Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-22 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 22, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of 11/8/99 Minutes AD99-13: Ice Plant Development, pp484 PP99-13: Copper Creek (Stoneridge), pp100 PP99-11: McMillin Estates, pp441 PP99-12: Pine Valley V, pp363 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson • Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward • STAFF PRESENT Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Johnson: Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, then those minutes will be approved as distributed. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 3 Consent Agenda AD99-13: ADMINISTRATIVE ICE PLANT DEVELOPMENT LLC, PP484 This item was submitted by Cal Canfield on behalf of Ice Plant Development, LLC for property located at 339 North West Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is for a waiver of 43 parking spaces for the proposed addition to the existing building. Cal Canfield was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a parking waiver for 43 spaces with the payment of $51,600 in lieu of providing the required parking subject to the $51,600 being paid to the City prior to a building permit being issued to increase the square footage of the building. Commission Discussion Johnson: Is there any Commissioner who wishes to removed this from the Consent Agenda? Is there anyone in the audience who would remove this item from the Consent Agenda? This will remain on the Consent Agenda. Roll Call Upon roll call, the consent agenda was approved with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 4 New Business PP99-13: PRELIMINARY PLAT COPPER CREEK (STONERIDGE) SUBDIVISION, PP100 This item was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located east of Highway 265 and north of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35 acres with 81 lots proposed. Brian Moore, Micki Harrington, and Gary Brandon were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of improvements to Zion Road (Co. Rd. No. 92): A. Improvements adjacent to the proposed site: Zion Road is gravel from the 90 degree bend south of Lot 51 to the east. This portion of Zion Road lies entirely outside the City Limits. Staff recommends improving Zion Road from the end of the existing paved section to the eastern property line of this development to Washington County Standards. These improvements would have to be approved by Washington County. B. Offsite Improvements: Zion Road from this site west to Hwy. 265 is presently a 17 foot wide paved street with a 14 foot one way concrete box culvert. Zion Road is classified as a local street on the Master Street Plan. Staff does not recommend any improvements or assessments for this portion of Zion Road due to projected traffic from this development. Refer to memo on file from the Engineering Department. Resolution of the property line conflicts along the north and south property lines prior to acceptance of construction plans. 3. The final plat for this subdivision cannot be processed until the Stonewood Subdivision Final Plat has been recorded. 4. Dedication of 1.49 acres to the City and payment of $8,025 to satisfy the current park land dedication requirement. This fee is based upon the present park land formula which is required to be updated every 2 years. The actual park land fee will be determined at the time of final plat approval • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 5 5. The proposed sanitary sewer lift station that will be constructed in conjunction with the Stonewood Subdivision may have to be enlarged in order to have the capacity to add these additional lots. Any costs associated with this upgrade will be at this developer's expense. 6. If requested by the Water & Sewer Superintendent, provisions for future irrigation lines for services that cross streets should be provided and will include a 2 inch service main and a 2 inch gate valve. All drainage pipes, open swales and channels, lakes, or detention ponds outside of the street right of way are to be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA, or similar entity. 8. The proposed detention pond shall be sodded with concrete trickle channels that connect the inlet pipes to the outlet structure. 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space along one side of each residential street (40 foot right of way) and minimum 4 feet sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both sides of each local street (50 foot right of way.) 12. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Commission Discussion Johnson: Although this property touches Zion Road at 2 locations, the primary access to the property is through the subdivision being developed immediately to the west which is Stonewood. Has the applicant seen the conditions of approval? Warrick: We have a signed agreement. • Johnson: There are 2 items that I want to call special attention to. We must determine the improvements to Zion Road. The staff recommends that the only portion of Zion Road which • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 6 this developer must improve is the part from the end of the existing, paved road to the east property line of this development which is best seen on page 1.7. It is the part of the road that is along the gap at the south edge of the property. We must also determine any other improvements to Zion Road. There is a one lane bridge. Staff does not recommend other improvements because they believe the primary access to the property won't be off Zion but will be through the subdivision to the west. The applicant needs to be aware that the final plat for this subdivision can't be processed until the neighboring subdivision to the west, Stonewood's final plat, has been recorded. Warrick: I would add regarding connectivity that the development is connecting in 2 locations to the Stonewood Subdivision which is currently under construction to the west. There are also future connections planned to the north and east of this development. The Copper Creek development does have an access to Zion Road in the vicinity of the park land to be dedicated as part of this project. Johnson: Ultimately, the stub outs will give us 2 connections to the west, 1 to the north, 1 to the east and 1 to the south. Public Comment None MOTION Odom: I move approval of preliminary plat 99-13 subject to all staff comments including their recommendations on off site improvements. Shackelford: I'll second. Further Commission Discussion Estes: I intend to vote to approve the motion. I do have a question for staff. At the far northwest corner of the Copper Creek Subdivision, we see the street on the adjoining subdivision coming out. That street stubs out to go north of the lots on Copper Creek which would mean those homeowners on the north side of the subdivision would have a minor arterial on the north side. Has there been any discussion on relocating that stub out? Petrie: The construction plans for Stonewood Subdivision have not been approved. I have not reviewed them. I have recently received them. That is an item that I am going to request of Mr. Foster to at least begin the curve on Greystone Drive on the west side of that 100 foot utility easement so that future development will have at least one row of lots between that • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 7 street and this subdivision. Estes: You will require that the stub out be relocated so that the homeowners on the north boundary of the Copper Creek Subdivision do not have a street running behind their lot but have another row of building lots to the north. Petrie: That is correct. I will make that request. Stonewood was approved as this is shown now. I'm going to make a request. Estes: Was I correct in my statement that would be a minor arterial? Petrie: That is just a local street. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 8 PP99-11: PRELIMINARY PLAT MCMILLIN ESTATES, PP441 This item was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and I-540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 10 lots proposed. Steve Hesse was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of right of way along Wedington Drive by warranty deed to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan for a principal arterial requiring right of way dedication of 55 feet from the centerline. • 2. A unified development theme shall be presented in order for this development to comply with Commercial Design Standards at the time of final plat. 3. Proposed subdivision entrance signs must comply with the City's sign ordinance. No freestanding signs will be permitted on lot 10. 4. Direct access to these lots will not be permitted from Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive with the exception of one driveway access from Futrall Drive to lot 8. 4. (Amended) Direct access to individual lots will not be permitted from Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive with the exception of one curb cut from Futrall Drive onto lot 8. 5. Cross access between lots will be reviewed at the time of large scale development approval for each lot. 6. An 8 inch waterline must be extended to the property line along the stub out street. 7. All drainage pipes, ditches, swales, and channels outside the street right of way are to be private and privately maintained. Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot that will not be maintained by the City. 8. The items listed in the August 19, 1999 letter from FEMA must be completed and a • LOMR accept by FEMA. All Corps of Engineers permits must be acquired prior to • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 9 acceptance of construction plans. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive and a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed interior subdivision streets. Amended - Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive south of McMillin Drive. A minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed, interior, subdivision streets and a minimum 8 foot walk to be further determined by the Sidewalk and Trail Coordinator along the south side of lot 10 connecting Futrall and Wedington Drive." 10. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 11. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 12. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Commission Discussion Johnson: Do we have a signed agreement from the applicant consenting to the 12 conditions of approval which we have recommended? Warrick: We do not. Johnson. There must be a unified development theme presented for the overall development since it will have to comply with commercial design standards at the time of the final plat. We will not deal with that tonight. Dawn, could we change the language of condition 4? What if we said: "Direct access to individual lots will not be permitted..." Then down in the second line: "...with the exception of one curb cut from Futrall Drive onto lot 8." • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 10 Warrick: I don't think it is a problem to change that. Johnson: We would deal with cross access when large scale development comes before us. What additional information would you like to present to us? Warrick: One item with regard to condition #9 and sidewalk construction, this is different than what is indicated on the plat that you have received for this evening. The location of the sidewalk along Futrall Drive is actually at the southeast boundary of lot 10 which is the unbuildable lot and is a drainage way. The is an acceptable location. I have discussed that with the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. It's just a minor change from the way item #9 is written. Johnson. You think it will change the language of item #9. Warrick: This is the area where it discusses the 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive. They are proposing an asphalt trail adjacent to lot 10 which is between this development and Futrall Drive. Johnson: The Sidewalk Coordinator has no objection to that proposal? Warrick: He has no objection to the location of it. He told me that he would like to work further with the developer with regard to the way that is actually constructed further south off McMillin Drive along Futrall He is not sure whether he wants a trail or a sidewalk in that location. That is something he wanted to be determined on the construction plans. Bunch: Concerning lot 8, we are allowing one curb cut from Futrall Drive. How will emergency services and routine police patrols get access to lot 8 without having to go all the way down to 6th Street and come back up? Warrick: That's a good question. We do require cross access between commercial lots and item #5 addresses that and this will be determined at the time of large scale. When the property actually develops, we will request a cross access between lots 8 and 9. Bunch: What if lot 8 develops and lot 9 doesn't develop until several years later? There would be no access to lot 8 until lot 9 is developed. Warrick. We could consider that when lot 8 goes through large scale and plan the access. Hesse: I was unaware that I needed to sign the conditions but I will do that tonight. Warrick: If you are in agreement. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 11 Hesse: Yes, I am in agreement. Johnson: You have seen all of the conditions now? Hesse: Yes. Johnson. And you have no problem in signing and agreeing to all of those? Public Comment Paula Marinoni, residing at 617 W. Lafayette was present in support of the project. Marinoni: For the record and your interest, I would like to say we have worked with the developer and he has been very open to our suggestions. We have tried to create an environment which will benefit the city. I'd like to make sure the entrance as we discussed is still on the drawing. Johnson: What provision now is there for the entrance? Warrick: The entrance previously was all on the subject property. The entrance that we are discussing tonight is off of Wedington Drive where it is labeled Marinoni Drive on this plat. It is crossing property lines between this development and the Marinoni property to the east and is basically half on each property. That is an agreement that the developer worked out with the Marinoni family with regard to providing access to their land in the future. Marinoni: We worked with David Glasser with the University of Arkansas Community Design Center to try to come up with an overall feel for how this property could develop rather than cutting it up like a piece of pie which has occurred so much over the years creating frustration for the Planning Commission. Part of the consideration is that behind this development there is 110 acres that we needed access to and in the original plan it only gave us access through the shopping center. We would have had to access our 110 acres through the shopping center. That has changed as we agreed and we are fine with it. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: To summarize the Subdivision Committee discussion, we focused on access to the south between lot 6 and lot 9. Staff had requested, at that time, that the access drive continue on to the southeast corner of lot 9. That is not shown now. I think I would like to ask staff to discuss that further. There was also considerable discussion about location of the sidewalks. Because of the possibility of residential development to the south of this property, it is really important to have the sidewalk along Futrall and it was acceptable to continue it in a trail along • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 12 lot 10 along the south boundary line. I would ask engineering to double check and make sure that we have adequate stream crossings. I don't think that idea has been finalized and could be dealt with at the construction plan. Warrick: With regard to the connection to the property to the south, originally staff would have preferred that it be in the vicinity of lot 9 connecting to the south line. The reason staff. was concerned about an access reaching the very south portion of this property is because the Highway Department did choose to change Futrall to a northbound, one way, access road. We felt having a means of accessing the property south of lots 8 and 9 was very important. The stub out that is proposed does stub out to this south property line but it is not the furtherest point south and there is still a large undeveloped piece of property south of lots 8 and 9 that we feel may be short changed and would not be granted sufficient access with that northbound, one way drive as it's only access. We would have preferred that if the access shown between lots 6 and 9 remains that it be built further south to the corner of lot 9. Hoffman: Would that stub be contiguous to lot 9 and not shared with the undeveloped property to the east? Warrick: That is something that could be considered as a dedication and assessment for the construction of half of a street to the south property line. The other property to be developed would incur an improvement for the other half. Since this is the development before you, you would make the determination. Johnson: Assuming that the 110 acres to the south is not developed soon, and of course this whole tract of property has been for sale for numerous years, we have to assume that as a possibility in terms of traffic movement in lots 8 and 9. I believe we contemplate allowing one curb cut on lot 8. Warrick: That is the way that the recommendation is stated now. Johnson: So, to get circulation in the southern part of this tract, we would have to make some use of Futrall. Warrick: Yes. Johnson: That would indicate that the curb cut has to be pretty far south because Futrall is one way. I think in making requirements for streets, we cannot assume that access will be helped with development on the southern boundary. That probably will not happen soon. Bunch: What is the closest to Futrall Drive that a curb cut could be made on McMillin • Drive or possibly on a proposed road to the south of this property? • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 13 Warrick: The majority of this project is located in the Overlay District and those areas are within the Design Overlay District. The requirement is for curb cuts not to be located within 250 feet of an intersection. We would be looking for approximately 250 foot spacing. Bunch: We're still a considerable distance from lot 8 either north or south in order to get access other than from Futrall. Warrick: They would be permitted a curb cut along Futrall approximately 250 feet south of McMillin Drive. Bunch: In order to have the connectivity between lot 8 and lot 9, they would have to come in 250 feet from Futrall in order to make the first curb cut and then come back to lot 8. Warrick: That's correct. We would look for interior connectivity. Bunch: Likewise, if a road were to be placed on the southern border, it would still have to be 250 feet from Futrall before you could access lot 9 and then connect to lot 8. Warrick: Yes. Johnson: It appears to me that when this gets to large scale, we could contemplate requiring quite a few interior streets to get some circulation through this quarter mile long southern boundary of these 2 lots. We can certainly get the access we need through interior streets. Warrick: You will have that opportunity. Lot 9 is very large. It's more than 9 acres. I would expect that there are opportunities in that. MOTION Odom: I will move approval of preliminary plat 99-11 subject to all staff comments. Hoffman: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom, the second by Commissioner Hoffman that we approve preliminary plat 99-11 for McMillin Estates. Is there discussion of the motion? Hoffman: We need to reword item number 9 to include an 8 foot asphalt trail along the southern boundary. Johnson: "Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 14 minimum —" Do we still have the 6 foot sidewalk or is that where we go to the 8 feet. Hoffman: You have 6 foot along Futrall I would just keep that the same and then just say: "A minimum 8 foot sidewalk south of lot 10 with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed interior, subdivision streets." Does that cover everything? Odom: I think that is what staff said. Johnson: Number 9 should read: "Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive and a minimum 8 foot sidewalk south of lot 10 with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed, interior, subdivision streets." Hoffman: 6 foot green space and standard sidewalks. Petrie: That should be only south of McMillin along Futrall Drive. Johnson: I have not tried to see exactly where it goes. Warrick: Let me take a stab at this: "Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive south of McMillin Drive. A minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed, interior, subdivision streets and a minimum 8 foot walk to be further determined by the Sidewalk and Trail Coordinator along the south side of lot 10 connecting Futrall and Wedington Drive." Hoffman: That'll be fine. Warrick: Chuck did want to look at that a little bit more with regard to construction and whether it would be 8 foot asphalt or whether it would some other type of construction. Johnson: Any questions about the sidewalk and trail work? • AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 15 Hoover: I would like to make an amendment to the motion to include that the road continue to the southernmost tip of the property. I don't know the name of the road. Johnson: Is there a name? Warrick: Not yet. Johnson: Do you contemplate that it continue straight, due south, along the property? Commissioner Hoover has suggested that the short street running northwest to southeast between lot 6 and 9 be built down to the south edge of this property by tuming and going due south along the property boundary. Is there a second? Estes: I second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Estes that we continue the road that comes off McMillin Drive. This street is between lots 6 and 9 and you see that it ends at the edge of lot 9. The motion is that it continue due south from that point to the southernmost boundary of this property. Hesse: Could I ask a question? Would that be half a street to be centered on the north - south property line? I hope that works with the Marinoni's plans. Johnson: Sharon, what do you contemplate? Staff, what would be reasonable and make sense for this development? Petrie: I don't disagree with constructing the street to the area that it ends now but centered on the property line and putting up the remainder of the cost for half that street. I don't object to that. I do agree that it should be moved. otherwise you're going to have a triangular piece of property on the Marinoni's which will be unbuildable and unusable if you don't make that turn. Johnson: Let me understand. You do intend that it go down that property line. Correct? And, half of it you suggest be on this property. Petrie: Right. This is just a recommendation. The actual street construction would end at the property line similar to the location it is shown now. The developer would put up the cost of constructing half a street to the south property line. Johnson. What limitation is there on how long that money would be escrowed before it would be returned to the developer if the street weren't built? • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 16 Warrick. I think that would be considered a delayed improvement and that money would be placed into an interest bearing, escrow account and would remain there for a period of 5 years. At that time, if the development has not occurred, the Planning Commission would have a hearing on how to dispense that money and whether it should be returned to the developer or whether it would be held for a pending project if there is something in the foreseeable future. Johnson: Ron's suggestion is that the street go due south and the right of way for half of the street be given from this property and that the applicant pay the cost of building half the street and that would be held in escrow. Is that acceptable to the mover? Hoover: Yes. Johnson: Bob, is that acceptable? Estes: Yes. Johnson: Then that would be the motion, Mr. Hesse. Hoffman: I am not in favor of the amendment because I think we have another alternative that has not been explored to place the cost of a stub out to the south property line on the Marinoni's, when and if that property is developed. The reason I say this is because that is now one contiguous tract which surrounds the south property line of this development. If and when they either develop or split the property, then that owner would be responsible for placing the connection on the property to be developed in the future. Since this developer has come in with this plat and has touched the Marinoni's property line, I think he has done all he needs to do. When and if the additional, adjacent property is developed, then we can shift the location of the street to the east side of lot 9's property line which would be what is proposed for the Marinoni's. I'll vote for the development but not for this amendment. Ward: When lot 9 comes through large scale, it would be a good time to make this determination. I think we are interested in having that done, I just don't see any reason to do it now. Johnson: Dawn, is there anything that would keep from requiring what this amendment proposes? Warrick: Probably not. Access is a consideration that you need to take into account at the time of large scale. That is something you could consider at that time. Johnson: And certainly if half the street were built, it would give access. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 17 Warrick: It would provide a connection and future access. Roll Call on the Amendment to the Motion Upon roll call, the amendment failed with a vote of 4-5-0. Commissioners Bunch, Hoffman, Johnson, Shackelford, and Ward voted against the amendment. Roll Call on the Motion to Approve Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 18 PP99-12: PRELIMINARY PLAT PINE VALLEY, PH V, PP363 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located north of Wildwood Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres with 6 lots proposed. Chris Parton and Rick Kershaw were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Provide the outstanding payment for the construction of the balance of Millsap Drive (Sussex Drive) in the Brookhaven Subdivision. The applicant's Engineer has provided a cost estimate in the amount of $26,139.50. • 2. Assessment of $2,800 for 14 residential units at $200 per unit for improvements to the Hamestring Creek Basin sanitary sewer. • 3. Assessment of $3,360 for 14 residential units at $200 per unit for improvements to Salem and Shiloh Drives. 4. Lots 1 through 5 shall be required to share access point via shared curb cuts and lot 6 shall be limited to one curb cut only. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $4,200 for 14 residential units at $300 per unit. This fee is based upon the present park land formula which is required to be updated every two years The actual park land fee will be determined at the time of final plat approval. 6. Fire protection per the fire chief's requirements. Additional hydrants may be necessary depending upon the number of buildings placed on lot 6. The fire code requires that no point on any building shall be more than 500 feet road travel distance from a hydrant. 7. A formal grading permit must be obtained for each lot in accordance with the Physical Alteration of Land Ordinance. 8. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 19 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along Wildwood Drive. 12. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. If construction has not begun within one year of approval this plat will be void. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the fifth phase of this development and there are 12 conditions of approval. Some of them are unusual and have to do with contribution toward building adjacent streets. Do we have a signed agreement accepting the conditions of approval? Warrick: I don't have that at this time. Parton. We are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval except for item number 5 which addresses parks fees. The developer has informed me that he believes this item was taken care of in previous phases of this development by donating land between this development and Pine Crest development to be used as park land between those 2 developments and that would make the assessment a moot point. Johnson: The developer believes this has already been handled through a contribution of land in which development? Parton: In previous phases of this development, there was land dedicated between this development and the Pine Crest development to satisfy the requirement. Johnson: Staff, do you have any information for us on this? Warrick: The information contained in the staff report was based on comments from the Parks Division I have Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from July 6, 1998 and they voted 7-0 to take money in lieu to satisfy the green space requirement for the proposed Pine Valley Phase V development. That is what we're working off of. • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 20 Johnson: The last sentence is that the actual land fee will be determined at the time of final plat approval I think if we approve this tonight without more information, we would assume that this is going to be required. Additional information may determine that this has been taken of but we can either postpone this or proceed and work this out at the time of final plat. Kershaw: I would like for you to vote on this tonight as presented with the parks fee assessment in place and at final plat, we will be prepared to present to you our agreement with regard to that assessment and make the final determination at that time. Public Comment Delores Griffin, residing at 2815 W. Wildwood Dr. was present. Griffin: We were told when we bought our duplex that there would be no multi-plexes and I want to voice my opposition to the quad-plex. MOTION • Shackelford: I move to approve preliminary plat 99-12 subject to all conditions and staff recommendations. Marr. Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Shackelford and seconded by Commissioner Marr that we approve preliminary plat 99-12 subject to all staff comments with the possibility that something less be done on requirement 5 and the amount of the parks fees only if we have documentation to change this circumstance. We will require the payment unless we have other documentation to the contrary at final plat. Hoffman: I have a comment regarding Ms. Griffin's situation. This is a preliminary plat approval and not final plat. This was heard at Subdivision Committee and it will be coming back to that committee. If there are specific concerns which you have, you will have more opportunity to comment on this. Odom: How much density could you have in R-2? Warrick. The density permitted by right in the R-2 district is 24 units per acre. They have 5 acres of property and they are not maximizing with these duplexes on 4 or 5 lots and a quad-plex on the 6th lot. They are not maximizing the allowable density. • Odom. This property was rezoned prior to this time. I think it is unfortunate that people Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 21 are told certain things. This land is zoned R-2 and this developer could potentially build more than what they've shown on the plan. Ward: Lot 6 is 3 times bigger than all the other lots and they're putting a 4-plex on it. It's 3 times bigger. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 22 CU99-20: CONDITIONAL USE SMITH, PP291 This item was submitted by Floyd E Reed, Sr. on behalf of Michael Smith for property located at 2790 Golden Eagle Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is for a restaurant. Floyd Reed was present on behalf of this request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The dumpster shall have screening on 3 sides and a concrete pad as required by City Ordinance. 2. The parking lot shall meet all requirements of the City Ordinance regarding landscaping and striping. • 3. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from residences. • 4. At least 20 parking spaces shall be reserved in the existing 80 space parking lot for the restaurant which requires I space per 200 square feet. The building's square footage equals 4,000. 5. Indoor and outdoor music and/or performances shall meet the noise ordinance. 6. No amplified outdoor music shall be permitted. 7. The trash dumpster shall be screen on 3 sides as required by City ordinance. 7. (Amended) The owner shall bear the responsibility for all ingress, egress, and street repairs necessary to provide trash service to this facility." 8. The structure shall be inspected by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. All required improvements shall be completed prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued or the business opening. 9. The water will be turned off immediately and the business shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 23 10. No freestanding signage shall be permitted. 11. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Commission Discussion Johnson: Staff has recommended approval of the conditional use subject to 11 conditions. Mr. Reed, have you seen the 11 conditions of approval? Reed: Yes, I have. Johnson: One of the things we make a point of when we have conditional uses is to say that you could not have this business at this location with conditional use approval. Number 9, for example, says that if the conditions are not met and continue to not be met, the water would be turned off immediately. Interpreted, that means we're very serious about the conditions. I want to call that to the applicant's attention. Warrick: I have one amendment that I would like to make to condition 7. As you can see, that is very similar to condition 1 and in speaking with the Solid Waste Division this morning, I would prefer that we change item number 7 to read: "The owner shall bear the responsibility for all ingress, egress, and street repairs necessary to provide trash service to this facility." Johnson: That takes into account that the street is steep and curvy. Warrick: It is a private drive and it must be maintained by the property owner. The city has not accepted maintenance on this street. Marr: music. At agenda session, one of the things we talked about was no after 5 p.m. outdoor Warrick: After agenda session, I added item 6 providing that no amplified, outdoor music shall be permitted. Marr: Okay. Estes: I will be required to recuse on this request for conditional use. The reason is that I represent a party that is in an adverse relationship with the landowner. • Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Estes. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 24 Bunch: The findings make reference to the dense forest. Should we make a condition that if adjoining property develops residentially, that the proper screening would be required? Right now we're waiving screening. Johnson: I'm not sure about requiring this applicant to do something about a circumstance which might occur in future. That might be difficult to enforce. Warrick: In the past, when there were situations where a commercial development goes in adjacent to residential, the owner developing subsequent to an action such as this is required to provide the screening. We don't know what the adjacent development might be. We don't know if the screening requirement would come into play. There is a screening requirement when uses such as commercial and residential are adjacent to one another. Until the development occurs, we don't know if that requirement will be triggered. Bunch: What prompted my question is the property shown as Westwind Phase III zoned R-1. That is to the east of this building. Johnson. At this point, it is vacant land. Warrick: I believe that it is. It looks like there is a single family resident on the front of the lot that backs up to this property and I don't believe there are additional lots developed there. I think it is one, large, residential lot. That is my assumption on that. On this map, we have the lot dimensions and lines drawn out. Reed: Both of these properties are zoned R-1. Bunch: That makes a big difference. If that develops as residential, what protection do the residents have from a commercial operation next door to them? MOTION Marr: I move approval of CU99-20 subject to staff comments and amendments. Ward: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Ward. Reed: I have question about number 6 and what that means. • Johnson: The condition before us is that there will not be amplified outdoor music at any To • • Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1999 Page 25 time. We have allowed outdoor music as long as it complies with the noise ordinance. This conidtions disallows any amplified outdoor music. Reed: Is there any way we could have a sign? Johnson: At this point, any sign would have to be on the face of the building. Warrick: The condition limits this to wall signs only. Public Comment None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote 8-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.