Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-11 Minutes• • • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 11, 1991, in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Fred Hanna, Jack Cleghorn, Jett Cato, Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson and Charles Nickle J. E. Springborn John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R91-4 RICHARD COLLINS - S OF WEDINGTON DR, WEST OF BETTY JO DR. The first item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R91-4 submitted by Richard Collins for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive containing 11.25 acres. The request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated Mr. Collins was requesting to rezone a portion of the property. He explained that the total parcel was 76 acres and Mr. Collins was requesting the front 11.25 acres be rezoned to C-2 and the rear 65 acres would remain A-1 Agricultural. He further explained that Mr. Collins was proposing a major, three-phase, development that involved several large-scale outdoor recreational activities and related commercial usage. He stated that Phase I consisted of the construction of a driving range, miniature golf, batting cages, parking lot and an office building for offices of 1300 square feet, a snack vending area of 800 square feet and a pro shop of approximately 1500 square feet. He further stated the principal use was the golfing and batting facilities which falls under use Unit 20, Commercial, Recreational, Large Site. He further explained that use Unit 20 is a conditional use in the A-1 zone and therefore the conditional use would be the next item on the agenda. Mr. Merrell stated the interpretation had been made that the pro shop and vending area and offices were accessory uses to the golfing and batting facilities. He identified Summerhill Razorback Golf and the Fayetteville Country Club as enterprises with similar accessory uses. He stated the plan for Phase II is to add a restaurant and parking. The plan for Phase III is to add an 18 -hole golf course and possibly a split off commercial frontage on the front of the property. He pointed out the restaurant could be considered an accessory use or could require rezoning to R-0, C-1 or C-2, depending upon the size of the restaurant in relation to the development. He stated Mr. Collins had told staff the restaurant would have approximately 7,000 square feet. Mr. Merrell' recommended the rezoning be denied. He stated that for the last two years staff had felt it was important that the city have a plan for future development on Wedington Drive in order to avoid what had happened on North College and parts of Highway 62 West - a long continuous strip of commercial development. He further stated there was still an opportunity to plan for the future of Wedington Drive, as staff had noted in many of their reports. He 163 • stated the Commission had received several educational packets showing the benefits of curtailing strip commercial development, spot zonings, etc. He explained their recommendation was based on three reasons: (1) it does not conform to the general plan, (2) it would constitute spot zoning, and (3) the rezoning is speculative in nature. He further stated the western part of the city was for appropriate affordable housing since affordable housing was quite important not only nationally but also in this area. He stated several different entities of local government were searching for ways to provide more affordable housing. He explained that he and the planning staff felt the western part of the city, particularly areas similar to this acreage, fit into that scope. He further stated one developer had already approached planning staff expressing an interest in this and surrounding properties for affordable housing. He stated that either he or Ms. Bryant would have further comments during the public hearing. He explained that Mr. Collins was present. Charles Nickle asked if Mr. Merrell had any comments on rezoning the same piece of property to R-0. Mr. Merrell stated staff would still hesitate to recommend that type of rezoning; however, R-0 would be better than C-2. He explained the Farm Bureau, immediately • to the east of this property, was zoned R-0. He further explained staff had recently had discussions with Farm Bureau and part of the discussions had involved the issue of whether or not that property should be rezoned. He stated that, through negotiations, they were able to solve the problem. He reiterated that R -O would be better than the C-2 zoning for that area. He pointed out from staff reports, if the suggested recommendations were followed, Mr. Collins could begin his development. He further explained that rezoning was not necessary for Phase I development, and he would recommend approving the conditional use. Mr. Allred asked if, in the 20 -year proposed plan, the area under discussion had • not been designated to be major commercial with a major regional mall. Mr. Merrell stated that at one point in time that was correct but, in a workshop attended by the Commissioners and Directors, they questioned the desirability of having a major commercial area in this location. He stated he was not sure if the consultant had corrected that on the map. Besides, the staff felt that many aspects of the consultants land use plan were not well conceived. The petitioner, Mr. Rick Collins, then appeared before the Commission with copies of a drawing of the proposed development. He explained the property involved was • 76 acres with the front 11.25 being the property he desired to have rezoned to C-2. He further explained the remainder of the property would continue to be zoned A-1. He stated the conditional use request was Unit 20 for the driving range. He asked that he also have a conditional use for the golf course. He explained the first phase would be the driving range and Phase III would be the 18 -hole golf course. He showed on a map the proposed location of a 70 station driving range. He pointed out the area of the pro shop, consisting of 3,600 square feet, the miniature golf course, the batting cages and the restaurant. He stated when the project was started, some changes might be made in the location of these various attractions after the architects and engineers reviewed the plan. He pointed out the 122 parking sites on his map. He explained that Phase II would be the construction of the restaurant. He stated he did not know the size of the restaurant - he estimated between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet but it could be larger than that, perhaps up to 7,200 square feet. He explained that he would only own 10% of the restaurant so that he would have a voice in its administration. He further explained that the people that would own the restaurant would know the food and beverage business which he did not. He stated there were two different parties interested in administering the restaurant. He explained that it would be a sports restaurant, having a large screen television, sports memorabilia, but there would be no dancing, etc. He explained that the restaurant would be away from the rest of • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 3 the facility in case the owners wanted a beer license. The only place he could foresee having alcohol on the premises would be in the restaurant. He explained the position of the holes on the golf course, pointing them out on the map. He further explained that for buffering purposes, all of the large trees in the area would be kept, even in the parking area. He stated the golf course would be a regulation, lighted golf course. He further stated the lighting on the driving range used 1,000 watt lights with the light angled toward the center of the property. He stated the golf course lights would be 400 meter soft lights. Mr. Collins stated he wanted commercial property in the front part of the project. He explained that, while he knew the commercial location in that area would be valuable, the main reason he wanted commercial zoning was his wife desired to start a florist and garden supply store at that site. He stated that business would supply the flowers for dividers and flower boxes for his project. He stated he was not sure if the florist and garden supply store could be • classified as an accessory use, that it would be a judgment call. He stated his application for rezoning, conditional use on 65 acres, unit 20, included the driving range. He further stated that on his application but not in the memorandum was unit 4, which included the golf course. He explained, since the driving range would be constructed first, he would need unit 4 for the golf course, Phase III. He had a list of a bill of assurances that there would be no zoo, drag strip, drive-in theater, nor race track. He stated unit 20 was usually noisy, but that a golf course was quiet. He explained that, in rezoning the 11.25 acres in the front, his reasons for going to C-2 was to enable him to • sell sports goods in a public pro shop, the miniature golf course and batting cage under unit 20, the restaurant under unit 13, the flower and garden supply business under units 15 and 17. He reiterated that the architects and engineers would be the ones to decide size and location of each facility. Collins explained he needed everything in black and white so he could start negotiations. He then showed the Commission some slides of other enterprises similar to what he envisioned. He then read an article dated January 15, 1991 from the Northwest Arkansas Times which stated, "The Community Development • Committee of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, chaired by Dr. Mitch Singleton, listed as one of his suggestions to promote the development of public golf. The purpose of the committee is to enhance Fayetteville's livability through the development of cultural awareness, housing and the quality of life." Mr. Cleghorn asked if the facility would be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Collins stated that in the winter they would open around 10:00 and close around 6:00 or 7:00, but that in the summertime, on weekdays, they would open at 9:00 and close at 10:00 and on Saturday and Sunday and holidays, they would open at 8:00 and close at 11:00. He explained that 80% of the business would be done after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturday and Sunday. He stated the name of the facility would be "The Sports Club of Arkansas". He explained there was nothing like this facility in the entire State of Arkansas. Mr. George Faucette appeared before the Commission and stated his firm had been engaged to market the property. He read the restrictions listed on the Bill of Assurances, as follows: uses restricted include liquor store, automotive service repair, body shop, bus sales, mobile home sales, motorcycle service and repair, truck service and repair, trailers, camping, hauling, travel sales and repair, used car lots, farm equipment sales and service, auctioneer, frozen food locker, laundry, land supply and industrial laundry, packing and crating, gas service station or drive-in restaurant, bowling alley, domino parlor, slot car track, • • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 4 drag strip racing track, drive-in theater. He explained that the attempt by Mr. Collins, with complete agreement of the property owners, was to limit the uses that might be objectionable in that area. He further stated he agreed with Mr. Merrell that the west part of town would be compatible for affordable housing. He explained there would be 600 to 800 acres of land similar to this tract not too far west of this tract that could be used for affordable housing. He further stated the back part of this tract was low and if it became intensely developed (four to five units per acre) with affordable housing, there could be serious drainage problems and a strain on city services. He stated this proposal made a lot of sense since approximately 90% of it would be green space. Mr. Cleghorn stated he had lived in an area where this type of course had existed. He stated this type of project blended in the neighborhood very well. He agreed with city staff regarding how far west commercial enterprises should go on Wedington but explained this project was needed in the area and compatible with the area. He stated perhaps this could be the buffer spot rather than going straight from business to houses. He further stated he was in favor of this and thought it was a real good idea. Mr. Hanna asked if rezoning could be granted for the only the purpose of the golf related activities such as the restaurant, the retail golf shop, batting cage, miniature golf and possibly the garden center and restrict it to those activities alone. Mr. Merrell stated that could be done if Mr. Collins would amend his Bill of Assurance. He explained that it would have to be voluntary. Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Collins had offered a Bill of Assurance telling all of the things he wouldn't do, why couldn't he just have a Bill of Assurance for what he can do. Mr. Merrell stated that through a Bill of Assurance the use could be limited in any way but it would have to be voluntary and come from the applicant. Ms. Bryant commented that most of the uses mentioned did not require rezoning because they were accessory uses. Mr. Hanna asked if all of the project except the nursery could be done as conditional use. Me. Bryant stated it would depend on whether the nursery was just for the golfing facility or made outside sales. Mr. Merrell stated, if the nursery was of the magnitude of Westwood Nursery, it would not be accessory use. It would be a separate free-standing business. He stated it had occurred to him that if the restaurant was moved closer to the Farm Bureau, the applicant could ask for R -O zoning or C-1. He further stated they were not that far apart on this project, mainly because 80 to 90% would remain in green space and the fact that Mr. Collins assured planning staff he would leave the large trees for buffering. He agreed with Mr. Cleghorn that this could be the buffer between residential and commercial entities. He reminded the Commission that approximately a year ago the Davis family requested a rezoning on both corners of Salem Road and Wedington Drive which ended going to the Board of Directors. He stated that approximately a month later the Board did agree to rezone the northeast corner of the intersection but did not agree to rezone the northwest corner. He explained the City should act • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 5 carefully because this could depart from the development on Wedington Drive. Mr. Nickle asked if the petitioner would intended uses. precedent of encouraging commercial agree to rezoning to C-2 for the Mr. Collins stated he would agree to rezoning to C-2 with the option that, if anything occurred which would not fall under C-2, they could come back before the Planning Commission. He stated he understood Mr. Merrell's intention in moving the restaurant over closer to the Farm Bureau and zoning it R -O. Mr. Nickle explained that, if the property were zoned C-2 for the specific uses outlined, it would not interfere with the placement of the restaurant. He moved that 11.25 acres of the property be rezoned to C-2 for the specific uses mentioned, use unit 4 for the golf course and use unit 20 for the driving range and batting cage. The motion was withdrawn for lack of a second. Ms. Britton asked if the property were rezoned with the assurances and then Mr. Collins did not get the property, did that mean the property was not zoned. Mr. Merrell stated that once the property was rezoned, the zoning was there. Ms. Britton stated she didn't believe it was appropriate to put commercial zoning at that location. Mr. Merrell stated there were other options which would allow Mr. Collins to proceed with his project. He stated there was the option of C-1, the option of R -O with the restaurant as a conditional use. He explained that with further development of the project when the location of the restaurant was known, the judgment could be made regarding whether the restaurant was primarily there to serve the people who used the facilities or if it would draw people in from the street. Ms. Britton stated she liked the concept of the project until Mr. Collins started adding items at the end of his presentation. She further stated there would be a major traffic impact. She stated she did not feel that was feasible at that site. Mr. Merrell stated that, if the Commission made a favorable recommendation to the City Board for some kind of rezoning, he recommended they include a proviso that it be for a fixed period of time so that Mr. Collins could, if he wanted, amend his Bill of Assurance. He explained if, Mr. Collins' financing fell through, or the sale did not occur, the recommendation could be contingent upon the initiating of construction within a certain time period. He explained the Commission had done the same thing when they approved the rezoning for Bio -Tech which was fortunate because Bio -Tech was no longer planning to use the bypass property. He further explained that it would be a safety valve. Mr. Hanna asked if it would be possible to grant the conditional use at this time and to table, indefinitely, any rezoning until the petitioner's plan was more finalized. He explained that Mr. Collins could come back before the Commission with the other items. He stated he had no objections to the project except the possible utilization of this site in the future for other commercial uses. He stated he believed the current project would be a good method for holding the property in its present state for 10 to 20 years. He reiterated that he believed it would be a viable thing to do - grant the conditional use and indefinitely table the rezoning until the petitioner was more definite about the form the development would take. • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Allred stated he thought this would be a feasible compromise - 11 acres of commercial with the balance left in green space that the city would not have to maintain. He stated that did need to be taken into consideration because there were areas in the city that had to be maintained by the city. He further stated that, if this area were to become an area for affordable housing, the traffic impact would be much greater than what this project would cause. Me. Britton pointed out that, if this area was developed for affordable housing, all of the traffic would not access at the same point, because there would be a feeder street off Betty Jo. Mr Robertson stated he had no opposition to the project, but he did have a problem with rezoning the 11 acres to commercial, since everything set out in Phase I could be granted through conditional use. He stated he would like to see a more concrete plan regarding the exact location of the restaurant and garden center before considering any portion for commercial development. • Mr. Collins stated he had intended all along to get commercial zoning and hoped he did not mislead anyone. He explained he would like to have this project open by August or September and the entire package was tied to the restaurant. He further explained that no one would be interested in even talking to him about the establishment of the restaurant unless it were zoned properly. He stated he was more than willing to give the Commission a Bill of Assurance, guaranteeing the use of the property. He asked that the zoning be concluded at this meeting so that he could continue with his project. Mr. Cato asked for city staff's recommendation, if the property were zoned C-1 • with the Bill of Assurance included. Mr. Merrell stated he still would not support a rezoning of the entire 11 acres to C-1. He further stated they might support rezoning to C-1 in the east corner next to Farm Bureau. He stated it would be better to have R -O zoning, but the restaurant would be a conditional use in the R -O zone. Mrs. Britton asked if the restaurant could not be an accessory use under A-1. • Ms. Bryant stated that was possible; however, they had no idea of the size or scope of the restaurant at this time. She explained that, if it were small enough in relationship to the sporting facility, it could be an accessory use. However, if it were to be a very large restaurant, rezoning would be required. Mr. Allred stated he believed Mr. Collins was asking for guidelines which he might be able to work within. Mr. Merrell explained this was a difficult decision for all involved; that square footage was only one factor. There was also the hours it would be open, would it be coordinated with the golf facilities, etc. He reiterated his inquiry as to whether the restaurant would be primarily for patrons of the other facilities on the grounds or if it would primarily be for people off the street, like Coy's or the Red Lobster. • Mrs. Britton stated that the suggestion that the restaurant be next to Farm Bureau would put it on the highway. She further stated she would prefer it not be on the highway. She explained she felt that, if it were closer to the golf course, it would be an associated use. She further explained that if it were visible from highway, it would pull people in from the street. Britton reiterated she would prefer it was integrated with the course. Mr. Merrell stated that once again brought up the question as whether or not a restaurant could be an accessory use. • • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 7 Mrs. Britton stated that she believed, if the restaurant were built back on the property, no matter what size it was, it would be accessory use. Ms. Bryant stated that, if it was the Commission's intent to decide the restaurant was an accessory use, that would be within the realm of the Commission's authortity. Mrs. Britton stated she believed the restaurant was an accessory use, but she did not think the garden center and some other items mentioned by Mr. Collins were accessory uses. Mr. Cleghorn asked if the Commission approved the restaurant as an accessory use it would invalidate the square footage question. Mr. Merrell stated he believed it would. He explained that it was within the purview of the Commission to make that determination based on the discussion and comments from Mr. Collins and staff. Mr. Tarvin asked why the restaurant should be limited. He stated they had not limited the winery restaurant (Cuttler Vineyards). He further stated it had been self-limiting even though its purpose was a restaurant. He explained he didn't see anything wrong with having a nice restaurant on the facility where people, other than golfers, could dine. He stated the zoning around this area was R -O, R-2, C-2. He asked, if this type of facility was not allowed at this site, where could it be allowed. He also explained he was concerned with the front getting developed but the back part of the property never getting developed. He stated he knew there was nothing the Commission could do to control that. He further stated he liked the idea of limiting the time frame to be developed. He reiterated he didn't believe it made any difference were the restaurant were located. Mr. Collins agreed that the restaurant should be close to the pro shop so that people could sit in the restaurant with a view of the course. He explained he understood their concern about making the restaurant an accessory use and that perhaps it would help them to know the restaurant would have the same name as the rest of the complex. Mr. Allred explained that the Commission liked the plan but were afraid that something different might occur than what was illustrated in the plan - that if the property were zoned C-2 it would open the door for commercial uses at a later date. Mrs. Britton stated it did not need to be rezoned at all to have a restaurant. Mr. Cleghorn asked, if the restaurant were an accessory use, could the property remain zoned A-1. Mr. Merrell stated it could. Mr. Tarvin asked if that would limit the size of the restaurant. Mr. Cleghorn stated if the restaurant were called an accessory use, it would not limit the size of the restaurant. He explained that, if the property were left A-1 with a conditional use granted for the restaurant, the plan fell through the property would still be A-1. Mr. Collins asked about the flower and garden shop. Mrs. Britton stated she did not see that as an accessory use. • • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Collins stated that people who went to the restaurant might not play golf or use any other of the facilities at the complex. Mr. Robertson asked if it would be a retail garden center. Mr. Collins stated that it would be. He explained that the complex would get its garden supplies from the garden center but that it would also be for retail sales. Mr. Tarvin asked what the limitations were if the restaurant were identified as an accessory use. Mr. Merrell explained the ground where the restaurant would sit would not have to be rezoned. Mr. Tarvin asked if it meant that in order to eat at the restaurant, one had to use other facilities at the development. Mr. Merrell stated it would not. Mr. Tarvin asked, if the flower and garden center were identified as an accessory use, it could be put in without rezoning. Mr. Merrell stated it could but that would be dangerous ground. Mr. Nickle asked what the difference was in rezoning for the golf course or restaurant and not anything else. He stated he failed to see the difference between the conditional uses and rezoning with only specific uses. Mr. Merrell stated that was the fundamental argument about what to rezone and what not to rezone in the entire Wedington corridor. He explained that staff was trying to find ways to assist Mr. Collins and accommodate his plan without rezoning so that at a later date someone else could not come in with property in the same area and use this case as an example of why they should have commercial zoning. Mr. Tarvin stated it would be considered on its own merits. In reference to an earlier question, Ms. Bryant explained that Use Unit 1, City Wide Uses By Right, includes field crop farms, fishery, forest, fruit, tree, and vegetable farms. Under Use Unit 16, Shopping Goods, there was garden supply. She explained that Use Unit 16 requires commercial zoning. Mr. Tarvin asked if the garden center could be put in with a conditional use permit if property were rezoned R -O. Mr. Merrell stated it did not appear that it could. Mr. Robertson asked if the garden center was the only thing requiring the C-2 zoning. Ms. Bryant stated that if they were going to sell on a large, retail basis, C-2 zoning would be required. Mr. Robertson suggested that, once Mr. Collins knew where the garden center would be located, he could ask just for that lot to be zoned C-2. Mr. Collins stated he had no problem with that. • • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 9 MOTION Mrs. Britton moved the Commission deny a rezoning. Mr. Allred suggested that the rezoning be tabled indefinitely rather than denied since Mr. Collins would not be able to resubmit the one piece of land for rezoning if the Commission denied the rezoning. Mr. Robertson moved the rezoning be denied and grant the conditional uses. Mr. Hanna moved the Commission table the rezoning indefinitely. Mr. Robertson's motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Britton seconded Mr. Hanna's motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE (CU 91-4) FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL; LARGE SITES IN AN A-1 ZONE (GOLF COURSE & DRIVING RANGE) RICHARD COLLINS - S. OF WEDINGTON DR., W. OF BETTY JO The second item on the agenda was a conditional use for a large site commercial recreation facility (golf course and driving range) submitted by Richard Collins for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive and the west side of Betty Jo and zoned A-1, Agriculture. This conditional use was in conjunction with the first item on the agenda; the requested rezoning from A-1 to C-2. Mrs. Britton moved that a conditional use be granted with no restriction on the size of the restaurant as an accessory use. Ms. Bryant recommended some other conditions be considered. Mr. Allred asked for staff reports on the conditional use permit. Mr. Merrell recommended that the conditional use be approved subject to the proviso that neither the size of nor the patrons of the restaurant be limited, that the sporting facility be limited to golfing and batting activities as well as accessory uses, a living screen be planted and/or maintained around the perimeter of the property, that the lighting fixtures be set back a minimum of 150 feet from all property lines and that the applicant agreed to make every reasonable effort to preserve the trees on the site. He explained the conditional use would be for the overall property (76 acres) not just one part. Mrs. Britton asked if he had to put in a sidewalk. Ms. Bryant stated that would be dealt with at the large scale development level. Mr. Cleghorn asked if the lights could be set back 150 feet. Mr. Collins stated it would be very difficult. He explained that on the west end of the property the lights covered the tee area and he would suggest 75 feet instead of 150 feet. He explained that Ozark Electric had lighting within 10 feet of the property line because there was a lot of equipment on the property. He asked if the recommendation included ground lighting. Mr. Merrell explained that staff wanted to be assured lighting would not be a nuisance for the people living along the property line. He stated this could be discussed at the large scale development level. He explained that Mr. Winkler of the electric company could then review the plan. He stated he would be glad to withdraw the lighting requirement but wanted to remind the Commission that it might come up again / 64- • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 10 Mrs. Britton asked if there were a residence at the northwest corner of the frontage property. Mr. Collins stated it was. Mrs. Britton stated that was her only concern regarding the lighting. Mr. Merrell stated he thought the lighting problems could be handled at the large scale development level. Mr. Tarvin stated there were lighting fixtures available that were very limiting as to where they would shine. Mr. Merrell agreed that there were softer lights. He stated staff had been approached by numerous astronomy enthusiasts that would like the city to move in that direction. Mr. Allred asked if the lighting situation would come back before the Commission at the large scale development level. Mr. Merrell stated that it would. Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Collins if any of these conditions would cause him problems. Mr. Collins stated they would not. MOTION Mrs. Britton restated her motion to grant a conditional use subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. Mrs. Britton stated the conditional use was for the golfing and batting facility and the accessory use of a restaurant. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. FINAL PLAT - CREERSIDE ESTATES FRANCES FERGUSON - W. OF CROSSOVER RD„ S. OF OLD WIRE RD. The third item on the agenda was a final plat of Creekside Estates submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Frances Ferguson for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains 18 acres with 7 lots. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated three of the lots had access to Highway 265 and the remainder of the lots had access to Magnolia Drive. He further stated two additional easements had been requested - one a utility easement off the north side of Lot 1, which had been approved by the owner, and the other a drainage easement along the creek to facilitate future maintenance by the City. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision comments, execution of a developer's contract for the unfinished public utilities for public improvements of the park fees and construction of sidewalks along Highway 265. Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, appeared before the Commission and stated they had no problem with the staff comments but did question the need for sidewalks at this time but understood the city would not accept a Bill of I6S • • • • • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page 11 Assurance any longer for sidewalks. He further stated that, if the city would accept a Bill of Assurance on the sidewalks, he would request that rather than presently building the sidewalks. Ms. Dorothy McGuire appeared before the Board and stated she lived on the south side of the subdivision. She explained she did not disagree with the concept but that she had a copy of a plat dated 1979 which did not show the creek. She stated the Corps of Engineers had recently done a feasibility study of the creek but she had not seen the information yet. Mrs. Britton asked if she were referring to the flood plain. Ms. McGuire stated she was. Mrs. Britton stated it was on the Commission's plats. Ms. McGuire stated she didn't understand why they would be using such old information. She also asked why the adjoining property owners had not been notified of this meeting. Mr. Bunn explained that preliminary plat had been construct the subdivision. Commission, everything was could be altered by public final plats did not require notification. When approved that was really approval to go ahead and Many times, when the final plat came before the done. He further explained it was not something that comment at that time. Mr. Merrell explained that he had been told the Corps of Engineers were taking longer than they had expected on the feasibility study MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comment. Mr. Hanna asked staff if they wanted to accept a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk. Ms. Bryant stated they would rather not accept a Bill of Assurance. She explained the City needed badly to get started on the sidewalk system. Mr. Merrell stated that staff had been very reluctant to continue accepting Bill of Assurances on sidewalks even though that had been the common practice for many years. He explained that many times they had accepted a Bill of Assurance and then later the property had been sold and the sidewalks were never built. Mr. Allred stated he thought that was a good idea; there were already some places along the highway that had sidewalks. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-2-0 with Tarvin, Hanna, Cato, Cleghorn, Nickel and Allred voting "yes" and Robertson and Britton voting "no". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.