Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 23, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Jana Lynn Britton, Jerry Allred, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: It was requested that the consent agenda items be discussed and voted on separately. MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 1994 were approved as written. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 HELEN FIELDS - 2033 CLEVELAND STREET The next item was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot Split #1 • submitted by Helen Fields for property located at 2033 Cleveland Street and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised the initial application was for two lot splits with three lots being created from the entire 400' x 200' tract. He pointed out the application had been changed because the property on which splits 1 and 2 were located was a separate tract. He noted the request was for only one split on the westernmost tract. He further noted the staff's original recommendation remained the same with the omission of the recommendation that the splits be reviewed by the Plat Review Committee. Mr. Bunn stated that, with the new application, the construction of sidewalks would apply only to the two lots on the east side and a parks fee would only be required for one lot since only one tract would be created. He noted the staff's recommendation of approval was also conditioned by the requirement of installation of a street light, if required, to meet the spacing requirements; the installation of any utilities required to service the proposed lots; and the granting of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along Cleveland. He pointed out the initial request of additional right-of-way along Sang Street was no longer required. Ms. Little advised the distance along Cleveland for which additional right-of-way would be required would be only be 160 to 200 feet instead of the 400 feet originally noted. M. W. Fields, representing the petitioner, pointed out there was an existing street light directly across from the two lots being created. Mr. Bunn stated the street light requirement would be eliminated from the staff recommendation also. ` Mr. Fields assured the Commission the necessary legal descriptions would be filed .and 1• the required parks fee paid. Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split as submitted subject to the staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. 0 0 Planning Commission Is May 23, 1994 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-7 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NATIONAL HOME CENTER E OF FUTRALL, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The next item was Conditional Use Request CU94-7 and a large scale development plan for National Home Center submitted by Tom Hopper on behalf of National Home Center for property located east of Futrall, north of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 26.24 acres. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the request was for a conditional use to develop a building materials establishment in a C-2 zoning district. He noted the use was listed under Use Unit 21 in the Zoning Ordinance. He added the large scale development plan was for an approximately 300,000 square foot structure for a National Home Center on a 20 acre tract of land. Mr. Conklin further stated the City Council had rezoned the site from R-1 and R -O to C-2 zoning on April 19, 1994. He noted the Planning Commission had approved a National Home Center development last February just south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He further stated it was anticipated the developers would present front elevation drawings illustrating the proposed structure on the site. He pointed out the staff had requested the developer be very specific in the type and color of building materials to be used on the project and, in turn, that the Planning Commission be very specific in detailing the requirements in any motion made. He added screening along the eastern boundary line would be required since it abutted a residential zoning district. Mr. Conklin stated the staff recommended approval of the requested conditional • use subject to the following conditions: 1) that building construction be in conformance with any elevation drawings submitted as part of the project and agreed to by the Commission; 2) that the type and color of building materials conformed to what was submitted as part of this project and agreed to by the Commission; 3) that screening comply with city ordinances; 4) that the parking areas not be utilized for the outdoor display of merchandise; 5) that a minimum of 6 feet in width be retained unobstructed along the sidewalk in front of the building; and 6) that all mechanical and utility equipment on the side of the building and/or on the grounds be screened by fencing and/or vegetation if visible from the highway/street right-of-way or residential property and that screening of roof mounted utilities be incorporated into the structure, utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the conditional use and the large scale development plan would need to be handled by two separate motions, but suggested the discussion on both items take place before either motion. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton in regard to the requirement for a minimum of 6 feet of unobstructed width along the sidewalk in front of the building, Mr. Conklin advised there was adequate room on the sidewalk for pedestrians. Mr. Don Bunn advised the large scale development plan would be for a retail and contractor sales facility with various building materials, home and garden items, landscaping materials and supplies. He reiterated the total area of the center would be around 300,000 square feet with approximately 110,000 square feet of that being retail sales. He advised there were no significant issues raised by the utility companies at the Plat Review Meeting although there was considerable discussion as to the location of required easements, the location of conduits to serve the building, and the points of service. He added there was also a .' question regarding service between Ozarks Electric and SWEPCO. Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Bunn advised the site was located directly over a 30 -foot water easement owned by the City for the purpose of installing a 24 -inch water line from the west side of the Bypass over to Sang Street where it would tie into an existing 24 -inch water line. He pointed out it had been determined there was not sufficient water to service the Home Center since the nearest water line of sufficient size was located south of Highway 180. He noted the developer had suggested he construct the 24 -inch line from Sang Street to Futrall Drive and reroute it around the building. He advised the City could then reimburse the developer the actual cost of the line less the extra expense of rerouting the line at such time as funds were available. He explained the proposal would have to officially be agreed to by the City. Mr. Bunn further stated the staff had also recommended the developer generate a traffic study of the area to determine the impact of the development. He pointed out the report indicated that turn lanes should be constructed off Futrall Drive along the west side of the development and a traffic signal was needed at the intersection of Old Farmington Road and Futrall. He explained the report had originally indicated the level of service for the north side of the Highway 180- Futrall intersection would go to an "F" level, but with further examination of the intersection indicated a "D" level of service for the intersection. Mr. Bunn stated the other street related issue raised was the construction of a street from Old Farmington Road north along the east side of the development on right-of-way to be donated by the Fayetteville Public Schools. He added the reasoning for requiring a street was because the City would have normally required the construction of Stone Street from the east side of the development to Futrall Drive. He further explained that, because the slopes created by the subject development went almost to the property lines on the north and east sides, • the development could not provide the right-of-way for a street. He advised the staff felt it necessary that a street be constructed along the east Bide of the development which would eventually tie back into Stone Street and provide an indirect entry onto Futrall Drive. Mr. Bunn advised the staff recommended approval of the large scale development plan subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; the approval of the grading and drainage plan for the site; the approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; the construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; the construction of a 24" water line from Sang Street to Futrall Drive with the City reimbursement as agreed (He pointed out the City would accept the construction of any water line which provided sufficient water for the site); the construction of turn lanes on Futrall Drive; the installation of a traffic signal at Old Farmington Road and Futrall as called for in the Traffic Report; the construction of a street along the east side of the subject property from Old Farmington Road to the intersection of the extension of Stone Street; and the construction of an additional turn lane on the north side of the Highway 180 and Futrall Drive intersection. Ms. Little pointed out the proposed street to connect Old Farmington Road to where Stone Street would be extended to the west would be on school property so the School would be involved in the acquisition of the right-of-way. She advised the subject development would preclude the east/west connection of Stone Street and that it was not currently completed to the property line although the right- of-way existed. She noted the school representative, Winston Simpson, had stated they did not currently wish for Stone Street to be completed and a connection made, but they had no objection to the street being extended to the north. She noted, therefore, it would not currently be connected although a way would be provided. She stated the staff would provide the School Board with information as to the requirements including the donation of right-of-way, and the • construction of the road at the expense of the developer. Planning Commission • May 23, 1994 Page 5 Ms. Britton pointed out an existing driveway along the east side of the property which accessed two homes. Mr. Tom Hopper, representative for the petitioner, advised that driveway would no longer be there because both homes were located on the subject property and were being purchased by the Home Center. Ms. Britton expressed concern the driveway would be used even if the houses were removed. Ms. Little noted the existing trees made it impossible to drive through. She pointed out it would have to be a joint effort between the City and the School to make a connection. In answer to further questions from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the School owned all the property to the east of the site. Ms. Britton also expressed concern that a traffic light at Old Farmington Road would cause traffic congestion onto Sang/Highway 180/Highway 62. Me. Little noted any traffic light on Highway 62 would involve review and approval by the State Highway Department, Mr. Hopper advised the intersection had not been analyzed in the Traffic Report since it did not seem to be a part of any additional traffic that might be generated by the development. Mr. Hopper advised they would be constructing a facility which would fit into the property with ample landscaping and noted that construction of the building itself along the highway frontage would be of split -face blocks of a color and style very similar to the existing National Home Center adjacent to the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He added the lawn and garden center would be located on the east side of the structure away from the Bypass to allow for screening. He stated they had provided adequate parking spaces and had attempted to meet all the conditions required by the City. He further stated the only point of contention was the improvement of the additional turn lane at Highway 62 and Futrall Road. He explained the developers questioned the need for such a lane relation to the proposed development. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper stated the facility did not anticipate using Stone Street. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the grade at the east side of the development would be rather close to the right-of-way and noted the Grading Ordinance required space between any kind of grade change. Mr. Hopper noted the plan as drawn provided an area of space from the property line. Mr. Bunn pointed out the proper spacing would be provided, but it would not be wide enough for a street. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the signalization for the intersection had been resolved and noted it was the additional turn lane on Highway 62 that had not been resolved. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Hopper noted they had completed ZSNI Ms. Britton contended the area had major traffic problems and the subject • development would impact it. Mr. Hopper advised they would be constructing a facility which would fit into the property with ample landscaping and noted that construction of the building itself along the highway frontage would be of split -face blocks of a color and style very similar to the existing National Home Center adjacent to the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He added the lawn and garden center would be located on the east side of the structure away from the Bypass to allow for screening. He stated they had provided adequate parking spaces and had attempted to meet all the conditions required by the City. He further stated the only point of contention was the improvement of the additional turn lane at Highway 62 and Futrall Road. He explained the developers questioned the need for such a lane relation to the proposed development. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper stated the facility did not anticipate using Stone Street. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the grade at the east side of the development would be rather close to the right-of-way and noted the Grading Ordinance required space between any kind of grade change. Mr. Hopper noted the plan as drawn provided an area of space from the property line. Mr. Bunn pointed out the proper spacing would be provided, but it would not be wide enough for a street. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the signalization for the intersection had been resolved and noted it was the additional turn lane on Highway 62 that had not been resolved. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Hopper noted they had completed ZSNI Planning Commission 10 May 23, 1994 Page 6 studies on the traffic to be generated on a daily basis per thousand square feet as compared to the Wal-Mart store. He stated the results were approximately 72 vehicles for the Wal-Mart store and approximately 30.5 for the Home Center. He reiterated, based on those numbers, the level of service at the intersection of Futrall and Highway 62 was determined to be a "D" level. He advised they questioned the exact extend the Home Center would affect that level of service as it currently existed and at a later date. Ms. Little explained the point of contention was the staff had requested an additional turn lane at Highway 62 and Futrall and the developer was asking the Planning Commission to make a determination if it was necessary. Mr. Suchecki clarified that, if the additional turn lane were required, it would be subject to approval by the Highway Department. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn advised there was an existing left-hand turn lane and an existing combination straight through and right-hand lane and the proposed additional lane would be a right-hand turn lane on Highway 62. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised that, if the Planning Commission required the lane but the State Highway Department did not approve it, the requirement would be null and void. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Hopper advised they had shown a left -turn lane to be constructed at the intersection of Old Farmington and Futrall in addition to existing lanes. . In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Hopper clarified the results of the traffic study noted 30.5 per thousand per day would be generated. Ms. Britton reiterated her concern as to what impact on traffic this development would have on Highway 62 farther east at Sang Street. She suggested a traffic study be done to include that intersection. Mr. Allred pointed out if that intersection had been a concern of the Traffic Department, they would surely have made a recommendation in support of it. Ms. Britton contended it might have been overlooked. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the conditional use request - CU94-7 subject to the staff's recommendations. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Commissioners Suchecki, Reynolds, Allred, Nickle, and Head voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". Mr. Nickle expressed concern that, if the large scale development plan was approved without the requirement of the additional turn lane, they would be approving something which would have a level of service of "D" which did not seem proper. He further stated the additional turn lane seemed more important than the extension of Stone Street. He contended that, if the intersection improvements the study indicated were necessary to provide for this type of use, it needed to be completed. Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to the staff's comments including the improvements for the additional lane at the Old Farmington and Highway 62 intersection (Item 9 in the staff's recommendation) and with the provision that the decision on Stone Street construction (Item 8 in the staff's recommendation) be contingent on the approval of the School Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission May 23, 1994 it Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-32 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT f1 LAVERNE COOPER - 1693 MORNINGSIDE DR The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-32 and a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Laverne Cooper for property located at 1693 Morningside Drive. The request was for a lot split approval and a rezoning request of .68 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, Mr. Conklin advised that, since the initial application, the staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of rezoning this property to R-2, Medium Density Residential with the intention that the City would allow an antique/gift shop as a conditional use within an R-2 zoning district in the future. He noted the applicant had agreed with the staff's recommendation and was no longer requesting C-2 zoning. Mr. Conklin stated the adjacent land uses of the property included R-2 vacant land on the north and west sides, R-1 vacant land on the east side, and A-1 vacant land on the south side. He pointed out the new ordinances in the works would allow this type of use as a conditional use within residential zoning districts which was the staff's reasoning behind recommending this site be rezoned R-2. He noted it would allow the existing house to remain as a rental house and the lot size would be conforming. Mr. Conklin explained a lot split request had been submitted in connection with the rezoning request. He noted the property was currently zoned A-1 so splitting the property would not be allowed unless the rezoning was approved because of the minimum parcel size of 2 acres in the A-1 zoning district. Mr. Conklin advised the staff recommended approval of a rezoning to R-2 of this site with direction for the applicant to return in the future with their plans to convert the house into an antique/gift shop as indicated by the applicant. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Laverne Cooper (petitioner) advised a survey had been obtained to ensure the septic field would remain on the property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the rezoning petition R94-32 from A-1 to R-2 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bunn advised the lot split request was to split off a 0.68 acre lot with an existing home from an 8.16 acre tract. He added there was a 24 -inch water line on the east side of Morningside Drive which served the proposed lot directly, but sewer was not directly available to the site. Mr. Bunn pointed out the .68 acres would be less than the 1 acre required for a large scale development and it was the staff's recommendation that, as a condition of approval of the lot split, the street improvement to Morningside Drive be required or money in lieu be placed in escrow. He noted an alternative would be to allow a Bill of Assurance be filed in connection with the split which �. would bind any future owner of the site to go through the large scale development process at such time the use changed from single-family. Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Bunn stated the staff recommended approval of the lot split subject to the rezoning of the property to R-2, the construction of a sidewalk, and the contribution of money for the improvement of Morningside Drive. Mr. Reynolds expressed doubt that a sidewalk could be feasibly constructed on the property because of the terrain. He suggested the sidewalk requirement be waived. Ms. Britton expressed her disagreement with Mr. Reynolds' suggestion and contended a Bill of Assurance should be obtained so that a sidewalk would be built at the time•the street was improved. Mr. Allred noted if they made the requirements so stringent that the development did not take place, the City would have to cover the cost of the entire street improvement instead of just a portion of it. Mr. Reynolds contended the city services were not very good in the subject area and pointed out the subject property was located a long way down that road which made it doubtful the road would be improved or a sidewalk constructed for the next 20 years. In answer to a question from Me. Britton, Ms. Little advised when a street was curbed and guttered the property owners along it were not assessed a fee unless the property owners requested it be improved. Mr. Reynolds recommended a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk be accepted. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve Lot Split #1 subject to all the staff comments with a Bill of Assurance offered and accepted on the sidewalk requirement and to the City Council approving the rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion passed unanimously. 140 • Planning commission May 23, 1994 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HENDERSON ESTATES BMP DEVELOPMENT - W OF OLD MISSOURI RD, N OF STUBBLEFIELD The next item was a preliminary plat of Henderson Estates submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of BMP Development for property located on the west side of Old Missouri Road, north of Stubblefield Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 32.75 acres with 57 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the name of the subdivision had been changed to "Brookhaven Subdivision". He advised the preliminary plat consisted of 57 single-family lots proposed on 32.75 acres. He noted the utility companies did have a chance to review the plat and requested some easement changes and crossings which were agreed to by the owner. He noted two main issues were raised in connection with the subdivision: connections with other subdivisions and streets, and the off- site improvements required. He explained there would be street connections from this subdivision to the Hemingway Ridge Subdivision to the south, to Old Missouri Road to the east, to future Millsap Street to the west, and a provision for possibly tying in to future phases of Yorketowne Square in two separate locations to the south. He noted all the stub -outs for future connections would be constructed at the time of the development. Mr. Bunn advised, in a separate meeting with the developer, off-site improvements were discussed and it was determined the staff would request a $10,000 contribution to the construction of Stubblefield Road which was scheduled to be improved in the current year. He added improvements to Old Missouri Road were being requested and it was felt the cost of the street being planned off-site from Old Missouri Road into this subdivision would be sufficient. • Mr. Bunn noted another issue raised was the fact that the street from old Missouri Road into the subdivision would effectively split property along Old Missouri Road into two tracts. He explained that, because of such split, the staff felt a lot split approval would be needed. He noted it would be the recommendation of the staff that a split be approved for that tract conditioned on granting an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along Old Missouri Road south of the street going into the subdivision. 10 Mr. Bunn advised Mr. Mark Marquess, a representative of the applicant, had indicated he had met with the Parks staff. Mr. Marquess had reported this area was not a high priority area for parks with the implication being parks fees would be required rather than a donation of land. Mr. Bunn advised the staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan for the site; the approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; street connections as shown on the plat constructed to the property lines; the construction of Millsap Drive connection part way with a cash contribution for the balance of the connection because of the significant grade change at that point; the approval of a Tree Preservation Plan; construction of sidewalks and/ or trails as worked out with the staff; and a $10,000 contribution to the construction of Stubblefield Road. Ms. Little noted, with regard to the Parks and Recreation recommendation, a decision on the development was tabled on May 16th to allow time to look at the land because of concern that there might be a need for trails within the area. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn advised that just to the west of the subject property there was some common area owned by Summerhill Subdivision and to the west of that property there was a 50 -foot right-of-way which had been granted for Millsap Road. me • Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 11 Ms. Little advised Millsap Road would be stubbed out for a definite street connection. Mr. Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers, representing the developers, stated they concurred with the staff's comments. He noted a discussion had taken place at the subdivision Committee meeting in regard to a cul-de-sac being placed at the southwest corner of the project where the street stubbed into the northwest corner of the future Yorketowne Subdivision. He requested the Commission's consideration on that matter. Ms. Little clarified it was shown on the plat as an extension between lots 26 and 27. Mr. Bunn advised the staff did not have any objection to that. Mr. Mark Marquess, of BMP Development, advised the Parks Department had indicated an interest in the possibility of a trail along the creek. He contended there was no physical way to put in a trail along the creek because of the terrain and added a trail would create a hazard and destroy a lot of trees. He stated they were proposing to pay the money (a total of $12,825) in lieu of a land donation for the parks requirement. He also advised they would be constructing a bridge across the small stream which ran along old Missouri Road for a cost of approximately $170,000 and $50,000 or $60,000 in landscaping detail. He noted they were also hoping to put in a 6 -foot sidewalk the entire length of the south side of the main street running east/west with the anticipation of a connection into Summerhill to make a beautiful jogging/walking trail. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland stated the "U" shaped street shown on the plat was a one-way public street with 30 -foot of right-of-way and 18 feet of driving surface. Ms. Britton contended that 18 feet would not be adequate and suggested a 24 -foot wide driving surface. Mr. Marquess advised there were a lot of trees to the north of the one-way street and they had taken precautions so the two lots in the center would have the homes facing to the east and to the west to provide side yards facing the main boulevard as well as facing the estate lots. He noted on -street parking in certain areas would not be allowed because of extensive landscaping. Ms. Britton reiterated her concern there would be a potential for violation of the one-way street designation and that 18 feet would not be wide enough. She pointed out she would not be opposed to a one-way street if it was not so narrow. In response to a request for clarification on the cul-de-sac request, Mr. Milholland advised they would prefer not to have the entrance on the east side so they were requesting a permanent cul-de-sac at that location. Ms. Little noted that there would be a 50 -foot right-of-way touching the property line and Mr. Milholland concurred. Ms. Little advised an adjustment to the plat would be required between lots 15 and 16 where the street bent. Mr. Milholland advised he had revised the plat so no property lines would extend into the middle of the streets. • 0?0 He pointed out they would be contributing over $200,000 in capital improvements to the area which would not be exclusively for their subdivision. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland stated the "U" shaped street shown on the plat was a one-way public street with 30 -foot of right-of-way and 18 feet of driving surface. Ms. Britton contended that 18 feet would not be adequate and suggested a 24 -foot wide driving surface. Mr. Marquess advised there were a lot of trees to the north of the one-way street and they had taken precautions so the two lots in the center would have the homes facing to the east and to the west to provide side yards facing the main boulevard as well as facing the estate lots. He noted on -street parking in certain areas would not be allowed because of extensive landscaping. Ms. Britton reiterated her concern there would be a potential for violation of the one-way street designation and that 18 feet would not be wide enough. She pointed out she would not be opposed to a one-way street if it was not so narrow. In response to a request for clarification on the cul-de-sac request, Mr. Milholland advised they would prefer not to have the entrance on the east side so they were requesting a permanent cul-de-sac at that location. Ms. Little noted that there would be a 50 -foot right-of-way touching the property line and Mr. Milholland concurred. Ms. Little advised an adjustment to the plat would be required between lots 15 and 16 where the street bent. Mr. Milholland advised he had revised the plat so no property lines would extend into the middle of the streets. • 0?0 Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 12 MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments, approval of the cul-de-sac between lots 26 and 27, and a stub -out for a possible connection of Yorketowne Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. Mr. Nickle questioned if the motion would include the parks requirement. Mr. Suchecki advised that would be included in the staff's comments. The motion passed unanimously. 0 F Zqi J Planning Commission May 23, 1994 Page 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT - MADISON AVENUE SAM MATHIAS - S OF MISSION, E OF WHIPPOORWILL The next item was a preliminary plat of Madison Avenue submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located on the south side of Mission, east of Whippoorwill. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 20.18 acres with 23 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised there were no significant comments by any of the utility companies at the Plat Review meeting, but some additional easements and crossings were requested and agreed to by the owner. He noted the staff remarks included comments on the parks fees, the drainage on the site, the water service for the subdivision, a future connection of the Barrington Parke Subdivision to the east with a street, and off-site improvements. He noted water service for the area was discussed at the Plat Review Meeting and stated the maximum static water pressures in the proposed subdivision would range from 78 psi to 88 psi which would, in his opinion, be adequate to serve the subdivision. He further stated, however, as a condition of approval, a study would be required to verify the adequacy of the water line. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had requested the layout be revised to show the connection to the east for the purpose of tying into Barrington Parke Subdivision. He added the property directly to the east of this property was owned by the City on which a proposal for a cemetery had been refused by the state. He noted the City did, however, feel a connection needed to be provided to Barrington Parke. He stated off-site improvements would consist of the construction of one-half of Starr Drive to city street standards from the . southwest corner of the subdivision up to Highway 45. He noted there was a piece of property left out of the subdivision at the southeast corner of Highway 45 and Starr Drive which was zoned R -O and would be reserved for future development. Mr. Bunn advised the staff's recommendation was to approve the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan to the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; approval of a Tree Preservation Plan; payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; a study of the water service in the area to confirm the adequacy of the existing line for the subdivision being completed within 2 weeks and any off-site improvements to water indicated by the study being brought back to the Planning commission for approval; construction of one- half of Starr Drive to city street standards; and the granting of the necessary right-of-way. Ms. Britton advised that, at the time Barrington Parke was approved, she thought there had been a request by the Commission for a contribution to the street going into the City property. Mr. Allred advised the subdivision had gone before the City Council and their request had been reversed. Ms. Little advised they received a dedication of right-of-way in Phase II but not a stub -out. She noted that Phase II would need to come back to the Planning Commission for a preliminary plat approval. Me. Britton noted her point was that, if the Barrington Parke Subdivision had to make a contribution to that street, she thought this subdivision should too. Ms. Little advised there was no provision to that related to Barrington Parke at • this time. M Planning Commission • May 23, 1994 Page 14 Mr. Milholland stated they concur with the staff's comments and recommendations. Mr. Nickle commended the developer for putting in the larger lots which far exceeded the requirement. Mr. Milholland stated larger lots were compatible with the area. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Head "abstaining". OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Little stated the City Council accepted two greenspace ordinances having to do with that portion of the Subdivision Regulations dealing with park land: a provision that any large development over 40 acres or containing 100 lots be required to dedicate land and, in the case that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board or the Planning Commission did not recommend the dedication of land, any development of that size would have to go before the City Council for approval; and the overlay district which had been tabled for further review and would have an additional hearing at the first Council meeting in June. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. I •