Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday September 22, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jaeks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Buteh Robertson, Frank Farrish and B.J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Sue Madison and Julie Nash Claude Prewitt, Thomas Lewis, Sandra Keeney, Joe and Angela Stevens, Sandra Carlisle,TessiFranzmeier, members of the press and others REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JERRY BYRD - 1403 OLD WIRE ROAD The first item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivi- sion Regulations for 3 lot splits, submitted by Jerry Byrd and represented by Claude Prewitt for property loeated at 1403 Old Wire Road. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Chairman Jaeks advised this item was heard at the last meeting under other business and was tabled so the Planning Commissioners could go out and see the property. Claude Prewitt advised the Commission that he had sent out certified letters to all the adjoining property owners. Prewitt said they had a potential buyer for the entire pieee of property. Prewitt stated that Jerry Byrd"s father had dedieated land from this property to the City for a street. Prewitt stated on the 3 lots splits the Commission wanted a provision in a Bill of Assuranee stating a portion of the street abuting those lots be improved at the call of the City. Prewitt said on the surface this sounded fine but it puts a real question mark before the buyer that they might be subject to some very expensive development later on. Prewitt said the property to the north had been subdivided and the property owners would be required to pay their half of the street. Prewitt noted most of the traffie generated on Birwin street was from the Presbyterian ehureh. Prewitt restated they had a potential buyer for the entire piece of land with one individual residence. He said they would still need to acquire one split to separate the house on Old Wire Road from the remaining 1-1/2 acres. Prewitt asked if it would be possible to reduce the request from 3 splits to 1 split at this time. He said one residence would have a very small impact on the street eompared to the other �U� • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 2 tract without making the requirement for paving; particularly this one residence having 400'of street improvements to put in at some future time. Prewitt stated that was why the owners would be willing to reduce the request to one lot split to separate the Old Wire Road property from the 400' behind it. Jacks then asked if the owners wanted the provision that there would be no street improvements. Prewitt replied "yes", if the eommission could see to do that. Prewitt stated maybe the Commission eould grant "an either or" if for any reason this first deal fell through. Then they would do the other and it would seem fair to do the street improvements. Jaeks stated what Mr. Prewitt would really like the Commission to do was if they split once there would be no street improvements required. If they split 3 times they would pay one half of the improvements. Dow asked if they approved the one split how would the street get improved. Prewitt stated the City had already improved a portion of that street and another way would be an improvement distriet. He said the only people that might be required at this time to improve the street would be the lots on the north side. • Jacks stated this was an unusual instanee in that the majority of the use to Birwin was from the Presbyterian Church. • Hanna stated he thought this was somewhat unusual too. He said there were 3 undeveloped lots on the north side that are already split off. He said if the street was improved at the City's expense or this develop- ment's expense it would increase the value of those lots. Green stated there was a similar ease on Smokehouse trail. The fellow wanted 3 lots split on a gravel road. He said they gave them some type of stipulation that the City would not be responsible to improve the street and that it would be perfectly elear that they would have to form an improvement district for any improvements. Green said something like that might be appropriate for this ease beeause those 3 lots would not really impact the traffic. Farrish stated the only differenee between this ease and the Smokehouse Trail ease was that property in question bordered all sides of the street. He said in this ease there would be property owners on the north side that would be committed not to Ball on the City to improve that street. Robertson stated the other property owners would not be bound by sharing the expense either. Green stated if the City wanted to improve the street that would not stop the City from improving that street. Farrish said this would be for people on the south side. The people on the north side might start saying they wanted the City to come in and improve Birwin street. Jacks stated that did not mean the City had to do it necessarily. • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 3 Dow agreed with Commissioner Farrish on his point and another difference she saw was that this was within the City and the other one was way out and no one knew for sure how it would be developed later on. Farrish stated this was a very tough decision because that street had been in there for a number of years. It had been a dedicated street and never been improved and because the property owner wanted to make another lot out of it he was going to incur a very substantial expense in the future just for a lot split. Jacks stated this was something the City Board had handed the Commission to determine how the developer should share in the cost for street improvements. Green said the 3 lots on the north side of the street would not have to pay anything. Green said it did not seem fair to him to burden the people on the south side of Birwin because they happened to come in later than the people on the north side with this additional expense. Farrish asked if the Presbyterian Church abutted this street at some point and Prewitt stated it abutted 50' of Birwia. Jacks said there was still the matter of Rational Nexus and he had to say in this ease the Church used the street a hundred times more than the property down the road. Green stated if they left it alone it did not seem it would particularly hurt anybody. He said the people that buy those 3 lots are clearly going to know that the street is not paved. The Commission could make a provision that would go along with the property and abstract that the City would not be responsible for improvements to Birwin. Hanna said Mr. Byrd has kept up his property, landscaped it and he gets penalized when he wants to sell it and the 3 lots across the street look terrible. Dow stated the problem she had with this was that Birwin street was in bad shape. She said as she understood right now the main use on Birwin was by the Presbyterian church. Farrish asked if they could restrict the improvement of Birwin to an improvement district. Jacks said legally he thought all they could do is go with Commissioner Green's suggestion. Green asked Prewitt what did he really want the Commission to do, one lot split or 3 lot splits. Prewitt said 3 lots if they could do it with Green's suggestion for a covenant that the City would not be required to pave the street. Prewitt said that would give him the flexibility of not having to come back to the Planning Commission if for any reason that other deal fell through. He said it looked • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 4 like in all probability that the deal would go through. Jacks asked what Prewitt was suggesting was to insert a phrase if it was split into 4 pieces and inserting no phrase if split into one piece. Prewitt said he thought they could leave the phrase in either way. Sandra Carlisle stated if the Commission approved the 3 splits and he sells to one buyer who wants to build one house then it would still be one property with one house and no problem with the split. Green asked how would they word the covenant or should they leave that to the City Attorney. Dow stated she had a problem with no Bill of Assurance on the 3 splits but she would go along with the phrase on one split. Farrish stated he did not see how the south side eould eommit the north side that the City would never be called upon to improve Birwin. Green said the way he looked at it was they were not committing anybody to anything. Green said they were just basieally putting them on notice that they eould not expeet the City to come in and improve the street. Dow stated she might feel better about this if they had an attorney's opinion. Robertson asked if the people on the north side eall on the City to improve Birwin and the City said okay the people on the south side would have to pay their share. Green said it would not amount to that. What it would say to those people is the City would expeet the people on the south side to do it on their own. Robertson then said theoretically the people on the north side could wind up with the City paying for their part. Green said this would aot keep the City from paying for the south side and it also does not obligate the people on the north side for paying for something the City wanted to do. NOTION Green moved to approve the request for 3 lot splits subject to a covenant being inserted in the deed stating the property owners on the South side of Birwin street not request the City to improve Birwin Street at City expense, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 5-1-0, Dow voting "nay". 1610 • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 5 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANTIQUE SHOP THOMAS H. LEWIS — 534 N. WILLOW The second item on the agenda was a request for an antique shop located at 534 N. Willow submitted by Thomas H. Lewis. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jacks advised the Commission he had received 2 phone Balls that were in opposition to the idea of an antique shop in that neighborhood. Mr. Lewis stated he bought the property in question in March of this year and his home was 4 doors down from this property. He said they had lived in the neighborhood for 24 years. Mr. Lewis stated the property at 534 N. Willow was in deplorable condition and they had fixed it up and rented one side of it. He said they had collected antiques for a number of years and bought and sold antiques out of their home. He said he refinished antiques as a hobby and had decided to take the other half of this duplex and use it as a shop for him and to sell some antiques out of. Mr. Lewis stated his proposal was to have a Saturday shop and would be open one day a week only to sell antiques out of. He said they would not have a sign and were certainly not trying to commercialize the neighborhood, they intended to keep the neighborhood as their home Dow asked if they were going to advertise in the newspaper. Mr. Lewis said if it were allowed they would put a sign on the porch the day that they were open but they would not advertise in the newpaper. Mr. Maxfield, 533 N. Willow Ave, stated he first wanted to read a letter from Betty Lighton who resides at 603 N. Willow: "To Planning Commission members, my house is 603 N. Willow and I own another house at 210 E. Davidson. I have asked Orland Maxfield to present this for me, since I am unable to attend tonights Planning Commission meeting. The petitioners are fine people, good neighbors, and they have done much to improve the appearance of the property in question. My opposition to their request is one of principle. If this request for rezoning is approved, how can the next such request be denied? and the next and so on. To maintain the integrity of a residential neighborhood, and particularly of the historic district, I feel I must oppose any variance in the zoning restrictions". Mr. Maxfield stated he lived directly across the street from the property in question. He said he was concerned with the ramnifieations of this use. He said he faced this property and when using his driveway or having access to residential parking in front of his residence he would have to contend with a commercial land use if the request was granted. Mr. Maxfield said he had owned and lived at 533 N. Willow since May of 1956. His interest in the immediate surround- Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 6 Ings was not new. He also owned property adjoining his residence 'on the south at 523 N. Willow, whieh he purchased in 1973 and which he tries to rent with careful consideration for his neighbors and the neighborhood. He spoke in oppostion to this request by the petitioners who operate a antique shop at 534 N. Willow. He said the petitioners had done the neighborhood a great service in buying and renovating an unsightly propety which he faced for years. If there were an award for the most improved property of the year he would lead the parade for Mr. Lewis' work on that property. Mr. Maxfield stated there is a principle involved that transcends good deed and good intention. Mr. Maxfield wanted to call attention to a number of issues that relate to the situation of the petitioners property across the street from his residence, both of which are in a residential zone classified R-1 and in the Washington Willow Historical District. 1. Any commercial use is a non -conforming land use in a residential neighborhood. He said the label Conditional Use for Home Occupation used in this ease could be applied to many occupations; Home Bakery, Home Woodworking, Home Sewing, Home Beauty Shop,ete. If they open the district to such activities and their outlets, they could easily become an area of shops. 2. If this was really in the petitioners home, a particular apartment technically no one's home space or some other use. a Home Occupation, when it was not really but was designated as a specific use for that was a housing unit, that apartment is and it could as easily be occupied as office 3. The problems of parking and traffic are so obvious and he recognized their request for Saturday only. He said thus far they have had no mass problems. But when there was parking on both sides of the street which currently occurs infrequently, the street can accomodate only one lane of traffic. 4. There is an ordinance regulating the frequency of the number of garage sales per year at one address, Mr. Maxifield said he had not taken the time to really check into that ordinance but it went through his mind that there was such an ordinance. He did not suggest that this shop could be classified as a garage sale even if it just operated on Saturday. But to permit a Saturday only function might make others wonder why they might not set up shop 52 weekends out of the year. 5. Mr. Maxfield wondered if the petitioners were aware by having a shop of antiques and other collectibles that they might call the attention of thieves to the area. 6. Maxifield stated he did not speak for the Historic District, only for himself. Obviously in maintaining the integrity of the District • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 7 one is not trying to restore it to its original charm. He suspected the earliest houses in that district had out houses, wells and cisterns to supply their own needs. There have been barns, sheds, chicken houses with real live roosters and hens within his memory of Fayetteville. He said his neighbor's house where Betty Lighton now lives, the chickens were grandfathered in when the zoning ordinance came in. Mr. Maxfield said the Historic District Commission itself needed to address ordinances that would pertain to the uniqueness of the district. He Balled upon the Planning Commission to consider what may be applicable to other R-1 zones may not be consistent with the character of the Historic District. 7. In the long run commercial uses drive down the value of the property for residential uses. Mr. Maxfield was not saying the use for this one shop would do so, he was talking about what was really a domino effect. 8. Personally Mr. Maxfield spoke from the heart concerning the effect this request would have upon his own home. A home is more than a roof and 4 walls, the home to him was also the neighborhood. When he's out of town and he thinks of home he sees a block, an adjoining block and the houses on them. He sees the landscaping and people, many of them he does not know, not only the regulars but joggers, walkers including Margaret Lewis, and those who daily drive past his home. Even in Fayetteville as he drives back from shopping or work, he is home when he gets within his neighborhood. His point was what ever happened across the street or up and down the street affects his home. He strongly suspects most of the people in this room felt the same way about home. He said it was the integrity of the neighbor- hood and of his home that he felt this request should be denied. Chairman Jacks advised this was not a request for zoning change or a home occupation. Antique Shops are a Conditional Use in every zone. Margaret Hoffman, 409 N. Washington Ave. spoke as a resident of the Histories district. She was speaking in opposition to some people that she respects as very good neighbors. She said the Historic District was a residential neighborhood, it included both home owners or renters and all of those people regard their house or their apartment as their home. She said they had a neighborhood organization, and they do things together. When a residence is changed into a store, either by rezoning or Conditional Use, then she has been deprived personally. She said what the neighborhood gained was a series of strangers, who are called customers, who may come and look around or shop. She said they do not act as guests, because they're not, they are strangers, they are customers. Another objection was based on traffic. There is a lot of traffic on Washington and Willow, and it seemed to her there was more traffic on Willow than Washington. She said Willow was a narrower street and there were trunks as well as ears that travel Ik3 • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 8 on that road. She said that neighborhood was designated R-1 whish is a low density and she would prefer to see low density on traffic as well as low density with people. Her last objection was on Washington Avenue. There is an illegal or unauthorized store at whieh antiques are sold. She said it was an eyesore and the only good thing she could say about it was it gave the neighborhood something to talk about and it aertainly was an ever-changing scene. She said if this Conditional Use was granted what was to prevent the gentleman on Washington street from requesting the same Conditional Use and why shouldn't he get it. She therefore respectfully requested the use be denied. Thelma Fuller, President of the City of Fayetteville Historin District Commission said she was speaking in opposition to the request. She said 4 of the 5 Commission members were opposed to the establishment of any antique shops in the Washington -Willow Historic Distriet for the following reasons: 1. It would set a precedent for the enaroaehment of a commercial nature into the residential eharaeter of one of Fayetteville's oldest residential neighborhoods. Any enaroaehment of a commercial nature erodes the integrity of the District. 2. Allowing property to be converted to an antiques shop unless in one's own home presents an opportunity for absentee landlords to purchase property in the District for aommereial exploitation. She said members of the Commission support growth and change. They recognize that the Washington -Willow Historin Distriet has never been anything but a residential neighborhood. It should be noted that one of the strong reasons the Washington -Willow Historic District was designated such by the National Register of Historin Planes was its cohesiveness as an attraative residential area. Citizens are justly proud of this enclave representing the major architectural styles popular from the mid -19th aentury to the present. Community pride has been demonstrated by the publication of a guide to the Distriet, the erection of signs marking the boundaries of the Distriet, and by monitoring past attempts to projeet commercial ventures into the distriet. The Historia District Commission's primary interest is to preserve this fine example of their heritage for future citizens. David Greer, 231 E. Davidson stated he was in agreement with all of the objections given. Hanna stated he could see what the Lewis' were trying to do and could certainly understand what the people from the Historic Society and neighbors would like. Hanna said when visiting other towns and their Historical Districts he saw restored houses that are open for tours, some of whieh had gift shops. He said the Headquarters house for the Historical society was open for tours and that his parents had \c(4 • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 9 lived in that house at one time. He said he liked it a lot more when it was a residence instead of the headquarters for the Historical Society. He recognized what the Lewis' was trying to do. He said this was Mr. Lewis' hobby and they were not doing this to enhance their income. Hanna said hesaw this as a different situation, each conditional use is an individual situation and has to be noted that way. Hanna asked Sandra Carlisle if a Conditional Use was automatically renewed yearly. Sandra Carlisle stated it would only be looked at again if there were any complaints as to traffic, noise,ete. If the use changes to other than antique, it would be brought bask to the Planning Commission. Hanna said Mr. Maxfield was worried about the integrity of the neighbor- hood and property around him and Mrs. Hoffman noted there was a use that had been abused on Washington Ave. Hanna said when somebody goes in, remodels the house and cleans it up and has such a minor commercial use he would allow this use. MOTION Hanna moved to grant the Conditional Use with the provision that it is open on Saturday only from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Motion died with no second. Green stated his primary concern was the residential neighborhood and if someone wanted to put an antique shop in his neighborhood, no matter how minor it was or how many hours it would operate, he would be opposed to it. But on the other hand he could see some of Commissioner Hanna's arguments as to the property looking nicer right now than it has for quite some time. Green said he did not know if the shop was operating right now but as he drove by there he did not see anything that looked objectionable at all. Green wondered if there were some set of conditions that would satify the neighbors to at least give the petitioners a trial run for 3 or 4 months and then the Planning Commission could look at it again at the end of that period. Dow stated she liked that idea and when she went by and visited the property in question she felt comfortable with it; not only because of the Saturday use only but the condition it was in, the improvements they had done to the house and the fact that they have a double driveway to accomodate the parking. Dow stated the part that bothered her was that the residences were there first. Green said it was real tough for him to make a decision because they can't always consider what the neighbors want in all circumstances, but this was one that looked like it would make a big change in the residential neighborhood and this was a situation where they should Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 10 consider what the neighbors wanted. Green stated one idea might be to table this and let Mr. Lewis get with the people who were here tonight and see if they could not come up with something that might satisfy the neighbors. Green stated he hated to vote against this request and hated to vote for it because if it were in his neighborhood he would feel the same way these people felt and if there was one day they wanted to be left alone it probably was Saturday. MOTION Green moved to table this conditional use request for an antique shop until the next meeting in two weeks. Mr. Lewis stated this would be fine with them and this came as a surprise as they did not know there were such strong feelings against what they were trying to do. Dow stated she would prefer to table this request and seconded the motion. Upon roll gall, the motion to table passed 5-1-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CHILD CARE SANDRA KEENEY - 2575 W. 6TH SP. A-8 The third item on the agenda was Bare with a maximum of ten (10) at 2575 W. 06th Space A-8 and is District. a conditional use request for child children. The property is located zoned R-2, Low Density Residential Sandra Keeney stated she lived in a mobile home park and she owned her own mobile home and was presently babysitting children. She said to the best of her knowlege this had not bothered any of her neighbors. She said she sits for several of the children in the mobile home park and transports them to and from school. She said she was mainly offering a service to her neighbors so she can help them. Farrish asked if she had received permission from the State Social Services. Ms. Keeney said she had spoke with Nonnie Vance of the State Social Service and was told she had to obtain a City licence first. Ms. Keeney said Mrs. Vance had been to her home and checked it. She said the Fire Department came and checked her home and she was in compliance with everything they required as to smoke detectors, and 8 pound fire extinguishers in each end of the trailer and was approved by the Fire Department. Dow stated she noticed there was a fenced area but it did not look like it was totally functional right now. Ms. Keeney stated the fence was totally function and her entire bank was fenced. Dow asked what the procedure would be for when the parents dropped the children off. Ms. Keeney stated the children never cross the street. They are brought up to the trailer by their parents and she did not allow them to walk • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 11 across the street. MOTION Farrish moved to grant this request for a conditional use for child eare, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE JOE & ANGELA STEVENS - 15 WEST SOUTH STREET The fourth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a change in non -conforming use from warehousing and office to warehousing and retail of new and used parts. This property is located at 15 West South Street and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Stevens stated they intended to use the building for a warehouse and retail of new and used motorcycle parts. He said they also would have catalog sales. Hanna asked what did they envision on the retail part of their business. Mr. Steven said they would stook motorcycle parts in the warehouse so they would be available without ordering them from catalogs. He said they would not have a showroom but would have over the counter sales. Sandra Carlisle stated she had a comment from Planning Consultant Larry Wood who was unable to attend this meeting. He suggested they go for a change in non -conforming use rather than rezoning which the Stevens had first considered. Angela Stevens stated she felt their business would improve the neighbor- hood. There are other business in the neighborhood. There is a resta- raunt across the street and a plumbing building down the street. She also noted there was an error on the zoning map, the spot where it was marked was the Napa Auto Parts store right around the corner from their building. Mrs. Stevens said across the street the zoning was R-0, Residential Office and some Commercial zoning. Huey Bullington stated he owned the property in question for 20 years. He said he used the building for warehousing auto parts and an office. He said the Stevens would like to purchase this property and continue with the same idea he had. Mr. Bullington said they had submitted some photographs so the Commission could see the actual building. Mike Rozier, 11 W. South, stated he lived adjacent to the property in question. He said several of the establishments mentioned by Mrs. Stevens do exist in the neighborhood but they are accessed from Highway 71. He said their proposal to open a retail outlet in their • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 12 neighborhood would necessitate people coming into the neighborhood and would iaerease traffic. He was particularly eoneerned about the nature of the business they are proposing to open, not so much the catalog aspect, but the retail. He felt it would greatly iaerease the motoreyele traffic in what was now a residential neighborhood. Mr. Rozier said it was not a Historie Distriet, it was a neighborhood in the process of changing and developing. He said in the short time he had lived there several of the houses on their block had changed hands and are no longer rental properties, they are owned and lived in. He said there was a tremendous effort to make the neighborhood more liveable and more attractive and he can not help but feel the presence of a motorcycle shop would not be an appropriate use. Mark Weaver, 7 East South Street, stated he and his wife bought their house 4 years ago. Before that time it was a rental property and they had spent the last 4 years trying to make their home attractive for the neighborhood. He said he was not against the wholesale part of the business, it was the retail that bothered him. He said their street was already used as a shortcut from Huntsville Road to Highway 71 and there was too mush traffic on their street already. Claudia Smith, 3 East South Street, stated they bought their house about 4 years ago also. It had been rental property too. She said there was too mush traffic on the street now and there would probably be a parking problem if the request was granted. Jacks advised the Commission had before them a letter from the Southeast Fayetteville Community Action Committee with a petition of 17 names that were in opposition to this request. Joe Stevens stated he planned on refurbishing the building and make it more attractive. He said he had a child of his own and did not want to eause any problems for the neighborhood. He said there was plenty of off street parking available for this building. Dow stated if they were going to use it as a warehouse that would be fine but the retail would be a more intense use. She said in order to fit the ordinance, the use would have to be equally or less as an intended use. She said the retail aspect intensifies the use even more and for that she would be opposed to the request. Hanna asked if they struck out the retail use and went with the office and wholesale warehouse use would that be aeeeptable. Mr. Stevens replied if someone same to the store to buy a part that would still be a retail use. Mr. Rozier asked for a elarifaction on wholesale and retail. He asked what margin would be aeneptable to the Planning Commission as to the use being granted for warehouse and offiee use. He said if people Nth Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 13 name to the store and picked things up and it was not entitled a retail outlet, but people did some and procure items, what level would be acceptable to the conditional use as it presently exists. Jacks advised there would be no over the counter sales. Farrish stated if it were a wholesale operation and a person did some in from out of town to pick up a part rather than ordering it by mail, that would be a common thing that happens in a wholesale operation. A retail operation is one in which you have signs advertising a retail operation, ads in the newspaper of the store hours and promoting on the radio. There would also be a differenee is the traffic flow as to retail and wholesale. Farrish said if the use before was a wholesale automotive parts plane, then he was sure oeeasionaly people would come to pink up things. Mr. Rozier stated it was a warehouse not wholesale and it was no way eonneeted with sales in any regard, strintly warehouse and office use. Mr. Rozier said if the gentleman conducts a business through mail order and COD he would obviously in some way going to be mailing and did that qualify in the Commission's opinion as advertising. If he mails eatalogs to Greenland or Springdale those people would drive to the store to pink up their part. Farrish asked was this building used strictly as a warehouse and no sales and Mr. Bullington replied that was correct. Dow asked in change of ownership would the petitioners have to apply again for a conditional use for the same use. Carlisle replied only if the use changes would they have to apply again. Robertson asked if Mr. Bullington was currently selling wholesale parts out of that building or was he storing parts there to later be moved. Mr. Bullington replied he was storing parts to be moved later. Robertson thea said Mr. Bullington was strintly warehousing with an office. NOTION Robertson moved to deny this request, seconded by Dow. The motion to deny passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The fifth item on the agenda was a diseussion of the Subdivision Regula- tions. Jacks advised they had put this item on the agenda for the first meeting in October but decided to include the Substantive Sub- division Regulations Revisions they had discussed at the last meeting with this agenda. Jacks asked if the Commission wanted to discuss • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 14 this or wait until the first meeting in October. Jaaks brought up the point of Commissioner Dows' question as to the numeric point of egress. Dow stated she had called Marty Coates and he checked with Deryl Burch. She said Deryl Burch said it would depend on the acreage of the development. If it were a new development there would be more children and he would limit it to 25 or less if it were a new development. She said there were a lot of figures being tossed around and it should be pursued. Jaeks asked if they wanted to wait until the next meeting to discuss this or table it. MOTION Dow moved to table this item until the first meeting in October, seconded by Robertson. The motion to table passed unanimously. AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN HAPPY HOLLOW JOG The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion of an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Jaaks advised this was Mr. Grimes' proposition and they had discussed it at the September 8, 1986 meeting. Jaeks advised the question had tame up about changing the Master Street Plan to the affect that the jog be eliminated in favor of a continuation of Highway 265 on down to Highway 16. MOTION Farrish moved to eliminate the jog from the Master Street Plan, seconded by Dow. The motion to resommead to the City Board to amend the Master Street Plat by eliminating the Happy Hollow Jog passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE The seventh item on the agenda was a discusion of rules and procedures. Jaaks advised this item was on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Green. Green stated the part he was really interested in was item 8-2, "Conduct". Green said his primary coneern was that it appeared to him to tall to the attention of the body that they need to act with courtesy and eommon sense towards each other at Planning Commission meetings. Jaeks then asked if he was proposing that B-2 be used in the by-laws. • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 15 MOTION Green moved to take part B-2 and make the following changes to it for example; eliminate the heading "Conduet"; eliminate "Board" and substitute "Planning Commission"; eliminate "Presiding Officer" and substitute with "Chairman"; and insert those 4 paragraphs as Article 3-I and renumber I through J in the Planning Commission's by-laws, seconded by Dow. Followed by further discussion. Green asked that the Planning Offiee type the new revisions and distribute them to each commissioner. Carlisle asked was there anything else that needed to be amended in the by-laws. Dow replied had the minutes been changed in the by-laws. Carlisle replied they would be changed with this new amendment. Jacks said he did not have any other real eomplaints. The motion to amend the by-laws vas unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jaaks advised if there were no objeetions to appoint Frank Farrish to replane Sue Madison on the Subdivision Committee. Jacks stated at the last Subdivision Committee meeting he and Commissioner Green were the only ones present. He did not know if that would be a big problem but they had found in the past it had been. He felt it was a good idea to do this and it would only be for the rest of this year's period as Sue Madison would be out of town. Jaaks stated Farrish agreed to serve on the Subdivision Committee. Dow stated without Sue Madison knowing about this it bothered her. Jaaks stated the Subdivision Committee had 4 members and he thought that was enough. Green said with the 4 members hopefully they could get at least 3 members at the Subdivision Committee meetings. Jacks said when a developer came is and saw only 2 members that was a strike against the Committee. NOTION Green moved approval, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approved passed 4-1-1, Dow voting "nay" and Farrish abstaining. Jaaks advised they had received 3 letters concerning the tree ordinance. Also they had received a letter from Jim McCord to Don Grimes in reference to the statutory functions of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors Under Arkansas Municipal Planning Aet. • • • Planning Commission September 22, 1986 Page 16 MINUTES The minutes of the September 8, 1986 meeting were approved with the following corrections: The following correction was entered by ChairmanJacks: Page 5, paragraph 2, Jacks said the question was do they want to...require... retention.; Page 4, paragraph 4; Jacks stated he he did not see any ...sense...in burdening; Commissioner Green entered the following corrections: Page 4, paragraph 3; a comment from Ervan Wimberly was omitted from Commissioner Hannas" statement about steepness of a grade.. ..Wimberly replied that the new street eonstrustion standards should solve that problem and that the standards would be designed so the street mould be easily maintained...; Commissioner Dow entered the following eorrection: Page 5, paragraph 4, Dow stated there were ...ao...actual guidelines; There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.