Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-10 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TBE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 10, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Jana Lynn Britton Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the April 26, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-20 DARAN JOHNSON - OFF DOCKERY LN, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R93-20 for property located off Dockery Lane, north of Huntsville Road, submitted by Daran Johnson. The request is to rezone 1.40 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant contended multi -family development was the only economical way to develop the property because any future street developed would have frontage only on one side. He pointed out the surrounding property on all four sizes was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, with single family residences on the south and west, vacant property to the east and Happy Hollow School to the north. He stated the site currently was not adjacent to any developed access or right- of-way. He advised the applicant that no right-of-way existed beyond where Dockery Lane ended. He further added that additional right-of-way and off-site improvements would be required as a condition of approval through the Large Scale Development or Subdivision process in order to provide access to the site. Mr. Conklin explained water and sewer would need to be extended to the site. He pointed out there was an 8 -inch water line along 4th Street and Ray Street, together with a 2 1/4 -inch water line along Dockery Lane. He further advised the applicant that acquisition of additional easements and off-site improvements to the water line would be required by the developer. He further noted there was a six-inch sewer line at the end of Dockery Lane. He explained additional easements and off-site improvements would be required by the developer to serve the subject site. He noted the 1970 Land Use Plan designed this property as low density residential. Mr. Conklin stated there were some duplexes in the immediate vicinity. He noted that, due to the site's landlocked position, it was more feasible to develop the site as a multi -family site. He requested the Planning Commission advise the applicant that a Large Scale Development plan would be required prior to development and that improvements to Dockery Lane and the water and sewer service would be required at a minimum. He further noted that improvement to Dockery Lane was complicated by a power line located to the east. He advised staff was forwarding the request without a recommendation due to the complications associated with developing the site. • Mr. Johnson advised he had talked with Don Bunn, City Engineer, and Alett Little, Planning Director, regarding the easement which would be necessary to access this • • • Planning Commies on A 4d 12, 1997 9/93 Page 2 site. He explained that property was owned by a family member and there would be no problem in getting the easement. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve R93-20 subject to staff comments and recommendations. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (6° • • • Planning Commission Am44-327— I99.a'Aay/L7i/ Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-21 SPRING STREET CENTRE, INC. - 241 W. SPRING ST. The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning R93-21 to rezone 1.38 acres from R -O, Residential -Office, to C-3, Central Business Commercial, presented by Richard Alexander on behalf of Spring Street Centre, Inc., for property located at 241 W. Spring Street. Mr. Conklin advised the owners of the subject property planned to do extensive renovations on the existing building and had requested the rezoning in order to accommodate as many potential different commercial uses as possible. He explained the purpose of R -O zoning was to allow the development of offices and residential uses in one location. He stated the type of commercial uses allowed within C-3 zoning districts included residential uses, offices, restaurants, hotels, local and regional shopping goods, auto sales, commercial recreation establishments, gas stations, and drive-in restaurants. He further advised C-3 zoning was intended to provide commercial uses and residential uses commonly found in the central business district. He pointed out the main difference between C-2 and C-3 zoning was that C-3 zoning allowed residential uses. Mr. Conklin advised that to the north and east of the property was C-3 zoning and to the south and west was R -O zoning. He noted adjacent land use included single family and multi -family residential, an accounting office, and a dentist office. He stated access to the site was from Spring Street, a local street. He noted water and sewer were already being provided to the site. He stated the 1970 Land Use Plan designated the subject property as Public and Water. He noted, however, development patterns had concentrated a mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He pointed out the site was adjacent to property already zoned C-3 to the north and east. Mr. Tarvin expressed surprise that the land zoned C-3 was being used mainly as residential. He pointed out very little of the property zoned C-3 was being used commercially. He noted that, while he could see rezoning the subject property to C-3 would not be much of an impact to the surrounding zoning, he wondered if the rezoning was needed. Mr. Conklin stated he had also noticed a lot of the surrounding area had not developed commercially. He pointed out C-3 did allow for residential uses. He advised the applicant had requested as many uses as possible by right so he could lease the building. Mr. Springborn expressed his belief that some of the C-3 uses were incompatible with residential. Mr. Conklin advised the residential development to the north and east was already zoned C-3. He explained commercial uses could develop in that area. Mr. Springborn stated he was not questioning the existing zoning but was questioning whether C-3 uses were compatible with existing uses. Mr. Conklin contended there were some uses in C-3 that might not be as compatible as others however, the site was already developed and the use of the building was already developed. He advised he believed the use would be compatible with adjacent uses. /667 • • Planning Commission /Q 1993 Apr.'' 13, Page 4 Mr. Richard Osborne, representing the petitioner, showed the site and surrounding property with the C-3 property adjoining the subject site. He also showed an architect's rendition of the building after it was remodeled. He explained they were requesting the rezoning in order to attract tenants. He stated that, without leasing the building, it would remain empty. He assured the Commission the building would not be used for a bar or nightclub. He stated they were hoping to attract professionals and leasing them office space. He further noted they envisioned a small bakery, etc. He pointed out surrounding uses included a CPA office, attorney offices, an antique shop, and a dentist office. He also informed the Commission there was more than adequate parking for the tenants and their patrons. In response to a question from Mr. Ed Reed, Mr. Conklin again reviewed the uses possible under C-3 zoning. Mr. Reed asked if the property could be used for only commercial purposes Mr. Suchecki advised C-3 would allow professional offices, small retail shops, and residential uses. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve R93-21 subject to staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. toll • • • Planning Commission ge'5' 1 --- 00- 3 Pa 4 /99.J LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SANG AVENUE APARTMENTS HECRATHORN PROPERTIES - E OF SANG, S OF DEANE The next item was a large scale development for Sang Avenue Apartments presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Heckathorn Properties. The property is located on the east side of Sang Avenue, south of Deane Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 1.62 acres. Mr. Bunn stated the large scale development consisted of two apartment buildings containing 20 two-bedroom units and 18 one -bedroom units, located on 1.62 acres. He advised there had been no significant comments by the utility company representatives other than an easement requested across the green area in front of the development which had been agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks included comments on fire hydrant locations, sidewalks, entrance signs, and the need to determine the 100 year flood elevation so that floor slab elevations could be determined. He stated the Subdivision Committee voted to send the large scale development to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; provision of fire hydrants as required by the Fire Chief; approval of plans for water, sewer, and drainage; submittal of a grading and drainage plan for the area; establishment of the 100 year flood elevation for the site; and construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees. Mr. Nickle stated the area was subject to flooding. He noted the requirement was that floor slabs be constructed two feet above the 100 year flood level. He asked if that would be checked by the City. Mr. Bunn stated it would be checked by city staff. Mr. Harry Gray stated the developer agreed with staff comments. He noted they were in the process of evaluating the 100 year flood and it would be established. Jody and Mark Dilday, neighboring residents, appeared before the Commission with. a petition in opposition to the rezoning of the subject tract. Mr. Suchecki explained this was not a rezoning hearing but a large scale development. He advised the property was already zoned for multi -family structures. Mr. Conklin explained the large scale development process. He advised that, if there objections were to the proposed use, it was a use by right. He stated their objections would have to be regarding the design or impact of the development. Ms. Dilday stated the area residents' main concern was with the traffic on Sang. She pointed out there were no sidewalks on Sang from Asbell School to Deane Street. She further stated there were many children in the neighborhood and they believed the increase in traffic which would come with the large scale development would be hazardous to the children. She further stated they believed such a large development would destroy the atmosphere of the neighborhood. Mr. Gray pointed out a sidewalk would be constructed along the front of the subject development. He further noted that, under R-3 zoning, they could have constructed at a much higher density than they were. He stated they would be constructing at approximately 24 units per acre. ]o0 • • Planning Commission APE—io__g_1-Jar/793 Page 6 Mr. Conklin stated under R-3 zoning, they were allowed up to 40 units per acre. Mr. Ted Butly, 1615 N. Sang, stated he had two children attending Asbell and he feared for their safety due to the traffic on Sang. He stated the traffic would be worse if the apartment building was constructed. He asked if there would be any greenspace left on the tract after the apartment was constructed and how many parking spaces there would be. Mr. Conklin advised the development did meet the required parking of one and one- half spaces per unit. Mr. Butly informed the Commission there was also a drainage problem in the area and expressed his belief the additional concrete would add to the drainage problems. He stated there was currently six inches of water in his front yard. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Gray explained at the present time the property drained and would continue to drain to a culvert going under Sang Street. He stated he understood there were some down stream flooding problems. He further stated he planned on pursuing whether the flooding in the area was before or after improvements had been made to the culvert. Mr. Tom Lavender, a neighboring resident, stated he was the original builder in that area. He advised he followed the criteria that had been set for small residences. He stated he had constructed small single family homes and duplexes and expected the area would retain its integrity. He informed the Commission that the drainage divide was just east of the subject property, with very little water going from the east to the west. He stated the 12 -inch culvert took care of all of the drainage. He advised that when Washington Plaza was constructed they altered the drainage and it now came down Sang. He stated drainage was not a problem. He further stated the problem was the number of people in a small area with numerous children. He informed the Commission all of the neighborhood children played at the Asbell School ground everyday in the summer. He stated there were no sidewalks nor any protection for the children. Mr. Lavender questioned whether the builder would have adequate room for parking for the apartments. He stated there was plenty of land to the west of the site which was open and available. He expressed hie opinion the site was too beautiful to construct an apartment complex. Mr. Conklin advised the City had recently applied for a grant to construct walking/bicycle trails to the elementary schools. Ms. Faye Doege stated she had three grandchildren that lived on Sang and she was interested in the project. She pointed out apartment housing appealed mainly to university students. She contended university students drove fast and were on the streets at all times of the day. She also told of the number of children in the neighborhood and the fact that they played on the school grounds in the summer. She also stated there would be a drainage problem. She pointed out if they covered that much soil with concrete, the water would rush off and flood the people on the east side. Me. Doege also requested a traffic signal at Wedington and Sang for the safety of the school children. She also expressed her opinion that they were creating an eventual slum area when they grouped apartment complexes together. 1629 • • • Planning Commission April 12, 179-3792y/ai/iT.3 Page 7 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained the signal at Wedington and Sang was a state highway intersection. He stated the City had requested the State to look at the intersection. He further stated he was not sure of the results; that he would have to check with Perry Franklin. He advised he was sure a signal was not warranted at the present time. He stated the Wedington widening project was still alive and they probably would not do anything until Wedington was improved, if they did anything at all. Ms. Marsha Neely, a Sang resident, also spoke in opposition stating it was a quiet neighborhood and she would rather the apartment not be constructed at the subject site. Mr. Nickle again pointed out the property was currently zoned for multi -family housing and the right to construct apartments on the tract was established some time ago; that the Planning Commission was reviewing the large scale development, not the zoning. Mr. Gray pointed out there was a large area of R-3 zoning between Sang and Lewis from Porter Road south 600 feet. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion and stated he trusted staff had made notes regarding the safety aspects and the requests from the residents. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commies A93 - Page 8 nig /973 PRELIMINARY PLAT - RIDGSMONTE VIEW NIBLOCR & PARTNERS - S OF MISSION, E OF FOX HUNTER RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Ridgemonte View Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Niblock & Partners for property south of Mission Road, east of Fox Hunter Road. The property is located outside the City Limits and contains 55.64 acres with 28 lots. Mr. Bunn stated none of the utility company representatives had any significant comments on the plat other than some additional easements and street crossings requested. He noted the owners had agreed to the additional items. He advised staff remarks included comments on street names, fire hydrant placement, the need to apply for a waiver of the maximum length of a cul-de-sac, and sidewalks. He stated the Subdivision Committee had sent the development to the Planning Commission with no comment. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, street, and drainage plans; a waiver of the maximum length of a cul-de-sac; installation of a jogging trail in lieu of sidewalks; and resolution of the street name issue. Mr. Mel Milholland stated they concurred with staff recommendations. He advised they had resolved the street names. He further noted the jogging trail was six feet wide around the perimeter of the property. He further advised the County had approved the plat, the road layout and road quality. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Milholland explained there was an easement for the jogging trail, to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. He stated the easement ran along the north, west and south boundaries of the subdivision and then along the easternmost street to the north. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. «1 • • • Planning Commission Apr t_12, to '"/7/4/993 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - RIDGEMONTE DOWNS NIBLOCE & PARTNERS - S OF MISSION & WEST OF FOX HUNTER RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Ridgemonte Downs presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Niblock & Partners for property located outside the City Limits, south of Mission and west of Fox Hunter Road. The property contains 77.2 acres with 58 lots. Mr. Bunn advised the subject property was adjacent on the north and east to Fox Hunter Road. He noted there were no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than some requests for additional easements and utility crossings which were agreed to by the owner. He stated staff remarks included comments on the location of fire hydrants, street lighting, street names, and the jogging trail. He explained this development would be tied to the existing sewer line which crossed the property, thereby eliminating the need for individual septic systems. He further explained that one of the requirements for being able to tie onto the sewer was that, by some legal document tied to the subdivision covenants, the subdivision would annex into the City when it became legally possible to do so. He stated that, at the subdivision committee, there had been considerable public comment on the development by adjacent and nearby property owners. He advised that, among the issues raised by the public, was the traffic on Fox Hunter Road and the generally poor condition of Fox Hunter Road along the north and east side of the subdivision. He stated other issues were the construction runoff from the site and the desire to save large trees along Fox Hunter Road. He noted the Subdivision Committee voted to pass along the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments and the public's comments. Mr. Bunn advised the County Planning Commission, in their meeting of May 3, 1993, approved the subdivision basically as submitted. He noted the following conditions with regard to Fox Hunter Road applied: (1) the intersection of Fox Hunter Road with the highway was to be made a 90 degree intersection; (2) the road is to be overlayed with 2 inches of asphalt and widened to 31 feet with curb. and gutter on the south side. These improvements will go from Highway 45 to the entrance of Ridgemonte Estates; (3) the curve at the northeast corner of the subdivision is to be improved to eliminate the dangerous 90 degree turn; and (4) the entrance is to be moved to eliminate sight distance problems. He advised another issue raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting was the possible moving of the access to the subdivision off of Fox Hunter Road onto Highway 45, utilizing some city property. He stated the developer choose to submit the subdivision with the entrance directly on Fox Hunter Road. He noted that, while the City had no objections and would be able to work with the owner on an entrance onto Highway 45, they also had no objections to the entrance on Fox Hunter Road as submitted. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; submittal of a grading plan; off-site improvements in accordance with the County requirements; the requirement that all property in the subdivision will be annexed to the City whenever it becomes adjacent to the City Limits (such legal document setting out those terms would need to be approved by the City Attorney prior to any sewer construction taking place); the construction of a jogging trail in lieu of sidewalks; and resolution of the street name issue. Mr. Nickle stated the preliminary plat through 8 shall be restricted to the new approve a waiver to not allow access to had a notation that access to Lots 3 Buckley Lane. He asked if they had to Fox Hunter Road. • • • Planning Commies /0/�3 April 12-. 199 i Page 10 Mr. Bunn explained he believed that restriction was why the County did not require any improvements to Fox Hunter Road in that area. Mr. Nickle asked if the street construction would meet city standards. Mr. Bunn replied it would meet city standards in terms of the section which was being constructed and the width would meet the county standards. Mr. Springborn stated the Planning Commission could not require the annexation, that only the City Council could approve annexations. He advised it would need to be monitored and, as soon as it adjoined city limits, staff would need to submit it for annexation. Mr. Bunn explained they could make the requirement that the subdivision petition for annexation when the property adjoined the city limits. He stated at that time, if the Council chose not to annex the property, then that would be another question. He further stated they could not approve annexation at this point but they could require the subdivision to submit a petition for annexation when legally possible. Mr. Reynolds asked if they had failed to get the city owned property for access to Highway 45. Mr. Bunn explained the developers chose not to pursue that access. He stated that, while the city would not have a problem in working with the developer in having an entrance from that direction, the developer chose to submit the subdivision with an entrance on Fox Hunter Road. He advised staff did not have an objection to that access. Mr. Cato asked if they had looked at a second access between lots 8 and 9 to Fox Hunter Road. Mr. Bunn stated they had not. Mr. Cato asked if that would be preferable. Mr. Bunn stated staff was not making that recommendation. He explained another access could be useful but staff was not recommending it. Mr. Milholland concurred with staff comments and recommendations. He advised the county had approved the subdivision. He explained there would have been a problem with sight distance if they had used the Highway 45 access route. He stated the existing roadway on Fox Hunter Road was only 16 feet wide and it would be improved to 31 feet in width and provide new curb and gutter. He pointed out the lot sizes were from 175 to 180 feet wide and they wanted to restrict access to those lots from Fox Hunter Road in order to maintain the safety factor as much as possible and have the houses facing the same direction. He further advised there were some beautiful trees on Fox Hunter Road which they wanted to maintain. Mr. Milholland pointed out the entrance would be like the one at Ridgemonte View with a large, divided entrance. He noted they were still working on street names. He further advised that the developer wanted to set up the Homeowners Association to enable the City to annex the property when legally possible. He further advised the developer had never considered crossing City property for access and had never agreed to do it. He stated the Mayor had informed him that the City would be willing to work with the developers, if they desired to use the property, as long as the property would not be split. t73 • • • Planning Page 11 Mr. Tarvin asked if it was the intention to connect the 24 -inch sewer flowing southwesterly through Phase II to the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Milholland stated they were. He advised he had discussed the matter with Mr. Bunn and was informed the line was adequate for them to tie onto. Ernest and Carol Stanberry, adjoining property owners, stated they owned a single family residence on 38 acres immediately to the west of the subject property. Mr. Stanberry advised there was one single family residence on their northern boundary, and two single family residences on the south boundary. He explained their primary concern was the sewer. He stated there had been no problems with back-up in the last 3 or 4 years but previously every time it rained, they either had raw sewage running across their property or it would back up into their home or both. He stated he did not want that problem again and, if they tied 50 some homes into the sewer, it would back up again. Mrs. Stanberry stated they had also constructed a dental office downhill from one of the manholes. She explained if there was run-off, it would come down to the office. Mr. Stanberry also expressed concern regarding the concentration of development. He advised they were not against development but it was not compatible with his property. He also expressed concern that the jogging trail adjoined his property. He stated children would have access to the east border and there was a 6 -acre lake approximately 100 yards from that border. Mrs. Stanberry requested a green space or playground for the children rather than the jogging trail. She advised they had been able to control children coming onto their property because there were only a few children in the area at this time. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe. the subdivision would cause an impact on the sewer. He explained the improvements done approximately 4 years earlier had effectively more than doubled the capacity. Mr. Suchecki asked if there were any plans to put up a barricade around the subdivision to keep people from wandering onto adjoining property. Mr. Milholland stated there was presently a fence at that location which would remain. He pointed out the average lot size was 1.33 acres which would give adequate room for children to play. Ms. Lora Loge, an adjoining property owner, stated she did not want to be annexed by the city. She further opposed the proposed entrance onto Fox Hunter Road. She stated 58 lots would cause approximately 300 more cars using Fox Hunter Road. She pointed out they were not yet aware of the impact from the first 30 lots in Ridgemonte Estates. She expressed her belief the other suggested entrance to the subdivision had not been given adequate consideration. She stated she had been told it would be a Class III road but it still would be a 2 -lane highway. She pointed out the traffic included trucks to the sewer treatment plant which hauled chemicals. She further stated she had told the County Planning Commission she would work with the developer regarding the land at the corner but it would depend on the amount of land they were talking about. She further stated she was first told they would have to design a road. She complained the developer had placed an RV on her property to sell the subdivision lots, without her permission. She stated they did not have permission to set up a business on her property. /7 • • • Planning Commission ,0a7/0/ 993 Page 12 Mr. Cyrus Young stated he understood the jogging trail was on an easement around the property to be maintained by the property owners association. He asked if they would be for public use. Mr. Suchecki stated it would not be for public use. Mr. Young stated it was his understanding the jogging trail was in lieu of sidewalks. Mr. Pummill advised the sidewalk ordinance could not be enforced because the property was outside the city limits. Ms. Roseann Gonzalez, an adjoining property owner, requested the City contact the State Highway Department regarding the need to upgrade Highway 45. She also pointed out the property on Highway 45, owned by the school district, was still being considered for an elementary school in the City of Fayetteville, contrary to what she was told by city staff. She stated they needed Highway 45 to be widened and a traffic light. She also expressed concern regarding drainage. She pointed out the property had been terraced to provide for proper drainage and once streets and houses were constructed, it would affect the drainage. Ms. Gonzalez also expressed concern regarding her privacy since the jogging trail adjoined her back yard. She stated they needed to be concerned about privacy. She stated her biggest concern was the lots were already being sold before the subdivision was approved. Ms. Barbara Moore, an adjoining property owner, stated she preferred the entrance access to Highway 45 rather than Fox Hunter Road. She asked why they chose to access the development onto Fox Hunter Road rather than onto Highway 45. Mr. Bunn stated he believed it would be a matter of economics. Mr. Suchecki pointed out the developer did not own the City property. He explained the developer would have had to enter into negotiations to purchase the property. Ms. Moore stated that could be done. Mr. Suchecki stated it was his understanding there had not been a formal request and therefore, there had not been a formal response. He further noted it appeared the city would entertain an offer. Ms. Moore stated it was then a possibility to change the access. Mr. Suchecki advised the developer had said it was not a possibility; that they were not going to purchase any additional for access to Highway 45. Ms. Moore asked the reason for that decision. Mr. Suchecki stated the reason was that the developer did not want to purchase the land to access Highway 45. He explained it was more economical for the developer to access Fox Hunter Road. Ms. Moore stated that meant the current residents were losing their quality of life for the profit of the developer. 175 . i7A • • • Planning Commission /U /993 April 12, f9937%%ay Page 13 Mr. Suchecki explained the developer owned the property and had the right to develop it to its best use. He stated the city could not make the developer purchase the property. Me. Moore asked if there was not a recourse to the number of cars using the road and the safety of the current residents. Mr. Suchecki advised the City Traffic Department had reviewed the situation and had discovered no problems. Ms. Fran Alexander, an adjoining property owner, stated there seemed to be a lack of communication on this project. She explained the citizens along Fox Hunter Road were under the impression that access through city property was a possibility but at the county meeting Mr. Milholland implied the city did not want to do that and, therefore, the developers were not entertaining that option. She stated this needed to be done in the open and with everyone's understanding of what was happening. She further stated she did not know if the city and county communicated with each other. She advised there was a unique situation because the city sewage treatment plant was at the base of the hill on Fox Hunter Road and the city utilized the road. She asked if the city did not share some of the expenses of paving Fox Hunter Road with the county. Mr. Bunn stated he did not know whether the city participated in the cost or not. He advised that, when the plant was being constructed, the city contributed some funds toward the maintenance due to the construction vehicles. He stated he did not know if the city contributed any funds after that point. Me. Alexander stated there had been some engineering closer to the plant because either the city or county took out the trees. She further stated a city employee had answered that complaint. She advised the trucks worked at the plant delivering chemicals. She pointed out none of the citizens along Fox Hunter Road had objected to the development but had tried to explain there was a dangerous situation. She stated the right angle off of Highway 45 had not been worked out. She pointed out the cemetery took quite a bit of land and she did not believe it was possible to construct a right angle unless they went further on Highway 45, taking a large amount of Ms. Loge's property, leaving her an isolated tract of property. She advised the reason she opposed the development's entrance was because of the crest of the hill and chemical trucks and septic trucks. She stated there would be an improvement on the safety of those vehicles going west on Fox Hunter Road. She reminded the Commission the trucks traveled at great speeds and anyone sitting at the intersection was in danger from those trucks; however, if the vehicle was headed east, it would have to slow down to make a sharp right turn, then go a very short distance and make a left turn onto Fox Hunter. She stated that, to buy the property from the city and to build a road, as requested by the adjoining residents, through the city property, intersected at Timber Crest and install a light, which would have all of the traffic from the subdivision on Highway 45. She stated the manager of the sewage treatment plant told her the more traffic they could get off of Fox Hunter, the better. Ms. Alexander informed the Commission the County had approved the subdivision after Mr. Milholland told them the City did not want the subdivision using the city property. She stated there was a communication problem. She also expressed her opinion they needed to work out some more things on how the road would be accessed before it was approved. • • • Planning Commies ton/4 1973 Arei-1-4-2r1993 Page 14 Mr. Suchecki explained one of the conditions of approval by the county was that the 90 degree intersection would be worked out. He further explained the subdivision had been approved subject to numerous conditions and if those conditions were not met, the subdivision did not proceed. Mr. Conklin advised the Commission the staff had contacted the director of the sewage treatment plant and explained the conditions. He stated the director had agreed, that with the widening of the street to 31 feet and the intersection improvement, that he had no problem with allowing access to Fox Hunter by the subdivision. In response to a northeast corner Ms. Loge advised MOTION question by Mr. was a dirt road the road was in Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained the roadway at the and not in very good condition. very poor condition. Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat of Ridgemonte Downs subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn requested that the requirement for annexation when possible be included in the subdivision covenants. Mr. Pummill agreed. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission —1 -2y -1993y y74/973 Page 15 FINAL PLAT - MISSION BLVD. SUBDIVISION GORDON WILKINS & DANNY VILLINES - S OF MISSION, W OF CROSSOVER The next item was a final plat for Mission Boulevard Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gorgon Wilkins and Danny Villines for property located on the south side of Mission, west of Crossover Road. The property is. zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.65 acres with 29 lots. Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives had no significant comments on the plat other than additional easements and crossings requested and agreed to by the owners. He noted staff had comments on the street lights, the need for sidewalks to be handicap accessible, street names, and the need for a contract for the unfinished improvements. He advised the discussion at the Subdivision Committee was limited to whether the tree ordinance applied to this development. He noted the committee voted to forward the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; assignment of street names; street light changes requested by the Traffic Superintendent; the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished public improvements, including street lighting; and payment of parks fees and the construction of sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinances. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He advised they were in the process of working on a utility easement to the west. He noted the project was at the stage where they were ready to put in the curb and gutter. Mr. Reynolds asked if the tree ordinance applied to this subdivision. Mr. Conklin stated Ms. Little had advised him any subdivision or large scale development submitted prior to the adoption of the tree ordinance did not have to comply with the ordinance. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.