Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 9, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Mark Robertson, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin and Jett Cato OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the November 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI, S OF ZION The second item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Ridgewood Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee. The property is located east of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road and is zoned A-1, Agriculture (with R-1, Low Density Residential proposed) and contains 25.61 acres with 16 lots. Mr. Bunn stated the preliminary plat had been submitted on October 10th and to the Subdivision Committee on October 17th. He explained the plat had been scheduled for the October 28th Planning Commission meeting but had been pulled from the agenda by the developers. Mr. Bunn further stated there had been no significant comments or issues raised by the utility companies at the Plat Review meeting other than some additional utility easements, which had been agreed to by the owners. However, staff raised two issues concerning the main road into the subdivision. He explained the first issue was that the name of the street should be Stearns Street since it lined up directly with Stearns on the west side of Old Missouri Road. He stated the staff had also recommended that a street easement of 50 feet should be provided to the east side of the subdivision to allow for eventual extension of Stearns Street on to the east and eventually Highway 265. 262. • Mr. Bunn stated the other issues discussed at the Plat Review meeting were the location of sidewalks and drainage. • • Mr. Bunn explained the Subdivision Committee's discussion centered mainly on the question of whether the right-of-way should be extended on to the east. He stated the item had been tabled and there had been no recommendation from the subdivision committee. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the plat review committee comments; submittal and approval of the plans for water, sewer, street, and drainage construction; a Bill of Assurance for the construction of a sidewalk on Old Missouri Road; payment of parks fees as required by city ordinance; the granting of a street easement of 50 feet for the eventual extension of a street through the subdivision to the east along Stearns Street extended; and the naming of the street entering the subdivision "Stearns Street". He explained the recommendation did not include the construction of Stearns through the subdivision but at some point in the future it could be extended. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the width of the frontage was measured at the setback line. He further explained the frontage could be reduced around a cul-de-sac. Ms. Britton noted there were several lots in the proposed subdivision with dual access points but neither frontage measured 70 feet. She also pointed out that the end of the cul-de-sac to the north would be five driveways. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated the frontage could be reduced by 80% on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the frontage was measured at the setback line and they did have adequate frontage. He also noted they were requesting lots 8 and 9 be tandem lot. Mr. Bunn pointed out that Lot 8 did have frontage on Old Missouri Road so it would not be a tandem lot. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen explained that the two accesses for Lot 11 were requested by the owners. Ms. Britton pointed out a potential problem in making the access a throughway from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jim Sybert, representing the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated they could solve the problem regarding two accesses for Lot 11. He explained the second access was planned because the area was very steep and the owners were trying to provide access for trucks during construction of the houses. Mr. Jorgensen informed the Commission there would not be access from Old Missouri Road other than from Stearns Street. • • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 3 In response to a question from Ms. Britton regarding Lot 7, Mr. Bunn stated all of the lots (1 thru 7) had the necessary frontage on Old Missouri Road in order to be a legal lot. He explained the regulations did not require that the 70 -foot frontage be available on the same street that the access was located. Ms. Britton asked a question regarding a previous subdivision on the west side of College. She asked if the right-of-way had just been dedicated or if the street was going to be built to the property line. Mr. Bunn stated the street would be built to the property line but the owner also owned the property to the west which he would be developing. There was also discussion regarding the name of a portion of "Stearns Street" now being Joyce Boulevard.. Mr. Jorgensen explained he believed the main issue on this project was the providing of 50 feet of right-of-way to allow for future construction of a through street. He stated Mr. Sybert would address the issue of a through street. Mr. Sybert explained the area was quite hilly and wooded. He discussed preservation of some of the trees in the area. He also explained they believed the east -west cul-de-sac should be named something other than "Stearns" in order to avoid confusion since it would be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Sybert stated it would kill the subdivision to put a through street in. He explained the property was on the edge of hill, already burdened with numerous easements. He pointed out the vicinity of both Joyce Street and Zion Road and stated he did not believe the city needed another east -west through street only 1,000 feet from Joyce Blvd. He informed the Commission that, should Stearns become a through street from Highway 265 to the intersection of Stearns and Joyce, it would be a traffic disaster. He stated the street also did not need to be a through street to accommodate the adjoining property owner. He explained there were numerous tracts of land for sale that would provide access to the adjoining property. He expressed his opinion that the area needed more north -south streets between Joyce Street and Zion Road than it did east -west streets between Highways 265 and 71. Mr. Sybert presented the Commission with a map of the area, pointing out the roads in the area. He pointed out that further south Rockwood Trail and Manor Lane, if connected, would have • provided a through street between Highway 45 (Mission Blvd.) and Highway 265 (Crossover Road). He stated that had not been required. • • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Sybert submitted that, since this property was on the side of a hill, the banks were very high. He stated the land did not lend itself to the installation of sidewalks. Ms. Francis Rudco, representing the owner of the adjoining property to the east, explained there was only one access to the property through Lisa Lane. She stated there were plans to develop the property within the next year and a half. She expressed her belief that the city should require further access to that property at this time. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated the extension of Stearns was not on the Master Street Plan. He further stated sidewalks were required on both sides of Old Missouri Road. Ms. Britton pointed out the Master Street Plan had not been updated in quite some time and it was very logical to not cut off access to other property in the area. She explained it was proposed to extend Stearns to Gregg. She expressed her belief that it was quite important to extend Stearns Street as much as possible. Mr. Sybert again pointed out the adjoining property owner could purchase other property to give access to his property. He asked why Joyce Boulevard would not be sufficient. Ms. Britton explained there were already several pieces of property that had dedicated land for Stearns Boulevard. Mr. Cleghorn stated when the proposed tract came before the Subdivision Committee there had been discussion of finding another location for Stearns. He explained the developer was supposed to find an alternative route. Mr. Sybert explained another route would not work. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained he did not know if Stearns would ever reach Highway 265. He further explained he believed it would be a good idea for Stearns to go to 265 but staff's request related to circulation through subdivisions. Mr. Allred stated, if the owner could work out a compromise granting extension of Stearns into some other areas, that could be a viable alternative. Ms. Britton informed the Commission that at the subdivision meeting they had attempted to compromise with the owner by allowing Stearns • to go to the south of the subject property. She explained they had requested the owners provide only half of the right-of-way for a • • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 5 road £o the south. She stated the petitioner was not interested in that compromise. Mr. Sybert explained the entry to the subdivision would then be off a steep hill. He asked if they were requesting this be done to provide a through street to Highway 265 or just to accommodate the adjoining land owner. Ms. Little stated staff's motive was to have a pathway for Stearns Street to be extended from Highway 71 to Highway 265. She explained they would be requiring that from any developer along the proposed route. She further explained the Fire Department had described numerous instances of problems due to lack of circulation. She stated the Master Street Plan had not been updated in the last 20 years. Mr. Sybert pointed out that in Paradise View there had been an excellent opportunity to make a through street but none had been required. He expressed his belief they were asking for the right- of-way to accommodate the adjoining property owner. MOTION Mr. Robertson moved to accept the preliminary plat based on all comments and recommendations by staff including the providing of a 50 -foot easement and all recommendations and comments by the appropriate committees. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. Mr. Allred stated he wished they would be able to accommodate everyone on this matter. He noted that from the plat it appeared to be a nice development. He further stated he would like to see the problems worked out. Mr. Robertson stated staff had attempted to work with the petitioners on compromise by showing alternatives on circulation but the petitioners had not been willing to compromise. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Bunn explained that, should the petitioners and staff work out a compromise, the city would require a replat unless it was a very minor change. Ms. Little stated that, should a replat be required, she believed they would be able to waive any additional fees. She stated they could amend the motion to that effect. • Mr. Robertson amended to his motion to include that a replat of this property not be subject to additional fees. • • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 6 Ms. Britton seconded the amended motion. The motion passed 4-3-0 with Commissioners Britton, Springborn, Cleghorn, and Robertson voting "yes" and Commissioners Nickle, Hanna and Allred voting "no". Mr. Allred informed the petitioners the matter could be appealed to the Board of Directors. Mr. Bunn explained the procedure would be that the petitioner would need to contact a member of the Board of Directors because only a Board member could appeal to the Board of Directors. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 91-23 JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLEE - E OF OLD MISSOURI, S OF ZION The next item on the agenda was a request for a public hearing on Rezoning 91-23 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee for property located east of Old Missouri Road and south of Zion Road for property containing 25.61 acres. The request is to rezone A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Allred stated the applicants wished to table this item. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table the rezoning hearing. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-27 JIM WATSON - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD, E OF JERRY AVE. The next item to be heard before the Planning Commission was a request for approval of Rezoning R91-27 submitted by Jim Watson and represented by Tom Hopper. The property is located on the south side of Huntsville Road (at the south side of the intersection of Crossover Road and Huntsville Road), east of Jerry Avenue and contains 8.81 acres. The request is to rezone A-1, Agricultural, and R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little explained the tract consisted of three parcels, containing 15.4 acres but the zoning request was just for 8.81 acres, leaving the remainder of the tract as A-1. She stated the surrounding zoning was R-1 to the east, west and northwest, A-1 to the south and C-2 to the northeast. She further stated land uses included single family residential, agricultural, and with the C-2 2.63 • • • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 7 portion was being undeveloped. She explained that from a land use perspective the subject rezoning could allow commercial services to support an area of future of growth in the southeast. Ms. Little stated Huntsville Road (Highway 16) was currently heavily travelled and the intersection with Highway 265 was a difficult intersection. She further stated the subject intersection had been identified in the CIP plan as the next priority for installation of a traffic signal. She informed the Commission that Highway 265 was designated as a collector street and Highway 16 (Huntsville Road) was designated as an arterial street. Ms. Little further informed the Commission that the Watsons would submit a large scale development plan. She explained this was importance since there was an existing flood plain on the subject property. She also stated the issues of fill and grade would have to be addressed at the time of the presentation of the large scale development. Ms. Little recommended approval of the rezoning primarily because it was located at the intersection of two major streets (a proper location for commercial zoning; traffic control being addressed by the installation of the traffic signal; and the large scale development review would provide an opportunity to address development problems specific to the site. Mr. Hopper appeared before the Commission to answer any questions they might have. MOTION Mr. Hanna stated he believed the Watson Supermarket was a very important part of Highway 16 and moved to grant the rezoning as requested. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE 91-26 - HOME OCCUPATION (BEAUTY SALON) DONETTE RATZLAFF - 2905 OLD WIRE RD. The fifth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a home occupation for a beauty salon submitted by Donette Ratzlaff for property located at 2905 Old Wire Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Allred explained the applicant had requested this item be tabled. z6¢ Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 8 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table this item. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission then recessed in order to present proclamations in honor of Commissioners Hanna, Springborn, and Robertson. The term of office of all three Commissioners will expire before there is another Planning Commission meeting. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ADAMS STREET TOWNHOMES GLENN SOWDER - SW CORNER OF ADAMS ST. AND GREGG AVE. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for Adams Street Townhomes presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Glenn Sowder for property located at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of seven new townhouse units located on .70 of an acre. He further explained there were three existing houses on the property facing Gregg Street. He stated there were comments from the utilities regarding a proposal to connect the existing houses. He explained there were certain criteria that would need to be met as far as the point of entrance of the utilities. Mr. Bunn stated sewer would have to be extended from the west to serve the new units. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the plat review and subdivision comments; the granting of all required utility easements by separate instrument; reconstruction of the sidewalk and curb along Gregg Street; and the payment of parks fees as required by ordinance. He explained there was a possibility that work would be done by the city on Gregg Street but it was not in the Capitol Improvement Plan at this time. He further explained he had not required any off-site improvements to Gregg Street. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen stated he had spoken with Greg Fields regarding the location of the dumpster. He informed the Commission they had made a change in the parking so no one would have to back out onto Adams Street. He explained Mr. Fields did not see a problem with the proposed location of the dumpster. L65 Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 9 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the large scale development in accordance with the recommendations of staff. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - STOCKLAND DAY CARE THOMAS STOCKLAND - S OF HAROLD, W OF SHERYL The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for the Stockland Day Care presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Thomas Stockland for property located south of Harold Street and West of Sheryl Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by the utility companies at the Plat Review meeting; however, staff had comments regarding the number of parking spaces. Staff requested a reduction in the spaces, if possible, and encouraged the addition of landscaping. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments, granting of all public easements by separate instrument, the approval of a grading plan, and a Bill of Assurance for sidewalk construction on Harold Street. He explained the City had scheduled the widening of Harold Street within the next year. Mr. Nickle explained at the subdivision committee meeting they had identified the following problems: size of radius at the entrance drive; distance between subject intersection and K -Mart driveway; the need for a variance due to lack of distance between the subject entrance and K -Mart entrance; and the possibility of a left turn lane since the road will be extended to the south as access to the adjoining property. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the radius would be even smaller should a left turn lane be installed. Mr. Jorgensen stated it was a very good idea to have a left turn lane but it would reduce the turning radius. He pointed out the subject property had 50 feet of frontage along Harold Street. He explained the distances and radius between the subject road and K - Mart and Southwestern Bell. He stated he did not believe there was a large enough radius for a left turn lane. Z66 Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 10 Mr. Bunn stated the radius was fine but he had not looked at the distance between driveways. He stated he believed Mr. Jorgensen would need to apply for a variance. Mr. Jorgensen verbally applied for a variance. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen stated they would be putting pipe around the gas meter at the curb. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the large scale development subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments and providing a variance for the curb cut if it was needed. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioners Britton, Springborn, Nickle, Cleghorn, Hanna and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Robertson abstaining. CONCEPT PLAT - FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION MARK FOSTER/RALPH BROPHY - N OF RIDGELY DR., W OF CROSSOVER RD The next item on the agenda was the presentation of a concept plat for the Foster/Brophy Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Ralph Brophy for property located north of Ridgely Drive and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 40 acres with 68 lots. Mr. Bunn explained this was a concept plat and there was also a part of the concept plat, Phase I, which was going to be presented as a preliminary plat as the next item on the agenda. He stated this subdivision was just south of Park Place, Phase VI. He stated the main issue raised at the Plat Review meeting was whether there should be a through street planned to the east between Lots 1 and 24. He explained street connections to the west were not possible because of existing development and the same was true for any connection to the north. He stated the concept plat did appear to meet the subdivision regulations. Mr. Jorgensen explained the reason for the concept plat was to show the overall plan and how it fit in with other developments in the area. He stated he had tried to provide an adequate traffic flow pattern. He informed the Commission that within the next month another phase of Park Place would be presented to them and this subdivision would tie into that phase. He stated the plan was to extend a street into the next phase of Park Place which would then go in an easterly direction to Highway 265. He pointed out the only point of ingress/egress to the subject subdivision was 267 Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 11 Ridgely. He agreed that it was not the best location for an ingress/egress but stated it was the only point available. He further stated there had been numerous discussions regarding making the entrance from Ridgely a safe intersection. He explained he intended to work further on the intersection but not at this point since this was a concept plat. Ms. Maryann Bassett, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and expressed her concerns regarding the drainage, additional traffic, and removal of the last large area of trees in the vicinity. She stated she believed 68 lots was too high of a density for the area. Ms. Bassett explained there was already a drainage problem in the neighborhood and the addition of 68 lots on 40 acres would cause more problems. She also pointed out there was a commercial area on the corner, a church, and a road into Park Place Subdivision all within less than a quarter of a mile. She stated traffic was already lined up during rush hour along Highway 265. Ms. Bassett also mentioned that, due to the sewer line being installed incorrectly, numerous people in the area were unable to tie on to the existing line. She expressed hope that would be corrected. She requested the Commission carefully review the concept plat with potential problems in mind. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained the drainage study was done at some point after preliminary plat approval. Mr. Nickle stated he was aware the subject area had a drainage problem. He reminded the Commission they had required one of the phases in Park Place Subdivision to have a retention pond. He explained that with a concept plat there was not enough information provided to determine what drainage easements were needed. Mr. Allred pointed out staff would be able to address all of Ms. Bassett's concerns except the lot size. He explained lots had to meet a minimum size and the city could not require a developer to have larger lots in certain subdivisions. Mr. Buddy Babcock, a resident of the subject area, appeared before the Commission to reinforce comments made by Ms. Bassett. He stated that, due to the drainage problems in the area, common sense would limit the density of the property. He also requested some of the greenspace be saved. Mr. Allred again explained the zoning code set the minimum size of the lots. Mr. Bunn stated the minimum lot size was 8,000 square feet and the minimum frontage of 70 feet. • Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 12 Mr. Jorgensen stated he would talk to the developer regarding reducing the density. He explained that, after approval of a preliminary plat, they would work on the drainage problems so the drainage would not adversely affect surrounding property. He further stated he would review the problems with the sewer line with the city engineer. Mr. Paul Noland expressed his belief that the existing drainage structure would not accommodate any additional water. He further stated he was concerned about the limited ingress/egress to the subject property. He suggested limiting the number of lots. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained that a vote was not required on a concept plat. He further explained that the main problems discussed would have to be answered in the Phase I preliminary plat. He suggested it might be reasonable to have larger lot sizes in Phase I and then gradually have smaller lot sizes as they developed the area to the north. He explained the ordinance gave the Planning Commission some leeway based on neighborhood standards. Ms. Britton asked how this development would connect with Park Place Subdivision. Mr. Jorgensen explained Phase III of the Foster/Brophy Subdivision would connect with Phase VIII of Park Place. Ms. 'Britton suggested switching Phase II and III if Park Place would open access more quickly, giving alternative directions for traffic. Mr. Jorgensen stated there would not be a problem in switching phases if Park Place was developed at the same pace. Ms. Britton stated she was suggesting they try to coordinate the development of the two subdivisions in order to alleviate some of the traffic problems. Ms. Janette Millar, a resident of Shadow Ridge Drive, requested the Commission consider the density of the property before approving the plat. Mr. Springborn stated that another subdivision had previously been brought before the Planning Commission with minimum density for development. He explained that the Planning Commission and City Board of Directors had required larger lots for that subdivision. Ms. Millar also requested the Commission consider continuing the integrity of the neighborhood. Planning Commission • December 9, 1991 Page 13 Mr. Hanna stated density could be limited due to the traffic flow. He expressed concern that traffic from 68 houses would all have to exit the subdivision from one entrance. He suggested asking Mr. Jorgensen to consult with the owners regarding less density. He explained it would be very poor planning to have only one point of ingress/egress. He stated the Commission could take a vote and ask the owners/developers to reconsider the number of homes in the subdivision. He pointed out they had refused developments because a cul-de-sac was more than 500 feet long. Mr. Allred suggested listening to any other comments by those present, then vote on the concept plat with the Commission's recommendations to be given to the developer for their review. Ms. Millar further pointed out that with construction of the subject subdivision, there would be no buffer or greenspace between Shadow Ridge and the subject tract. She also questioned where the utility easement would be located for the new subdivision. Mr. Allred stated the easements would be noted on the preliminary plat. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the lots adjoining Shadow Ridge were • approximately 300 feet deep in order to allow for a utility easement and buffering. He requested tolerance on the size of the lots. He explained the developer constructed very nice homes not tract housing. He also pointed out there was a point when oversized lots made a development economically unfeasible. • Ms. Little explained the regulations under Concept Plats read as follows: "The Planning Commission will review the proposed subdivision, considering all applicable city plans and ordinances." She further explained they needed to give consideration to minimum lot sizes." Mr. Nickle explained the subdivision committee had discussed how the proposed street entered in conjunction with Ridgely Street. He pointed out that it did not appear to meet accepted engineering practices. He stated the street came in at a 90° angle to Ridgely. He further stated that, with the traffic that would be generated, the street was not a good situation unless it was re -oriented. Mr. Nickle also noted that, with the drainage problems in the area, they might require retention basins which could affect the layout and density of the lots. Mr. Allred pointed out that was one of the disadvantages of a concept plat because it did not address many of their concerns. Planning Commission December 9, 1991 •' Page 14 Mr. Nickle stated he had some problems with approving the plat and he did not have adequate answers to his questions, especially the traffic problem. a - Mr. Jorgensen explained the concept plat was submitted for their information and he was not sure it was necessary to vote on it. He agreed with Mr. Nickle that the intersection was not a good way to tie into Ridgely. He stated they would be doing further work on the intersection. He further stated that he would discuss the lot size with the owners. Mr. Cleghorn stated he believed the neighbors were not requesting the lots be as large as those that were adjoining, but wanted them larger than shown on the plat. Ms. Britton stated her concern was not the size of the lots but the impact 68 families would have on the land, particularly the traffic flow. She pointed out that in the first phase there would be 26 homeowners funneled through an existing subdivision. She suggested Phase I be downsized. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would discuss her suggestion with the owners. He pointed out that Ridgely was the only place the subdivision could get access. He further stated he believed they could design a good intersection. He explained he believed that, when Park Place was completed, more traffic would go to the north to Highway 265, relieving the Ridgely intersection. Ms. Britton stated she would like a "slow down" of the development of the subject subdivision until Park Place provided the northerly access. Mr. Allred stated the Commission did not have the prerogative to slow down development of a subdivision. Ms. Britton stated she knew they did not have that prerogative but there would be less of an impact after Park Place was developed. Mr. Bunn stated staff had recommended in Phase 3 between Lots 1 and 24, a 50 foot access easement. He further stated he would like to see that as part of the approval so there would be access to the east should Park Place Subdivision did not develop the last phase. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out that was already added to the plat. Mr. Cleghorn reminded the Commission that one of the educational packets they had received had said they could deny a subdivision if it did not conform with the surrounding subdivisions. He further stated there had been some court cases. He further stated staff had to go by code but the Planning Commission had more leeway. He Planning Commission • December 9, 1991 Page 15 stated he would have a hard time voting favorably for the plat because he was hearing there were so many problems -- street problems, lot size problems, drainage problems. He suggested tabling the plat until the developers had addressed the problems and the planning commission's concerns. • • Ms. Little explained that the regulations on concept plats said the Planning Commission would determine any potential problems which could result in refusal to approve a final plat. Following the planning commission meeting the planning administrator would advise the developer in writing of the review comments. She explained a concept plat was a review function for the commission and approval or disapproval would come at preliminary and final plat stages. She stated they had accomplished what was required of them by ordinance by bringing the problems out. Ms. Little advised Mr. Jorgensen he needed to take the comments made by the Commission under advisement and prepare a preliminary plat which would come before the Commission. Mr. Allred explained he would like to have a motion with the requirements or the concerns the Planning Commission felt necessary. He further explained their concerns would be in the minutes and a written report could be given to the developers so nothing would be left for interpretation. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved the developer be advised that the concept plat met all of the requirements of the City of Fayetteville's ordinance as written; however, the Planning Commission did request that the developer address the ingress from Ridgely Drive, the size of the lots, the drainage, and the connection to the east to Park Place before presenting the preliminary plat. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. He stated he was not sure the Commission could address the drainage prior to the filing of a preliminary plat. Mr. Allred explained they could make their concerns known. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Ms. Little explained the motion was only to inform the developers of their concerns and a preliminary plat would have to be presented to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. y Planning Commission December 9, 1991 Page 16 PRELIMINARY PLAT - FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION • MARK FOSTER/RALPH BROPHY - N OF RIDGELY DR., W OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item to be presented to the Commission was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Foster/Brophy Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Ralph Brophy for property located north of Ridgely Drive and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 14.20 acres with 26 lots. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to table this item. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - REPLAT OF LOT 30 - ROYAL OAKS SUBDIVISION E. J. BALL - N. OF KANTZ LN, OFF KANTZ COVE The next item to be presented to the Commission was a request for approval of a final plat for the Replat of Lot 30 - Royal Oaks Subdivision, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of E. J. Ball for property located east of Kantz Lane, off of Kantz Cove. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 4.2 acres with 4 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments on the plat. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; the execution of a contract for the installation of the sewer line; the granting of the necessary easements for the construction of the sewer line; and the payment of parks fees as required by city ordinance. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Allred reminded those Commissioners with expiring terms that, according to the bylaws, they would serve until their replacements were appointed. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 26r