Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 24, 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, Jana Lynn Britton, Jett Cato, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred Chuck Nickle Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the May 10, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R93-23, R93-24, & R93-25 SPENCER ALBRIGHT, ET AL - N OF ZION RD., W OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezonings R93-23, R93-24 and R93-25 for property located on the north side of Joyce Road, west of Crossover Road, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Spencer Albright (R93-23 and R93-24) and on behalf of Warren Taylor and Peter and Clair Gunn (R93-25). Item R93-23 is a request to rezone 4.90 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office. Item R93-24 is a request to rezone 9.16 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Item R93-25 is a request to rezone .45 acres from R -O, Residential Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently vacant except for the portion currently zoned R -o which had an occupied single family structure. He stated the applicants had requested C-1 zoning for 9.61 acres at the intersection of Joyce and Crossover Road and had also requested 4.90 acres be rezoned to R -O in order to provide a buffer between the C-1 zoning and the R -1/A-1 zoning to the north and west. He pointed out the adjacent zoning to the south was R -O and A-1 and to the east C-1. He further stated the property to the north, east, and west was vacant and the property to the south was developed as professional offices. He advised access to the site was from Joyce Boulevard which was classified as a Principal Arterial. He noted improvements to Joyce Boulevard to widen it to four lanes would be accomplished within the next 2 - 3 years. He explained the request was within the top 10 projects which would be accomplished under the City's Capital Improvements Plan. He advised that, once Joyce Boulevard was widened to four lanes, the warrants for a stoplight would likely be met at the subject intersection. Mr. Conklin pointed out the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject property as Commercial for the first 500 feet north and west of the intersection of Joyce and Crossover and designated the remaining area as Medium Density Residential. He noted there was an 8 -inch water line along parts of Joyce Boulevard and a 2 1/4 -inch line adjacent to the site. He also pointed out there was an 8 -inch sewer line adjacent to the site. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezonings. He explained rezoning the property as requested would provide an orderly plan to provide neighborhood commercial development to serve the existing and potential residential development in the vicinity. He further advised the Planning Commission would need to make separate motions for each request. /97 • • • Planning Commissto Page9 Mr. Harry Gray advised there was a written agreement between the applicants and the property owner to the north that there would be a 40 -foot green area maintained between the two properties. Me. Britton expressed concern regarding the townhouses in the area. She stated that, considering the land use, she believed it would be more appropriate if the C-1 zoning did not extend beyond the eastern boundary of the apartments. She agreed that it was a logical place for neighborhood commercial zoning but did not believe it should extend beyond a line parallel with the eastern boundary of Paradise Valley. NOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to recommend approval of R93-23 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, Tarvin, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". NOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend approval of R93-24 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, Tarvin, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to recommend approval of R93-25 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, Tarvin, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". igO • • • Planning Commissi Page3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-26 & R93-27 BILL LAZENBY - N OF W 6TH, S OF OLD FARMINGTON, W OF SANDRA. The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning° R93-26 and R93-27 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill Lazenby for properties located on the north side of West 6th Street, the south side of Old Farmington Road, and west of Sandra. Item R93-26 is a request to rezone .542 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Item R93-27 is a request to rezone .335 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently undeveloped. He stated the applicant was requesting C-2 zoning for that portion of the lot along Highway 62 (West 6th Street) and R-1 zoning for that portion of the lot along Old Farmington Road. He pointed out the following item on the agenda was a lot split application for the subject tract of land. He noted to the north the property was zoned A-1 with residential uses, to the east was zoned R-1.5 and C-2 with both residential and commercial uses, to the south was zoned A-1 with vacant land, and to the west was zoned A-1 and R -O with residential uses. He further advised access to the site was from Highway 62, Classified as a Principal Arterial, and Old Farmington Road, classified as a local street. Mr. Conklin advised there was an 8 -inch gravity sewer line and a 12 -inch force main running directly through the middle of the property. He noted the 1970 Land Use Plan designated the subject property as medium density residential. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezonings. He explained the site petitioned to be rezoned to R-1 would be adjacent to residential development to the west and east. He further advised the site petitioned to be rezoned to C-2 would be adjacent to property zoned C-2 to the east and R -O to the west. He noted the Planning Commission would need to make separate motions for each of the requests. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Me. Little stated there was a requirement for a sidewalk on Old Farmington. Mr. Jorgensen explained the purpose of the rezoning requests was to conform to adjoining zoning. He advised the applicant wanted to split the property, putting a residence on the property to the north. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little explained sidewalk was required on Highway 62 but would be addressed at the time the lot was developed. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve R93-26 from A-1 to C-1 subject to staff comments. comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve R93-27 from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. '�I • • • Planning Commissb,on -Ann 12, 1943 Page 4 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 BILL LAZENBY - N OF W SIXTH, S OF OLD FARMINGTON, W OF SANDRA The next item was a request for a first lot split submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the north side of West Sixth Street, south of Old Farmington Road, west of Sandra. The property is proposed R-1, Low Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (R93-26 and R93- 27). Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split the property so that the R-1 portion was about 1/3 of an acre and would front Old Farmington Road. He noted the commercial portion would be about 0.5 acres and would front Highway 62. He advised both lots would be legal lots under the proposed zoning. He recommended the lot split be approved subject to dedication of five feet of additional right-of-way on Old Farmington Road; a 15 -foot water and sewer easement along the entire west side of both tracts; the extension of sewer to the north tract created by the split; and installation of sidewalks as set out in the Master Sidewalk Plan. He explained some of the requirements were special requirements and others were covered by the regulations automatically. Ms. Britton asked if there was not sewer along Old Farmington Road. Mr. Bunn explained the subject property had sewer at the back of the lot. He pointed out that, once the lot was split, the portion adjoining Old Farmington would then not have sewer, which necessitated taking sewer to the tract. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to grant the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Planning Commission flpsil 12, 1993 MAV z'i , 1993 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-22 AND ANNEXATION JED DEVELOPMENT - E & W SIDES OF SALEM RD., N OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item was a request for an annexation and rezoning submitted by Mel Milholland for Howard Davis of JED Development for property located on the east and west sides of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The request is to annex and rezone 283 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Suchecki advised the following two items, an informal plat and a preliminary plat for Crystal Springs Subdivision, were related to the annexation and rezoning. He asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Allred stated these items had come before the Subdivision Committee on May 13 at a lengthy and involved meeting. He advised it was the unanimous decision of the Subdivision Committee to forward the plats to the full Planning Commission with the recommendation that the informal and preliminary plats be tabled until such time as the annexation was approved and forwarded to the City Council for final approval. He explained he believed the requests could be dealt with in a more responsible manner if action was delayed until after annexation. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table the rezoning, concept plat and preliminary plat for Crystal Springs and only the annexation be addressed at this meeting. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Springborn advised he would like to make a statement as far as density of development under R-1 zoning. He stated that, since reading about the Subdivision Committee meeting in the newspaper, he had done some research. He stated he had a logic problem with advice they had received in the past from the Planning Director with reference to R-1 density. He further stated they had been advised that the developers had the right to develop to the R-1 density and that they could develop to a lesser density but the Commission could not require it. He advised they had pressured developers and persuaded them to develop to a lesser density than originally proposed in a few instance. He stated he wanted to make two points of logic: (1) Development can occur in an area by an aggregate of individuals as well as by a professional developer; (2) The ordinance, i.e. R-1, applied in either instances. He further stated he wanted to make three references: (1) The enabling act provides for an ordinance to secure the health, safety and welfare of residents and business in a municipality and for a Planning Commission to administer. He advised the enabling act had been adopted by the State of Arkansas after enactment by the federal government in the 1920's. He stated there had been a prior ordinance under which some of the municipalities acted in the early 1900's which had been deemed inadequate to cover rezonings; hence, President Hoover authorized a commission which drafted the 1920 ordinance. (2) The zoning classification introduction provides the zoning classes are minimum and are to be guidelines. (3) The minimum residential development under A-1 is 2 acres. He noted that, if he put the logic points he raised and the references together, he could come to these conclusions: first, aggregate uniform development can be appropriate under A-1 under the required 2 acre density and second, if rezoning was granted to accommodate developer development, the Commission had both the duty and an obligation to require a development density greater than the minimum specified under R-1 in order to provide for uniform development. He suggested they had two alternatives: they could act on the motion to table two of the issues or they could relax the motion to table to include to put it back solely on annexation. He advised this would give both the City Attorney and the applicants, in the event they have retained counsel, time to consider it. • • • Planning Commission MAY 22i, IUg3 Page 6 Ms. Little asked if the motion was to consider the rezoning at this time. She the land in, if it were recommended for Mr. Springdale stated that was his point leaving the property at A-1, making the The motion carried unanimously. consider the annexation only, and not advised that would, by ordinance, bring approval, as A-1. . He stated they did have the option of property have a 2 -acre density. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested the entire tract of 283 acres be annexed. He advised to the north was county property which contained large lot residential development and vacant land, to the south was R-1 property with single family residential development, to the east was county property containing the Razorback Golf Course, and to the west was vacant county property. Mr. Conklin noted that, when the land was developed, improvements to the City's water and sewer system would be required of the developer in order to serve the potential development. He explained planned extensions of the 36 -inch water line along Deane Solomon Road and the 12 -inch extension along Mount Comfort Road would have to be completed. He stated funding for the 36 -inch water line could be available by next year. He further advised the applicant would be responsible for all on-site and off-site improvements to the sewer system as potential development occurred. He noted water and sewer would have to be addressed at the time development took place. He further noted the applicant would be responsible for all on-site and off-site improvements to the sewer system in order to provide adequate service for the potential development. He stated the existing pump station north of Highway 16 that would be access for the subject development might have to be upgraded to handle the additional flow. He explained adequacy of both water and sewer would have to be addressed as each phase of development occurred. Mr. Conklin pointed out access to the site was from Salem Road and Raven Road. He noted both streets were classified as local streets. He advised both on-site and possible off-site improvements to Salem Road and Raven Road could be required of the developer as the land came under development. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of property come in under A-1 zoning. He the Order of Annexation by Washington the requested annexation and have the advised the recommendation was subject to County. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained the fire rating was for the entire city. Mel Milholland stated they concurred with the motion for annexation but would like the Planning Commission to seriously consider the request for R-1 zoning. He explained R-1 was the highest residential zoning in the City. He further stated they intended to develop an R-1 subdivision on the property which would meet the city's requirements and be a quality subdivision. Ms. Kim Urfer, a resident of the Salem community, expressed concern regarding the quality of life in the area. She stated the residents believed it would be wise to table the annexation until all of the facts were in. She advised they knew development was inevitable but pointed out the developer and City should be responsible for providing adequate city services - water, sewer, drainage control, fire and police protection, quality schools and play areas, trash collection and animal control. She stated that, after studying comments from several city department heads regarding the proposed annexation, it was easy to come away with the feeling that building in the subject area could easily out pace the city's ability to provide services to many residents. She asked that r�� • • • Planning Commission April 13, 1993 MAY at -I. 1993 Page 7 they demand and be certain of all facts before committing the City to what could be a major development and major expense. She advised they would like to see everyone come out winners in this matter; but, if the annexation were approved before all questions were answered, there would be no winners. She asked that each commissioner read, in depth, the reports given by the city department heads. She further stated they had no choice but to deny the annexation or table the request until the applicants were able to answer all of the questions that were still open and until they were certain all city services could be provided for the area. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 Salem Road, advised he had property within the city limits and also had property outside the city limits that bordered the proposed annexation. He stated he was concerned about the land use of the property, about the scope and density of future development. He advised he was familiar with the terrain of the area, which contained several low spots and retained water for long periods of time. He went on to say he was familiar with the soil type in the area. He advised constructing on the soil type would be costly and he believed intense development would be wrong for the subject area. He pointed out the maintenance problems on Highway 112, Deane Solomon Road, Salem Road, etc. He asked they consider this type of development and use of the land in the watershed area of Clabber Creek. He further stated he was concerned about an area on his property that had been dedicated as a wildlife refuge which was being managed in conjunction with the Fish and Game Commission. Mr. Kimbrough also expressed concerned about gerrymandering annexation. He stated he was concerned regarding the utilization of resources to accommodate the subject area and the costs associated with it, when there were areas already within the city that could be used. He further stated he considered the proposed use of the land inappropriate, inconsistent with the surrounding area, and inconsiderate of the developer for the surrounding property owners. Mr. Jim Selby, a neighboring resident, stated he was a retired engineer for the State Highway Department. He advised the soil composition would not support even a street since it was full of humus. He also expressed concern regarding flooding if the area were developed. He stated he did not believe the property was suitable for development. He further stated he did not understand why the city would want to annex this type of land. He pointed out there was 200 acres to the east designated as an industrial park. He advised that, if the park were ever developed, it would greatly increase the runoff for the subject land. He recommended the Commission not annex the subject property. Doug Hemmingway, a resident of Bird Haven Terrace, informed the Commission the majority of houses in the addition contained 1100 to 1200 square feet. He understood the proposed development would contain homes measuring around 1600 square to 2100 square feet. He advised all of his neighbors were in favor of the annexation and rezoning of the property. Terry Hendrix, 3195 Howard Nickle Road, voiced opposition to the annexation. He advised he was not against development or annexation but he did not believe there was adequate infrastructure for the subject property. He pointed out development could lead to an additional 800 to 1,000 new residences. He stated a conservative estimate of 3 members to a household could lead to a population one and one-half times the size of Farmington. He further advised Tim Conklin, Associate Planner, had received a memo from Richard Watson, Chief of Police, stating the likelihood of 815 to 1,132 dwelling units on the proposed 283 acres would create a great strain on the police department unless additional public safety staffing and equipment purchases accompanied the annexation. He pointed out the police department would have to protect the area as soon as it was annexed. IK3 • • • Planning Commission ,p_�- MAY Z'I, 1%13 Page 8 He advised there was also departmental correspondence from Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, stating "...if we are able to proceed with our own expansion plans during the next five years as per our previously approved Capital Improvements. Program...I think we can handle this subdivision if we make the improvements..." He pointed out there were a lot of "if's" in Chief Jackson's statement. He also pointed out the fire rating could be adversely affected for the City of Fayetteville. He went on to read "...the nearest point on the property in question from a fire station is approximately 2.4 miles, and the most distant point is 3.8 to 4 miles. This would adversely affect our fire insurance rating the next time we're graded." He further read: " ..Fayetteville enjoys a somewhat unique position of being a very large city in land area (approximately 42 1/2 square miles) for its population. We have plenty of room for population growth without any additional land...annexation with particular regard as to how the proposed annexation will affect current services in comparison with how it will benefit them." He asked if the City would gain from the annexation or if only the developer would gain. Mr. Hendrix also pointed out Chief Jackson had written "City engineering needs to give us a clear indication of whether the water supply in this area is adequate to...(have) fire flows for this subdivision should be not less than 1,000 gpm at 20 psi..." He further noted another city collection crew would have to be added if any new residences were put into the subject area. He also noted the current waterline which served the subject area was fragmented, consisting of four and six inch lines. He contended the water flow and pressure would not be adequate for development in the area, even with the planned 12 -inch line for Mt. Comfort Road. He stated the engineer's report claimed "they might have funding for a 36 -inch water line". He claimed the reports contained too many "if's" and "might's". He also addressed concerns regarding extending the sewer line. He pointed out that, if the current pumping station in the subject area were unable to handle the additional discharge, the City would have to upgrade the equipment. Mr. Hendrix asked the Commission to look at what annexation and development of the subject area would do to the current residents and property owners. He stated he failed to understand how they could consider the request for annexation since numerous city departments had raised negative aspects. Mr. Conklin informed the Commission that staff's recommendation had been for a phased development, tied to infrastructure improvements in the area. He stated staff did realize the current infrastructure was not adequate for the entire site to develop. He further pointed out that, when Chief Jackson talked about the fire rating, he had talked about how the development could affect the fire rating but went on to say it would only be a contributing factor and by itself would not lower the city's fire rating. Ms. Teresa Martin expressed her concern that Rebell Elementary School was currently 75 children over capacity and there was other development in progress which would overcrowd the school further. She stated she did not believe having the children in metal classrooms outside the confines of the school building was an adequate education. She advised the Commission failure to provide an adequate education was basis for a lawsuit. She stated that, as a school teacher, she did not believe metal buildings were appropriate for learning but were cumbersome and dangerous. She further stated that she realized the school board had been engulfed in a wake of discontent in the City created by itself and other agencies. She stated Dr. Simpson was well aware of the need for schools on both the east and west sides of town but they had to provide the millage for that increase. She advised the School Board needed time to plan, time to construct the buildings, and time to get the millage increase. IK W • • • Planning Commission April 12, 1933 MAI vi) 19q3 Page 9 She further advised that Mr. Davis had offered to donate land but, if the land was accepted by the School Board, the residents still had to provide several million dollars for the building. She stated that was just to maintain the present rate of growth, not to catch up nor to improve. Ms. Martin stated the residents had been told Mr. Davis had a legal right to develop his property. She maintained that the rights of Mr. Davis and his partners ended where the rights of other citizens began. She asked that the Commission plan growth for the city so they had time to work out a solution to their present problem. She asked that they exercise the power given to them as a Planning Commission to act in the best interest of the residents of the City of Fayetteville and not to a partnership in Springdale, whose only purpose was to make money. Me. Marsha Vaughn, 3586 Weir Road (County Road 94), explained her family purchased their home due to the rural setting for their children. She pointed out that Fayetteville was a very desirable place to live due to local government, low crime, clean air and water, and because it is a rural area. She asked that they consider the growth in the quality of life for the existing residents and future residents. She advised they did not oppose development but did oppose the annexation because it would not benefit the current residents. She stated there had been no consideration from the developer for green space, day care centers, parks and recreation area, etc. She further advised she and her husband had lived in such a development in Mississippi that was even larger than the proposed development. She pointed out the west side of Fayetteville did not have a park. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised Davis Park was planned for the west side of Fayetteville. She also pointed out the City of Fayetteville charged a green space fee per lot for development of parks. She noted that fee was only charged when the property was within the City limits, there was no requirement on the part of county development. She explained the decision as to whether to take land or parks fees was made upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Mr. Milholland explained most of the concerns addressed by the surrounding citizens regarded the infrastructure. He advised it had been the policy of the city to require the developer to contribute and improvement those infrastructure items. He pointed out the City had a very competent engineering staff to review all of the items required for the infrastructure. He stated his client understood he would have to contribute to providing the same quality of services, streets, drainage, etc. that the city had always required. He further advised that Dr. Simpson, Fayetteville Schools, had written: "It would be inappropriate for the City to deny this development because of an existing over -crowding of schools. Additional students generated by development would attend city schools whether or not this parcel was annexed." Jim Williams, a resident of Gooseberry Lane, advised he was not in favor of the annexation. He advised they needed to take care of what they had within the City Limits before adding other areas. Me. Urfer pointed out that, if the property remained agricultural and was developed with 2 acre lots, there would only be an addition of 100 children; but, if developed under R-1, there could be 1,000 or more children. She asked for a showing of hands of those opposed to the annexation. Approximately 50 people raised their hands. Ms. Faye Doege, editor of the Mt. Comfort Community Gazette, advised her great grandfather had settled the property around Clabber Creek and, when her mother was a child, Clabber Creek was just a trickle of water. She pointed out it was possible that all of the development in the area had caused the additional water g • • • Planning Commission he ..il 12, 1993 MA'/ 24, 19g3 Page 10 in the Clabber Creek area. She stated the more concrete in the area, the worse the run-off problem would be. She also noted the soil was "leaf -soil" and explained that, on dwellings served by public or community sewage system, the limitation was very severe because of seasonal high water table. She noted the other type of soil in the area, Johnsburg, also was severe because of the seasonal high water table. She also explained there was a shrink factor in those two types of soils. She further explained the soil dried out in dry weather and shrank away from structures, pipes, etc. and then would swell up when wet, which broke down foundations of houses and cracked water and sewer lines. She advised this property should not be annexed and expressed her belief it was only green space. She stated the land was not suitable for development. Celia Scott-Silkwood, an employee of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, explained her office maintained records of housing permits in Northwest Arkansas. She advised the Commission that in 1991 there were 259 single family dwellings and in 1992 there had been 356. She pointed out that while the subject property had the potential to put in over 800 units, it was quite normal for subdivisions to be platted and not developed for many years. She gave as an example a subdivision which had been platted 20 years earlier but was just being completed. Mr. Urfer stated there was not the same amount of growth 20 years ago as there was now. Wilson Rimbrough, 3110 Mt. Comfort Road, stated they needed to ask the question "Is annexation needed?" He further stated he appreciated Mr Springborn showing sensitivity to the adjoining property owners but went on to say he did not believe he went far enough. He asked what the criteria was they needed to consider to annex territory and had they discussed that criteria. He stated the criteria they had been using in the past was to annex land whenever the developer asked for it. He advised that growth was not dependent upon annexing the subject property. He further stated the quality of the proposal did not justify a decision to annex; the compatibility was not present. He further stated there was an increase in the resistance in outlying areas of the city to the city moving out with proposals for denser development on both the east and west sides. He pointed out they were running into the planning the citizens had done under county regulations and he was more impressed with the planning done by such citizens than the proposal. He went on to say Al Raby was working on the new master plan and was presenting a "policy approach". He stated he believed it would take more of the Commission's time to make decisions about proposals than it used to because a decision as to whether or not a proposal had on the land use of the surrounding territory would take some consideration. Mr. Springborn stated the research he had made had been commenced without. prejudice to the subject applicant. He advised he had started the research approximately 2 months earlier and he had no knowledge the subject item would be presented. Ms. Britton stated not only the adjoining neighborhood would be affected but the entire community would be affected if the annexation request was approved. She further stated she was not ready to accept the major responsibility of making the decision of whether to annex the property because of the added burden it would put on the taxpayers of the community. She pointed out they were not talking about 20 acres but over 200 acres. She further stated she believed this request should be taken to the community for a vote. She advised she had been requesting the city address desirable annexation which would fit in with what was proposed for growth for the area. rX9 Planning Commission • MAY .2-14, I993 Page 11 • • MOTION Me. Britton moved to sent to the City Council a recommendation that this issue be taken to the community. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Pummill advised he believed there were two types of annexations: one initiated by the City which went to a general public vote and the other initiated by a property owner whose land abutted the city at some point which required a Council vote. He stated that was the law and it could not be circumvented. Me. Britton advised they could deny the request and take it to the community. Mr. Springborn advised he had some concern about the uncertainties expressed in statements by staff relative to the annexation. He pointed out they did not have impact fees but did have a statement from the developer that he would support the city with respect to expanding the infrastructure. He advised he did not know to what extend that support would amount to. He further stated that, in view of the uncertainties, he would be content with forwarding the annexation to the city council without recommendation and let them take all of the situations into consideration when making their decision. Mr. Allred stated this appeared to be a no-win situation. He pointed out the neighboring property owners had some legitimate concerns which he shared He also noted there were concerns that, should the property be developed to county standards and was later brought into the City, they would be accepting a substandard development which did not meet city regulations. He further stated he was opposed to developing the property as one tract. He pointed out the only way they could plan for growth was to control growth and, until the property was in the city, they had no control. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the annexation and the property be annexed as A-1, subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Cato asked staff if there was anything they had heard at the meeting which they needed to consider further before recommending approval of the annexation. Ms. Little stated staff recommendation remained the same. She further noted they had not previously received a report on soil conditions. She advised that type of soil was a high shrink/swell type of soil and was totally unsuitable for septic tank development which was all that could occur in the county. She pointed out the development would have to be with sewers and special care would have to be taken then. Mr. Reynolds advised he was totally against annexation of the 283 acres because it was too much of an impact to the neighborhood. He agreed the project needed to be done in phased development. The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Springborn and Reynolds voting "no". cg • • • Planning Commissions ,��993 April 12, 1903xf/ Page 12 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SAVANNA ESTATES, PHASES III & IV MARK FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES - S OF SKILLERN, W OF OAKLAND -ZION RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Savanna Estates, Phases III and IV, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Buddy Peoples for property located on the south side of Skillern, west of Oakland - Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Phase III contains 18.08 acres with 35 proposed lots and Phase IV contains 25.36 acres with 37 proposed lots Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives asked for several revised easements and requested numerous crossings to be installed. He advised staff remarks included comments on the hydrant location on Nachez Trace, street light locations at Pat Henry Drive and Skillern Road, green space fees, the need for a connection between the two phases, drainage easements, and the location of sidewalks. He further stated the Subdivision Committee had voted to forward the plats to the Planning Commission. He noted it had been determined there would be no requirement to connect the phases as suggested in the plat review meeting. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plats for both Phase III and Phase IV subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading plan for the subdivision; construction of sidewalks four feet back from the curb and payment of parks fees as called for by city ordinance; a waiver of the maximum cul-de-sac length; POA ownership and maintenance of all median areas; and granting of all off-site easements by separate instrument. He further noted the conditions of approval as listed was not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other city, state, or federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. Mr. Cato noted staff had requested a connection between the phases at the Plat Review meeting but there was no such requirement when it left Subdivision Committee meeting. Dave Jorgensen stated the developer was in agreement with staff comments. He advised that at the plat review meeting there had been discussion that a street be extended from Phase IV. He stated it had been determined there was already a tie-in to Skillern immediately to the west. He also pointed out an adjoining property owner on Skillern did not like the tie-in because it would come out opposite their property. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the cul-de-sacs isolating people from adjoining neighborhoods. She suggested a pedestrian access between the southernmost cul-de-sac and the middle cul-de-sac. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would discuss the matter with the developers. He also noted they were putting sidewalks on both sides of the street. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat of Savannah Estates, Phase III, subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 17 • • • Aprntinco sion7as</993 Page 13 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the preliminary plat of Savannah Estates, Phase IV, subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Britton advised she did not see any topographical reason why the street had to be a cul-de-sac. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Springborn, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, Tarvin and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no" /I/ • • Planning Commissi PageArria1 4�- n !), /PP_3 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOARDWALK SUBDIVISION, PHASE IV JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION BLVD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Boardwalk Subdivision, Phase IV presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 4.85 acres with 7 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 owner. He advised staff remarks included comments on street light locations, green space fees, sidewalks, and the need for the access easement to be paved. He stated the Subdivision Committee recommended the plat be forwarded to the Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and compliance with the city's tree ordinance; and that the access easement be paved. He further noted the conditions of approval as listed was not intended to be a full listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor should it be interpreted to mean that other city, state, or federal requirements were being waived unless specifically stated. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen advised there would be parking at the recreational area. He explained it was a common area within Boardwalk rather than attached to one certain phase. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve Boardwalk Subdivision, Phase IV, subject to staff. comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning saypp O2 J2 3 3 Page 15 FINAL PLAT — RIDGEMONTE DOWNS, PHASE I NIBLOCR & PARTNERS — S OF MISSION, W OF FOX HUNTER The next item was a final plat for Ridgemonte Downs, Phase I, presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Niblock & Partners for property located south of Mission, west of Fox Hunter Road. The property is located outside the city limits and contains 38.41 acres with 28 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives or by the staff. He noted a contract for the unfinished improvements would be required prior to the time the final plat was filed. He advised the subdivision committee recommended forwarding the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; a contract for the unfinished improvements; submission of a copy of the contract or surety with the county for the off-site street improvements; assignment of street names; and city attorney approval of the document requiring annexation whenever it becomes legally possible to do so. He further advised he did have a copy of the proposed Subdivision Covenants which contained the provision concerning annexation and the city attorney had agreed the language in the covenants was appropriate. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. /93 • Planning Commiss qg ,,c//pyJ Apaxfi Page 16 • e FINAL PLAT - RIDGEMONTE VIEW NIBLOCK & PARTNERS - S OF MISSION, E OF FOX HUNTER ROAD The next item was a final plat for Ridgemonte View presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Niblock & Partners for property south of Mission, east of Fox Hunter Road. The property is located outside the city limits and contains 55.58 acres with 28 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives or by the city staff; that the subdivision committee voted to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. He recommended the final plat be approved 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; and the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished public improvements. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Pa17"? MAY 2.11. 1993 •WAIVER Or SUBDIVISION RE60LATI0NS - LOT SPLIT 11 DAVID LYLE HOLZ ASN - 2700 ROSEWOOD DR. • The next item was a request for a lot split presented by Obert Undem on behalf of David Lyle Holtman for property located at 2700 Rosewood Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density :Residential. He. Britton left the meeting. Mr. Bunn explained Mr. Hallman owned lots 1 and 11 which were adjacent to each other. He pointed out lot 11 was not a legal lot and could not be built on by itself. Be advised the proposal was to split lot 1 into two tracts and to add lot 11 to one of them. He advised Lot 1 contained 1.49 0.81 acres (which would have an (including the area of Lot 11). be legal lots. acres and the split would create one new lot of existing home) and another new lot of 0.76 acres He noted both lots created by the split would • Mr. Bunn stated there did not appear to be any restrictions in the Subdivision Covenants which would not allow the split. He pointed out the size of the lots being created by the split compared favorably with lots to the north (in an adjacent subdivision). He noted that, within the Rosewood Addition, the two lots created by the split would be smaller than all but one lot He explained let sizes in the Rosewood Addition ranged from 0.80 acres (Lot 6) to about 2.5 aczas (Lot 10). He noted this did not include Lot 11 which was not _.tended as a building Lot. He rec-Amended approval of the lot split. Mr Reynolds stated he had received numerous telephone calls from neighbors objecting to the lot split. Mr. Dave received residence There was owners in Holtman stated he had talked with adjoining property owners and had no complaints. He explained he planned on constructing another on the new lot. discussion regarding gettin4 signatures of the adjoining property favor of the lot split. Mr. Conklin informed the Commission of notification requirements and advised the applicant had met those requirements. Mt. Don White, an adjoining property owner, presented a petition signed by eight out of nine of the residents of Rosewood Subdivision objecting to the lot split and spoke in opposition to the lot sp'.it. Hr. Howell Msddsra, a neighboring property owner, also spoke in opposition to the lot split. MOTION Mr. Mr. Tarvin moved to deny the lot split. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried mutinously. • Ms. Britton returned to the meeting. • /95 • • • • Planning Commission MAV 24, 1493 Page 18 ALLEY VACATION V93-6 JOEL SULLAVAN S CECIL BLACK The next item was a request for an alley vacation submitted by Joel Sillavan and Cecil Black. The request is to vacate an east - west alley north of Gunter Avenue and south of Johnson Avenue, between Blocks 9 and 10 in Gunter's Addition. Mr. Bunn stated the petition was to close a 20 -foot alley. He pointed out the applicants had received the approval of the public utilities. He recommended the alley vacation be recommended to the Council with the condition that the entire width of the alley be retained as a utility easement. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Black advised there was a 2 -inch gas line in the easement. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the request for an alley vacation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. /7a • • • Planning Commission ��/9�3 X93- y%%/ Page 19 OTHER BUSINESS: Concerns of Mr. Harry Ainsworth Regarding Drainage Mr. Suchecki advised the next item was Mr. Ainsworth updating the Commission regarding drainage problems in his area together with a letter of response from Julian Archer and copies of correspondence from the Archer's to Mr. Ainsworth. He advised the Archers were taking the position that the work they had done had not caused the problems experienced by Mr. Ainsworth. Mr. Suchecki advised he was not sure what type of action the Planning Commission could take that would answer Mr. Ainsworth questions. He further stated he believed this was a matter between two property owners. Mr. Harry Ainsworth reminded the Commission he had presented his concerns to them at an earlier meeting regarding drainage from the Pratt Woods Subdivision. He presented pictures of the area and of his retaining wall. Mr. Don Bunn explained he and Harry Gray as soon as the weather allowed, at least away from Mr. Ainsworth's property, per the property had been hand cleared. had viewed the problem. He stated that, 80 to 85% of the water would be directed. the approved drainage plan. He advised Mr. Steve Williams, an engineer hired by Mr. Ainsworth, advised he would be meeting with Harry Gray in the near future to see if they could work out the problem. Mr. Suchecki advised it probably would be resolved between the engineers. He noted if the matter was not resolved, it was a civil matter. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. /77