Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-28 Minutes0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 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: Joe Tarvin, Ren Pummill, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Gary R. Head, and Jana Lynn Britton MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Suchecki and Robert E. Reynolds OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES: The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. CONSENT AGENDA: A. LOT SPLIT #1: Submitted by Thomas S. Roberts for Daniel F. Capstick. Property is located south of Joyce and west of County Road 87. B. LOT SPLIT Y1: Submitted by the City of Fayetteville. Property is located at 800 S. Church Street and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. C. FINAL PLAT - MEADOWLANDS PHASES I, II: Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of McI1Roy Investments. Property is located south of Wedington Drive and west of Rupple Road. Property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Property contains 40.5 acres with 105 proposed lots. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-55 KELLY & DWIGHT BARTHOLOMEW - 1835 MISSION BLVD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-55 submitted by Kelly & Dwight Bartholomew for property located at 1835 Mission Blvd. The request was to rezone 2 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office. Ms, Kelly Bartholomew stated she intended to provide a birthday party service for young girls at the subject property which would entail a dress -up party, refreshments, and the teaching of proper etiquette. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bartholomew advised they had recently purchased the property. She added the woman who had owned the property before them had ran a baby-sitting service out of the home. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Bartholomew stated she would not be living in the subject house. Mr. Nickle expressed concern in regard to a rezoning to R -O giving the potential for duplexes to being constructed on this two -acre lot which was surrounded by R-1 residential existing houses. Mr. Denny Becker, representing the applicants, advised the Bartholomews were willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that the Tea Time Parties would be the only use of this property and if that business failed, it would revert back to R-1. Me. Bartholomew advised she intended to build a secret garden on the property • behind the house. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the Planning Commission could approve this with the stipulation that when the Tea Time Parties business discontinued, it would revert back to R-1 zoning. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Steve Parker in regard to parking, Ms. Bartholomew advised there would only be one employee, herself. She added she would park in the garage and noted most of the parents of the children would just drop them off so there wouldn't be a need for additional parking. -O zoning. Ms. Little advised since the applicant had requested that the conditional. use application not be discussed at this meeting, discussion of the parking should take place in conjunction with that application. She added that it would be appropriate for them to consider the rezoning and the Bill of Assurance together since it was an attachment to the rezoning. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised although the conditional use was withdrawn, it was still necessary. She explained places which served food or drink were conditional uses in the R -O zoning. Ms. Bartholomew pointed out she would not be running a restaurant, only serving petits fours. Ms. Little advised the only reason this request had been classified under a restaurant was because it would not be an office or a residence which were the only two uses by right in R -O. She reiterated the applicants had requested that the conditional use be withdrawn so the rezoning was only being considered at this point although it would take both actions to allow the applicants to pursue their intentions. e% l • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 3 In response to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised the conditional use request had been withdrawn because there were some concerns in regard to the conditions that were recommended by staff. Me. Bartholomew pointed out her service would be closer to a nursery or a day- care than a restaurant. Mr. Becker contended this use should be classified under Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Uses, which included such units as day -cares and nurseries. He stated the food was a very minor part of the service. Ms. Little explained Use Unit 4 also would require a conditional use under R -O zoning. She added the staff would prefer it be considered under the eating places since there would be food served. She pointed out this type of unusual use was what they had to make an interpretation of and noted if the Commission felt it would better fit under Use Unit 4, it could be considered that way. In response to a concern from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the staff had presented it to the Commission as a joint request, rezoning and conditional use. She stated the applicant apparently requested that the conditional use request be withdrawn'because they were uneasy with some of the conditions the staff had requested. She added they could either defer the conditional use to another meeting or they could discuss it at this meeting. Mr. Parker asked if the Bill of Assurance would accompany the rezoning request to the City Council to be considered as one package. • Mr. Tarvin explained it would depend upon what action the Planning Commission took and added whatever was passed by the Commission would go on to the City Council. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Becker agreed to have the conditional use considered along with the rezoning but reiterated they felt it should be under Use Unit 4. Mr. Allred advised he had a problem with a rezoning at this location without a conditional use attached to it. Ms. Little listed all the uses allowed under Use Units 4 and 13. Mr. Tarvin reminded them that the Bill of Assurance offered would ensure that the zoning revert back to R-1 when this business was discontinued. Ms. Britton expressed opposition to the request stating it was a commercial endeavor in a residential neighborhood no matter what assurances were given. Mr. Tarvin agreed that it would establish a use other than a residence for that property and would make it easier for it to be rezoned commercial in the future. Ms. Britton contended the intended endeavor was inappropriate at the subject location because of sight distance problems due to the curve and the potential for setting a pattern. Mr. Becker advised the sight distance was well beyond what the State required. LJ • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 4 NOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to deny the petition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tarvin. The motion failed with a vote of 3-4-0 with Britton, Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yes" and Head, Johnson, Pummill, & Allred voting "no". Mr. Allred suggested they consider rezoning only the front portion of the property where the house was located so as not to set a precedent with rezoning the entire tract. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised a lot split would not be required but the staff would request a separate legal description for the front portion of the lot. Mr. Pummill pointed out any further development on the two -acre lot would have to be approved by the Commission in the form of a large scale development plan. Ms. Little explained additional construction would have to be approved as a large scale development, but noted that uses of existing buildings did not have to be approved unless they were adding additional parking spaces. MOTION • Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the R -O zoning request subject to the conditions stated in the staff report and with the Bill of Assurance offered which would ensure that the property would revert back to R-1 zoning when the business was discontinued. He noted the motion would also include approval of the conditional use request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Head, Johnson, Pummill, Allred, & Tarvin voting "yes" and Britton & Nickle voting "no". • • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-56 JUDITH PAZ - 2028 BIRCH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-56 submitted by William R. Shepherd on behalf of Judith Paz for property located at 2028 Birch Street. The request was to rezone .48 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. There were no additional comments from the staff. Mr. Bill Shepherd, representing Ms. Judith Paz, advised he and his son were planning to purchase the property conditioned upon the approval of this rezoning. He added they were proposing to construct approximately 10 to 12 two-story, two- bedroom apartments on the site. Ms. Little pointed out to the Commission since this property was under an acre in size, a large scale development plan wouldn't be required unless the Commission conditioned their approval of the rezoning on that. In answer to* a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Shepherd advised the existing dwelling would be moved and the four-plexes would be built in stages. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the rezoning request subject to the staff's comments. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Head, Johnson, Britton, Pummill, & Allred voting "yes" and Tarvin & Nickle voting "no'•. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-57 TREVOR LAVY - BESIDE & BEHIND 2036 N COLLEGE AVE The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-57 submitted by Trevor Lavy for property located beside and behind 2036 North College Avenue. The request was to rezone 10.74 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential - Office. Mr. Conklin presented the Commission with a copy of aerial photographs of the site taken in 1989. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the petitioner, advised the property was located between Ash Street and Township Road. He added it would act as a buffer zone between the residential property and the intensive commercial development on College Avenue. He stated Mr. Lavy had an option to purchase a 2.5 acre commercial tract which fronted on College Avenue. He noted the plan was to bring a street through the commercial property to the R -O zoned property. He advised a Bill of Assurance would be offered ensuring the street be brought through to the site before the R -O property was developed. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray advised the property which would provide the access was shown on the rezoning plat. He noted the area was located just south of where Back Yard Burgers was currently being developed. Ms. Britton advised they should take the opportunity to coordinate the lining up of the proposed street together with the proposed Poplar Street extension. • Ms. Little advised staff had looked such a connection and noted the applicant did not have any control over the extension of Poplar Street. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray advised they were guaranteeing there would be direct public access to College Avenue. He pointed out there would have to be subdivision plats filed for all of the development. Mr. Bill Russo, representing Laura Stanton and Tom Peerson (the owners of the 30 acres to the north between the subject tract and Township), advised they were in favor of the rezoning as a buffer zone. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the rezoning petition as requested subject to the staff's comments and the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 5-1-1 with Commissioners Johnson, Pummill, Allred, Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yea", Commissioner Britton voting "no", and Commissioner Head "abstaining". j� • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II JED DEVELOPMENT - N OF MT COMFORT RD, E OF SALEM RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Crystal Springs, Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JED Development for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 35.32 acres with 104 proposed lots. Ms. Alett Little advised this item had been tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting and additional information had been provided which showed the location of Trucker's Drive and Moore Lane. Mr. Mel Milholland, representing the developers, advised they concurred with the staff's comments. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the long block of lots in the northern part of this development (lots 136-158). She suggested there be another stub -out to the north and recommended there be a narrower street in this development as discussed in'the Master Street Plan meetings. She suggested Tiger Eye Drive would be appropriate as a narrower street to serve the purpose of slowing traffic. In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Howard Davis advised they had several discussions with the golf course owner and noted he was not interested • in arranging a swap of property so that Crystal Drive could be extended east to Dean Solomon Road. Mr. Davis added he had some discussion with the property owner to the north in regard to a stub -out possibly between lots 148 and 149. Ms. Little advised Weir Road was the same as East Salem Road on the map provided to the Commission. Mr. Allred questioned whether a street going into park should be made narrower and contended they would not get an accurate reading on whether or not narrower streets in subdivisions would work with just one street. In answer to questions from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Davis advised there were 112 lots in Phase I. Mr. Tarvin advised there would be a total of approximately -215; lots in both phases. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough of Mt. Comfort Road expressed concern in regard to the impact of the subject development on traffic. He contended this request illustrated the inadequacy of long-range planning in the community. He added he agreed with a statement made by a city official that Phase II should not be approved unless there was a street outlet to Dean Solomon Road. In response to inquiries from Mr. Kimbrough, Mr. Conklin advised the development consisted of 104 lots on 35 acres. He added there were no significant comments by the utility companies, but some additional easements were requested which were agreed to by the owner. He noted staff had commented on parks land (already dedicated), street names, sidewalk location, and the need to tie the property description to the State Plane Coordinate System, Mr. Conklin stated further that a preliminary drainage report and a preliminary grading plan had been submitted on the development. He noted the planned • detention ponds would require either an easement or a deed in order for the City to maintain them. He added the Subdivision Committee meeting discussion was of the possible walkway from the development to the school property. He stated the 19 • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 8 developer had been asked to provide easements for access from the street back to the flood plain area in the event the area was developed as a park. He also noted a request had been that there be provisions for a street tying over to Dean Solomon Road eventually, although not through the golf course. He advised it was the recommendation of the staff that the preliminary plat be approved subject to: Plat Review and Subdivision Committee Comments; approval of a final grading plan, approval of a final drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinances; contribution to improvements to the Hamestring Creek Sewer Pump Station ($56.00 per lot); and other items as might be required by the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Rimbrough contended there was a lack of recognition of the traffic problems in the staff's comments. He expressed concern in regard to the long cul-de-sac. The owner of the Razorback Golf Course advised that, if this development were taken farther west, it would cross the #18 green and a home being built to the west of the green. He provided maps to the Commission which indicated the location of the golf course in relationship to this development. He noted that, if a roadway was brought across the north end of the course, it would take out most of the 18th hole plus the 17th green. He further pointed out that-, if the roadway was planned on the north end coming across the City property and onto the golf course, it would take out #5 green and #6 T -box which would shorten the two holes to par 3's. He suggested they take a street north of his property. • In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Davis advised they had not had any discussion with the property owners to the north in regard to an access. Mr. Len Schaffer expressed concern in regard to the layout of Phase II since the stub -out to the north might never be completed. He noted there would be a 3600 - foot cul-de-sac with over 200 homes with access only to Salem Road to the west. Ms. Heather Daniel expressed concern in regard to traffic and congestion in the proposed development and suggested there was a need for another ingress/egress. Ms. Sylvia Sligle, owner of the property north of the golf course, advised she had not been contacted by anyone. She asked for some information in regard to the type of homes planned in Phase II of the development. Mr. Davis advised they were planning homes with two -car garages and 1,600 square feet minimum in size. Ms. Micki Harrington, representing the developer, advised they were all aware of the access problems with the development and had gone to lengths to do everything possible within the requests of the Planning staff and the Commission to stub - out all the extra streets for links to future development. She contended that, by the time the entire area developed, the stub -outs would assist in connections. In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the concept plat had always shown a connection from Phase II of the development with Phase III. She added there was not an official commitment since Phase III had not been approved as a preliminary plat. She added it would require a bridge and noted that plans had been submitted to the Corps of Engineers for approval. Mr. Tarvin advised Raven Lane could be extended to link up to Crystal Drive, but noted there would be over a mile of residential street with only driveways He • suggested a stub -out to the north at Jade Drive. an • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 9 In answer to inquiries from Mr. Wilson Kimbrough, Ms. Little advised the next public hearing on the Master Street Plan would be held at the next Planning Commission meeting on December 12th. Mr. Milholland pointed out all corner lots in Phase II would access by driveway onto the less traveled street, Manor Drive. In answer to an inquiry by Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised she could not commit the City, but noted there might be a possibility that the City could contribute to the cost of making Jade Drive a collector street. Mr. Allred pointed out there might not be enough room for a bike path along the street if it were developed as a wider street. Ms. Britton stated she believed that, as the developments were reviewed, they should address where collector streets should be developed. Ms. Little advised that, if the width of Tiger Eye Drive were reduced from 3i feet to 26 feet, the cost would be decreased by approximately $6,000 and, if street were extended to the north for a depth of 140 feet, the cost of puttinc it in would be around $8,400. Mr. Tarvin advised the real cost would be the loss of a lot where the stub -out went through. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that Crystal Drive would exit right by the school • which would cause a lot of traffic at that site. She asked if it would be possible to require an assurance from the developer that Jade Drive or some connection down to Mt. Comfort would be completed within a certain time -frame. Ms. Little advised the cost would have to be assigned as an off-site improvement_ as a condition for Phase II. She noted that off-site improvement costs could be met as a part of the development cost of Phase III. Mr. Tarvin advised the sewer lift station currently being built on Salem Roac would be very close if the road were widened. Mr. Milholland stated the developer had given park land across from the lif: station to the City and had given the school property also. He noted there wa: sufficient room to put an angle in the road to miss the lift station. NOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to table the subdivision, plat so the developer coulc look into the suggestions the Commission and the audience had expressed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. Mr. Head pointed out the need for another access was the main problem with the layout. Mr. Tarvin advised the access should go to Dean Solomon Road. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Head, Johnson, Britton, Allred Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yes", and Commissioner Pummill voting "no". In response to an inquiry from Mr. Milholland, Mr. Allred advised his intend waE • for the developer to look into a possible enhancement of the plat to make it acceptable to the entire Commission in regard to an alternative access. -y� Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF YOREETOWN SQUARE PHASES II & III SUSAN BISHOP HANSEN - N OF STUBBLEFIELD RD, W OF OLD MISSOURI RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Yorketown Square Phases II & III submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Susan Bishop Hansen for property located north of Stubblefield Road, west of Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains 23.58 acres with 61 lots. Ms. Little advised they had been asked to consider Phase II as a preliminary plat and consider Phase III as a concept plat. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Me. Little advised the off-site improvements to Stubblefield had been assigned for Phase II in the amount of $10,000 and added the connection to Brookhaven to the north would take place in Phase III. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised $10,000 would pay for the improvements of approximately 166 feet ($60/linear foot) of the frontage on Stubblefield. Mr. Milholland pointed out a typographical error in the last paragraph on the first page of the staff report and noted it should state "off-site improvements to other streets may be considered and recommended to the Planning Commission when Phase III was reviewed". He added the staff had determined their budget had already been met as far as the improvements along Stubblefield Road. He added • that, in the future, other accesses might be discussed in connection with Phase III as off-site improvements. Ms. Little explained the staff's perspective was that the City currently had improvements to Stubblefield Road budgeted over the next three years. She added the developer was concerned that, when Phase III was brought back as a preliminary plat, they might be charged for an additional cost for improvements to Stubblefield Road. She pointed out the City only charged off-site costs when they felt the access was inadequate or the street was not up to standard. She advised the staff did not feel that Stubblefield would be substandard at the time Phase III would be reviewed. She advised the developer was seeking an assurance from the Commission that they would not be asked to contribute to improvements to Stubblefield. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland advised they would be requesting a vacation on lot 10 in Phase I where it had originally been intended for an angle in the road. Ms. Little advised there would also be a realignment of the street required in order for the Breckenridge Street to progress straight north. Mr. Milholland stated they had already checked into such a realignment and everything was in order. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Phase II and the concept plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. IV The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Johnson voting "no". • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HIDDEN LABS SUBDIVISION BMP DEVELOPMENT - N OF MISSION BLVD, W OF OLD WIRE RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Hidden Lake Subdivision submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of BMP Development for property located north of Mission Boulevard, west of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 19.75 acres with 44 lots. Ms. Little advised there were no additional comments from the staff. Mr. Mel Milholland, representing the developers, advised the developers proposed to leave the pond and as many trees as possible and dedicate the flood plain property to the Parks Department. He noted the one main concern was drainage and their objective was to prevent water from sheet flowing onto Mr. Perry's property by putting a detention pond on the developer's property, building a berm on the north side of the creek next to Old Wire Road, and some do excavation. He explained the retention pond would actually equal the amount of drainage the street currently dammed and would prevent it from going across the Perry property and would also include any additional flows created by the development. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Milholland advised the total amount of property being dedicated for a park was 4.75 acres which was much more than was required. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland advised the culvert on • Old Wire Road would not be expanded at the present time. He explained they intended to change the direction of the drainage into the box culvert so it would be more efficient and also have a detention pond to hold the amount equivalent to the detention behind the road plus additional flows created by the subdivision for 25 -year storm guidelines. In answer to questions from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland stated they did not intend to rechannel the entire channel. He added they would be leaving as many trees as possible. He advised the developer did not own nor had no plans for the property to the northeast of the park. Mr. Nickle asked what access the property to the northeast of the park would have if it were developed. Mr. Milholland advised the property could access to Old Wire Road, but noted there was a potential for an access to the north and to the east. Mr. Perry, owner of property just to the northwest of the subject property, expressed concern that the development would add to the major existing drainage problems on his property. He suggested there needed to be more work done to the existing culvert. He noted that, when they built a street to access Phase II of the development in the future, there would need to be a stub -out across the green space. He requested more information as to how the drainage would be redirected and taken care of. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland stated that, although the developer did not own the land to the north, he had an agreement with Mr. Jackson in regard to building a retention pond. In response to further questions, Mr. Milholland advised the design of the retention pond would allow for a street to be constructed in the future. He is reiterated they were proposing to construct a retention pond equivalent to the present retention on the east side of the road plus additional flows that would come off the subdivision in a 25 -year storm. 5 • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 12 In answer to questions from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland stated he had not designed the rate of discharge yet. He added he proposed to relocate the volume of existing retention onto the developer's property to keep it off Mr. Perry's property. He noted they had not stated they would limit the rate of discharge of the box culvert. Mr. Mark Marquess of BMP Development advised a 67 -lot subdivision had been approved on the subject property prior to his company buying it and replatting it with fewer lots and more green space for a much better, more natural subdivision than originally platted. He pointed out they were planning to preserve as many trees as possible. He stated that was one of the reasons not to completely disturb and channelize the creek. He noted they wanted to create a retention pond which might also act as part of another natural waterway and in that process they could provide a good access to Mr. Jackson's property by damming the retention pond. He pointed out the box culvert, in its present state, with the retention pond would take care of the problem of water on Mr. Perry's property. He stated the water would be redistributed back into the channel. In response to comments, Mr. Marquess advised they had decreased the number of lots of the development. He noted the existing pond was separate from the creek and had a small natural flow into the creek. He stated the pond would be developed in a natural setting with a lot of greenery planted around it. In response to inquiries, Mr. Milholland advised there would be some excavation and construction of a berm. • Ms. Barbara Holt expressed concern in regard to flooding in the Ramsey Street area. She contended there should be storm drains at the southeast corner of the subdivision and a culvert running under Jordan Lane between lots 37 and 38. She added they needed storm drainage to take care of the drainage problem. She asked for verification that the drainage coming off of Jordan Lane would be angled back in the opposite direction of Ramsey Street so drainage on Ramsey would not be compounded. Mr. Milholland reiterated they would be constructing a swale along the east boundary of the subdivision which would handle the water. Ms. Little advised at the Subdivision Committee meeting Mr. Marquess had stated there was a 50 -foot gas easement which they could use to form a natural pathway to the creek. She noted he had also stated the water would be directed toward the street and not toward the Ramsey property. In answer to further questions, Mr. Milholland stated any work in the flood way would require approval from the Corp of Engineers. In response to questions in regard to Ramsey Street, Ms. Little advised Ramsey was stubbed out although it was functioning as a cul-de-sac. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised that, if the subject plat was approved, the original plat would no longer be in force. She explained any plat which was approved by the Planning Commission in a preliminary form was only good for one year. She added the approval of the prior plat was subject to approval of drainage plans and other conditions. In answer to a question from Ms. Little for clarification, Mr. Tarvin explained the City Engineer's comments were basically that the developers were going to let • the water onto their side of the road and the drainage plan design was based on a 25 -year storm level. • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Milholland advised they would submit calculations to the City Engineer for approval. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Marquess advised the minimum home size for the proposed development would be 1,650 square feet. Mr. Allred pointed out the revised plat should have less impact on the existing neighbors as far as compatibility. Mr. Tarvin inquired as to whether they could require assurance that the retention pond would be made to look natural. Ms. Little contended they should include .in a motion the required design of the retention pond should retain a 25 -year storm level on site. Ms. Britton expressed concern the development was isolated and traffic would have to impact the arterials that bordered it to get to any other developments. She noted it should be linked internally to property to the north to provide cross flow. Mr. Tarvin advised the cost of building a bridge was a deterrent. Mr. Pummill contended some people wanted to live on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Allred stated it was a trade-off as to whether they had natural green space or a bridge. • After further discussion in regard to the proposed drainage plans for the development, Mr. Milholland stated the entire retention pond would not be in the flood plain, but it would be completely on the park land. Ms. Little advised the Street Department would require drainage easements which would be maintained separately. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. After further discussion, Mr. Pummill asked for clarification as to exactly what the developers were proposing as far as drainage. Mr. Milholland reiterated they were proposing to build a retention pond equal to what was in retention currently on Old Wire Road (the volume) on their property plus the additional impact of a 25 -year flood level on the proposed subdivision. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the prior plat approval was based on the developer being responsible for a 31 -foot portion of the drainage to the box culvert and other improvements. She contended they were being asked to approve the new subdivision plat and agree to retention which would require those improvements not to be made in the absence of a full drainage study which would indicate if that was even possible. After further discussion, Mr. Pummill withdrew his motion. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 14 MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to table the preliminary plat until the developer and the City Engineer discussed it and a report from the City Engineer was given to the Commission with regard to the drainage issues. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 7-0-0. L 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 15 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WINDSOR SUITES HOTEL MAJOR INVESTMENTS - E OF HWY 71 BYPASS, S OF HWY 62 The next item was a preliminary plat of Windsor Suites Hotel submitted by Kim Hesse on behalf of Major Investments. The property is located east of the Highway 71 Bypass, south of Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 11.34 acres with 3 lots. Ms. Little advised each of the lots would be subject to the large scale development process since they would be over an acre in size. Ms. Kim Hesse, representing Major Investments, advised this subdivision was prepared concurrently with a large scale development for Tract One. She noted all the easements and right-of-ways were shown on the plat. Ms. Britton expressed concern in regard to the buildable area of lots 2 and 3. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised fill could be placed in the 100 -year flood zone. She explained the only area fill could not be placed in was the flood way. She added the access for lot 2 would be in conjunction with the access provided for lot 1. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously. • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 16 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CROSSOVER TERRACE LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST - E OF HWY 265, W OF HILLSIDE TERRACE The next item was a large scale development plan for Crossover Terrace submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of the Lindsey Family Trust. The property is located east of Highway 265 and west of Hillside Terrace and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 6.7 acres. Ms. Little advised condition #4 in the staff report had been met. She explained the Traffic Engineer, the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, and herself had met on site and verified the minimum sight distance requirement was met and determined it was at the best possible location. Mr. Neal Albright was present to answer any questions. Ms. Britton advised the right -turn lane had a long stacking area which gave a potential for traffic hazards. She asked what the length of the lane had been based on. Mr. Albright 'advised it was schematic at this time, but they would work with the Highway Department on their requirements. He noted he had contacted the Highway Department and they had been receptive to the idea. Ms. Britton reiterated she was concerned there would be conflict with persons in that lane deciding to go straight since there were no restrictions. is Ms. Little advised she would contact the Highway Department and inform them of Ms. Britton's concern and request they recommended minimum length. A representative of Lindsey Family Trust advised that, after looking into the pros and cons of three-story apartment buildings as opposed to two-story buildings, they had determined two-story buildings were the best approach. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development plan subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 5-1-1 with Commissioners Johnson, Pummill, Allred, Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yes", Commissioner Britton voting "no", and Commissioner Head "abstaining". C� J • Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 17 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN- TOBIN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PAT TOBIN - LOT 9, BLR 1 OF COLT SQUARE The next item was a large scale development plan of Tobin Commercial Development submitted by Curtis Presley on behalf of Pat Tobin for property located in Lot 9, Block 1 of Colt Square Subdivision. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.93 acres. Ms. Little advised there were no further staff comments and no unresolved issues. Mr. Pat Tobin stated the project would entail approximately 17,000 square feet with the first 5,000 square foot unit being developed early the next year. Ms. Britton expressed concern about the overflow parking on the west side of the development. Mr. Tobin advised they intended to put back doors to the units to encourage persons to park and enter from the rear. He advised they intended to pave all the parking area. Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the large scale development. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. • The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioners Johnson, Britton, Pummill, Allred, Tarvin, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Head "abstaining". • N Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 18 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-29 ADRIAN MCGLAUGHLIN - 1841 CHOCTAW COURT The next item was a conditional use request CU94-29 submitted by Adrian McGlaughlin for property located at 1841 Choctaw Court and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a Mechanical Repair Service. Mr. McGlaughlin advised he was currently doing repairs in his garage on a small scale. He added his purpose for a conditional use was to be able to obtain a sales tax permit. He submitted written information on what his business entailed. Mr. Roy Horn, the resident across the street from the subject property, expressed opposition with the comment that it would only create negative affects to the neighborhood including a decrease in their property and aesthetic values, containment of used petroleum products, parking problems, and an increase in safety problems. He noted there were others in his neighborhood who were opposed to the request. Ms. Lillian Richards, owner of 1856 Choctaw Court, expressed opposition to the conditional use request because of the potential for other businesses coming into the neighborhood and a decrease in property values. Another member of the audience expressed her opposition. • The owner of the property where the McGlaughlins lived advised he had originally agreed to the mechanic business there as long as no vehicles were parked on the grass and no work was done outside the garage, but admitted he was worried about it setting a precedent in the area and the fact that it might contribute to degrading the property values in the neighborhood. Ms. Little advised their office received a call from Helen Folsom of Choctaw Court who also expressed her opposition to the request. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to deny the conditional use CU94-29. The motion was seconded by Mr. Britton. The motion to deny carried unanimously. • 160 Planning Commission Meeting 40 November 28, 1994 Page 19 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-30 CELLULAR ONE - 150 N.W. SKYLINE DRIVE The next item was a conditional use request CU94-30 submitted by Cellular One for property located at 150 N.W. Skyline Drive and zoned P-1, Institutional. The request was for a public protection and utility facility. The staff had no further comments. Ron Ripper, representing Cellular One, was present to answer questions. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the conditional use CU94-30 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously. is • 541 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1994 Page 20 VACATION V94-12 THARALnSON DEVELOPMENT - LOT 1 OF CMN BUSINESS PARR The next item was a vacation request V94-12 submitted by Tharaldson Development for property located in Lot 1 of CMN Business Park and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was to vacate a utility easement. Ms. Little advised the representatives had contacted her and advised no one would be present for the meeting and she advised them if she thought there were any problems with it she would request it be tabled. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the vacation as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 0 5`1/