Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-28 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 28, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,_Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, and Kenneth Pummill MEMBERS ABSENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson and Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others JACKSON PARKE ADDITION I-0 Mr. Jerry Allred, acting Chairman in the absence of Joe Tarvin, advised there had been a request to have the Commission discuss Jackson Parke Addition (which had been tabled at the previous meeting). He advised there were some question as to whether proper notification had been given and requested a report from the staff. He contended that, if the Commission agreed to hear the item at this time, it would be placed at the end of agenda; otherwise, it would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting in two weeks. Me. Little explained the requested drainage study on Jackson Parke Addition had not been received by the staff at the time the agenda was prepared so the item had not been placed on the agenda. She further stated the drainage study had been submitted Friday afternoon and the developer wanted to have the item discussed at this meeting. She advised it had been determined that, if the developer would notify all of the adjacent property owners in person, the item could be discussed under other business. She further stated a number of the Commission and the Planning Office had received many telephone calls with a lot of confusion.as to when this item would be heard. She explained the developer had placed a notice in the newspaper in an attempt to notify the public. She referred the matter to the Commission for a decision. Mr. Nickle stated he had made the motion to table the item at the last meeting with the request for additional information as to the drainage in the area. He recalled he had requested the developer submit a preliminary drainage plan to the City Engineer for his consideration. He went on to state a report on the drainage was to then be made to the Commission by the City Engineer in regard to the impact of this development on the area and the impact further downstream. He suggested this item be placed on the next agenda as a regular item following the usual channels with the needed information in their agenda packets. He questioned whether the City Engineer had time to adequately review the study. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised he had met with the engineer of the project, Mel Milholland, on Friday afternoon and had accompanied him to the site. He stated Mr. Milholland had given him some calculations; however, the report had not been submitted to him until just before this meeting. He advised he had not had time to review the report. He added he did have calculations given by the engineer as far as the capacity of the existing drainage structures and the capacity of the planned structures to be built in conjunction with the development. Mr. Reynolds reiterated it was important for the Commission to have the drainage information for review before they discussed the item. MOTION Mr. Head moved to keep this item on the table for another two weeks. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 7-0-0. . Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 2 Ms. Little advised the Commission representatives of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Parks staff were present in the audience awaiting their decision on the updated Master Park Plan which had been discussed at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on February 22nd. She explained state statues required any plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformance and compatibility with the General Plan, Mr. Nickle asked if the Master Park Plan should be approved and then changes made in the Unified Development ordinance pertaining to the Plan or if it would automatically be updated by virtue of the ordinance. Ms. Little replied she was not certain any changes they would make in the Unified Development Ordinance would not be so specific that they might not require an amendment of the Master Parks Plan because it was a fairly general document in terms of being a comprehensive type plan. She advised that, if the Commission did revise the Plan to the point that an amendment was required, it would need to be brought back through because the Parks Plan had to be adopted by the City Council as well. Mr. Suchecki stated he was confused because, in the joint meeting, the Chairman of the Parks Board made it very clear the Commission had no jurisdiction over an update to the plan and it was only being brought to the Commission as a complimentary measure. He went on to say that, since the City Council would be making the determination, he did not understand why the Commission was wasting their time if • their decision has absolutely no consequence. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to forward the Master Parks Plan on to the City Council with no recommendation from the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Me. Little explained the state statue stated once a comprehensive plan was adopted, the plans for public grounds, open space, and any public facilities would be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformance with the General Plan for the City. She added that was the reason the Plan had been brought to the Planning Commission. She agreed the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board had made a statement similar to what Mr. Suchecki had remembered. She went on to say, however, the Planning Commission had a responsibility to be aware of what the Plan contained in order to perform their duties in the best interest of the City. She expressed her belief there was a very real need for the Commission to take action on the Plan. She advised she had spoken with the City Attorney regarding the matter and he had agreed the state statues indicated the Commission needed to approve the Plan. Mr. Allred noted the plan fell under the same situation as all the other ordinances by the other committees which had to be approved by the Commission. He noted they had the following options: to discuss the Plan now and make a recommendation; to appoint a subcommittee to review the document and report back in two weeks with their recommendation; to send the Plan without any recommendation to the City Council; or to send the Plan on to the City Council with their approval. In response to a comment by Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little Stated the staff was recommending approval of the document. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Commissioners Head, Suchecki, and Pummill voting "yes" and • Commissioners Britton, Reynolds, Allred, and Nickle voting "no". Wq • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to forward the Master Park Plan on to the City Council with a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Commissioners Britton, Reynolds, and Nickle voting "yes" and CommissionerB Bead, Suchecki, Pummill, and Allred voting "no". Mr. Allred appointed Phyllis Johnson to review the document and gave her the option of appointing other members to assist her. Mr. Nickle volunteered to help. Mr. Allred advised the Master Parks Plan would be a regular agenda item at the next Planning commission. • 0 Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 4 CONSENT AGENDA There was a request by Ms. Britton to remove both items 2.-B (Large Scale Development - Fayetteville Elementary School) and 2.-C (Large Scale Development - Eye Center of N.W.A.) from the consent agenda to be reviewed and voted on separately. There was also a request from Sue Lossing of Lossing Realty to pull item 2.-D (Lot Split #1) from the consent agenda. Therefore, it was determined by Mr. Allred that the consent agenda would be dissipated and each item discussed and voted on separately. MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1994 were approved as submitted. ,: .• rJAWar ... VV kv'yl�y The next item was a large scale development plan of a Fayetteville Elementary School submitted by Laleh Aminorez of Hailey Associates Architects on behalf of Fayetteville Public Schools for property located on the east side of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains 20 acres. Mr. Bunn advised the site contained 20 acres located south of the 40 -acre Crystal Springs Subdivision off of Salem Road. He noted there had been some discussion at the plat review meeting among the utility representatives as to the easements and • crossings required. He furthered stated there had also been discussion regarding the size of the water line required along Crystal Drive and Salem Road, the required improvements to Salem Road relative to the site, and what improvements might take place on the west side of Salem Road. He advised the staff was recommending the school be required to improve half of Salem Road to City street standards with curb, gutter, and drainage to match that done by Crystal Springs. He advised the staff did not have any direct control over that portion of Salem located in the County road system. He stated it was the staff's understanding the County would be overlaying with asphalt on their side of the road along Crystal Springs. Mr. Bunn advised a separate meeting had been held to discuss access to the school from Salem Road and from Crystal Drive and it had been agreed a drop-off area should be provided along Crystal Springs Drive and the entrance from Salem Road should be modified to hold a larger number of cars. He pointed out those changes were shown on the plat. He added the Subdivision Committee discussion had centered on the access of the school from Crystal Springs Drive. He explained the Committee felt direct access to a street in Crystal Springs was not a good idea because of the potential for the street being used as a shortcut. He advised it had been suggested that a pedestrian trail might be utilized rather than a street. He stated the Committee had requested the matter be reviewed further by staff. He advised that, after review, staff had determined the access onto Crystal Drive as proposed would not present a particular problem. He stated they also determined such access could encourage use of the streets through the subdivision as access, but that disadvantage was outweighed by the fact that people within the subdivision would not have to go out onto Salem Road in order to drop children off at the school. He pointed out it did provide additional off-street car storage when vehicle traffic was especially high during times of bad weather. 6q • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Bunn noted the staff's original recommendation was that an access drive be constructed around the school from Salem Road which would either loop back into Salem Road or tie onto Crystal Drive. He advised that, as far as the staff was concerned, the present proposal was a compromise, but the modifications would help to a very large degree. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage improvements; the granting of easements as requested by the utilities through the filing of an easement plat; the construction of sidewalks along both Salem Road and Crystal Drive; and improvement of one-half of Salem Road to city street standards. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the ingress from Salem Road because of the close proximately of two driveways. She suggested it would be better if vehicles would not have to reenter Salem Road to get to the other parking area. In response to a comment from Mr. Allred, Ms. Britton stated Mr. Franklin, Traffic Department, might have agreed to the driveway layout but she did not think he 'recommended it. She suggested it would be more efficient if one of the ingress points was limited to "exit only", namely the one in line with the main entrance to the school. She pointed out the two would interconnect and the area between the two driveways would basically be a giant median. Ms. Laleh Aminorez, Hailey Associates Architects, representing the Fayetteville Public Schools, advised the first driveway into the parking lot on the far east had one lane for entry and two lanes for exit. She explained the driveways had been . designed on the entry to create stack space and on the exit a left turn lane could be separated from the right turn lane to alleviate some of the bottle neck affect. She explained the second drive -up was for bus drop-off only. Ms. Britton noted there were parking spaces in the bus drop-off area and suggested it would be better if the buses entered from the first driveway and exited from the second driveway. Ms. Aminorez explained that, through research, they had decided to separate the cars from the buses for better circulation. Mr. Allred commented it was the Commission's responsibility to approve or disapprove, not to redesign. Ms. Britton stated she disapproved of the design. Me. Aminorez advised they had created some extra parking spaces for night time functions and large group assemblies. She explained the parking within the bus drop- off area was not for everyday use, only overflow. Ms. Little clarified the access to the north would be restricted to buses in the morning. Ms. Aminorez agreed and stated there would be a sign. Mr. Reynolds noted the Subdivision Committee had discussed another north/south street ending in a cul-de-sac across from the school. Ms. Aminorez stated that would be a question related to the subdivision. Mr. Allred agreed and advised the Subdivision Committee had expressed concern regarding the traffic generated by the school would filter through the subdivision creating residential traffic. He explained the request at the Subdivision Committee was that Mr. Milholland and the City Engineer review traffic circulation. He stated yv Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 6 it was his understanding from the City Engineer's report that City staff was recommending approval. Ms. Little explained staff had reached a compromise. She advised Mr. Franklin had originally asked for the optimum in terms of circulation since he had experience with both Root and Butterfield Schools. She stated an agreement had been reached that there could be a drop-off area off of the street adjacent to Crystal Drive, Paul Lewis, an area resident, asked the elevation of the school playground and building location in relationship to the elevation of Salem Road. and Commissioner Britton voting Ms. Little advised it would be 1190 and 1192 and the elevation of Salem Road went from 1189 on the south end to 1194 on the north end. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Head, Reynolds, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Nickle voting ••yes^ and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Ij 0 . Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 7 The next item was a large scale development of Eye Center of Northwest Arkansas submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Eye Center of N.W.A. for property located on the north side of Millsap Road, west of College Avenue (594 E. Millsap) and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with 2.04 acres. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the utility companies. He noted staff remarks included comments on dumpster location and security of the dumpster site, location of the signs, and the need for a grading plan. He added that no further issues were raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the Plat Review comments; Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading plan for the Bite; submittal of a Tree Preservation Plan; meeting the ADA requirements for parking and access; and construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinances. He added there had been some comment about a possible connection street between the parking area and adjacent parking areas. Ms. Little advised a connection street had been discussed and worked out with the owner and was shown on the plat. She explained the staff felt it was important so traffic would not have to exit onto Millsap to go into an adjoining business. She added they hoped other developments within the subdivision would follow a similar development pattern. Mr. Reynolds advised the Subdivision Committee had no further comments. • In response to an inquiry by Ms. Britton in regard to the number of parking spaces required versus the number of parking spaces to be provided, Mr. Milholland advised there were two handicapped spaces and 70 standard spaces required but the developer proposed four handicapped and 106 standard. He added they had agreed to provide the connection to other properties. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the paving of areas which would not be used for parking at the expense of greenspace. She asked the staff if they could require that the number of parking spaces be limited to the number required. Ms. Little advised the staff normally listened to the experience of the business owner as to the number of parking spaces they felt would be required to adequately service their business. She added she was not aware of a time when they had refused to allow development of additional spaces. Mr. Bunn pointed out there were instances where only the minimum amount of parking was installed and then the use changed within the zoning classification and there were not enough parking spaces for the new business. Ms. Little explained the number of required parking spaces for the subject business had been figured on 1 space per 300 square feet but if the use were to change to a retail store or restaurant later on, the requirement would change to 1 per 200 square feet of space for a yield of 104 spaces. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. . The motion carried 7-0-0. �,;L • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 8 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - 971 LANCELOT STREET The next item was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Lossing Realty on behalf of Cumberland Presbyterian Church for property located at 971 Lancelot Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn advised this was a request for a first split of property at the southwest corner of Lancelot Street and Wedington Drive. He stated the proposal was to split off a 100 foot x 120 foot corner which had an existing house. He noted the property proposed to be split faced Lancelot Street and was approximately 200 feet South of Wedington. He advised the remaining property would contain 2.36 acres and bordered both Wedington and Lancelot. He stated there were no problems with the split in terms of access to utilities and right-of-way along Lancelot Street. He further Stated that along Wedington, according to the Highway Department plans for the widening of Wedington Drive, additional right-of-way was required. He noted there was currently only 20 feet from the center line of the street. He further stated that, in order to get the right-of-way required for the Highway Department improvements, the staff was requesting an additional 20 to 40 feet of right-of-way as a requirement for the granting of the lot split. Ms. Sue Lossing, representing the Church, asked if the Church would be giving up their right to compensation for the land that the State would -be taking in conjunction with this split. • Mr. Bunn stated that was correct. Ms. Lossing explained the total right-of-way was between 2/10ths of an acre and 3/10ths of an acre, worth $12,000 to $15,000. She stated it seemed to be an unfair request to ask the Church to give up that amount of money. She added the Highway Department had contacted the church and the church had no problem with Selling the right-of-way. She pointed out the lot they wanted to split off on Lancelot was 342 feet south of Highway 16 (Wedington). She advised the purpose for the lot split was to be able to sell off the parsonage which they could no longer afford. She contended that, if the lot split was not granted, it could force the church to sell all of their property and give up their church location. She asked the Commission to consider granting the lot split without the right-of-way requirement because the church was not in the subdivision business and had no intention of splitting off other land. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn advised a lot split was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations which would have required a preliminary and final plat. He added the city had a right to request additional right-of-way. Mr. Allred pointed out one alternative would be to pull the lot split from the agenda until the Highway Department settled with the Church and then they could resubmit it. Ms. Lossing stated she had been in contact with a representative of the Church and was told the Highway Department had been in contact with them, but they had not made an offer. Mr. Suchecki asked why the City required right-of-way along a state highway be granted. Mr. Bunn advised that, on every subdivision of property where there was additional . right-of-way required, whether it was a state highway or not, the ordinances allowed the staff to request the granting of additional right-of-way. • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Nickle advised on Highway 265, the Highway Department had asked the City to acquire all of the right-of-way before they would widen 265. Mr. Reynolds asked for clarification as to whether the petitioner wanted to withdraw the lot split until they negotiated with the State Highway Department. Ms. Lossing stated they were asking the lot split to be approved so the property could be sold to avoid a hardship for the Church. Mr. Allred noted they were asking for a waiver on the right-of-way dedication. Ms. Lossing agreed and argued the new lot would only be 100 feet x 120 feet and would be 342 feet off of Highway 16 (Wedington). Me. Little explained the ordinance stated that, when any site improvements were made on properties fronting on state highways and highways maintained by the State Highway and Transportation Department, the subdivider would be required to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to bring those State Highways which the Master Street Plan shows to abut or intersect the proposed subdivision into conformance with the right- of-way requirement to the Master Street Plan. She went on to say the subdivider would be required to install a sidewalk adjacent to that portion of a state highway abutting the proposed subdivision, provided the subdivider would be permitted to make a cash contribution in lieu of actual installation, which contribution would be in an amount equivalent to the estimated cost of constructing required sidewalk as of the date of final approval. Ms. Britton verified the church would have to build a sidewalk on the front of the property if there was not an existing sidewalk. Mr. Nickle stated he did not see how the Commission could go against the city regulations. Mr. Reynolds suggested tabling this item until the church and staff worked this out. Ms. Little stated she was under the impression the church felt they needed to pursue the lot split in order to sell the house. She also suggested tabling the matter if that would be agreeable to the Church. Ms. Lossing stated she would have to get more information as to what the Highway Department had discussed with the Church. NOTION Mr. Nickle moved to table the lot split request until the March 13th meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - RHZONINGS R94-5 6 R94-6 LEWIS BROTHERS LEASING - S OF LONGVIEW, W OF COLLEGE The next item was a public hearing for rezonings R94-5 and R94-6 submitted by Jim McCord on behalf of Lewis Brothers Leasing for property located on the north and south side of Longview, west of College Avenue. R94-5 was a request to rezone 1.03 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential and R -O, Residential -Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, for property located on the north side of Longview. R94-6 was a request to rezone 1.23 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential and R -O, Residential -Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, for property located on the south side of Longview. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the site was part of a larger rezoning request for C-2 zoning which had been approved by the Planning Commission last April, but had been withdrawn before the City Council reviewed it. He noted the original rezoning request had been for a total of 22 acres and did include all the residential uses along Longview and Plainview Drive (directly to the south and west of the site). He explained the applicant had petitioned for the rezonings in order to expand the existing automotive business located on the north and south sides of Longview Avenue. He stated the applicant had offered a Bill of Assurance limiting those uses allowed under Use Units 19 and 20 for commercial Recreation and those uses allowed under Use Unit 14. Hotel, Motel and Amusement Facilities. He pointed out adjacent zoning included c-2 to the north and east and R-1 to the south and west. He recommended approval of the requested rezonings subject to the Bill of Assurance being offered by the applicant. He advised a separate motion would be required for each of the • rezoning requests. Mr. Jim McCord, representative of the petitioner, stated he and the applicant were present and would answer any questions they might have. He reiterated the property had been previously approved for C-2 zoning and the purpose of the rezoning petition before them was to enable the car dealership to expand its office space, employee parking, and perhaps a small area for the enlargement of the sales lot. He noted that, if the rezoning request was approved, the western boundary of the C-2 would line up with the existing C-2 to the north. Mr. Reynolds questioned whether the neighbors had any opposition to the rezonings. Mr. McCord advised the adjacent property owners had been notified of the meeting MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve petition R94-5. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve petition R94-6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 7-0-0. 75 • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE CLIFFS PHASE I, ( A P.O.D.) BILL UNDERWOOD - W OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for The Cliffs, Phase I. (a P.U.D.) submitted by Tom Hopper on behalf of Bill Underwood for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 25.5 acres with 204 units. Mr. Bunn stated this was a first phase of a Planned Unit Development consisting of 204 units on 25.5 acres submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of the owner, Bill Underwood. He added there had been considerable discussion among the utility representatives on the location of easements and various crossings required to serve the development. He explained that, during the discussion on easement requirements, it was brought out that there was a strip of land adjacent to Highway 265 which was under different ownership and would require an access easement in order to develop this site as planned. He added there were some options, but in order to develop it in the way they had it planned, access would be required across the strip of land. He noted that, if the efforts to get the easement were unsuccessful, the owner could request the City condemn the property that was required for the access. Mr. Bunn added there were staff comments and questions on drainage plans, the location of hydrants within the subdivision, the ownership of the storm drainage system, and the need for conduits for an eventual traffic signal at Highway 265. He stated one of the streets proposed through the subdivision was on the Master Street Plan and would be four lanes wide. He further stated the Subdivision Committee's • discussion was mainly a general discussion about the project with some questions from members of the general public in regard to the required buffer area and the requirements for plat approval. He noted there was also some discussion about the problems associated with the strip along 265 which was under a different ownership. Mr. Bunn advised it was a recommendation of the Subdivision Committee to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with the staff comments. He recommended approval of the plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; approval of the detailed plane for water, sewer, streets and drainage; a dedication of the required right-of-way along 265; construction of sidewalks; and the payments of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances. He added approval should also be subject in part to the City's participation in the street costs of two lanes versus four lanes. Mr. Reynolds stated there was a big discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting in regard to the 30 -foot condemnation. He asked if that problem had been solved. Mr. Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates, representing the owner, advised they had received a response back from the owner of the strip that started at 30 feet and narrowed to 0 feet. He advised the response came from a niece of the owner with a request for payment of $100,000 for the strip which was approximately 4/10ths-of an acre. He explained the developer felt that amount was too high. He stated the alternatives were to hire two appraisers to determine the value of that piece of property and then, based upon that value, offer the owner that amount; or ask the City Council to agree to condemn the property with Mr. Underwood paying the condemnation costs, as long as they were reasonable, and posting those monies with the court before it went to a court hearing. He advised if neither of those alternatives prevailed, they would come back to the Planning Commission with a rerouted street which would jog north 200 feet, then back to Highway 265. He added they did not feel a rerouted street would be in the City's best interest, but it would be an alternative. • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 12 In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Hopper stated they did not want to table their request and were asking for full approval to proceed with the project and construction of the streets. He added the water, sewer, and street plans had been finished and submitted to the City and had been approved with some minor contingencies. Mr. Nickle asked if a drainage analysis for the entire project had been submitted to the City Engineer which was sufficient to show the drainage problems would not be compounded. Mr. Hopper advised they had computed the design computations to the first phase and would submit those to Mr. Bunn. He added the present ponds plus the two ponds they were adding should provide detention to take care of any increase in runoffs; but they had not completed the computations for the next phases which would document that. Mr. Nickle asked when the street was to be constructed all the way through. Mr. Hopper stated they planned to develop the project in four or five phases; the first phase would be as shown on the plat and the second would be extending on to the west along Cliff Drive. He added they did not anticipate completing the street construction until the third phase. Mr. Reynolds asked if there was a chance they would make some major changes which would send the project back to the Subdivision Committee. • Mr. Hopper stated he did not anticipate that. Mr. Reynolds stated it could happen if the condemnation failed. Mr. Hopper stated that, should the condemnation fail, they would just reroute the road. Mr. Allred stated the Commission had requested that when significant changes were made on any plat, it be sent back to the Plat Review so that all the utility companies were aware of the changes. He added that, if changes were made in the street, the utility companies would need to be alerted. Mr. Hopper noted that, if the City obtained a 100 -foot right-of-way (50 feet from the centerline as requested by the Highway Department), it would leave an 8 -foot strip which narrowed to 0 feet. He added a condemnation would make sense based upon the City's need for a through street in the form of Cliff Drive and for widening Highway 265, Ms. Britton stated when the right-of-way for Highway 265 was obtained this problem would be moot. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Nickle in regard to the projected traffic generation by the first phase of this development, Ms. Little advised they had received a traffic generation report from Mr. Franklin. Mr. Nickle expressed his concern there would be a need for the public street extending on to the west before the third phase of development. Ms. Britton reiterated they were concerned that the street be put through in a timely matter. E • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 13 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to table this project until they got more specifics on the condemnation. The motion died for the lack of a second. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had met with the engineer and owner of the development and discussed the alternatives, the risks involved, and the City's condemnation of this strip. He pointed out there had been a precedent set for the City condemning a strip of property for access, particularly in this case where the street was on the City's Master Street Plan and the City had an interest in the access. He noted the staff had informed the developer they could recommend to the Council that the strip be condemned on behalf of the City for access to the development. He explained the staff had pointed out the risks involved including the risk that the cost of the strip might not be known until a trial was held to determine the cost. He further noted there might be some objections from the owner on the City's right to condemn the strip -- whether it was for a private or public purpose. He explained the City could not condemn for a private purpose. He noted, however, staff believed the fact the street was shown on the Master Street Plan gave them a public purpose for condemnation for an access point. He added the staff felt that, if the developer was willing to take those risks involved, including the money and the potential for bringing it back through the Planning Commission at a later date with a revised entrance to the development, the staff was willing to recommend the development be • approved subject to final outcome of the condemnation and with the realization they could only make a recommendation to the Council in regard to the condemnation. Mr. Bunn added it would be preferable to have an access at the proposed location rather than at a location closer to the north end. He reiterated the staff recommended the development be approved subject to the successful access to Highway 265 whether it was through a condemnation or through a revision of the plat. Mr. Pummill asked the developer's response to the Commission's concern that the street be extended prior to the third phase. Mr. Hopper noted they did not have a time table as to when the street would be constructed, but they would take the common sense approach that, when it was needed, they should develop it. He noted he believed the City should be willing, at the time the street was built through the subdivision, to consider widening Happy Hollow. He added that would be a good question for the Commission to ask when they were reviewing the second phase. Mr. Hopper explained they were not trying to obtain access across the strip at someone else's cost; they were willing to offer fair value but did not feel $100,000 was fair value. John Beckmann, 430 Crossover Road, stated an 884 -unit apartment complex in a low-- density residential area was a travesty on the neighborhood. He added his recollection of comments at the first meeting in regard to the traffic was a comment from Mr. Underwood that Highway 265 would be widened before any development was done. He further stated the State had informed him the widening of the Highway would not occur for another 5 or 6 years. Mr. Bunn advised the staff did not know when the widening of Highway 265 would take place. He added he would not be surprised if the 5 or 6 years was correct. He • stated it had been the staff's understanding the Highway Department had a commitment to widen Highway 265 from Highway 16 north to Highway 45, but the timing had never been clear. He explained the State had asked the City staff, as a condition of the 7b' • Planning Commission February 280 1994 Page 14 widening, to acquire the right-of-way. He further explained the city was waiting for information from the State as to what right-of-way they should acquire. In response to a comment from Mr. Nickle regarding lack of money in the budget, Mr. Bunn advised there were no funds in the current 5 -year plan, however the budget plan was updated every year. Ms. Little added the Highway Department had only within the past year and a half asked City Staff to acquire right-of-way as a part of the widening of their State Highway projects. Rick Johnson, 25 South Crossover, stated he had no objections to Mr. Underwood's development other than the problems with the Highway. He requested something be done to improve 265 before any new development was undertaken. Mr. Seddon stated he had sent a letter to the head of the Planning Commission voicing his concerns. He reiterated his concern in regard to the road. Mr. Underwood advised he had not said the road would be widened before the development took place. He advised he had no control over the widening of 265. He added he understood the concern in regard to the road, Cliff Drive, being developed. He pointed out this was a road that would be built with private money and dedicated to the City. He stated it was to their advantage to develop that project quickly, but to be asked to go in and pay for the total road before the development caught up with it seemed to be an unfair request. • He pointed out the plan had not been changed except they had agreed to a four -lane road at the request of the City. He noted everything else in the plan was exactly as they said it would be when it was approved in June. He asked whether it would have made any difference in their decision if, when he presented the concept plat last June, the access road had been shown 200 feet north of its present location. Ms. Britton stated there should be a good distance between two streets and that would have made a difference. Mr. Underwood reiterated they would make a fair offer for the strip of land and, if the owner was not willing to sell at a reasonable price, they would ask the City to condemn the access for a City street which would benefit the City. Kelly Johnson, 25 South Crossover, stated she was not opposing the development but expressed her concern about the placement of the drive which would affect them tremendously, Me. Britton stated she was concerned about approving the development with any possibility that the access could not be worked out. She stated would like to see any approval contingent upon the access going through as located on the plat and, if it had to be changed in any way, it would come back to the Commission for review. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments with an additional comment that, if the condemnation for this access did not work out, the project would come back to the Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • The motion carried 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS N • Planning Commission February 28, 1994 Page 15 Land vs. Payment of Green Space Fees Me. Britton reminded the Commission the city Attorney had made a comment regarding being uncomfortable with defending a portion of the greenspace ordinance. She stated she had asked Mr. Rose to redraft that portion of the ordinance. She advised the redraft would be presented at the next meeting. Working Session on Unified Development ordinance Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission there would be a working session on the Unified Development Ordinance on Friday. He invited any of the Commission members to participate in the meeting and noted they would be working on the Parking Regulations. He further stated they would be continuing with the Design Overlay District. Subdivision Committee Mr. Allred noted that, in the absence of the Chairman, the Subdivision Committee would stay intact until the Chairman appoints a new one. Barrington Parke Subdivision Ms. Little advised the Barrington Parke Subdivision had been appealed by two of the Council members and would be heard by the City Council at their next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. CI • kT