Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 14, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson, Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R, Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, and Kenneth Pummill OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, John Redfern, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1994. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - LOCOMOTION FAMILY FUN CENTER HILLBILLY HOLLER CORPORATION - E OF COLLEGE AVE, N OF ZION RD A large scale development - Locomotion Family Fun Center submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Hillbilly Holler Corporation for property located on the east side of College Avenue, north of Zion Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1. Agricultural and contains 14.61 acres. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CATFISH HOLE #3 PAT & JANIE GAZZOLA - S OF WEDINGTON DR, W OF BETTY JO DR • A large scale development - Catfish Hole #3 submitted by Albert Skiles on behalf of Pat & Janie Gazzola for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 2 acres. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - GREGG STREET APARTMENTS STEVE CUMMINGS - W OF GREGG AVE, N OF NORTH ST A large scale development - Gregg Street Apartments submitted by Dennis Becker on behalf of Steve Cummings for property located west of Gregg Avenue, north of North Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 1.80 acres. FINAL PLAT - SEQUOYAH MEADOWS PHASE II C W COMBS - W OF ED EDWARDS RD, S OF HUNTSVILLE RD A final plat - Sequoyah Meadows Phase II submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of C.W. Combs for property located west of Ed Edwards Road, south of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 36.86 acres with 67 proposed lots. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 SAMANTHA NEAL - 5393 HUNTSVILLE ROAD A lot split #1 submitted by J.F. Gabbard on behalf of Samantha Neal for property located at 5393 Huntsville Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. COVENANT AMENDMENT - SEQUOYAH SOUTH PHASE I A second amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Sequoyah South Phase I. Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Tarvin made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 9-0-0. CI 0 .33 Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINGS R94-3 & R94-4 SAM MATHIAS - S OF MISSION, E OF WHIPPOORWILL The next item was a public hearing for rezonings R94-3 & R94-4 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located on the south Bide of Mission, east of Whippoorwill. R94-3 was a request to rezone .76 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office. R94-4 was a request to rezone 10.18 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the Planning Commission had approved the requested annexation for Mr. Mathias' property along with Ben Caston's and the City of Fayetteville's property at the last meeting. He stated the Order of Annexation was filed on December 20, 1993 and confirmed on January 24, 1994. He advised the City Council would hear the annexation request at their February 15th meeting. He explained the site encompassed 10.94 acres of property owned by Mr. Mathias and was developed with a single-family home and several out buildings. He added the R -O zoning request was for a .76 acre portion located on the southeast corner of Star Road and Highway 45. He stated the R-1 zoning request was for the remainder of the property totaling 10.18 acres. Mr. Conklin advised water and sewer were available to the Bite. He added that all on-site improvements would be the responsibility of the developer/land owner and the proportionate share of any off-site improvements would be attributable to Mr. Mathias. He noted the staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the rezoning requests Bubject to the City Council approving the annexation request. • Ms. Britton contended granting an R -O zoning on the corner of Highway 45 and Starr Road would be spot zoning in her opinion. She asked the staff on what they were basing their recommendation of approval. Mr. Conklin explained there was an existing dentist office adjacent to the property, directly to the south, which was located on Highway 45 and Star Road. He added Highway 45 was classified as a principal arterial and, as far as compatibility of having a dentist office on the corner, it seemed to make logical sense to have R -O use located in that area. Mel Milholland, representing the petitioner, advised they concurred with the staff's recommendation. Mr. Nickle asked if the R -O property would have access onto Highway 45 or onto Starr Road. Mr. Milholland advised that had not been determined but believed it would be onto Starr Road in the interest of traffic safety. Rosann Gonzalez, a resident of Huntington Drive which is off Starr Road, expressed her concern that Starr Road would need to be improved in order to handle the increased traffic the proposed development would create. In response to an inquiry about the annexation of this property from Harley Brigham, Mr. Suchecki advised the Planning Commission had discussed the annexation at an earlier meeting and the City Council would be reviewing it at their next meeting. He advised the public would be given the opportunity to voice their opinions at the City Council meeting. The staff advised the Commission they should vote on each of the rezoning requests individually. ,.3X Planning Commission 10 February 14, 1994 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request R94-3. Mr. Head seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the rezoning request R94-4. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0-0. • 3S Planning Commission February 140 1994 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BRADLEY ACRES BILL GRADE - N OF HUNTSVILLE RD, S OF WYMAN RD, E OF STONE BRIDGE The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Bradley Acres submitted by Bill Graue and represented by Bill Rudasill for property located on the north side of Huntsville Road, the south side of Wyman Road, and the east side of Stone Bridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 3.90 acres with six proposed lots. Alett Little, setting in for the City Engineer, stated the plat was being submitted by WDR Engineering on behalf of the owner Bill Graue. She advised the subdivision name had been changed from Graue Acres to Bradley Acres. She stated staff had worked out all the agreements including a 20 foot sewer easement dedicated as a general utility easement. She further stated staff comments from the Plat Review meeting included a need for a fire hydrant to be located within 500 feet of any buildings to be constructed; the need for a tree preservation plan; and the need for a restricted access to one of the lots located to the east in order to alleviate any problems with sight distance on Wyman Road. She explained the possible need for additional right- of-way in connection with Wyman Road had been discussed, but it had been determined there was sufficient right-of-way at the present time. She further stated it was the recommendation of the staff that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, the approval of the Tree Preservation Plan, the approval of the plan for the extension of sewer to serve the area, the construction of sidewalks, and the payment of parka fees in accordance with the city ordinances. • In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Nickle regarding whether or not the tandem lot provision should apply, Ms. Little advised that Wyman Road was to the north and Highway 16 East was to the south of the subject lots. She added the staff had discussed lot 4 being developed as a tandem lot and determined the only way to alleviate the problem was to provide a street through to Wyman Road which had not been resolved. In answer to a further inquiry in regard to lot 4 being split, Mr. Conklin advised it was one single lot and explained the plat was originally drawn as Graue Acres, Tract B so 4-B on the plat was referring to Tract B. Mr. Claude Williams, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the drainage and what improvements would be made to the drainage ditch down the east Bide of the development. He also asked how many structures were planned for the property. Mr. Bill Graue advised there would be a total of six houses, one on each lot, and the drainage ditch would be left as it was with no planned improvements except to clean it out and open it up. Ms. Little advised it appeared the drainage was in the north/south direction. She suggested the plat be approved subject to the approval of a drainage plan. In response to a comment from Mr. Tarvin regarding tandem lot development only being allowed when the topography did not allow the subdivision to be developed otherwise, Me. Little advised the ordinance had a provision for tandem lot development when the topography did not allow adequate access by streets and utilities. She noted for that reason a tandem lot was always restricted to one single-family home. She added the subject tract was a large piece of land being used for one single-family home. Mr. Tarvin stated he did not see how the topography prevented the subdivision from being developed without the tandem lot. • Ms. Little advised there was quite a bit of grade from Wyman Road. Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 6 Ms. Britton contended three houses were planned on the property where the steepest topography was located. Mr. Tarvin asked why the access roadway shown on the plat could not be a city street. Ms. Little stated she had the same question. Ms. Britton commented that, if the street was a through street and all the lots ran in an east/west direction instead of a north/south direction, there would be no problem with any lot accessing either Highway 16 or Wyman Road through the central street. She added the Transportation Committee had been discussing getting through streets in half -mile increments and the tract was exactly a half mile from Stone Bridge Road. She also that, if the developer was not required to construct a city street, they were being unfair to property owners who had been required to construct city streets. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the preliminary plat. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. In answer to an inquiry from the Commission as to what the developer's options would be if the plat was denied, Ms. Little advised a replat of the subdivision could be submitted for review immediately. The motion carried B-1-0 with Mr. Reynolds voting '•no". • • Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION PHASE II MELVIN HOLMES - W OF STONE BRIDGE RD, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Subdivision, Phase II, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Melvin Holmes for property located on the west side of Stone Bridge Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 3.93 acres with 10 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised the preliminary plat was located immediately south of another similar development. She noted all of the easements had been worked out. She stated staff comments had included the need for a grading and drainage plan, a tree preservation plan, sidewalks, and the requirement for the improvement of Stone Bridge Road and a sidewalk along the length of the subdivision including the existing house. She noted this plat had received a variance from the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the building setback for the existing home. She added that, when the new street was constructed, Lot 1 would be a corner lot requiring a 25 -foot setback from both streets; but, presently there was approximately 9 to 10 feet of separation from the right-of-way. She added that, during those discussions at the Board of Adjustment, the variance was granted with the recommendation that the street not be placed in the center of the right-of-way. She explained that, however, would also necessitate moving the sidewalk from the north side of the street to the south side of the street. She stated the plats had been submitted to show the relocation of the sidewalk. Ms. Little advised the staff was recommending approval of the plat subject to Plat Review and Subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; approval of the drainage and grading plan; construction �- of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance to city ordinances; and improvement of Stone Bridge Road to city street standards for the entire length of the subdivision including the existing house. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, advised they were in agreement with staff comments. Ms. Britton commented that, if the street had been placed at the north boundary of Lot 1, it would be laid out so that the two properties would have been adjacent to each other without the need for the variance. Mr. Jorgensen stated the Planning staff had just discussed that with him and he would look into it. He noted there would be a non -conforming lot on the north if they did make that change and he would have to check the locations of the house to the north. Me. Britton stated the house might not be 25 feet, but it would be much farther away than the subject house with only 9 feet from the street. Ms. Little corrected Ms. Britton and stated the house location was 9 feet from the right-of-way, which would be 18 feet from the street. Ms. Britton expressed her concern that the cul-de-sac was not a necessity and an outlet to the street to the south would be good. Mr. Jorgensen advised they had discussed that possibility with the owner who seemed receptive to the idea; however, they had not received any reply from their attempts to contact the property owner to the south who lived in New Mexico. He added they would continue looking into that possibility and, if it was changed, they would be bringing the plat back before the Commission. . Ms. Britton stated she felt the Planning Commission should require the developer to have a dedicated right-of-way as a future outlet whether it was stubbed out or not. Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 8 Ms. Little advised the staff felt it would be best to create a dedicated right-of-way either directly to the west or to the south which would give the developer the opportunity of creating one additional lot. Mr. Jorgensen stated he believed the possibility of the land to the south developing was more likely and that, therefore, would be the best way to go. He advised he had discussed this with the owner who desired to keep the plat layout as it has been submitted. He advised they were, therefore, asking the Planning Commission for approval as the plat was Submitted. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments and the requirement that right-of-way be dedicated at the discretion of the developer to extend the street. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Head, Britton, Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Tarvin and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki and Pummill voting "no", • E J Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - JACKSON PARRS HARRY JACKSON & PARTNERS - N OF MISSION, E OF OLD WIRE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Jackson Parke submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Harry Jackson & Partners for property located on the north side of Mission and the east side of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 24.74 acres with 68 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised the easements have been worked out with the utility companies. She further stated staff remarks at Plat Review had included comments on the need to show a tie to the north which would eventually tie onto the subdivision developed along Ash Street; the need for sidewalks along Mission and Old Wire Road; drainage issues; the need for improvements to Old Wire Road; and the question of the right-of- way width along Mission. She noted that, with further discussion, it had been determined the proposed 50 -foot right-of-way from the center line of Mission would be sufficient. She stated that, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, there had been a discussion of all the issues raised at the Plat Review meeting and members of the general public also expressed concerns regarding traffic in the area and drainage through and adjacent to the site. She noted the engineer had indicated that drainage would be thoroughly addressed by the development at the time the drainage plan was submitted to the City Engineer for approval. She advised the Committee voted to forward the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments and the recommendation for a Bill of Assurance for street improvements along Old Wire Road and for sidewalks along Mission and Old Wire Road. She advised the staff believed sidewalks were particularly important since this site was in close proximity to one • of the largest elementary schools in Fayetteville. Ms. Little explained that, subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff and the developer came to an agreement on the provision of some trails within the subdivision in exchange for eliminating some of the sidewalks. She stated the plat approval was recommended by the staff subject to the Plat Review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; sidewalks and trails as agreed to by the staff and the owner; a Bill of Assurance for street improvements to Old Wire Road and for sidewalks along Mission and Old Wire Road; and the payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances. She explained that, in regard to the provision to provide trails through the area, there was a large creek (a tributary of Mudd Creek) which ran the entire width of the property in an east/west direction. She advised the staff had agreed on a trail being constructed along the south side of the flood plain and connected to Jordan Drive so it would come out closer to the elementary school. She stated the staff did support this plan because it would give a way to connect to other trailways within the City's planned development of trails. She further stated a trail along this part of Mudd Creek would eventually go to Gulley Park and on to Routh Park and eventually to Sweetbriar Park. She also pointed out there was park land at the school. Ms. Britton asked for clarification on whether the trail going along the creek would follow down Jordan to Mission without going on to the next subdivision. Ms. Little stated the waterway did go on farther but, since that involved so many other property owners and particularly the houses along Ramsey Street which were fairly close together, there was a chance it could not be continued though. She • stated the staff believed it would be more appropriate to take the trail along Jordan Drive. Planning Commission February 14, 1994 -� Page 10 Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, if the houses on the south side of the creek wanted to put a fence in their back yard, it would be along the sidewalk. Ms. Little advised a trail easement would need to be dedicated to create the trailway and, in order for it to remain public, there would need to be a restriction against being closed off by any fences. In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin as to who would be responsible for maintaining the trail area, Ms. Little advised the staff would request the trail be maintained by the Property Owners Association for the subdivision. Ms. Britton noted each property owner was responsible for part of the right-of-way located in front of their house so they should technically be responsible for the trail also. fi y In response to questions from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the staff's preference was to have an asphalt trail as they were planning for the rest of the city. She added that, in talking to the engineer for the development and with one of the larger companies in Fayetteville which did asphalt work, she found the machines which did the asphalt work required approximately a 12 -foot right-of-way in order to go straight and about a 67 -foot turning radius. She explained that, in this instance, there were quite a number of trees so, if asphalt was used, it would have to be a hand packed trail without use of the traditional equipment. She stated the developer preferred to use concrete which was something that would have to be worked out in conjunction with the drainage plan in order to prevent problems with runoff. She added that, as far as width, they were planning for a minimum of 6 feet for trails. Mr. Nickle advised there appeared to be a large gas right-of-way angling through the development from the southwest toward the northeast and asked how it would affect the 'building area on lots 40, 410 63, and 64. Ms. Little acknowledged there was a very large high pressure gas line located there about which the staff did have some concerns. She added the front setback would be 25 feet and the width of lot 41 was approximately 100 feet with a gas line easement of 50 to 55 feet in width which left approximately 60 feet at the south side of lot 41 narrowing to 40 feet of buildable area width. She went on to say lot 40 went from a buildable area width of approximately 10 feet up to a width of 60 feet so it would also be difficult to have enough building space. Mr. Nickle asked what Perry Franklin, Traffic Department, had given as traffic generation numbers for this proposed development. Mr. Conklin advised those figures were based on average weekday traffic in a 24- hour, two-way volume and was quoted as 640 trips per day. He pointed out during the 7 to 9 a.m. peak hour, there was 13 cars entering and 37 cars exiting; in the 4 - 6 p.m. peak hour, there would be approximately 44 cars entering the subdivision and 24 exiting. He stated he was not sure if that was from each access, but he assumed it was based on the entire subdivision number of lots, in which case the trip generation numbers should be divided between both access points. In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin in regard to whether the gas line was an easement or a right-of-way and how that would affect paving the driveways, Me. Little advised it was an easement and noted the gas company had requested crossings underneath all drives which the developer had agreed to provide. Mr. Mel Milholland appeared before the Commission as the representative for the developer. He noted the name of the subdivision was Jackson Parke, but they would like to change it to Jackson Place because it was the original home place of the Jackson family. • • • �� l Planning commission February 14, 1994 Page 11 Ms. Little noted the staff had no objections to the name change since the first word would remain the same; however, they were considering a provision in the ordinances which would allow them to impose a fee when a subdivision name was changed from the initial name. She explained there was a problem with the staff being able to locate the file and records quickly because of the confusion when there had been a change of name on the subdivision. Mr. Milholland noted the sidewalk through the floodway was addressed by the staff and he had understood Ms. Little to say it would be located on the south side of the flood plain. He advised the developer would rather locate the sidewalk on the north Bide because the lots were much deeper on the north. He added they planned to run the walk all the way to the north boundary for future development. MB. Little noted there were still issues such as what type of paving material would be used and she suggested that the Commission make their motion subject to those matters being worked out. Ms. Britton suggested that, from a safety standpoint, the street light at the corner of Sheila and Jordan be moved to between lots 31 and 32 to better light the intersection. She also suggested moving the light at the south end of Jordan to between lots 40 and 41 to better light that intersection. Mr. Milholland pointed out there was a street light planned between lots 67 and 42 and there was also one proposed at the entrance of the subdivision on the island. He advised the representative of SWEPCO had stated the Btreet light layout was adequate as shown on the plat. • Ms. Britton suggested the third section of the island series on the Old Wire Road side of the development would conflict with all circulation and asked that they review it. Mr. Milholland stated it was placed there to control traffic coming left off of Old Wire Road. He added he had not designed the specific location as of yet, but it would be placed to keep traffic from turning too sharp and all Bafety factors would be considered. Ms. Britton pointed out Mr. Milholland had stated at either the Subdivision Committee or Plat Review meeting his plans to "improve the creek". She noted that, if they speeded up the flow going along the creek, she saw a strong possibility of a bottleneck at the culvert at old Wire Road which might eventually force the city to put in a new bridge at that location. Mr. Milholland advised they had not run a calculation on the capacity of the culvert although the testimony was that the water actually jumped over the ditch and ran across to the north. He added they would address all drainage aspects of this project in the drainage plan. Ms. Little asked for clarification of the resolution of the placement of the street light. Mr. Milholland advised they preferred to leave the light as is shown because there was a distance of less than 300 feet (the recommended minimum) between the one at lots 40 and 41 and the one between lots 67 and 42. Ms. Little contended that, if it were placed between lots 40 and 41, it would be 450 feet to the street light between lots 63 and 64 and another 450 feet from there to the light on lot 29. She pointed out there was room to put in another light. • Ms. Britton noted she had suggested one be placed between lots 31 and 32. Mr. Milholland stated had no objection to moving the light between lots 31 and 32. Planning Commission February 14, 1994 • Page 12 Ms. Little noted a 300 foot distance would put a street light between lots 40 and 41, between lots 37 and 38, at lot 34, and lot 29. Ms. Britton suggested putting the one on lot 29 between lots 31 and 32 so it would be at the end of Sheila Drive to light the intersection. Ms. Little advised the spacing of the lights, as shown, did not meet the minimum required under the subdivision regulations. She noted the builder had requested a waiver on the street light spacing. She pointed out to the Commission a waiver was also being requested for sidewalks along Mission Boulevard and Old Wire Road. She reminded them to include those issues in there motion. Mr. Milholland stated they had no problem adding another street light. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle in regard to the time -frame of the street improvements along Old Wire Road, Mr. Milholland noted the City had plans to widen Old Wire Road and they would be willing to do their part at that time. He contended the subdivision to the north had been developed two years earlier and no improvements to Old wire Road had been done in connection with that development. Ms. Little advised the staff would be willing to accept a Bill of Assurance which would include either money in escrow or liens on some lots. She noted it would not be a strict waiver as requested. In response to a question, Ms. Little noted the bridge on Old Wire would have to be • considered an off-site improvement which would have to be a separate assessment to the developer. She advised assessment could not be done until they knew the amount required to construct a bridge with improvements BO the fair share (the rational nexus share) could be assigned to the developer. Ms. Little stated staff knew the culvert was undersized and was causing some backup. She explained the developer would have to absorb the cost created by additional lots. Mr. Reynolds stated they would need to include in the motion the developer had to pay his fair share. Ms. Little stated off-site improvements were reviewed at the time of the preliminary plat's approval. She suggested the Commission ask the developer the status of the on the drainage plan. Mr. Milholland explained the drainage plan would address the difference in size of the culvert and the size required by the development. Ms. Britton contended it would simpler and probably safer for the school children if the sidewalk went all the way up the east side of Jordan Drive. Ms. Little advised the developer had originally proposed placing the sidewalk on the opposite side with it so it would be closer to the schools but, the staff had discussed the trail issue and believed it would be acceptable to put the sidewalk along the east side of Jordan Drive, Mr. Milholland stated the developer had no preference, but believed it was safer as shown because it was close to the school with people being more apt to be cautious and the probability of a crossing guard. • Mr. Larry Tompkins, 1701 Old Wire Road, spoke in favor of the development. He did note, however, the development had the potential to contribute negatively to the community in areas such as increased traffic, decreased greenspace, and natural environment. 43 Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 13 He added there would be a positive contribution to the community tax base and a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure with this development. He noted that he believed pedestrian access along the stream was appropriate, but was concerned about the pond being filled because it would be an excellent reservoir for runoff due to the drainage problems. He expressed concern about another intersection along Old Wire Road and the fact that Old Wire Road might be widened causing heavier and faster traffic. Ross Tompkins, 1701 Old Wire Road, expressed positive comments concerning the ability for students to walk up Jordan or Leah to Root School and noted a crosswalk or guard would be appropriate. He also expressed concern about the water flow changing with the addition of 68 lots and asked that a bridge or a larger culvert on Old Wire Road be considered to help alleviate the problem. John Gage, 1445 Mission, expressed his concern that the development would contribute to an already bad water problem. Ed Torbett, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the runoff water problems which would be increased by the development and the plans to build a sidewalk along a creek that he has seen overflow. He noted that, if the water was channelized and there was also contribution to the runoff of the watershed by putting in more concrete, the water would speed up. He asked what the minimum size house would be. Mr. Milholland stated the size of the houses was market driven so it would depend on the cost of the lots, etc. . Larry Tuttle, 4 Ranch Drive, expressed concern regarding the added traffic problems the proposed subdivision would create and the small lots. Pam McClelland, 7 Ranch Drive, expressed concern regarding the impact this development would have on the school, the traffic, the safety of the school children crossing the road, and the flooding. Regina Stephens, a Ranch Drive resident, reiterated the concern the development would have on the area in the following aspects: the small lot sizes, drainage problems, the location of the gas lines, the increased traffic, and the safety for the children. She asked the Commission to reject the development. Mr. Suchecki asked the staff for clarification on the average square footage per lot proposed in the subdivision. Ms. Little advised the 70 -foot width did meet the minimum requirement. Mr. Milholland stated the development averaged 2.72 lots per acre versus the maximum of 4 lots per acre allowed. He noted most of the lots were over 70 feet wide. Arlis Perry, an adjoining resident, expressed his concern in regard to the water drainage problems and how it affected his property. He contended the 100 -year flood plain lines were not shown accurately on the plat. Mr. Suchecki asked for clarification on who designated and determined the location and the size of the flood plain. Ms. Little advised the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was responsible for the preparation of flood plain maps under contract with the Corp of Engineers. She stated the maps were last updated in 1989 and she had requested an update. • Mr. Milholland advised the flood plain shown on the plat was in agreement with the FEMA map. 4� Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 14 Ms. Little explained the engineer was required to certify which lots were within the flood plain, but they were allowed to rely upon the flood plain maps in those certifications. Sharon Cook, 14 Ranch Drive, expressed her concern regarding the flooding, and pointed out much of the flooding on Old Wire Road had to do with the city easement. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Ms. Cook stated the water was sheet flow from Mission into the ditch on the east side of Old Wire, In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland stated they would take the storm drainage from Leah Lane down to the creek. He pointed out the city had an ordinance on drainage and the developers were aware of the drainage problems in the area. He explained those problems would be addressed in the drainage plan. Mr. Tarvin stated there would be a considerable increase in runoff from the subdivision with the number of lots proposed. He noted the City did not have to require the culvert to be enlarged on Old Wire Road. Mr. Nickle advised he had real concerns regarding the drainage issue and would like to see more work done on the drainage plans before they took any action. He recommended they have the City Engineer look at the developer's calculations to determine if the existing box culvert was currently inadequate and how the development would impact it. He stated he did not necessarily believe the flood plain lines from the FEMA maps. He pointed out there might be some other off-site improvements to handle the drainage. . Mr. Milholland contended the preliminary plat was in compliance with the city ordinances and the detailed drainage design was subject to approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Tarvin asked if the area shown on the plat along the creek was the flood plain. Mr. Milholland explained a house could not be constructed in the floodway, In response to Mr. Nickle's comment that lot 56 appeared to be encompassed in the 100 -year flood plain and probably not buildable, Mr. Milholland stated they would be allowed to improve the lot and raise it to 1 or 2 feet above the flood plain as long as it was in the flood plain and not the flood way. He added that would be done in the process of construction. Mr. Tarvin stated he understood FEMA regulations regarding building in the flood way, but he agreed with Mr. Nickle, Mr. Milholland contended the city building permits were issued based on a professional engineer's certification that elevation was two feet above the FEMA map. Ms. Britton stated she was concerned about the person who bought lot 56 and never saw the plat and was not aware of the flooding problem. She agreed the 100 -year flood plain was an imaginary line and noted that allowing fill to raise the land would be an obstruction which would just move the flood plain, Mr. Milholland stated this was nothing new and the flood way could be improved to take the water caused by runoff when the flood plain was raised with fill, Walt Stephens, a Ranch Drive resident, expressed concern regarding the street which ran directly into the school because of the potential for a cut through from Old Wire . to Mission. He appealed to the developer to sell this area to the City for use as a park. �{6 Planning Commission February 14, 1994 . Page 15 Carol Meldrum, 1501 Mission Boulevard, reiterated the traffic problems, impact on Root School, and the concern about small lot sizes. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle in regard to the payment of parks fees, Ms. Little stated the plat was reviewed at the Parks Board meeting last Monday night with a vote to accept the money in lieu of the land for this particular subdivision. She stated that 1.675 acres was the land amount and the money in lieu was $15,075. Mr. Nickle asked if there was any other alternative the Planning Commission or City Council had in regard to whether the Parks Board accepted money instead of land. Mr. Little advised the regulations stated: "When a subdivision does not provide an area ... for a public park, ... the subdivider shall be required to make a reasonable dedication of land for public park facilities or to make a reasonable equivalent contribution in lieu of dedication of land to be used for the acquisition of parks..." She added the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was an advisory board which made recommendations to the Planning Commission based on their Master Parks Plan. She pointed out the determination not to require land for this particular subdivision probably took into consideration the existing park land at the School and a rather large city-wide park in Gulley Park at Township. She contended she believed the Planning Commission had the authority to require park land, but a legal opinion Should be sought on that issue. Ms. Johnson asked if these issues, although obviously legitimate, were in the purview of the Planning Commission or a City Engineer function. Mr. Suchecki explained the flood plain had its own rules which fell within the City ordinances and the subject development was subject to the same ordinances as any • other piece of property. He added it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to be concerned about the flood plains. Ms. Johnson asked if they did not have any city ordinances which were stricter regarding building in flood plains than the federal requirements. Ms. Little stated they currently did not. She noted the issue before them was with subdivision regulations as well as with zoning regulations under the city's code. She added the City was required to approve drainage plane and it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to be assured the drainage issues had been addressed. In response to an inquiry from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained that, if the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat, they would have given the developer the go ahead to develop all the detail plans, to grade in the Street, and to Size all of the structures which are necessary. She recommended that, if they had doubts regarding approval of the preliminary plat, it would be wise to ask for some additional studies. In answer to an inquiry by Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated it would be quite Some time before the flood plain maps were updated. Mr. Allred asked at what stage a drainage plan was submitted for review by the City Engineer. Ms. Little stated the detailed drainage plan would be submitted after the preliminary plat was approved but before construction began. She added that, if the City Engineer saw problems, he could refer it back to the Planning Commission. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised it would be at the City • Engineer's discretion and within his authority to decide whether the pond needed to be retained as a drainage pond. Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Nickle stated he would prefer the developer submit a preliminary drainage study to the City Engineer prior to making a decision. NOTION Mr. Nickle moved to table the preliminary plat until such time as they had a report from the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Pummill in regard to the FEMA maps, Ms. Little stated the flood plain maps were frequently in error. She also noted the flood plain changed with development. She advised the drainage plan did not alter the flood plain map without a specific request going to FEMA and a certification by the engineer as to what their calculations were. In response to an further inquiry by Mr. Pummill, Ms. Little clarified that, under the City's flood insurance program by FEMA, the City had an obligation to report any known errors in the maps to FEMA. She added that, if FEMA found the City was not enforcing the regulations in the flood plain, which included the obligation to inform them of errors, the City would not be eligible for flood insurance. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Head, Britton, Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Tarvin, and Reynolds voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki and Pummill voting "no". 0 is Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Is Page 17 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BARRINGTON PARSE (REPLAT OF RIDGEMONTE DOWNS) BEN CASTON - S OF MISSION, W OF FOX HUNTER RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Barrington Parke (Replat of Ridgemonte Downs) submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Ben Caston for property located on the south side of Mission, west of Fox Hunter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential (Proposed R94-1 and Annexation) and contains 77.2 acres with 132 proposed lots. Ms. Little reminded the Commission the annexation and rezoning request had been heard at their last Planning Commission meeting and had been sent on to the City Council. She explained any action taken on the plat would be subject to the approval of the annexation and rezoning by the City Council. She added that, if the rezoning should fail at the City Council, the land would come into the City as A-1 land which would require a minimum of two -acre lot size. She stated all issues had been worked out with the utility companies except an issue with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company which involved a large telephone cable running along the north property line adjoining Fox Hunter Road. She explained the telephone company had stated any improvements to Fox Hunter Road would require the relocation of the cable at the developer's expense which was an issue in determining improvements to Fox Hunter Road. She further noted improvements to Fox Hunter Road were discussed at both Plat Review and Subdivision Committee meetings and the staff had indicated the developer's half of Fox Hunter Road should be improved to city street standards at all points adjacent to the subdivision. She stated the developer argued that improvements along the east side of the subdivision area were not warranted because minimum traffic would be created at that point by the subdivision and because there was a large stand of pine and hardwood trees which would have to be • removed to create the widening of the road. She noted that sidewalks along Fox Hunter Road were not shown on the Master Sidewalk Plan because the property been in the county. She advised the Planning Commission should address whether sidewalks would be required along Fox Hunter Road (an amendment to the Master Sidewalk Plan). She informed the Commission discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting centered around the off-site improvements to Fox Hunter Road along the east side of the subdivision, access to the adjacent property owners, and creation of parks or the payment of parks fees. She advised members of the general public expressed concern at the Subdivision Committee meeting over the traffic, possible sewer problems, additional access points to the property, and the need to preserve trees along Fox Hunter Road. She stated that, after discussion of the issues, the Subdivision Committee had voted to forward the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission with those staff comments. She stated that, subsequent to the Subdivision Committee, it had been determined the developers would provide two accesses to the subdivision in addition to the main access point off the north side. She reviewed the access points. She advised the developer had proposed to dedicate one of the lots within the subdivision as a neighborhood park, provide a sidewalk along the access point to the east which would tie to the proposed arboretum on the Brigham property, and provide a sidewalk which would access the city property to the west. She stated sidewalks within the subdivision were proposed to be modified to be consistent with the parks land and other access points. Ms. Little advised the staff was recommending 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; the improvement of one half of Fox Hunter Road along the north side of the subdivision to city street standards; the contribution of cash in lieu of the is improvement of Fox Hunter along the east side of the subdivision to city street standards; the granting of right-of-way for an eventual tie to Fox Hunter Road on the east side of the subdivision; improvement of the intersection of Fox Hunter Road and Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 18 Highway 45 East; an agreement regarding the Parks and Parks Fee issue; interior sidewalks and trails; and access to the Brigham property to the north and City property to the west. Mr. Allred advised the Subdivision Committee had discussed the proposed community park which would be a public park and determined that a Property Owners Association (POA) would need to be established to maintain the park once it was developed so that it would not be a city expense. Mr. Milholland appeared before the Commission as the representative of the development and stated they concurred with most of the city staff's comments. He advised they did have additional information in the form of a letter from the developers in regard to the location of sidewalk construction in connection with a neighborhood park for the subdivision to be owned and maintained by the POA. He read from the letter which stated the developers agreed to the following items as requested by the Subdivision Committee and as discussed with the Planning Division: (1) Develop a centrally located park with landscaping, sidewalks, and playground equipment provided by the developer and maintained by the POA. (The cost involved would exceed the amount of parks fee, approximately $30,000, and therefore the request is in lieu of parks fees.) (2) Construct sidewalks along the rear of lots 58 to 76 and 96 to 114 plus between lots 13 and 14 and other lots along the way, which were highlighted on the plat, to give access to the park and provide pedestrian access to the city property to the west. He explained the developers felt the plan would best serve the residents of the development and release the City of ongoing park maintenance expenses. • He added the developer respectfully requested the preservation of large oaks along the east boundary of said development. He stated covenants for the project would require all lot owners to access in a way that contributed little or no traffic to that part of County Road 75. He requested a waiver of street improvements adjacent to the east boundary of the development in order to preserve the trees. He referred to a large plat and noted the public park was to be located in the center of the subdivision. He added that a number of the lots were 195 feet deep and all of the lots were over 100 feet wide. He pointed out the sidewalk to the south would go across Regina and tie into the city property to provide pedestrian access and go from the park north between lots 84 and 85 to give access all the way to County Road 75 where Mr. Brigham's property was located. When asked what the size of the proposed park was, Mr. Milholland stated the park would be 142 feet by 195 feet. Ms. Britton contended privacy fences along the back of the properties would give the potential for unsafe conditions and low visibility for persons walking on the sidewalks. She suggested the sidewalks be placed at curb side. She agreed with the access to the city property because there was a school projected to the north. She further stated that approximately half of the trees were split and diseased so improving the extremely narrow road seemed more important. Mr. Milholland stated they would not allow any of the lots to be accessed to the County Road. Ms. Britton stated she did not think it was feasible to expect all of those properties to go out one access point; she believed the access to the east was imperative. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki as to any plans for type of fencing or • height of fencing restrictions in the covenants, Mr. Rogers (representing Mr. Caston) stated they had set the minimum square footage of the houses at 2,000 square feet and side entry or rear entry garages would be required. He stated they would not limit 47 Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 19 privacy fences on lots with the exception of the area to the north along the entrance. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rogers stated the restrictive covenants had a provision that no lot splits of the lots will be allowed in the future. Mr. Suchecki agreed with Ms. Britton that privacy fences near the sidewalks could cause potential problems. Mr. Rogers stated they would consider restricting heights of privacy fences along the sidewalk. In answer to a comment from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated fences were allowed on easements with the knowledge that the utility company would remove the fence if necessary to make repairs, to be replaced at the owner's expense. Ms. Britton stated in order to have visibility, the fence would have to be a maximum of 4 feet. Keith Schultz, a resident of Fox Hunter Road, stated the trees along the road did not look diseased to him. He stated that, when Ridgemonte Estates was developed, part of the program was to widen Fox Hunter Road and nothing had happened. He expressed concern regarding the traffic problems, the size of the development, and the inability of the forced main sewer line to handle the additional development. A home owner in Ridgemonte Estates expressed her concerns in regard to traffic, the safety of Fox Hunter Road in regard to visibility around the curve, and the need for • an access road to Highway 45 adjacent to the Timber Crest subdivision to allow for a traffic signal. Curt Rom, a resident of Fox Hunter Road and an adjacent property owner, expressed concern that the proposed development compromised those traits which had given Fayetteville a national reputation for lack of congestion, a family-oriented community, safe neighborhoods, responsive civic minded community leaders, and a good government. His four points of concern were: (1) safety at the entrance to Barrington from Fox Hunter Road; (2) proposed single access route onto Fox Hunter which would create delayed and stalled traffic at Fox Hunter and on Highway 45; (3) personal space provided in eastern Fayetteville which had attracted the residents to the neighborhood; and (4) the need for development of Fox Hunter on the north side of the property. He suggested a sidewalk be constructed along the north border of the development along Fox Hunter to allow travel access. Mr. Dick Rogers, representing the developers, stated the average lot size was approximately a half an acre. Rosann Gonzalez, a Huntington Drive resident, stated she was opposed to the plat as submitted with the following objections: a dead-end street facing the Stanberry property because the implication was that a road would be cut through in the future was not appeasing to the neighborhood; traffic problems on an unimproved road (Starr Road); the size of the proposed greenspace being much smaller than the 3.35 acres recommended by the Parks Board; the safety aspect of having sidewalks along the back of properties; and the need for assistance from the State to improve Highway 45. Tswana West, a home owner in Ridgemonte Estates, expressed her concern in regard to what the development would do to the open area and the increased traffic. Larry Long, a resident of Starr Drive, expressed his concern that the access point to Starr Drive remain and the developer establish a Bill of Assurance to pave the • east side of Starr Drive from that access point to prevent enormous amounts of traffic on an unimproved road. 1 Planning Commission February 14, 1994 • Page 20 Howard Hamilton, an area resident, expressed his concern that the development had grown from the 56 -lot subdivision first proposed to a 132 -lot subdivision. He noted there were some assurances made to him when he purchased his lot that the County had agreed not to improve Fox Hunter Road on the east side in an effort to keep the trees which buffer the side of his property. Ms. Little stated that, as the staff understood it, there was some State right-of-way within the area of Ms. Loge property and Me. Loge had agreed to sell a portion of her land in order to create a 90 degree intersection with Highway 45. Adele Atha, a resident in the Huntington Starr area, went on record in opposition to the plat and cited traffic problems and the size of the development as her concerns. Laura Loge, an adjoining property owner, stated the developer had told her state regulations requested the road to be at a 90 degree angle onto the State highway. She further stated she had also been told it would cost more to move the underground telephone cable than it would to build a road across her property so she agreed to sell some of her land to the developer. She explained now the developer was telling them the road was no longer necessary. She contended she had been harassed and required to hire both a lawyer and an appraiser. She also expressed concern regarding traffic problems and the need for an additional entrance. Fran Alexander, an area resident, informed the Commission the County Planning Commission had required the streets be Class 3 (80 feet of right-of-way). She explained the character of the traffic (trucks) should be considered even more than • the amount of the traffic. She stated this was a 77 acre business which the neighborhood would have to subsidize. She also expressed concern regarding compatibility, the area of dedicated greenspace being too small, and overflow problems. Barbara Moore, an adjacent property owner, stated she agreed with the comments made by the other neighbors regarding the development affecting their quality of life. Mr. Nickle asked Ms. Moore if the location of Carrie Lane to the west would lessen the impact. Ms. Moore stated her home was directly opposite the proposed entry so, if it was moved to the west, it would not impact her as much. David Wilson, an adjoining property owner, expressed his concern in regard to the growth of Fayetteville. He advised he owned 10 acres and had no plans for development on his property, but other area property might develop. He asked the Commission to consider additional access. Harley Brigham, a resident of the area, expressed his concerns regarding traffic and how the City had dealt with providing for free-flowing traffic in the past. He suggested a first class arterial street connecting Highway 45 and Wyman Road be constructed or extend County Road 349 to connect Highway 45 with Fox Hunter Road in order to provide one more outlet to Highway 45. Mr. Milholland stated he would like to speak as a home owner who lived in Ridgemonte Estates. He advised he would not do anything to jeopardize the lives of his family or drain the property value of his home. He added the three subdivisions together( Ridgemonte View, Ridgemonte Estates and Barrington Parke) would encompass 207 acres with 192 lots which was an average of more than one acre per lot when the density allowed was four lots per acre. • Another resident of Starr Drive requested the land be left as agricultural land so it would fit in better with the surrounding area. 5) Planning Commission February 14, 1994 • Page 21 Mr. Nickle stated he had heard many good points and would like to reiterate some of them for the Commission's consideration. He cited seven points which tended to make the development better than that proposed: the sidewalk location in front of the lots rather than in the rear; Highway 45 improvements be done; access through the City property at approximately lots 44 and 45; access provided as recommended by the staff between 13 and 14; moving the entrance of Carrie Lane to the west a little bit to accommodate Ms. Moore's problem; a larger park than the one lot provided; and Fox Hunter Road improved. Me. Britton agreed a right-of-way access should be dedicated, even if it was not built at the present time, to the Stanberry property. She advised she was in total agreement with Mr. Nickle's comments. Mr. Pummill stated Ms. Stanberry spoke at the Subdivision Committee and assured them she was not going to develop the land, but the land would be developed someday. Mr. Tarvin stated there was a possibility the land to the southeast of Huntington Place would develop some day and there could be another access point. He noted this could be done without losing a lot since there were 11 lots along the road and 5 feet could be taken off the width of each of those frontages to provide the right-of-way. Ms. Little reminded the Commission that Fox Hunter Road was not on the Master Sidewalk Plan and she asked for guidance as to whether sidewalks should be placed anywhere along Fox Hunter. She noted a decision needed to be made whether the requirement for improvement of Fox Hunter Road to the east would occur now or that money in lieu be given at this time. • A member of the Commission stated obviously the sidewalk plan was designed and developed around existing city limits and inquired as to whether there were any provisions made in the ordinance in relationship to the annexation of land. Ms. Little explained there was not a provision in the current ordinance for amending the Master Sidewalk Plan so the City had been accomplishing that with the determination that, as the plats were approved and the sidewalks were placed on the plat, it constituted an amendment to the Master Sidewalk Plan. Ms. Britton stated she believed Fox Hunter Road should be improved to the center line on the north and the east boundaries including sidewalks. Ms. Britton moved to approve the plat subject to all of the staff's comments; the sidewalks being located in the front of the property as required; Highway 45 intersection being approved to a standard intersection; access being acquired through the city property; access to Fox Hunter Road to the east being built; the relocation of the entrance on the north side of the development with the suggestion that it be located between lots 56 and 55; improvement to all of Fox Hunter Road to the center line including sidewalks to the north and east; leaving an access between lots 32 and 33 for future construction; and the addition of an access to the south for future construction. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Britton stated her motion would require that the City provide access through the city -owned property with a right-of-way acquired from the City. E 5z Planning Commission • February 14, 1994 Page 22 Ms. Britton amended her motion to include a requirement for sidewalks from the exterior lots into the park between the lots. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson Stated there was a request by Perry Franklin that surnames not be used for the street names because it was often problematic and noted the plat still showed streets with surnames. Ms. Little stated she believed Mr. Franklin's request was that the street names not be given first names; surnames were acceptable. She stated there was only one street which had a first name, Regina. In response to a question from Mr. Allred as to whether the Commission had the authority to require access through someone's property, Ms. Little advised they had the authority to require access to someone's property but not through it. She added she was not sure the staff could obligate the City to construct a street as access. She noted they did have the ability to require off-site improvements so they could require a contribution. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Ms. Britton amended her motion to state a requirement that a stub -out be built to the city -owned property line and a contribution be made to the continuation of that street. This amendment was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. . Mr. Suchecki reiterated the motion: approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments; moving the sidewalks to the front of the lots; improvements to Highway 45; access to the city -owned property and a contribution for off -Bite improvements when the street was completed; access to Fox Hunter Road; relocation of the entrance which was shown between lots 55 and 56 to a location which would not be in front of the Moore residence; improvement of all of Fox Hunter Road adjacent to the development including sidewalks; and sidewalks from the outside lots to access the park through easements between lots 69 and 70, 83 and 84, and somewhere around 122 and 123. Ms. Johnson asked for clarification on accesses to the west. It was determined by members of the Commission in further discussion that the access between lots 32 and 33 to the west would be for future development and the one between lots 44 and 45 would be constructed at the present time. Upon an inquiry by Mo. Johnson, she was advised the access to the east to Fox Hunter Road would be required to be constructed at the present time. Ms. Little noted the issue of contribution for access through the city -owned property would end up with the staff trying to determine the amount. She also expressed concern regarding obligating the City to build that part of the street. Me. Little was advised the motion only included the requirement of a stub -out and a / contribution for the off-site improvements to the City which gave the land owners the opportunity to go to the City Council to put pressure on them to build the road. The motion carried B-1-0 with Commissioners Head, Britton, Nickle, Allred, Johnson, Pummill, Tarvin, and Reynolds voting "yes" and commissioner Suchecki voting '•no•'. 53 Planning Commission February 14, 1994 Page 23 PRELIMINARY PLAT - JOHNLIL SUBDIVISION WAYNE HINKLE - N OF WYMAN RD, E OF STONE BRIDGE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Johnlil Subdivision submitted by Wayne Hinkle for property located north of Wyman Road, east of Stone Bridge Road. The property is outside the city limits and contains 16.28 acres with 4 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised there was a discrepancy in the number of lots proposed and the amount of total acreage. She explained Tract 2 shown on the plat had already been separated and was equivalent to 3 lots and the total area was 14.33 acres; what was shown on the plat as Tract 1 was lot 1; what was shown as Tract 3 was lot 2; and what was shown as Tract 4 was lot 3.She explained county approval of the subdivision was also required. She recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, approval by Washington County, any road improvements required by the County, and fire protection required by the City Fire Chief. A representative of the owners of the property appeared before the Commission but had no further comments. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Reynolds. The motion carried 9-0-0. • .� Planning Commission February 14, 1994 • Page 24 OTHER BUSINESS Election of New Officers Upon request by Mr. Suchecki for a report from the Nominating Committee, Mr. Pummill stated the Nominating Committee would like to present Joe Tarvin as Chairman, Jerry Allred as Vice -Chairman, and Phyllis Johnson as Secretary. MOTION Mr. Head moved to accept the Nominating Committee's recommendation to elect Joe Tarvin as Chairman, Jerry Allred as Vice -Chairman, and Phyllis Johnson as Secretary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried 9-0-0. Unified Development Ordinance Mr. Nickle advised he, Phyllis Johnson, and two of the City Council had been meeting on the Unified Development Ordinance each Friday at noon for the past month and at this time they had asked the staff to take their comments into consideration in order to draft a revised Use Schedule. Mr. Conklin stated they had met three times and worked hard to reclassify uses within the zoning districts. He requested volunteers to meet in order to look at two more areas. 41 Commissioners Allred and Nickle agreed to attend that meeting on Friday. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. • �5