCompanY:WA ell-N,rtt 1M*94a Appicant Name: /Pe 4he.• torfij Applicant Phone; 47Q 461 -63 -74 - "REQUESTED REQUESTED VACATION (applicant mast duck ail that ttpply): Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or sheets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way. Alley Street right-of-way 1 have been nodfed of the. petition --en right-of-way), described as follows; �....,..• to v@wta the following (alley, easement, General location / Address (referring to attached document- must be completed") (ATTACH legal description and graphic rcpresentation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) ZhT LITY cooPANY commans: EtNo objections to the vacation(s) described above. No °Elections to the vamdon(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditions are nett Signatureo t3 Company Representative Title O4bRAflcM5 k1ANRGEt'y November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 16 09/13/2011 TUE 8:59 FAX 479 444 3478 COF Sold waste 08/24/2011 13:42 FAX Date: UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALM. AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS Utility Company: Pit hiprE1-;4 Applicant Nance: e rtorir..p. gennY-cMet) REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply); 1 1 Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the 'vacated right- of- way. Alley 2001/003 lI 001 Applicant Phone 4-7? As-/- ss -2.4_ - E -i 301 Street right-of-way !have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows; General Iocation / Address (refetrtng to attached document- must be completed") (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: No objections to the vacation(s) described above. No objections to tate vacation(-) described above, provided following desscibed easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below) Lives. No objections provided the following conditions are met; Signature of Utility Compdtty Representative 0 November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 11 of 16 UTILITY APPROVAL FORM FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS Date: g/ j 4N 4EP/4tar—Pn (37M- ()khl Ua 's -a,., WWtfl Utility Company: Applicant Name: REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply): pplicant Phone: 4-7q 651 Utility Easement Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way. Alley Street right-of-way I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows: General location / Address (referring to attached document- must be completed") (ATTACH legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated -SURVEY) UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS: . --Can No objections to the vacation(s) described above. No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained. (State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.) No objections provided the following conditions are met: Signatur of Utility Company Representative ThrAtj3tirion/ 6 frfnir- Title November 14, 2011 Planning Commission VAC 11-3970 Slavens Agenda Item 2 Page 12 of 16