Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-25 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 25, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, Jack Cleghorn, Jett Cato, Jana Lynn Britton, and Mark Robertson OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 25 and March 11, 1991, were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PETITION R91-5 PETE ESTES FOR THE BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE - SW OF HWY 112, E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition R91-5 submitted by Pete Estes on behalf of owner, The Bank of Fayetteville, for property located on the southwest side of Highway 112, east of Deane Solomon road. The request was to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and A-1, Agriculture, to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. Ms. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, explained that the size of the property under discussion for rezoning was 1.83 acres part of a larger tract of 33.4 acres. She explained that Bio -Tech processes and wholesales food products like vitamins and supplements. The closest match for this is Use Unit 21, warehousing and wholesale, and the restaurant falls under Use Unit 13, Eating Places, which is also a use -by -right in I-1. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 constitutes the original block of C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning. The Benedicte wish to allow Parcel 1 to revert from C-2 to A-1; Parcel 2 to be rezoned from C-2 to I-1; and Parcel 3 to be rezoned from A-1 to I-1. All of the surrounding property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Bunn stated the Bank was offering a Bill of Assurance, restricting the use of the I-1 property to the processing and wholesaling of health products and to a restaurant, restricting the restaurant operations to their current location in the barn and to maintain or add a vegetative barrier where necessary to protect adjacent neighbors. He explained that current staff would have probably opposed the original rezoning in 1985 because this did not seem to be an appropriate location for a C-2 tract; however, the Cotners had invested considerable money into the property on the basis of the rezoning. Staff was recommending approval of the rezoning for two reasons: 1) I-1 is a more appropriate zoning classification than C-2, since the tract is not located on a major thoroughfare, and 2) denying the rezoning has the potential of constituting inverse condemnation in light of improvements made to the property and the limits to use under the current zoning and Bill of Assurance. Mr. Pete Estes, representing the Bank of Fayetteville, appeared before the Commission and explained the planning staff had recommended I-1 zoning for this parcel rather than C-2. He stated there was no anticipated increase of building /6i • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 2 on these tracts. The "barn" would be the manufacturing portion of the enterprise, while the restaurant in the downstairs area of the barn would maintain the wholesaling and warehousing portion of the business. He assured the neighborhood there would be no smokestacks or other industrial enterprises on the property but there would be shrubbery and trees around the boundaries of the property to beautify the area. In answer to a question regarding use of the property from Dr. Lewis, Mr. Jim Evans, representing Dale and Marty Benedict, explained Bio -Tech (the business owned by the Benedicts) further processed vitamins. He further explained they desired to recreate the vineyards. Bio -Tech wishes to present seminars to the pharmaceutical people that purchase their product. The restaurant will be used in conjunction with the seminars and, at present, will not be opened to the public. He further explained the reason for the request for rezoning was to include another building on the tract of land to the north of the restaurant which had not been included in the 1985 rezoning. Mr. Evans further pointed out that the Benedicts were going to be living on the property. Dr. Lewis asked the difference between C-2 and I-1. Mr. Springborn explained there was a very slight difference. The previous zoning required a conditional use in order to operate the business. In changing the zoning, it allows the operation to continue by right without the conditional use. Mr Sam Thorton, a resident living across the street from the subject property, and expressed concern regarding traffic hazards due to a dangerous intersection in that area. Mr. Jim Sandlin, a resident of the area, stated six years ago he had asked for a study on the land use in that area but none had ever been done. He again asked that planning staff conduct a study of land use in the entire area explaining no one had ever conducted a study to determine the proper use for the land. Ms. Susan Honeycut, another resident of the area, appeared before the Commission, to protest the rezoning. She stated she did not want industrial uses in her neighborhood. Mr. Nickle agreed a study needed to be done for that area. He asked if the RM plan had covered the proposed area. Ms. Bryant stated she had not seen what the RM plan did in that area but there was a large tract of I-1 close to where the industrial park was located. She further stated the RM plan was to be radically revised this summer. MOTION Mr. Tarvin explained that, while he understood the concern of the neighbors, he believed this would have a very light impact on the area. He stated he was relived that the Bill of Assurances would limit the use of the property and should the Benedict's sell the property, the new property owner would have to come back before the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Tarvin then moved to recommend the rezoning as requested. There was discussion about requiring a time limit for the Benedict's project to commence operation. Ms. Bryant explained that staff had not wanted the property to revert back, because they felt I-1 zoning was more appropriate than C-2 zoning. • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Benedict explained they wanted to move as soon as they could and, therefore, had no problems with a set time limit. Mr. Springborn stated he agreed with staff recommendation with respect to the Bill of Assurance, explaining it would run with the land. He further explained that, should this piece of property come back before the Commission, the entire tract could be rezoned. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Mr. Allred reminded the Commission that at one point this property had come before them as a subdivision with the proposal that the proposed buyers do all the improvements. He stated he believed that would have been a much greater negative impact on the neighborhood. The motion passed 9-0-0. The public present was informed if they wished to appeal, this matter would be presented to the Board of Directors. PUBLIC HEARING OF REZONING PETITION R91-6 DAVE JORGENSEN ON BEHALF OF DUANE NELSON - W OF COLLEGE, N OF HWY 71 BYPASS The third item on the agenda was a public hearing of rezoning petition R91-6 submitted by Duane Nelson and represented by Dave Jorgensen for property located west of College Avenue, north of Highway 71 Bypass. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, and R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained the property in question is west of Nelson's Funeral Home and south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He stated one piece of the property that is being requested rezoned is from R-2 to C-2, containing approximately 10 acres and contained in a proposed subdivision, while the other piece of property is requested to be rezoned from A-1 to C-2, containing approximately 33 acres. The staff recommends both rezonings due to its overall location and neighboring commercial land uses. In reply to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the Master Street Plan called for Stearn Street to be a four -lane street however he didn't know if they wished the four -lane to be constructed at this time. He further explained the City was asking for the right-of-way required to construct a four -lane street. Mr. Bunn explained the plan was for Stearns to go on to the west and tie in with Johnson Road on Gregg Street. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing Duane Nelson, appeared before the Commission and pointed out the area designated for a subdivision. He advised that part of the property was already zoned commercial and they were requesting the rest of the property to carry the same designation. Mr. Jorgensen stated adjoining property owners were in favor of this rezoning. This property did not lend itself to a residential area. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen stated the R-1 property owner to the north was the Arkansas Mall and had no objections to the rezoning. There was further discussion regarding the location of proposed streets and any traffic bottlenecks this project might create. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the rezoning as requested. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. l Of • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 4 The motion passed 9-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING OF REZONING PETITION R91-7 CLAUDE & FRANCES LANGHAM - 3200 OLD MISSOURI ROAD The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing of rezoning petition R91-7 submitted by Claude and Frances Langham for property at 3200 Old Missouri Road. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, and R-1, Low Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The property consists of a tract containing 1.22 acres. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained that staff had originally recommended approval of only the R-1 zoning; however, recently a developer had expressed a desire to purchase a 13 to 16 acre tract adjacent to the subject property and to rezone it to R-1.5, in order to build affordable housing in the area. Mr. Bunn further explained that, upon receiving that inquiry, planning staff altered their recommendation to table this item in order to study the entire area with the expectation that perhaps they could recommend R-1.5 rezoning upon completion of the study. In answer to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated the developer had not made application for rezoning at this time. Mr. Bunn described the zoning in the vicinity of the tract in question, explained staff felt this tract was not distinguishable from other R-1 zoning in the area and, therefore, recommended the Commission deny the R-1.5 rezoning request but approve the A-1 to R-1 request. Mr. Hanna explained the would be the perfect residences. He further across the street from A-1 property was a nursing home and he believed the R-1.5 buffer between the nursing home and single family stated that there was also a row of duplexes a block long this area. Mr. Claude Langham, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and explained the townhouses would provide housing for older people that did not need a nursing home facility, but would desire to live in a close neighbor situation with an association taking care of the grounds, offering security and other optional services. Mr. Langham reviewed the surrounding zoning and geography. He stated he believed this project would be a progressive step for the area and a buffer between the nursing home and single family residences. Frances Langham then appeared before the Commission, telling them of her personal and professional background. She explained she believed this type of housing was needed by the community. She stated there were natural barriers between this piece of property and the single family residences. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the rezoning as requested from A-1 and R-1 to R-1.5. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. Mr. Tarvin stated he believed this development would enhance the quality of the area even though the zoning was to R-1.5. The motion passed 9-0-0. X69 • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING OF REZONING PETITION R91-8 JAMES PICRETT - 1301 ZION ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing of rezoning petition R91-8 submitted by George Faucette on behalf of James Pickett for property at 1301 Zion Road. The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated the staff recommended rezoning of the property as requested. He explained that staff had been working on a Zion Road Plan and believed the rezoning would be consistent with the new plan. Mr. George Faucette appeared before the Commission to answer any questions they might have. He explained this particular tract of land did not encroach further east than existing office uses. Mr. Faucette stated the alternative use for this property was R-2 which would, he believed, have a higher impact as far as traffic and use, than the R-0. Mr. Jamie Jones, 1654 E. Zion Road, appeared before the Commission and explained that originally, when the offices were built, the existing Planning Commission had assured the neighborhood that there would be no R-0 zoning extending to the east on Zion Road. He stated he did not want to see a precedent set allowing the rezoning of existing residences to R-0. Mr. Jones stated he had no objection to this rezoning. Ms. Maxine Hutchins, 1721 Zion Road, stated that all discussions regarding the land use on Zion Road were vague; she wanted definite answers as to the planned land use in that area. Mr. Allred explained that the question before the Commission was one particular rezoning. The land use plan for Zion Road would be discussed at a later time, because they did not have the information at this date. Ms. Hutchins expressed displeasure as to the current land use, because the neighborhood was becoming a commercial area. She further stated she believed this application should be denied. Ms. Britton asked if Ms. Hutchins would prefer leaving the zoning R-2 as it was which would allow apartment buildings. Me. Britton explained that she believed the R-0 zoning would have less of an impact in the area. Ms. Hutchins stated she did not want either zoning. Mr. Hanna stated he believed the plan was to keep Zion Road from becoming any more commercial than it already was. He further stated rezoning in this case would be less intense influence than the current zoning. Mr. Joe Lewis, a resident of the area, explained the property in question had been a rental property and there had been problems with some of the renters. He further explained he much preferred the site be an office. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved that the property be rezoned from R-2 to R-0. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. /70 • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SPRING PARK PHASE I DUANE NELSON - W OF COLLEGE, N OF HWY 71 BYPASS The sixth item on the agenda was presentation of a preliminary plat for Spring Park, Phase I, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Duane Nelson. The property is located west of College Avenue and north of Highway 71 Bypass. The property is proposed C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 19.77 acres with 7 lots. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained this tract of land contained property that had been recommended to be rezoned by the Planning Commission. He emphasized that even without the rezoning, lots 4 and 5 were legal lots and the subdivision could be approved even if the rezoning were denied. He stated the staff had raised two issues: 1) the width of Stearn Street and 2) a requirement that Mall Lane Avenue be constructed to the north to tie into the existing street running east and west, south of the mall. Mr. Bunn further explained that Stearn Street was a minor arterial scheduled to be constructed in 1994 for two lanes only with the right-of-way being acquired to eventually construct a four -lane street. He stated he believed it was the intent of the City at this time to consider paying for the two extra lanes on Stearns Street now since the developer would be paying for two lanes. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments: the developer pay for two lanes of Stearns Street, construction of sidewalks per city ordinance, and construction of Mall Avenue north to the street just south of the mall. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained that due to existing development, not contained in the subdivision, they could only request 60 feet of right-of-way. He stated he believed 60 feet of right-of-way would be sufficient for a four -lane street. ti Ms. Britton stated it would be in the interest of the subdivision if' Mr. Nelson would contribute the right-of-way of his own free will. Mr. Bunn stated the City would certainly accept another 20 feet of right-of-way if it were offered. Mr. Nickle explained the subdivision committee's recommendations were in conjunction with the staff - that the Commission approve this requiring the construction of Mall Avenue north in order to relieve the traffic problems in that area. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing Duane Nelson, appeared before the Commission and stated the owner/developer was in agreement with all of the stipulations set forth by staff. He explained that Mr. Nelson preferred a four -lane street be put in accordance with the master street plan. Mr. Jorgensen stated it might be possible to get another five feet of right-of-way on the east end; however, he believed 60 feet would be adequate. He pointed out that the size of the lots would require a large scale development -plan would be brought before the Planning Commission before development could occur. In response to a question from Ms. Britton regarding the ceding of 70 feet of right-of-way, Mr. Jorgensen explained the funeral home will have a new entrance coming directly off of Stearn Street with the turning radius being tight; however they might get five more feet for right-of-way. He further explained that, with 60 feet of right-of-way, the street could go in with curbs and sidewalks, and they would still have enough area for the new entrance. Ms. Britton explained that right-of-way was for more than just streets and she considered it essential to have the appropriate amount of right-of-way. /7/ • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Bunn stated that, once a design was completed on the street, the appropriate amount of right-of-way would be apparent. He explained that, if more right-of- way were required, he hoped it would be donated. Mr. Allred concurred that at some point that might create a problem and asked how it be addressed at this point. Mr. Jorgensen suggested the plat be approved subject to the determination of actual right-of-way upon completion of design. He stated, if more right-of-way were needed, they would have no choice but to donate more. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved that the preliminary plat be accepted subject to plat review and subdivision comments: the developer pay for two lanes of Stearns Street, construct sidewalks per city ordinance and construct Mall Avenue north to the street immediately south of the mall, with the provision that if extra right-of- way is needed in order to construct the street, that the developer be asked to donate it. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. FINAL PLAT - EDGE HILL SUBDIVISION MARE FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES - W OF COUNTRY CLUB DR, S OF RAVENSWOOD LN The seventh item on the agenda was the final plat of Edge Hill Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Buddy Peoples. The property is located west of Country Club Drive, south of Ravenswood Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 15.31 acres with 26 lots. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated there was only one concern raised by the utilities regarding access to the subdivision from Ravenswood Lane. Mr. Dave Jorgensen explained the concern was for access to the north side of the subdivision and the utility companies had determined the access could be accomplished through a platted utility easement. Mr. Bunn stated that, according to the conditions of approval on the preliminary plat, provision had been made for right-of-way to the west and was shown on the final plat. He explained five of the lots were to be served by a system of grinder pumps and small diameter collection lines. The further explained the staff would have to review and approve those systems. The systems will be entirely privately maintained. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments: sidewalk construction, payment of parks fees according to city ordinance, as -built location of the water and sewer line (the lines were constructed in 1971) and a contract for any unfinished public improvements. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained that the individual grinder pumps at each of the five houses would be individually maintained. The city would not maintain any of the lines until it was pumped into a manhole owned by the City. Mr. Tarvin asked if one of the privately maintained lines should clog up, who was responsible for it. Mr. Bunn stated he would presume it would be controlled by some type of property 171 • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 8 owners association, but the developers would have to assure city staff the system would work and they had the controls necessary to do it. Mr. Jorgensen explained that both the plat and the covenants made notice that lots 13 through 17 required a standard residential grinder pump system and the property owners of lots 13 through 17 were responsible for the maintenance of the pump and system and also the line leading to the manhole before the city would take over maintenance of any waste water treatment. Mr. Nickle explained subdivision committee discussed this matter at length. He suggested that the city engineer require separate lines from each individual lot to the manhole before a building permit would be issued. Mr. Bunn stated he would have to see the developer's proposal. He explained there would be no building permits issued until the plan was approved by the city. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen explained they had looked at the option of building one conventional lift station, but the cost of the gravity line and pump station far exceed the cost of individual grinder pumps. He further explained this had been done quite often around Hot Springs Village and Mt. Harbour. Mr. Tarvin stated he was more concerned about problems with the common line. Mr. Jorgensen responded that he would meet with the City Engineer to work out any problems. Mr. Bunn explained that final approval of the plat did not bind them to any particular type of system to be used. He suggested the Commission could condition the approval of the final plat upon authorization of the system by the city. He further explained this was an obvious problem that would have to be taken care of; however, it was a Planning Commission decision as to whether they wanted to consider the system in approval of the subdivision. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved that the final plat for Edge Hill Subdivision be approved as submitted, subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments: sidewalk construction per city ordinance, payment of park fees per city ordinance, as -built locations for water and sewer and a contract for any unfinished public improvements, with the understanding that the as -built water and sewer satisfy the city engineer. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. FINAL PLAT - LEVRRETT TERRACE TOWNHOUSES ROBERT WHITFIELD - NE CORNER POPLAR & LEVERETT The eighth item on the agenda was a final plat for Leverett Terrace Townhouses submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Robert Whitfield. The property is located at the northeast corner of Poplar and Leverett and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 5.03 acres with 53 lots. Mr. Don Bunn explained this was a townhouse development. In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Jorgensen explained that it had gone through preliminary plat review as a planned unit development. 73 • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Bunn explained he was not quite sure that was an appropriate approval since it did not have any open or common space. He stated it was a townhouse development consisting of 53 multi -family lots (2 residences per lot) and 11 single family lots. He further explained there had been some additional easements requested by the utility companies which had been granted by the owner. He stated, in staff's opinion, the development, as submitted, meets all of the city's requirements and that of the state's horizontal property regime regulations. Mr. Bunn explained that several issues had been raised by staff, including parking, since this development was along Poplar Street. He suggested there perhaps should be access from Van Gough Place to the units along Poplar Street to allow some off street parking. He stated they were concerned about the parking even though it did meet the city's requirements. Mr. Bunn stated another possible problem was the side yard waiver that had been requested. He explained this had been approved when the preliminary plat was approved, however it had not been submitted in writing by the developer. The developer has now submitted the request in writing to allow for zero lot line. The staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments: subsequent approval of the water, sewer, streets and drainage plans by city engineering; construction of the sidewalks; payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinance; payment, in cash, of the developer's share of Poplar Street improvements (one-half of a standard street); submission to the city of the subdivision covenants; and, if final plat is to be filed before completion of improvements, execution of a contract with the city wherein the city would hold a certain number of lots in lieu of the completion of the public improvements. In reply to a question from Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bunn explained that the parking area was to be configured so that there will be turn -around space in front of the apartments so there will be no need to back out on Poplar Street. He showed the Commission the parking plan. Mr. Robertson stated he thought there would be numerous problems with both the parking and driveway solutions if Leverett Terrace was the same as the Garland Townhouses. He stated that most of the residents of the townhouses had at least two cars and, with one car garages, at least one of the cars were parked in the turn -around area. Mr. Jorgensen explained that had been improved. There was now a one car garage, directly behind the garage was a two-lane turn -around space and all of the turn- around spaces were connected, making four parking spaces for each unit. After considerable discussion regarding potential parking problems, including the private drive and cul-de-sac being used as a parking lot, the turn -around being blocked by parked vehicles, Mr. Bob Whitfield, the owner/developer, explained the covenants did not permit blockage of the driveway. He further stated this project was an owner -occupied development, principally where the parent buys a home for one child. He explained the covenants covered the parking, the access and ingress, and the covenants were enforced. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained the parking had been discussed at the time of the preliminary plat and it was approved at that time. Mr. Hanna stated he understood the parking concerns, but they were also interested in getting affordable housing in this area. • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 10 Mr. Whitfield explained that he believed this parking area was an improvement over the Garland Terrace design in that the driveways could not be blocked, there was more parking and access, and there was no backing out onto Poplar. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Whitfield stated there was not any restrictions on the number of occupants in one of the townhouses; however, there was a nuisance clause if someone created a nuisance for his neighbors or the community at large. There was further discussion regarding a city ordinance regulating the number of non -family members that could live in a single family residence. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved the final plat for Leverett Terrace Townhouses be accepted subject to the staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. Mr. Jorgensen asked if the sidewalks could be constructed and if the payment of parks fees could be paid as each unit was built. Mr. Bunn stated the construction of the sidewalks and payment of the parks fees could be unit by unit; however, there was a five year limitation and the owner would pay in full at the end of the five year period. Mr. Jorgensen, asked if in lieu of the payment in cash of the developer's share of Poplar Street improvements, they could submit a letter of assurance and a contract on lots that would amount to the developer's share good for a two year period. Mr. Bunn explained they would expect the money be paid prior to the time construction was started but probably could accept some type of agreement until that time. He suggested this be discussed with the Director of Planning. Mr. Hanna noted his motion should have included the side yard waiver so that there are zero lot lines. The motion passed 6-3-0, with Cato, Cleghorn, Nickle, Tarvin, Allred and Hanna voting in favor and Robertson, Britton and Springborn opposed. Mr. Nickle left the meeting. CONCURRENT PLAT - POINT WEST SUBDIVISION PHASE II M.A.P. GROUP - W OF SHILOH, S OF MT. COMFORT RD The ninth item on the agenda was a concurrent plat for Phase II, submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of M. A. is located on the west side of Shiloh and south of property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial -Heavy Commercial with 6 lots. Point West Subdivision, P. Group. The property Mt. Comfort Road. The and contains 15.92 acres Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated the general public often was confused by the terms "preliminary plat" and "final plat". He explained the preliminary plat approval gave the developer the right to construct the subdivision completely without any further approval by anyone except the city in approving detailed street plans, water and sewer plans, etc. Preliminary plat approval was final approval for the developer to develop the subdivision, put in the streets, water and sewer. The final plat approval is the method used to allow the developer to sell lots. Mr. Bunn stated hopefully they could find a better terminology so it would be clearer to the general public. 7¢ • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 11 Mr. Robertson asked what occurred before the preliminary plat. Mr. Bunn stated there were no meetings prior to the preliminary plat approval where the Planning Commission would view a subdivision, unless the developer submitted a "Concept Plat". When a concept plat is submitted, the Planning Commission has two opportunities to review the subdivision - the first to make general type comments (the concept plat does not have to be developed as far as the preliminary plat) and the second for approval of the preliminary plat. Ms. Britton asked if the first stage was the subdivision review. Mr. Bunn stated that was part of the planning process. He stated the plat review comes first. In further answer to Me. Britton's question, Mr. Bunn explained that was the first point where corrections were made. He stated the plat review was first, then subdivision committee review and then the planning commission review. Mr. Bunn further stated it was the intent that the final plat be filed after all construction had been completed. In response to a question from Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bunn explained that if the preliminary plat had been approved and then the developer did not construct any thing on the property, the Planning Commission could refuse to file the final plat Mr. Bunn then explained that Point West Subdivision, Phase II, was being presented as a concurrent plat (a preliminary and final plat together). He further explained that, in order to file a concurrent plat, the lots must be of a certain size or previously platted lots were being revised. The conditions for a concurrent plat have been met. Mr. Bunn further explained that approval of this plat would be the same as approval of a final plat. He stated there was one gas line that would have to be relocated because of a change in easement and the owner had agreed to relocate it. There was also a possibility that additional fire hydrants would have to be constructed but that would depend upon the location of any future buildings. Mr. Bunn stated that other than the two fire hydrants, there are no further public utilities to be constructed. he explained notifications were made to adjoining property owners just as though this was a preliminary plat so they would have a chance to comment. Mr. Bunn recommended the concurrent plat be approved and that it be approved as a final plat. Mr. Milholland appeared before the Commission and stated additional fire hydrants shall be constructed by individual lot developers to provide on site fire protection within 500 feet of the furthest point from all buildings. He further explained that there would be a provision for large scale development approval by the planning commission on these tracts. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved that the concurrent plat be approved subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-5 - BED AND BREAKFAST CECELIA THOMPSON - 131 S. HILL The tenth item on the agenda was conditional use CU91-5 for a bed and breakfast to be located at 131 S. Hill. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. 75 • • • Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Page 12 Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained staff had found ingress and egress to be satisfactory but did not feel adequate arrangements had been made for off-street parking. As a single family residence, two off-street parking spaces are required, plus one space per guest room must be provided, a total of 5 spaces. Mr. Bunn explained there was not a problem with compatibility with adjacent properties. He further pointed out that this is a temporary conditional use and can be reviewed in the future if complaints were received. Mr. Bunn stated the ordinance specifically gives the planning commission the discretion to allow the owner of the bed and breakfast to stack automobiles in the driveway, but staff recommends against that. He further stated the section gives the planning commission authority to allow on -street parking to meet all or part of the parking requirements; however staff had noted there was no parking on Hill Street. Mr. Bunn noted the planning staff had felt this was a reasonable request except for the parking issue and recommended approval of the conditional use subject to two requirements: 1) the Thompsons providing three parking spaces in the back yard, and 2) the Thompsons compliance with the terms of Section 160.095 (provisions for a bed and breakfast facility). Mrs. Cecelia Thompson appeared before the Commission and stated she believed they did have adequate parking - two spaces in front of the house and an extremely long driveway (approximately 120 feet). She explained, if they were to put parking in the back yard, they would have to remove trees and that was not acceptable to them as property owners. Mr. Hanna agreed with the petitioner that the back yard was too pretty to cut parking spaces out of it. He stated he would assume their personal cars could be parked around the corner when guests were present. Mr. Allred stated bed and breakfast facilities were attracted to older properties but moat older properties did not have adequate parking. He further stated he believed that was one of the reasons the ordinance gave the planning commission the discretion to stack vehicles was to compensate for that problem. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the conditional use subject to the compliance with the terms of Section 160.095. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. Mr. Allred stated that item no. 11, Discussion on Excavation and Grading Ordinance, had been tabled. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.