Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. CUP 03-30.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan, pp 524) Page 2 ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item (Cliffs Blvd. Eastern Extension) Page 5 PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) Page 5 Nominations for Vice Chair & Secretary Page 18 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen James Graves STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Mau Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Kit Williams ACTION TAKEN Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Commissioners Bunch & Ostner MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 2 Hoover: We are ready for the November I Oh Planning Commission meeting. We will wait for Commissioner Allen to get seated. While we're doing that, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Hoover: Before we go any further, we should announce our new Commissioner, James Graves, in case everyone hasn't met him. Congratulations on joining our group. We will move on. We need to approve the minutes of the October 27`h meeting and the prior meeting of which the minutes were tabled at the last meeting. Is there a motion to approve these two sets of minutes? Shackelford: So moved. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Bunch: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the October 27"' meeting and the October 13`h meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. CUP 03-30.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan, pp 524) was submitted by James P. Jernigan for property located at 604 Blair Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi- family, 24 units per acre. The request is for an approval of a tandem lot. Hoover: Item number one on the agenda is CUP 03-30.00 submitted by Jim Jernigan for property at 604 Blair Avenue. Suzanne? Morgan: Thank you. The subject property is located at 604 Blair Avenue which is just north of Blair Avenue on Lucien Street, an undeveloped street. The site is existing nonconforming lot with no existing structures and is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. Surrounding land use is single family in nature and with the same zoning as the subject property. The property has approximately 20.6' of street frontage on Blair Avenue. A single family home on this lot is required to have 60' of frontage. As such, the applicant is requesting approval for a tandem lot which is defined as a lot which does not have the required frontage on a public street and which is located behind a lot or a portion of a lot which does not have frontage on a public street. The applicant proposes to construct a single family home of no more than 1,800 sq.ft. on this lot with two off street parking spaces. I would like to read several of the findings made when reviewing this project. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 3 Granting the requested conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. This action will allow the subject property to be developed in harmony with surrounding properties. The amount of traffic and noise proposed with this request will not significantly increase the total amount of traffic along Blair Street. Regarding ingress and egress from the property, there is an existing turn -around at the north end of Blair Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct a 25' wide drive extending north from the existing turn -around at the north end of Blair Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct a 25' wide drive extending north from the existing turn around. Additionally, the constructed drive will serve the single-family dwelling on this property with a required minimum of two off street parking spaces. Concerning utilities, the applicant has supplied a letter indicating that there is an existing sewer line tap located adjacent to the southwest corner of the property and that Mr. Dave Jurgens, the Water and Sewer Maintenance Superintendent, has approved a water meter for this lot to be included in the accelerated water line replacement project for Lucien Street. The water meter will be located 15' east of the existing sewer tap and the accelerated water line project for Lucien Street is scheduled to be started as early as this summer. Finally, addressing the general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in this district, staff finds that the adjacent properties consist of single-family residential dwelling units. The proposal to utilize this lot for the development of a single-family dwelling will make this property compatible with adjoining properties and enhance the neighborhood. Based on these findings, staff is in support of the creation of a tandem lot at the north end of Blair Avenue. The result of this action will be that the property will be developed in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) The only principal structure permitted on this tandem lot shall be one single-family home. 2) A new access drive shall be paved a minimum of 25 feet in length from the intersection of the drive and the paved portion of Blair Avenue and a minimum of 20 feet in width in order to meet Fire Code requirements. 3) No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a private drive. 4) Complete building plans shall be submitted to the City to secure a building permit. 5) Payment of $630 in lieu of sidewalk construction. Mr. Rutherford, Sidewalk Coordinator, has recommended money in lieu of a sidewalk due to the lack of roadway and that a sidewalk at this location would not generate pedestrian traffic (see attached memo). Staff is in support of this recommendation. 6) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall coordinate with the Solid Waste Division for appropriate solid waste disposal. Any solid waste containers shall be stored in a screened location except on collection days. Staff recommends the use of a residential cart that may be wheeled to an appropriate location on collection day only. 7) Minimum building setbacks shall be 20 feet from all property lines and 25 feet from all street right-of-way lines. 8) Water and sewer shall be extended to serve the property prior to issuance of Certification of Occupancy. Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 4 Hoover: Would the applicant come forward and if you have anything to add, do so now. Jernigan: Hello, I would like to answer any questions you might have. It seems that it is all fairly self explanatory. Hoover: We will go ahead and take public comment right now. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use for 604 Blair Avenue? If so, would you come to the podium and please sign in. Williams: Hello, I am Kit Williams. I have got my public hat on because I am a neighbor of Jim Jernigan. This lot that he has adjoins both my lot and also my older brother's lot who has a house that will be close to the structure being proposed here. I would like to say that we've worked with Mr. Jernigan, walked over his lots, looked over his particular drawings and his plans and I think we've all come to an agreement that this is an acceptable use of the lot so we are in favor of the Planning Commission granting this Conditional Use. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Conditional Use on this tandem lot? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Bunch: I move that we approve CUP 03-30.00 subject to the stated conditions of approval. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-30.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 5 ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item (Cliffs Blvd. Eastern Extension) Master Street Plan Amendment. PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bill Conner for property located South of Hyland Park and east of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family and contains 82.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 115 lots proposed. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is ADM 03-29.00 for Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension. Warrick: If I might request that we hear items two and three together, this is a Master Street Plan amendment that is being brought forward because of the Preliminary Plat, which is the following item. Hoover: Great. That would be item two and then item three that we are going to hear with it is PPL 02-13.10 for Stone Mountain submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner. Suzanne? Morgan: Thank you. Item two again, is an amendment of the adopted Master Street Plan to relocate and change the destination of Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension, a proposed minor arterial connecting Crossover Road and Starr Drive. Planning staff recommends approval of a resolution to amend the Master Street Plan to eliminate Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension, a proposed minor arterial from this policy document. This request, will, as stated, be heard as part of the Stone Mountain subdivision Preliminary Plat. For some background, Cliffs Blvd. is a proposed connection between Crossover Road and Starr Drive that has been identified on the Master Street Plan for several years. Staff recommends removing this extension based on findings from the City of Fayetteville's traffic analysis performed by BWR and their recommendations regarding the Master Street Plan. Approval for a Preliminary Plat is currently being sought and will go ahead and read staffs comments on the Preliminary Plat for Stone Mountain. This was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner for property located south of Hyland Park and east of Crossover Road. The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 115 lots on 82.74 acres. Two lots are to be used for detention and one 8.19 acre lot is proposed for park land dedication. The location of the proposed subdivision extends east off of Crossover Rd to the border of the City and Planning Area and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family with 4 units per acre. Land to the north, south, and west is zoned RSF-4 with Planning Area to the east. All land is single-family residential in nature. Water and sewer will be extended to serve this development. The applicant requests an amendment to the Master Street Plan for the minor arterial (90') bisecting the property. The request is to relocate this planned road further south as Stone Mountain Drive at a lesser dedication of 70', a collector road. All other streets will have 50' of right of way. For tree preservation, existing is 33.94%, Required canopy is 25.0%, Preserved canopy proposed is 24.88% and Mitigation Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 6 required is $3,150 to the Tree Escrow Account. Parkland dedication for 112 single-family lots is 2.68 acres and the owners have proposed a dedication of 8.19 acres leaving a banking credit of 5.51 acres for the southeast park quadrant. Staff recommends approval of PPL 02-13.10 with the following conditions: 1) Add a note to the plat stating the existing private drive shall be removed prior to Final Plat approval. 2) Payment into the Tree Escrow Account in the amount of $3,150. 3) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 4) Any outstanding issues with the legal description shall be resolved prior to final plat approval. 5) Necessary property line adjustments to the east of the project boundary and to lot 51 shall be approved prior to Final Plat. 6) If any water pressure problems arise that might impact this proposed subdivision or the adjacent residents preventative actions shall be addressed and resolved through an approved water system design. 7) Planning Commission determination of waiver request for Stone Mountain Drive to be constructed at a 14% grade for approximately 1400 feet. City street standards allow for a 10% grade with an allowance up to 15% for 300 feet. Staff is in support of this request due to the connectivity Stone Mountain Drive provides to the east on Crossover Road. 8) Planning Commission determination of the proposed Master Street Plan Amendment to relocate the planned minor arterial Cliffs Boulevard to the proposed location of Stone Mountain Drive and to reduce the street classification from a minor arterial to a collector street. Staff recommends removal of the Cliffs Boulevard eastern extension. The proposed revision to the Master Street Plan based on the recent traffic study performed by Bucher, Willis and Ratliff does not include the construction of the minor arterial in this location due to unsuitable topography. 9) The developer shall comply with all conditions of the Parks and Recreation Board. All conditions as noted in the attached Memo dated October 29, 2003 are applicable and shall be considered, by reference, as part of the official Conditions of Approval. Items ten through fourteen are standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Brackett: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, I am with Jorgensen & Associates representing the owner tonight. We are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Hoover: At this time will ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address this ADM 03-29.00 for the amendment to the Master Street Plan or if you have comments about PPL 02-13.10. Earff: Good evening, my name is Jeff Earff, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road which is in Hyland Park which is north of the proposed development. The first thing I would like to comment on is the change to the Master Street Plan. I just wanted to remind you all that a few years ago the city spent about $460,000 upgrading Cliffs Blvd. as part of a cost share so that would go from two lane Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 7 to a four lane road. That is back when this connector to Mr. Conner's property was proposed to be a minor arterial. Also, I wanted to point out that the recent traffic and transportation study indicated that a signal was proposed for Cliffs and Crossover, Hwy. 265. It seems to me that it would be better use of that signal if it was four way rather than three way. If you move the road then that traffic signal will only benefit traffic going into and out of the Cliffs. Just a couple of other things, concerning construction traffic, presently there is a driveway that comes up from that proposed development into Hyland Park on Cliffside Road and I would like to see a condition that would indicate construction traffic can not come through the Hyland Park subdivision. That was talked about previously when the homeowners got together about a year or two ago. Also, the issue of water pressure, I know it is unclear at this point what the resolution of that situation is going to be. My understanding is that it could potentially be a water tower in Hyland Park or perhaps using pumps or something like that. My question is will there be any grading and excavating until that issue is resolved? If you approve what's before you tonight does the developer has to wait for that issue to be resolved for the water pressure? My understanding is that the reason for the delay was the issue concerning water pressure. Does anyone have an answer for me? Hoover: Jeff, we do things differently from Council. We take public comment and then they will answer questions. Earff: Ok, I'm done. Thanks for your time. Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Master Street Plan amendment and the Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Staff, would you answer two of Jeffs questions? One is confirm that there is no Hyland Park connection, you might just talk a little bit about that and then we will get to the water pressure issue. Warrick: We are going to tag team this because it has a lot to do with Engineering as well. With regard to the access through Hyland Park for construction traffic. That is not noted as a construction entrance on this plat. It is probably very reasonable for that not to be utilized for construction traffic. The streets in Hyland Park are quite curvy and steep in areas and it is not the most direct route to get construction vehicles in and out of this proposed development. Typically where people are able to construct construction entrances to projects are in locations that entrances will be permanent in those projects once they are built out. I am going to ask Matt to address the water pressure questions. Casey: As some of you may know, this came through last year and started the process and was withdrawn at the time because of water concerns. Currently the City of Fayetteville has hired McGoodwin, Williams and Yates to perform a Master Water Study. They are preparing a water model which we can analyze this area and plug in this subdivision and the number of lots that are going to be in this area and see the effect that it is going to have on this neighborhood. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 8 We have been waiting on that, the study is almost complete and so we have allowed the applicant to proceed with this process knowing that there are going to be offsite improvements required for improving the water situation if it negatively effects any of the neighboring developments. There have been several options thrown out there over the past year including a water tank, pumps, rerouting a line and creating a high pressure line instead of the existing low pressure line along Hwy. 265. Those items will be worked out during the construction review after the water model is received and we are able to analyze that to see what needs to be done. At this time the applicant is aware that the improvements will need to be made and we will determine what those are at this time. I do assure you we will not approve any construction plans that will negatively effect the Hyland Park water situation. Shackelford: A follow up question with Matt, just to be specific, no construction, grading or anything is going to be permitted on this until that is resolved? Casey: We will see the construction plans submitted as a whole. I will not issue a grading permit without the water design situation worked out. Shackelford: It is a little confusing. If you look at number six it talks about preventive actions shall be addressed if there is a problem. What you are saying is the study that you are doing will be able to show if there is a problem before construction starts? Casey: Yes Sir. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Hoover: I was wondering if we could have a report from Subdivision. Were there important issues that we should be looking at on this Preliminary Plat, has it evolved or anything that you would like to share? Bunch: Basically, what we addressed at Subdivision was the waiver request for the grades on the road from Hwy. 265 into this subdivision and we also discussed the pros and cons of a connection north into the Hyland Park area and also looked at the eastern extensions of the Master Street Plan. Those are basically the items that we discussed. Hoover: Thank you. Shackelford: Staff, maybe you can help me out a little bit. As I drove around and looked at this property I was thinking about the waiver request for the grading on the road. I think we call for 10% grade with allowance for 15%. I not only drove around this property but I drove around Hyland Park and Lovers Lane and some of the older properties in that area. Can you tell us an idea of the grades of those roads in the subdivisions? Are they greater than, equal to, less than what is being proposed here? Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 9 Casey: I'm song, I'm not able to answer that without the plans we have on file for those subdivisions. Shackelford: Ok. Have the restrictions on grading changed or have they been in place for quite some time? Casey: I believe those were adopted in 1996. Shackelford: Thank you. Hoover: In general, why did the traffic consultants recommend that we do not extend Cliffs Blvd.? I guess one thing is I'm confused on which part is Cliffs and which part is Stone. Warrick: I don't know that we are going to find any definitive specific answer with them addressing this particular segment of the street. The map that is up for your display is the proposed Master Street Plan developed by BWR with the current Traffic and Transportation Study that is being considered. It is not adopted, which is why we are looking at an amendment to the Master Street Plan that is on the books right now. If you will reference your vicinity map on your plat, the applicant has overlaid the city's Master Street Plan on that so you will get an idea of where this project is in relation to the existing adopted Master Street Plan street. This proposed eastern extension of the Cliffs is actually not a four way intersection. This particular property does not intersect Hwy. 265 in the vicinity of Cliffs Blvd. It intersects north of that. The closest we could get is not a four way intersection. As I said, it is offset to the north. The proposed street through the development is offset again from what is on the plans. Keep in mind that the Master Street Plan is not an engineered study, it is a policy document and it is a guide. Our current Master Street Plan indicates there is a desire to have a larger street connecting Crossover east to Stan Drive. The proposed Master Street Plan that BWR has brought forward has actually eliminated quite a few of the higher level streets that we currently indicate on our plan. My understanding in that is the number of streets that are located on our currently adopted Master Street Plan as higher level streets is unrealistic that they will actually be all built out to those levels that streets not indicated as collectors or arterials on the Master Street Plan can very well function and carry similar, if not the same, loads of traffic as local streets. There was a determination somewhere through the committee process and the review, I know that staff met many times with the consultants for this traffic and transportation study and it has been through several public hearings, through that process it was determined that this particular stretch of collector street, minor arterial street, should be eliminated from that plan. I can't give you an exact reason. There is a lot of grade in this area, a lot of steep slopes and it is very reasonable to expect that that was partly to blame, partly a reason for them eliminating the street. Fayetteville is a hilly city and we have a lot of grade. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 10 Hoover: You are saying they eliminated several streets but they don't reference item 5.3.A is our reason for this one. Warrick: No, we included in your packet with item number two materials out of the text document that they submitted to compare with this map. Allen: I wondered if there had been many comments from neighbors about the traffic impact for this area. Warrick: In this round of review we have not heard much from the neighbors. However, when this project was originally brought forward in the spring of 2002 there were several neighborhood meetings with the Hyland Park neighborhood association because originally there was a contemplation for a street connection in the location of the existing drive that comes off Cliffside Drive into the subject property. It was determined that that would change the character of that neighborhood significantly that that property was platted as a single family residential lot, as were the lots around it and it was not desirable to the neighbors to have a street connection into Hyland Park into Cliffside Drive where it adjoins this property. Allen: I guess I would like to have a clearer understanding about condition number six because it seems to me like the possible ways that the problem could be alleviated if they find that there is a water pressure problem could certainly have a significantly different impact on the area. Casey: I'm sorry, I didn't fully understand your question. Allen: Well, if there is a water tower up there that seems to me like an eye sorer or some people might be concerned about that. I just wanted a better understanding of the ways that water pressure problems could be eliminated. Casey: I know the different methods that have been discussed, the top option was the tower. It has been discussed already. I know there has been some opposition to that but that would be the best way to increase the water pressure and also give additional capacity in the area. The other options that I'm aware of, unfortunately I wasn't involved in the review process last year when the majority of these were discussed, were some line changes out on Hwy. 265 that would convert the pressure of the line that will serve this development from one tank to the other so it will change the pressure and the other option that has been discussed is adding some pumps along that line to increase the pressure in this area as well. Those are the three that I know have been discussed. Chris Brackett may have some more information on that. Brackett: There are not any detailed plans because we are waiting on the detailed study that the city is conducting. Those are the three options that we have before us now. There may be others but we will not know them until we actually know Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 11 exactly what the pressure problem is. It is our understanding currently that they don't believe that there is adequate pressure to serve this subdivision. We understand that we will have to provide adequate pressure for this subdivision to be able to continue and the owner understands that. As far as how it is done, right now it is our understanding that the city is not prepared to go forward with any kind of tower. Our understanding is that we will be fixing the problem for this subdivision. We won't be fixing the problem for the entire area. We are prepared to spend the money to fix the problem for this subdivision. Allen: Will the method that you use be up to you? Brackett: Anything that we do will have to be approved by the city. The method that we believe, we've had discussions with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates and the last method that was discussed that we were a part of were booster pumps which is nothing more than a pump station. It is not a tower or anything of that nature. Like I said, we can't really go any further than just discussions or what the possibilities are because we don't know exactly what the problem is. Shackelford: It seems like every meeting that we are here we talk about connectivity. Every subdivision that we approve we stub out for connectivity. What makes this different? Can you walk me through the process of the decision to not require this to tie into the existing neighborhoods and why this is different than the normal deal that we look at? Warrick: I don't believe that this is different because this particular project is connecting to Hwy. 265 and Stonebridge Road and has two future connections to the east and a future phase. That is the kind of connectivity that we look for in any development is to identify where an existing piece of property, when developed, can connect and where possible future connections would lead if there are adjacent undeveloped tracts of land that we believe will come through the review process at some point in time. We don't even expect those adjacent properties to come through in the near future even. Like I said, we have got connections from this particular project in three directions. The fact that there is an empty lot in a single family subdivision north of this, we did not feel that that merited a street. Like said before, it does change what the expectations were as far as those people who purchased lots and built in the Hyland Park subdivision when they felt there was a single family lot in that location. It was and is used for access purposes but it is not a public street. It is a private access drive. The change in the character of that would be significant to what everyone expected when they moved into that area which is primarily single family homes with a large equestrian farm south of it. That is why we did not feel that this connection was critical. It was not the desire of the neighbors o the north to have this connection. They are truly the ones who would benefit the most if they chose to have a connection in that location because Hyland Park is a one way in and one way out subdivision. That was really the process that we went through in realizing whether or not it was Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 12 appropriate. We felt that through the connections that were being achieved on the property we were meeting our mandate, if you will, for providing connectivity for future developments. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Hoover: I would like to focus on the Master Street Plan amendment issue. Do we have some discussion about that? I'm curious if we are recommending eliminating it from the Master Street Plan, why are we showing it on the vicinity map a road connecting? Warrick: The applicant's request was to downgrade and relocate this street. Staffs recommendation is just to eliminate it from the Master Street Plan and allow it to be a local street. It is identified currently, there is a minor arterial identified currently connecting Crossover and Starr Drive. The applicant is proposing to relocate that slightly and to downgrade it to a collector street status. In reviewing their request to amend the Master Street Plan we looked to the study that the city commissioned recently for traffic and transportation study for the city. In that, the recommendation is not to have a higher level street, collector or above, in this location. Staff is recommending that it just be utilized as a local street and not be identified as a higher level street on the Master Street Plan. Hoover: Is that what this says? Maybe I'm misreading it. It just says here eliminate Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension as a proposed minor arterial. Warrick: This would not be the Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension. Due to the location of it, it would not be reasonable for it to be named Cliffs Blvd. because it is offset to the north. It does not intersection Cliffs Blvd. on the opposite side of Hwy. 265. Hoover: This street is called Stone Mountain. Anthes: On the Master Street Plan as it shows now it would actually connect across Hwy. 265. Two questions of staff, is there indeed a signal proposed at that intersection and what are the physical reasons on that site that we would like to shift that road to the north? Warrick: We don't have the ability with this subdivision to connect in that location. The property owner doesn't own the property and we don't have control of the property. I am not aware of signalization being on the city's capital improvement program for this particular site. Williams: Of course that is Hwy. 265 so the state would have to approve any traffic signal that we would ask them to install. Anthes: I guess that's why I'm still confused. It doesn't appear that the connection to Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 13 Crossover Road is on this applicant's property either at this current location or at the north location, is that true or am I reading this map wrong? It appears to me from this map that the current Master Street Plan connection across Crossover Road or the new configuration located to the north, neither of those are on the applicant's property, is that true? Warrick: That is true. Anthes: If that is the case, why are we showing this thing shifted north misaligned with the intersection? Warrick: Again, our Master Street Plan is a policy document and a guide. It is a line on the map and it is not an exact engineered location for a future street. Anthes: I understand that but if it is a line on the map and it currently connects across and makes a four way intersection with Cliffs Drive and we had to physically take a pen or a pencil and move it up, what was the reason for that? Warrick: The location of an opportunity for a development that would provide a connection. Anthes: I thought you said they didn't own either location? Warrick: I must not have understood you, I'm sorry. The area that is highlighted on your vicinity map that is in dark gray is the project site. Anthes: Ok, so they do own the northernmost and that is the reason for the shift is because we have an opportunity to connect to Hwy. 265. That's all I have for now. Ostner: My question Ms. Warrick, I wish I could ask BWR why they don't think we should have any connection across this area, the big drawing wherever it went. Do you know why? I know the grades are steep but there is just so much from Mission to Huntsville and from Starr to Hwy. 265 is nothing but local streets that don't have to connect by policy? Warrick: How do you mean by policy they don't have to connect because we do have a policy of connectivity. Ostner: We do but as a Master Street Plan policy we are saying no. Warrick: The Master Street Plan identifies higher level streets. It doesn't mean that local streets would not serve a purpose of getting people from one place to another. We do, as I said, have a policy of connectivity. Keep in mind, this is a policy document, this is a recommendation. This is your plan. Please understand that we are just making a recommendation here. If you don't wish to change the Master Street Plan that is fine. We are making a Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 14 recommendation based on the study by transportation engineers and we need to rely on somebody to provide us with guidance. That is the information that is current that is available to us right now. Mr. Earff handed me this information, it is out of the traffic and transportation study, I made a statement with regard to signalization not being on the city's capital improvement plan. It is not but it is recommended in the city's traffic and transportation study for future improvements. I just wanted to clear that up. I didn't want to misstate anything but it is not in a capital projects list. Ostner: Is that signal for a normal four way intersection? Warrick: It is a table in the document. It is certainly not an engineered project. Hoover: Do I have this correctly then that it would show up on the Master Street Plan if it is a collector or a higher level street. That does not exclude us connecting over to Starr Blvd. at a later date whenever that property is developed because of our connectivity ordinance or policy? Warrick: That is correct. Hoover: The only reason it is not on the Master Street Plan is they still can be recommending it in theory but they don't recommend that it be a higher level street? Warrick: Correct. Hoover: Does everybody understand? Allen: Finally, yes. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on this item or would someone like to make a motion? Shackelford: I will go ahead and get it on the table. With what you just said was exactly what direction I was going when I talked about the connectivity of this subdivision. I think it is a lot more realistic to think that there will be connectivity through here as this property develops in neighborhood streets than there ever will seeing a minor arterial or a collector street built across this property. With that, I am going to support staffs recommendation and make a motion to approve ADM 03-29.00. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 15 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-29.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 16 Hoover: Onto PPL 02-13.10, is there anymore discussion on this item or motions? Shackelford: Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Warrick: We do not but the applicant's representative stated verbally that they are in agreement. Williams: Condition number eight should be modified to show that it has been removed from the Master Street Plan and not downgraded to a collector. Warrick: Yes, that is an update from your previous action. Hoover: Motions? Anthes: Matt, will you reiterate any problems that were discussed in terms of emergency vehicle access on the 14% grade for the 1,400 feet? Casey: Reiterate any that were discussed during Plat Review or Subdivision? Anthes: Yes. Casey: I'm sorry, I don't recall any of the discussion. That doesn't mean that it didn't take place. I am recommending that the waiver be granted because of the other connectivity that is provided as we discussed previously in this meeting, the connection to the south to Stonebridge Road as well as to the east for future connections should provide numerous points of access to this site. Unfortunately, on this proposed subdivision there is a narrow corridor for this connection to be made. There is not room to meander the street to be able to achieve less grades going up the hill. It is a straight shot and for those reasons we are recommending the granting of this waiver. It is not the only means of access. There will be more provided. Anthes: For some period of time though won't it be the only means of access? Casey: No, at this time Stonebridge Road to the south, I believe last year our Transportation Division did go in and widen the road and resurface it and add curb, gutter and storm drain on the east side. Anthes: Ok, thank you. Hoover: Motions? Shackelford: A question for the City Attorney. On condition number eight exactly what do we need to state in that condition now that we've granted the amendment to the Master Street Plan to remove the Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension? Williams: I actually don't think at this point you would need a condition number eight. Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 17 Shackelford: Can we just strike it completely? Williams: If the Planning Department employees agree with that I don't see any reason to have it. Warrick: That is perfectly fine. We will be required to pursue this through the City Council because yours is a recommendation with regard to the Master Street Plan amendment. If the City Council chooses not to amend the Master Street Plan or to make modifications to it then that will affect this plat placed on their actions based on your recommendations going forward. Williams: Should we note in number eight that this is subject to City Council approval of the amendment of the Master Street Plan? Warrick: That will be appropriate. Shackelford: We would have to rehear it if they turn it down. Bunch: Mr. Williams, if the City Council for some reason were to deny the amendment to the Master Street Plan then if we leave condition of approval eight in then should the City Council decide not to accept that amended street plan then condition of eight would kick in and we would not have to rehear this item? Williams: Probably, if they don't approve that this won't be able to be built in this configuration because the Master Street Plan shows Cliffs Blvd. meandering through this subdivision. I would say probably with condition eight you say subject to approval of the City Council. If it is not approved by the City Council then it is probably back in your lap. Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve PPL 02-13.10 with condition eight changed to read "approval subject to City Council approval of amendment to the Master Street Plan removing Cliffs Blvd. eastern extension. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-13.10 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: I am adding a few items to the agenda. Item four, we need to elect a Vice Chair and the nominating committee has a recommendation. They are going to Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Page 18 give us a recommendation and then Renee will pass out the ballots for us to fill out secretly and we will hand them back to her. Anthes: The nominating committee recommends Commissioner Don Bunch to fill the seat of Vice Chair and that vacates the position of secretary and we recommend Commissioner Alan Ostner to fill that spot because he is available in the morning to make those signatures. Hoover: Thank you. Will everyone take a moment to fill out the ballots. Our retreat work session, when is that? Warrick: That is 5:30 on Wednesday, November 19th at Uncle Gaylord's. Hoover: Ok, thank you. Warrick: Also, they are starting to do lead work on the downtown master plan and there will be a meeting tomorrow at noon in room 326 to meet with some of the consultants on that project. Hoover: Is that just for Planning Commission? Warrick: I believe that meeting is just for Planning Commission. Hoover: We have our Subdivision Committee in tact and our alternate is Jill Anthes. Renee? Thomas: The nominations are again, Commissioner Bunch for Vice Chair and Commissioner Ostner for Secretary. The vote was 8 to 1 for Commissioner Bunch and 9 to 1 for Commissioner Ostner. Hoover: Thank you very much. Do we have any other matters of business? Warrick: I don't believe so. Hoover: Thank you, we are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:32 p.m.