Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVII.LE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 8, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Mickley J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the January 25, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. Mr. Springborn made corrections to the plat review minutes. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-4 DR. JAMES MOORE - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF RUFFLE RD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-4 for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dr. James Moore. The request is to rezone 10 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission that much of the site was currently undeveloped and the applicant was proposing to develop the site with 23 lots for duplex development. He explained the preliminary plat had been submitted to the Planning Commission at the last meeting and had been tabled until the subject rezoning request was determined. He explained R-1 zoning allowed a maximum density of development of 4 units per acre while R-1.5 allowed a maximum of 12 units per acre. He noted the applicant was proposing 4.6 units per acre. He further noted adjacent zoning was R-2 to the south and R-1 to the east. He further advised that to the north and west was county property; however, the property to the west was being proposed for annexation and rezoning to R-1.5. Mr. Conklin stated the adjacent land use to the south was duplexes and the remaining surrounding property was undeveloped. He advised there was a 6 -inch water line along Carlesbad Trace and Franciscan Trail. He also noted there was a 6 -inch sewer line along Carlesbad Trace which connected to a 15 -inch line along Mt. Comfort. He stated the 1970 General Plan did not address any future land use at this site. Mr. Conklin explained access to the site was from Carlesbad Tract (local street) with east and west access being planned in the proposed preliminary plat. He noted it could be available through future development east and west of Carlesbad Trace. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the site was accessed through land currently noted a classification of R-1.5 would be requested rezoning to R-1.5 since the zoned R-2, developed as duplexes. He a compatible transition zone. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised a duplex was considered as two units. • -3/ • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 2 Dave Jorgensen, representing Dr. James Moore, reminded the Commission they had been petitioned to rezone the same tract to R-2 in January. He further noted that request had been denied. He stated it had turned out they did not need R-2, but R-1.5. He expressed hie belief that R-1.5 was a reasonable request for this tract since access would be through R-2 property which contained duplexes. He informed the Commission he had discussed putting single-family homes in this area with the developer but he did not think single-family homes would sell because the residents would have to travel through a duplex area to get to the property. Mr. Nickle stated staff had received a telephone call from Mrs. Gertrude Cathey, 4621 Wedington, expressing her opposition to the rezoning. He read: "She believed duplexes for rental property should be zoned commercial rather than residential." MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Springborn, Suchecki, Nickle, Tarvin, Pummill, Cato and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE IV DR, JAMES MOORE - N OF WEDINGTON, W OF RDPPLE The next item was presentation of a preliminary plat for Northwest Acres, Phase IV, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dr. James Moore for property located north of Wedington Drive, west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 10 acres with 23 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives other than additional easements requested and agreed to by the owners. He noted there had been one off-site easement required and it would have to be granted by separate instrument. He advised staff comments concerned sidewalks, a name of the east -west street, and the need for a grading and drainage plan. Mr. Bunn advised there had been no significant comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting except to note that even though the developer would petition to rezone the property (from R-1 to R-1.5), the plat would be sufficient for R-1 development, if desired. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances; the submittal and approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; and the naming and location of the cross streets shown. Mr. Jorgensen stated they concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-5 KENNITH & BRENDA WENTZ - 723 N. 46TH AVE. The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-5 presented by Kennith and Brenda Wentz for property located on the west side of 46th Avenue, south of Wedington Drive (723 N. 46th Avenue). The request is to rezone 3.34 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission single-family home. He explained property into two lots. He further acre and would include the existing developed with a single family home application would appear at the next was approved. the site was currently developed with one the applicant was proposing to split the stated one lot would be approximately one house and the remaining property would be on a tandem lot. He advised the lot split Planning Commission meeting if the rezoning Mr. Conklin advised that, under A-1 zoning, there was a minimum two -acre lot requirement for each structure and a minimum of 200 feet of frontage on a public street. He further advised that, under R-1 zoning, the minimum lot area per single family home was 8,000 square feet and 70 feet of frontage on a public street. He explained the site was 220 feet wide by 660 feet long. He also noted the applicant would be able to develop the property up to 4 units per acre under R-1 zoning. He pointed out the adjacent zoning was all A-1, Agricultural. He also noted that to the south and west was vacant land and to the east and north was single-family homes. He stated all other residential development was located on parcels that were over one acre in size. Mr. Conklin explained the existing structure on the site was not being served by City water or sewer. He noted there was an 8 -inch water line and a 6 -inch sewer line along North 46th Avenue. He stated it would be likely the applicant would be required, as part of any future lot split or subdivision on the property, to hook up to both the water and sewer. He further pointed out the Master Street Plan did show Highway 16 West was a principal arterial and North 46th Avenue was a local street. He also noted the General Plan Amendment, approved April 5, 1983, indicated the subject area to develop as low density residential. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the rezoning request. Me. Britton stated it seemed strange to rezone just one area when there was other developed property adjacent which was zoned A-1. She expressed her belief this was spot zoning. She asked why they did not just rezone the entire area. Mr. Conklin explained the reason for the requested rezoning was due to parcel size. Ms. Britton stated she realized that but it seemed to be inconsistent to have one small area of R-1 in the middle of a large area of A-1 property. Ms. Little stated her point was well taken and the Planning Commission did have the option of initiating a rezoning of the entire area to R-1. She explained the subject action had not been initiated by either the Planning office nor by the Planning Commission but came as a request from the current property owner. She pointed out most of the other lots in the area were very large and this would be the only small parcel. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin stated he had wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that, whenever a tract was rezoned, it could be subdivided and, in this case, to a density of 4 units per acre. He further advised that only one single-family home could be constructed on the tandem lot. Mr. Wentz explained he wanted to construct a 2,000 square foot home on the 2 -acre lot. He further noted the existing house contained 2,680 square feet. He advised he had no intention to subdivide the land any further. He stated he was planning on residing in the new structure. NOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the requested rezoning. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-6 MARSHALL DALE EVANS - N OF W. 6TH, W OF HILL AVE. The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-6 presented by Marshall Dale Evans for property located north of West Sixth Street, west of Hill Avenue. The request is to rezone approximately .25 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained that approximately two years earlier the existing building on the subject site had been destroyed by fire. He noted there was an existing accessory building on the site. He stated the requested C-2 zoning would allow the applicant to develop commercial uses on the site. He explained the applicant had requested the rezoning because the State Highway Department was widening West Sixth Street to four lanes and he felt that commercial development was the appropriate land use at the site. He advised there was R-3 zoning to the north, R-2 zoning to the south and west and both C-1 and R-2 zoning to the east. He explained the property both north and south of the subject site had been developed residentially, to the east was office use and to the west, multi -family development. Mr. Conklin noted the 1970 General Plan had designated the subject property as high density residential. He explained many significant changes had occurred over the years along West Sixth which tended to change the character of use. He stated those changes included the development of the state highway to four lanes and location of commercial development west and east of the site. Mr. Conklin recommended rezoning the subject parcel for commercial use; however, due to the existing residential development, recommended the classification of C-1 as being more compatible than a classification of C-2. Mr. Nickle reminded staff there had been discussion regarding R -O zoning for this tract. He asked if they had considered that any further. Me. Little stated staff believed commercial uses would be appropriate as well as residential -office. She explained they had advised the applicant they were not supporting his request for C-2 zoning but would support C-1. She stated she did not believe they had talked to the applicant about R -O. Mr. Springborn asked if staff believed commercial rezoning was currently appropriate or would become appropriate after the widening of West Sixth Street. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 5 Ms. Little stated the current zoning on the property was R-2, which was in conformance with the 1970 Master Plan. She advised staff felt that was no longer appropriate for the subject parcel. She pointed out that, even in its current state, West Sixth Street had developed as a commercial artery. She explained C-2 was a heavier commercial use than staff believed should be allowed. She stated staff would support either R -O or C-1. Mr. Reynolds stated he had looked at the area and found an old 7-11 Store on the far corner, Brenda's Bigger Burger, and a print shop. He stated there was also a furniture shop immediately adjacent. He also pointed out across the railroad tracks there were three or four pieces of run-down property. He expressed his belief that, if the applicant wanted to improve his property, they needed to assist him. In response to questions from the Commission, it was determined the print shop was zoned C-1 and the wood working shop directly behind it was zoned R-3. Mr. Evans stated that, instead of just looking at the subject property, they needed to look at the entire street. He advised the Commission he could have rebuilt a residential unit on the site after it burned but he had decided 6th Street was a changing area of town. He pointed out that almost of the property from Highway 71 to Highway 71B along 6th Street was zoned C-2. He stated there had been massive development from the Bypass inward toward 71B. Mr. Evans stated the reason for his request to rezone the property to C-2 was in order to be consistent with existing properties He agreed there was residential zoning adjacent to the subject property but pointed out that within the last 3 to 4 months the majority of houses had been demolished and removed by the Highway Department. He stated this property was no longer residential property. He further stated he was not sure R-0 zoning was broad enough to allow the property to be utilized in the best method. Mr. Tarvin asked if he had a particular use planned for the site. Mr. Evans stated he did not He further stated he was requesting the rezoning in order to broaden the uses available. He pointed out that, when the Highway Department completed the roadway, they would be putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk. He explained that, if the property was zoned residential, they would put in a very narrow driveway and then rezoned commercial at a later date, the curb and gutter would have to be broken up and redone. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Evans stated he was not sure the exact acreage of the tract. He explained the tract's dimensions and noted at the back of the property was a railroad track which separated his property from the residential area to the rear (north) of his property. Mr. Tarvin asked the difference between C-1 and C-2 zoning. Mr. Conklin advised that in C-2 zoning would allow commercial uses such as hotels, motels, trade and service uses, warehousing, etc. He further advised C-1 was neighborhood commercial such as restaurants, grocery stores, book stores, etc. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to grant C-1 zoning for this tract. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 6 Ms. Britton stated she would have preferred R -O, that she believed it would be more appropriate zoning. The motion 8-1-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Springborn, Suchecki, Nickle, Tarvin, Pummill, Cato, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-7 & ANNEXATION LLOYD POND, JAMES & BARBARA POND & WEST RIDGE BAPTIST CHURCH - N OF WEDINGTON DR., W OF CARLESBAD TRACE The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning R93-7 and an annexation of property located north of Wedington Drive, west of Carlesbad Trace, presented by Truman Yancey on behalf of Lloyd Pond, James and Barbara Pond and West Ridge Baptist Church. The request is to annex 62.5 acres and rezone the 62.5 acres plus and additional 12.5 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission much of the site was currently undeveloped. He noted the portion of the site which was within the City Limits was zoned A-1 and developed with a church. He explained the entire eastern and southern boundary abutted property located within the City Limits. He further explained the requested R-1.5 zoning would allow the applicant to develop the entire 75 acres up to 12 units per acre for residential use. He noted that, at maximum density, up to 900 residential units could be developed on the property under R- 1.5 zoning. He stated the property to the east and north was outside the city limits, that the property to the south was zoned A-1 and to the west, R-1 and R-2. He further noted adjacent land use included residences to the south and duplexes to the east with the property to the north and west being undeveloped. Mr. Conklin advised city water, sanitation and sewer were all adjacent to the site. He explained there was a six-inch water line along Carlesbad Trace and Franciscan Trail and a six-inch sewer line along Carlesbad Trace which connected to a 15 -inch line along Mt. Comfort. He informed the Commission the entire 62.5 acres was included within the growth area of the City of Fayetteville. He advised the 1970 General Plan did not address any future land use for the portion of the property that was not currently within the city limits but did designate that property within the city limits as R-2, medium density residential. Mr. Conklin advised access to the site was from Highway 16 West (principal arterial) and from Franciscan Trail (local street). He further noted access could also be available from the future development proposed north of Carlesbad Trace. He explained that Scott Bennett, state-wide planning, had indicated to staff that Highway 16 West was at level of service "C" except for the first half mile east of the bypass, which was level of service "D". He further explained the "Final Report Prioritization of Roadway Improvements", prepared by DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc., had stated that "this two land segment (46th Avenue to Shiloh Drive) has an average 1992 ADT of 9,600 and a 2010 ADT of 14,200. Construction of one additional lane in each direction appears justified from peak hour volume/capacity standpoint, but level of service "E" is not reached until 1995." He further informed the Commission the annexation request was in an area experiencing rapid development. He noted the fire department had reported a new fire station was needed to service development extant within the area. He advised the Commission that, without the renewal of the sales tax in the May 37, • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 7 election, the future of the needed improvements was uncertain; however, the fire chief did feel that he could serve this area. He further advised the fire chief had noted the need for additional equipment was more critical at this time than the need for additional fire stations. Mr. Conklin stated staff was forwarding this information to the Planning Commission for their decision on the requested rezoning and annexation. He advised the site was adjacent to land within the city that was currently under development and, if it was decided to bring the subject tract into the city, it would provide an additional opportunity to develop more housing. He informed the Commission the need for additional fire equipment should be considered by the Planning Commission as a portent of the need to consider other avenues of funding improvements which are needed to service the new development to the west. Ms. Britton asked if the Highway Department was going to think about widening Wedington in 1995 or were they already planning the widening in 1995. Mr. Conklin stated they were not planning any widening at this time. He advised the new development in the area had been brought to their attention. He further noted he had talked with Perry Franklin, Traffic Division, who had indicated to the Highway Department the City would like to see the highway increased to four lanes. Ms. Little advised the Commission Senator Malone had been taken on a tour of the area so they would have his support to lobby the Highway Department for improvements. She further stated Perry Franklin would take traffic counts at the intersection of Salem Road and Wedington and forward those reports monthly to the Highway Department so it would be monitored on a regular basis. She explained this would allow the City to get the improvements as soon as it could meet the state's criteria. Mr. Nickle asked if staff had considered zoning the property R-1. Me. Little advised staff would fully support R-1. Mr. Nickle expressed concern that everyone was requesting R-1.5 because of adjoining duplexes. He pointed out eventually all of the property would be developed in duplexes rather than single-family homes. Ms. Little explained she had discussed R-1 with the petitioners and also had discussed a mix of R-1 and R-1.5. Mr. Cato noted there had not been a staff recommendation. Mr. Conklin stated staff did support R-1 or a mix of R-1 and R-1.5. Mr. Springborn stated the report referred to the 1970 General Plan. He further stated he was aware staff was working on an update of the General Plan and he asked if R-1 or R-1.5 was consistent with the current land use in the subject area. Me. Little stated it was. She explained there were 3 areas within the City which had been targeted for additional residential growth and the subject tract was within one of those areas. She further explained the mix of residential uses was continued along the Highway 16 corridor. Mr. Pummill asked if it was correct that additional people had to use Wedington in order to increase the traffic flow to get the traffic counts in order to get the road widened. Amm- • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 8 Ms. Little explained the State Highway Department had, in the past, refused to consider potential development. She further explained every town in the state would request a four -lane highway based on potential development. She stated it was just as much a responsibility of the City to keep the Highway Department informed of the growth in that area. She also expressed her belief the City needed to provide connecting roads which would take part of the pressure off the state highway. She pointed out there were no north -south connectors. Mr. Pummill asked if there was a possibility the widening of Wedington could be moved up on the state's schedule. Mr. Conklin explained it was his understanding the Highway Department had been informed that traffic was deteriorating on Highway 16 West and the City was requesting they look at an additional lane in each direction. Mr. Pummill asked if the 20 -Year Plan would have any bearing on the highway. Ms. Little stated the recommendation that the highway be widened to four lanes had been recommended in 1988 and was being carried forward into the new plan. She further stated it was not realistic to believe the highway would be four lanes by 1995; that it would take longer to get the funds and engineering done. Ms. Britton asked if once the State Highway Department agreed to widen the highway if it did not need to be into a 5 -Year Plan. Ms. Little explained it would have to be on the 3 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. She further explained there were other funding levels where there was more flexibility. She expressed hope the widening of Highway 16 would be under one of the other funding levels. Ms. Britton asked if it would make a difference that sewer was being extended into the area. Mr. Conklin stated it was his understanding traffic counts were used for roadway capacity. Mr. Truman Yancey, representing the applicants, explained the 62 acres they were requesting be annexed to the City had an Order of Annexation from the County Court and would be final on February 15. He stated he was asking they approve the annexation contingent upon the Order becoming final. Mr. Yancey further explained the 62.5 acres plus the 12.5 acres currently in the city, a total of 75 acres, was requested to be rezoned R-1.5. He stated staff's report that 900 units could be constructed on the 75 acres did not take into account a portion of the 75 acres had to be allotted to streets, easements, drainage, etc. He stated people experienced in the business projected a density of 600 units. He further stated the staff recommendation of R-1 would reduce the flexibility desired by the owner for development of the tract. He did note, however, it was in a very preliminary stage and the owner was also flexible. He suggested splitting the tract and rezoning the south 35 acres to R-1.5 and the north 40 acres be rezoned to R-1. Ms. Britton stated they had just approved rezoning a 10 -acre tract to R-1.5. She noted the applicant had given the reason of not leaving the property zoned R-1 was because residents would have to go through a higher density area. She stated it did not make sense to create the same problem at this location. Mr. Yancey explained it would depend upon one's perspective and who was putting up the money as to which way was preferred. 38' • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Eugene Nottenkamper, the adjoining property owner to the went, wanted to know the location of the subject site in relation to his property. He advised he had prime subdivision property and was opposed to any rezoning except R-1. He further stated there was a home in progress in the neighborhood that would cost in excess of 5100,000 and another home planned that would cost about the same. He stated R-1.5 would not help any of the adjoining properties. He advised the Commission that, when he developed his property, he planned to zone it R-1. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Nottenkamper stated the access to his property was from Slst Street, not Highway 16. He also expressed concern regarding the traffic from the subject tract after it was developed. He pointed out the drainage from the subject property ran across his property, on a natural drainage. He further noted there was no access to sewer lines for the northern portion of the property. Mr. Brad Watson stated he travelled Highway 16 every morning when going to work. He asked how bad the traffic problem had to be before the State would widen Highway 16. Ms. Little stated she could not give the exact figures. She explained there were a number of factors used by the State which included traffic count, number of accidents, etc. Mr. Watson asked if they were approaching the maximum figure at the present time. Mr. Conklin advised the State looked at level of service. He noted that at the present time that level was "C". He explained level "C" was what the highway had been designed for. He further advised that for the first half mile west of the bypass it was at level "D" but only during the peak hours. Mr. Watson stated it was very dangerous from 7:30 to 8:00 in the morning. He further stated that, at the rate development was increasing in the area, it would not be long before the traffic would be bumper to bumper. Mr. Springborn stated they had heard a lot about the problem of getting streets improved and widened. He advised that staff was very active in pursuing street improvement. He explained that letters to Little Rock would probably do more than making the observations to the Planning Commission. Mr. Russell Black, a Wedington Drive property owner, expressed concern regarding rezoning the property to R-1.5. He stated he believed the property should be zoned R-1. He asked what would happen in 10 or 15 years when there were hundreds of duplexes on Highway 16 and the level of occupancy decreased. He advised the Commission the property owners in the area were concerned about the increase of the number of duplex structures. Mr. Millard Goff spoke in opposition to zoning the property to R-1.5. He noted none of the people wanting to develop duplexes lived in the area. Mr. 0. E. Lutrell, 4480 Lutrell Lane, spoke in opposition to the R-1.5 zoning, citing previously given reasons. Mr. Allred pointed out the property to the east of the tract was zoned R-1 and R-1.5. He suggested dividing the property in half, having everything on the east side zoned R-1.5 and everything on the west as R-1. He pointed out that would also straighten the demarkation line between zonings. Ms. Britton recommended moving the line to the east, giving a small area of R- 1.5. 34 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Cato asked if they could annex the property, rezone it to R-1 and allow the applicant the option of not having to wait one year if they wanted to rezone a portion of the property R-1.5. He stated that would give the applicant an opportunity to decide what they would do with the property and see what their needs were rather than just blanket zone the property. Ms. Little stated they could. She explained they could not come back within a year if the rezoning were denied. Mr. Yancey stated that, if they rezoned the property to R-1, they would be rejecting the requested zoning, or denying it. Mr. Reynolds stated they had problems along Highway 16 West. He further stated they did need to draw the line on multi -family units and go to R-1 to slow up the traffic problem, clear up the drainage problems, and have funding to provide sewer service, fire service, etc. He stated he recommended the property be zoned R-1. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the only reason the applicant would have to wait a year to request rezoning was if the Commission denied the requested zoning. Mr. Allred suggested voting on the annexation but tabling the rezoning. He pointed out the property would then have A-1 zoning He noted this would allow the applicant to determine exactly what zoning they wanted. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to recommend the annexation to the City Council, subject to approval of the Order of Annexation by Washington County. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. He. Britton stated she was not opposed to the annexation but she was not in favor of it either. She explained the property was at an extended distance from the city, making it more difficult to provide city services. She stated she would rather be discussing annexation of the property adjacent to Rupple Road, which was needed in order to have more control over the traffic situation. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nickle stated they now needed to decide on the rezoning request of R-1.5 for the 75 acres. Mr. Pummill noted the applicant had verbally changed the request to 35 acres of R-1.5 and 40 acres of R-1. Mr. Yancey stated Mr. Allred's suggestion of making the eastern portion R-1.5 and the western portion R-1 would also be acceptable. Mr. Pummill agreed they needed to draw a line someplace (on multi -family housing). He noted the problem came before them every meeting. He stated he was in favor of Mr. Allred's suggestion. Mr. Springborn stated they had heard from the adjoining property owners and he did not think it would be fair to table the item. He stated the adjoining property owners spoke in terms of the original application. He expressed his belief they should act on the recommendations of staff which was consistent with the work on the new Land Use Plan. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 11 MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to recommend rezoning the property R-1. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Cato, Springborn, Reynolds, Suchecki, Fickle, Britton, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Allred and Pummill voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE CU93-7 - CHURCH WEST RIDGE BAPTIST CHURCH - 4586 WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow a church at 4586 Wedington Drive, presented by Truman Yancey on behalf of the church. This property was rezoned in the previous rezoning hearing. The property contains 5 acres. Mr. Yancey requested this item be tabled until he conferred with the applicant. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table the item Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Little explained this was an existing church which did not have a conditional use and staff felt it should come before the Planning Commission. She advised the City would refund the fee, since staff had requested Mr. Yancey initiate the action. Mr. Yancey stated, in that case, he would withdraw the item at this time. Mr. Allred withdrew his motion and Mr. Pummill withdrew his second. CONDITIONAL USE C093-6 - CHILD CARE CATHY HANCOCK - 1040 RAY STREET The next item was a conditional use request to operate a child care home occupation at 1040 Ray Street, submitted by Cathy Hancock. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had been taking care of five children at the subject address for over one year and was licensed by the State. He stated the City had never received a complaint regarding the operation of the subject day care business. He pointed out the site was developed with a duplex (owner occupied) and did have a fenced backyard. He also noted there was an existing four -car driveway and adequate on -street parking for delivery and pick-up of children. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested conditional use. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the conditional use request. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 12 ALLEY VACATION V93-2 COLLIER PIERCE - 700 BLOCK OF W CLEVELAND The next item was a request to vacate part of a north -south alley in the 700 block of West Cleveland. Mr. Bunn explained Collier Pierce was petitioning the City to vacate a 20 -foot alley located off the 700 block of West Cleveland Street. He advised none of the utility companies had any objections to the closing of the alley as requested; however, it had been requested that a utility easement be retained across the entire 20 -foot width of the alley. Mr. Bunn recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the alley be vacated subject to the retention of a 20 -foot utility easement for the entire length of alley being vacated. Mr. Nickle asked if the remaining portion of the alley down to Taylor had already been vacated. Mr. Bunn stated he didn't believe it had. He advised the City did not have an objection to the partial closing of the alley or the entire alley; but the petition was only for a portion. Mr. Reynolds stated the day of the tour there was a utility company working in the southern portion of the alley. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Pierce explained he had petitioned for the north 160 feet of the alley to be closed. Ms. Britton stated it appeared the alley was the only means of access to lot 6. Mr. Pierce explained he owned property on both sides of the alley and was just trying to straighten the property lines. In response to questions from the Commission regarding lot 6, Ms. Little advised Mr. Pierce owned lot 5 and the north 35 feet of lot 6. It was determined the church across the street owned the remainder of lot 6 and lot 1. Those lots are unimproved. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend to the City Council the alley be vacated. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. R -O -W- VACATION V93-3 MIKE SWEETSER - LAFAYETTE, W OF ANDREW & ANDREW, S OF ASSEMBLY RD. The next item was a request to vacate part of Lafayette, west of Andrew and to vacate part of Andrew, south of Assembly Road, presented by Mike Sweetser. Mr. Bunn explained Mike Sweetser was petitioning the City to vacate a 50 -foot street. He further explained that neither the City nor the utility companies had any objections to the closing of the street as requested. He stated that, since there were utilities located in the streets proposed to be vacated, the recommendation of staff was to vacate the streets as requested and retain a utility easement over the entire area. He noted the area of easement retention might be reduced if the exact location of the utility lines were identified. Vo- 1 • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 13 He advised that all of the surrounding property ownere had signed the petition for vacation with the exception of the property owner to the north. He pointed out that property had access to Tanglewood Avenue. Mr. Bunn recommended the street be vacated subject to the retention of a 20 -foot utility easement for the entire length of the right-of-way being vacated. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Bunn explained the property owned by James and Pamela Galbraith at the end of Lafayette, had access from Tanglewood Avenue. Mike Sweetser stated he was available for any questions the Commission might have regarding the vacation. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the vacation subject to staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - SPRING PARK, PHASE II CLARY DEVELOPMENT - N & S OF JOYCE BLVD., W OF SHILOH The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Spring Park, Phase II, presented by Robert Brown on behalf of clary Development. The property is located on the north and south sides of Joyce Boulevard, west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 21.04 acres with 6 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained this was a final plat for a portion of the preliminary plat submitted to the Planning Commission at the January 11, 1993 meeting. He noted the final plat involved Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 only. He advised the remaining lots were still in the preliminary stage and would be submitted as final at some time in the future. He further explained a large scale development on Lots 1, 2, and 3 was being submitted to the Planning Commission as the next item. He further advised the Commission there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting. He stated staff comments concerned the naming of Mall Avenue/Street, street lights, and sidewalks. He stated the Subdivision Committee discussion concerned the off-site improvements (Shiloh and Joyce Boulevard improvements) and the share that the subject development would be responsible for. He further stated the Committee recommended that the Final Plat be approved subject to a final determination of off-site improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bunn recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for streets, drainage, water, and sewer plane; the execution of a contract or similar document with the City which would guarantee the construction of the improvements required for the portion of property covered in the final plat; participation in the improvements at Joyce and Shiloh Drive at some level to be negotiated between the City and the Developer; the filing of the Subdivision or Development Covenants with the City and the County; granting of a 50 -foot utility easement across the entire south side of the property for the planned 36 -inch water line and other utilities; and the construction of sidewalks and street lights in accordance with City ordinances. 13 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 14 Mr. Nickle asked if they had looked at access onto the highway from the south. Mr. Bunn stated they had not. He advised the Highway Department had indicated they would not permit another access to the highway at that location. Mr. Robert Brown, of Development Consultants, appeared before the Commission representing Clary Development Corporation. He advised he believed most of the issues in both the final plat and large scale development had been settled. He stated they had reached a tentative agreement on percentage shares of what the Mall and the subject development would share in conjunction with the City for improvement of the Joyce/Highway 71 intersection. He further stated they had included in their covenants and restrictions a statement which addressed the prohibition of sales of goods and display within the open areas of the parking and drives. He advised the Commission they had provided to the City Engineer an estimate of public improvement costs. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Brown advised they had contacted the Corps of Engineers and had received clearance on the wetlands. He further advised he also had received a letter from the Highway Department indicating the driveway accesses were permitted. Mr. Nickle asked how the number of parking spaces had been determined. Mr. Brown explained most national tenants present specific criteria on their requirements for parking. He stated he believed they had a little more parking spaces than National Home Center specifically required and it could be possible a portion of the lot might not be developed immediately. He further explained that in typical commercial construction the ratio was usually in the 5.5 to 6.5 per 1,000 range. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained the covenants called for no display or sales of goods in the parking area but did not restrict it from the sidewalk area. Mr. Brown explained he had intentionally not included the sidewalk because he believed they would have occasional display and sale of merchandise at the front sidewalk. He advised they would not have a temporary garden center set up in the parking lot. Me. Britton requested there be a statement included in the covenants that pedestrian traffic not be impeded along the sidewalk Mr. Brown stated he would be happy to include that statement. He presented architectural renderings of the proposed building for National Home Center. Mr. Nickle stated the Commission had received a letter from Mr. Art Hobson, Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, in opposition to the development. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Ms. Little stated the majority of the zoning east of Highway 71 was C-2. Mr. Robert Brandon requested a solution to the traffic problem caused by commercial development on Gregg Street for the Wilson Park area prior to approval of the subject development. He expressed his belief the subject developer should financially assist in the establishment of a north -south traffic corridor. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. //1 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. Mr. Springborn stated the traffic in the subject area was a problem because it was not as disciplined as it was in larger cities. He pointed out this problem was in the hands of the State Highway Department. He stated he did not want to stand in the way of development but did want to express hie concern. Mr. Nickle observed the Highway Department had made a study on the northbound traffic from Rolling Hills north. He asked if they had made any progress on that study. Mr. Bunn stated the intersection at Zion Road and Highway 71B would be improved within the next year. He further advised the Highway Department was not willing, at this time, to put any money into the intersection at Joyce and Highway 71B nor the intersection of Shiloh and Highway 71B. He explained that was why the City had been discussing the matter with both the subject developer and the Mall regarding private money being used to improve the intersection. He advised the improvements included a double left-hand turn lane going west from 71B and could also include a double traffic signal to improve the traffic flow. He further advised access to Highway 71 from Joyce was in roadway design at this time. Mr. Nickle asked about access to the subject property from Gregg. Mr. Bunn stated that was in the future plans. He advised the street was on the Master Street Plan. He further explained the timeframe would depend on when development occurred in that area. Mr. Suchecki agreed the intersection was not a good one but pointed out that, by approving the subject development, they would be bringing in another party to help share the cost. Mr. Bunn pointed out the city was also interested in improving the east side of the intersection but it would not be part of the improvement at this time. Mr. Reynolds asked the timeframe of when the businesses would be open. Mr. Steve Clary stated he believed a realistic opening date for National Home Center would be sometime around the first of the year. He stated that, in connection with Pier 1 and Ryan's Steak House, the plans were to open earlier than the National Home Center. Ms. Britton pointed out that, should Pier 1 and Ryan's be completed before the National Home Center, traffic would have to exit on Shiloh. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Me. Britton asked the timeframe on improvement of the intersection. Mr. Bunn stated the city hoped to have something done on the intersection by the time the home center opened. He explained he was proposing to ask that the City take part in the cost of the improvements to the intersection and the timing would directly depend on finding the funds. • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 16 Me. Britton asked, if the funding existed, what type of timeframe they would be looking at. Mr. Bunn explained that, if the funding were currently available and the Council approved the cost-sharing, it would probably take six to eight months. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - TAYLOR ESTATES ESTHER TAYLOR - OFF S. COLLEGE, N OF E 29TH CIR. The next item was a preliminary plat Jorgensen on behalf of Esther Taylor for north of East 29th Circle. The property and contains 11.86 acres with 13 lots. for Taylor Estates presented by Dave property located off South College and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives had no comments on the subdivision plat; it had been indicated that all of the easements shown were satisfactory. He advised staff comments had been on the location of the water and sewer lines (because they existed from a previous development), length of the cul-de-sac, location of the sidewalk, and parks fees. Mr. Bunn recommended the plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for all public improvements; field location of all water and sewer lines and adjustment of easement locations to coincide with the actual location; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the area; payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks (4 feet behind the curb); notation on the plat that the drive for the tandem lot was private; and a notation on the plat that cable service would not be immediately available to the subdivision. Mr. Dave Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He advised there were adjoining property owners in the audience with questions regarding covenants. He informed them the owner/developer did not, at this time, have covenants but would have them at the time of the final plat. He explained the subdivision would be compatible with the surrounding area. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Ms. Little explained the 50 foot easement to the tandem lot had been existing and the developer had not changed it. Mr. Jorgensen stated he did not know the plan for Lot 9 and it was possible that whoever purchased that lot could come back before the Commission for a lot split. Ms. Dee Wright expressed concern regarding this development requiring an additional pump station and water power. Mr. Bunn stated the services were adequate. Mr. Sickle advised the water station had been enlarged a few years earlier and had been based on the ultimate development of the area. Ms. Wright also requested the developer provide the area with a copy of the covenants when they were written. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would do so and notify them when the final plat came before the Planning Commission. 4 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 17 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PINECREST ADDITION BMP DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM RD., N OF TIMBERLINE The next item was a preliminary plat for Pinecrest Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of BMP Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Timberline. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 38 acres with 134 proposed lots Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments from any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting. He stated there had been several changes in easements and some crossings were requested and agreed to by the owner. He further stated the cable representative noted that, unless the developer paid for the expense of cable installation, it would be delayed until houses were actually constructed. He informed the Commission staff comments had included remarks on water meter locations, water main sizes, fire hydrant locations and minimum size radii on cul-de-sacs. He noted other issues raised were flood plain development, street names, traffic signals, sidewalk location, and the width of lots required for duplex development. Mr. Bunn stated the discussion at the Subdivision Committee had centered on traffic problems and off-site improvements to "B" Street and Salem Road. He advised the Committee recommended approval of the subdivision subject to off-site improvement to Sycamore Street, "B" Street and Salem Road. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, street, and drainage improvements; approval of a grading plan and drainage plan for the area; fire hydrant spacing and line sizes in accordance with the Fire Chief's recommendations; construction of sidewalks 4 feet behind the curbline and payment of parks fees; and off-site improvements to Sycamore Street, "8" Street and Salem Road, as described in the minutes of the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further noted a drainage easement had been requested by the Street Superintendent to be located on the creek in order to allow access to the creek for maintenance purposes. Ms. Little stated the drainage easement would basically follow the same contour lines as the flood way. She pointed out this development was located on a parcel that had recently come before the Commission for rezoning. She reminded the Commission that, at that time, staff had cautioned that off-site improvements would be required. Mr. Cato asked if there was another development coming in which would be adjacent to the subject development. Ms. Little stated there was a development immediately to the west of Point West Street and would occupy the area immediately northeast of Hamestring Creek. She explained the two developments backed up to each other with the creek as the dividing line. 4/7 • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 18 Mr. Cato stated it appeared this area was exploding with growth and they were piecemealing the road system. He stated he would like to allow the developer an opportunity to comment but then table the matter to allow city staff an opportunity to look at the two developments together for better road connections. Me. Britton asked how the drainage easement would be accessed. Mr. Bunn stated it could be accessed at Sycamore or any street crossing. Ms. Britton recommended an access easement between two lots. Mr. Gray stated he believed the two developments stood alone. He pointed out the Pinecrest development would have access at three points; into the Woodfield Addition, into the Giles Addition, and into the Walnut View Estates Addition. He noted the streets in the subdivision did wind around but that was their plan; that it added to the appearance of the development. He advised they concurred with staff comments. Mr. Mark Marquess, BMP Development, requested they not table this item. He noted they were not the owners of the property as of yet but a contract had been entered into. He advised the owner was anxious to complete the transaction. He also noted they wanted the streets to be winding, that if they had used rectangular streets they could have added an additional 20 lots. He advised the winding streets would slow the traffic down and also added to the character of the subdivision. He expressed concern in tying the subdivisions together. He explained the subject subdivision would be primarily single-family homes with only 6 lots for duplexes which were to act as a buffer from adjoining property. He advised the other subdivision was approximately 60 lots on 40 acres which exited to the north. He pointed out the intersection of Shiloh and Mt. Comfort Road was worse than the intersection of Salem and Wedington. Mr. Marquess stated they were willing to work with the City. They had agreed to look at the possibility of some escrow toward future improvements. He stated that to tie the subdivisions together just for the sake of providing another exit could cause more of a problem, that both accesses would be equally bad and it would be throwing money away. He expressed his belief it was not what the City needed; the money needed to be put aside for traffic lights or for possible street widening, etc. Ms. Little explained the City had required the developer to contribute one-half of the cost of bringing Sycamore up to city standards, which included one-half of the cost of building a bridge across Hamestring Creek. She explained Sycamore did not tie to Shiloh so they would be building a street which did not really help with access. She stated what they really needed was the construction of Shiloh in a southerly direction to tie into the existing Shiloh and also a bridge across Hamestring on Salem Road. She informed the Commission she did not have a mechanism to require either of those improvements. She stated she believed Mr. Marquess was alluding to volunteering some funding for those improvements. Mr. Marquess stated he was sure they could all realize how beneficial a usage fee could be. He advised they did not want to put the money into escrow up front but a user fee, on a lot by lot basis, or, should improvements be made prior to the full development of the subdivision, a cash allotment would be fair. He stated they were willing to put up a reasonable amount to assist the city. • In response to a question from Me. Little, Mr. Marquess stated they planned on filing the final plat on the first phase in approximately 8 weeks. 'i� • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Nickle asked if it would be possible to include in the motion negotiation for off-site improvements which would include Salem Road. Mr. Bunn stated he believed they could; that he did not know if a mechanism existed to require such off-site improvements. He stated he believed that would be appropriate, if the developer agreed. Ms. Britton asked how they planned on developing the other tract. Mr. Marquess stated they were proposing approximately 60 lots developed as duplex lots. Mr. Allred expressed hie opinion they needed to discuss the plat before them. Ms. Britton stated she wanted to know whether they needed to consider the plats separately. She asked if the property on the north side of the creek touched the industrial area. Mr. Marquess stated it did. He reminded the Commission they had some opposition at the rezoning hearing. He pointed out there was no one present objecting to the subdivision because the adjoining residents were now comfortable with the subdivision as planned. Mr. Cato complimented the developer on previous developments, stating they had filled a need (for housing) of the City. He further stated he believed the roads on this subdivision needed to be done better. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to table this item in order to allow staff sufficient time to review the entire area and see if the subdivisions needed to be considered together. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat of Pinecrest Addition subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Allred, Reynolds, Suchecki, Sickle, Britton, Pummill, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Cato voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT - DAWN ACRES SAM MATHIAS - SW CORNER OF GREGG & SYCAMORE The next item was a preliminary plat for Dawn Acres submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located at the southwest corner of Gregg and Sycamore. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 21.10 acres with 79 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the subdivision would consist of duplexes and fourplexes. He advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives or staff other than several easement changes and requests for crossings which were agreed to by the owner. He explained staff remarks had included comments on the location of fire hydrants, the possible need for access to the south or west, and the issue of a multi -family unit on the proposed tandem 619 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 20 lot. He noted anything other than a single family dwelling on a tandem lot was not possible according to the ordinance on tandem lots. He advised any waiver of that ordinance would probably need to go to the Council. He further advised that Jerry Sweetser, owner of a tract of land just to the west of lots 13, 14, and 15 had written a letter requesting that access be made for that property since the only other access was west across Scull Creek. He stated the developer had indicated a willingness to provide access between lots 15 and 16. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; the changes in fire hydrant location as requested by the Fire Chief; subsequent approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage plan; submittal and approval of a grading plan and drainage plan for the area; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in. accordance with City ordinance; and resolution of the tandem lot issue. Mr. Milholland stated they concurred with staff comments. He advised they had been in contact with Mr. Sweetser and planned on leaving a 50 -foot right-of-way dedication between lots 15 and 16 for street access. Me. Britton asked about the fourplex on the tandem lot. Mr. Nickle advised Mr. Milholland would have to make a request to the City Council. Ms. Little advised staff would not support that request. Me. Britton stated she had suggested incorporating lot 45 with some of the lots on Dawn Circle and putting in apartments. Mr. Milholland stated the owner preferred a fourplex but he had not realized staff would not support the request. He pointed out a single-family residence would not be suitable for the lot. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat of Dawn Acres subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONCURRENT PLAT - STEPHENSON ADDITION E. L. STEPHENSON - E OF OLD WIRE RD., N OF ROM'S ORCHARD RD. The next item was presentation of a Concurrent Plat for Stephenson Addition submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of E. L. Stephenson for property located east of Old Wire Road, on the north side of Rom's Orchard Road. The property contains 14.05 acres with 2 lots. The property is located outside the City. Mr. Bunn advised there was one easement requested by the Arkansas Western Gas Company and agreed to by the owner. He further stated staff had no comments. He recommended approval of the concurrent plat subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments and the filing of subdivision covenants. Mr. Jorgensen stated they concurred with the staff comments. He advised the County had approved the plat. 50 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 21 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the concurrent plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PHASE II KEATING ENTERPRISES - E OF CROSSOVER, N OF WHIPPOORWILL The next item was a final plat for Crossover Heights, Phase II, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located east of Crossover Road, on the north side of Whippoorwill. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 7.96 acres with 20 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised there were no significant comments at the Plat Review meeting nor any staff comments. He stated the Subdivision Committee recommended the plat for approval. He noted it had been mentioned that the subdivision covenants should have a provision for the maintenance of an island within the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading plan and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; filing of the Subdivision covenants at the time of final plat filing which should include a provision for maintenance of the island; extension of the sidewalk all of the way around the cul-de-sac; and the execution of a contract between the owner and the City for the unfinished improvements. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He explained the owner wanted to finalize the project even though construction had not been started because 8 or 9 lots fronted on Whippoorwill. He advised he had reviewed the covenants and there was a property owners association set up for lots 11 through 20 for maintenance of the islands. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT - PRATT WOODS ADDITION SASSAFRAS HILL ENT. - OFF HOTZ DR., S OF MARKHAM The next item was a final plat for Pratt Woods Addition presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Sassafras Hill Enterprises for property located off Hotz Drive, south of Markham. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.9 acres with 4 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised Tracts D and A had frontage on Hotz Drive and Tracts B and C were tandem lots. He noted the preliminary plat had been approved late last year. He stated the main issue raised at the Plat Review meeting was whether or not to require two separate drives for the tandem lots and whether or not the drives should be paved. He advised the staff recommendation was that there should be two separate drives; however, one single drive could be approved provided it was paved. He noted issues raised at the preliminary plat stage had been 1) the 5/ • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 22 extension of public sewer to serve all of the lots versus allowing septic tanks on two sites, 2) drainage from the lots, and 3) the potential for further subdivision of the lots. Mr. Bunn stated those issues had been resolved at the continued to be a requirement. He advised the sewer all of the lots, provisions would be made to take covenants would prohibit further subdivision of the preliminary plat stage and would be extended to serve care of the drainage, and lots. He stated there had been no other significant comments at the Plat Review meeting. He further stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the plat and indicated that only one drive (unpaved) would be required. Mr. Bunn recommended the final plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of plans and specifications for water, sewer, and drainage facilities; payment of the required parks fees in accordance. with city ordinances; construction of a sidewalk along Hotz Drive; submittal of a drainage and grading plan for the subdivision; and the execution of a contract with the City which would cover the cost of all remaining public improvements including street lights. Mr. Bunn further noted that any lot with an average slope of more than 20 percent would require a separate grading plan at the time a building permit was issued. Mr. Nickle asked why the owner did not have to pave the street. Mr. Bunn explained the driveway would go back to the tandem lots drives were not required to be paved. Ms. Britton asked if there would be a notation on the final plat grading plan being required for each lot. Mr. Gray stated he would place that notation on the plat. Mr. Bunn further stated there was a requirement of a fire hydrant at the corner of Garland and Hotz Drive which the developer had agreed to do. Mr. Gray stated there would be two fire hydrants - one at the intersection and the other at the end of the private drive. He further advised the subdivision covenants required for maintenance of the private drive by all four of the owners. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. and private regarding a FINAL PLAT - EAITLYNN MEADOWS BOB & DONNA TREAT - E SIDE OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., 5 OF DOT TIPTON RD. The next item was a final plat for Kaitlynn Meadows submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Bob and Donna Treat for property located on the east side of Double Springs Road, south of Dot Tipton Road. The property contains 8.23 acres with 4 proposed lots. The property is outside the City. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no comments by any of the utilities, nor by staff at the Plat Review meeting. He advised the City had requested an easement 819 • • • Planning Commission February 8, 1993 Page 23 between lots 1 and 2. He noted Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the final plat subject to staff comments. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; the granting of easements by separate instrument in the area between lots 1 and 2; and subject to Washington County approval. He further noted water was already existing on Double Springs Road and individual septic tanks would be utilized for sewage disposal. Mr. Milholland noted Washington County had approved the plat. He advised they concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Election of Officers Mr. Cato reported the Nominating Committee, consisting of Commissioners Pummill, Springborn and himself, had agreed on the following elate of officers: Tom Suchecki for Chairman, Joe Tarvin for Vice -Chairman, and Jana Lynn Britton for Secretary. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to accept the slate of officers as presented. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. MOTION Mr. Allred moved the slate be approved by acclamation. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. GIS Informational Meeting Ms. Little reminded the Commission they had received a letter inviting them to a GIS Informational Meeting. She stated that would be on Thursday, February 11 with four sessions: 8:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. She further stated it would explain what GIS was. Tree Ordinance Public Hearing Ms. Little further reminded the Commission of the public hearing for the proposed Tree Ordinance on Tuesday, February 16 at 4:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 53