Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday February 23, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow Julie Nash Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Frank Farrish, Gerald Seiff and Dan Spencer, Dewitt Smith, Dave Garton, Don Shackleford, Sandra Franzmeier and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 87-4 DAN A. SPENCER - 6290 DANITA Jorgensen, Keith Carlisle, Tessi The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-4 submitted by Dan A. Spencer for property located at 6290 Danita, containing 2.4 acres. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R-1 District was recom- mended for the following reasons: 1. The request was consistent with the General Plan; 2. There are existing single-family houses in the area and 3. Public facilities are available to the site. NOTE: Future development of this property should require the extension of sewer and a 6 inch water line to the property. Mr. Spenser stated at present he was working on the extension of the sewer lines to the area in question. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval from A-1 to R-1, seconded by Madison. The motion to recommend passed 8-0-0. Jacks advised the recommendation would be heard by the City Board on March 3, 1987. Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 2 REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DAN SPENCER - 6290 DANITA The second item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Sub- division Regulations for a first and second lot split. Submitted by Dan Spencer for property located at 6290 Danita. Property currently zoned A-1, Agricultural (pending Board approval of rezoning to R-1). Jacks advised there were 3 lot split items before the Planning Commission and said they were all on unimproved roads (gravel roads). Jacks stated the purposed of the lot split ordinance was to prevent subdivision without off-site or on-site approvements as appropriate. He said lot splits by definition were a part of the Subdivision process, and would amount to a waiver of the normal plat requirements. Jacks stated the Commission had been mandated by the City Board to require off-site improvements whenever development or subdivision of property occured. He said the Commissions difficulty had been to find an equatable way of doing that, and said they had tried to receive some relief from the City Board, but none had been forthcoming at this point. Green stated he disagreed a little bit with Chairman Jacks as to not getting any relief from the City Board. Green felt the Board was saying they expected the Commission to apply their judgement in those situations, and not fall back on the arbitrary "lets do this everytime one comes in", and felt if that was not relief, it was at least clar- ification. Jacks stated at that same meeting the Board asked the Planning Commission to come up with a system for doing that, which they had never been able to do. Seiff asked Mr. Spenser what the future plans were for that property. Mr. Spenser replied single-family residences, and Seiff asked if he intended in splitting any more property off, and Mr. Spenser replied no because it would not be allowed. Madison wanted to know if the fence west of Mr. Spenser's home was the eastern boundary of tract 2 or was the fence not related. Mr. Spenser said the description was all metes and bounds and was not platted. Madison was concerned that between the eastern edge of tract 2, and his home there could be another lot. Mr. Spenser said that area had been used as a pasture for calves, • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 3 and the fence in questions was temporary and had no meaning whatsoever. Jacks stated this request was actually for a waiver of the minimum lot size. Jacks then said Sandra Carlisle could have approved these administratively otherwise. Carlisle stated she could only split administratively a first split of 3 acres, and a second and third of 5 acres a piece. Hanna asked if this property would be served by sewer. Mr. Spenser stated he had an engineer working on the sewer lines, and planned an easement to cross one of the yards. Dow stated the concern she had was the unimproved street that would front the property in question, and asked what was to be done about that. Dow said she was confused about the way the ordinance was written, especially were it said that "no variance shall be granted for any property which did not have access to an improved public street. Jacks stated access simply meant a way to get onto the property even from any umimproved road. Green felt in view of the fact that several other houses already on the street which appear to be using it satisfactorily with no problems, and that he really did not see where that street could go. Green said he did not have a problem with the waiver of the minimum lot size, and felt it would not be necessary to ask for off-site improvements because he saw very little possibility that the City would ever want to go in there and do anything with that street. MOTION Green moved to grant the waiver of the minimum lot size as requested, seconded by Hanna, and followed by discussion. Jacks said in view of everything that had gone on in the past almost felt they needed a recommendation from the City Staff (City Engineers Office). Jacks added so many splits come before the Planning Commission that are so complex that the Commission may want to consider making a rule that every request for a lot split would come with a recommendation from City Staff. Sandra Carlisle stated after speaking with the City Attorney she had decided to revise the lot split application, adding street improvements as determined by the City Engineer with an appropriate figure needed. • Jacks suggested changing the street improvement to off-site improvements, and let the City Engineer look at the whole package. • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 4 Carlisle said the City Attorney had prepared a new ordinance for lots splits which would be heard by the City Board on the 17th of March. Green said the best idea he had heard was from Chairman Jacks as to a small Committee getting together to look at this, and possibly come up with some guidelines to be presented to the Board of Directors. Madison stated she would vote against the motion because once again this was really a subdivision, and it should go through the Subdivision Committee, and Plat Review Committee. She said the owner had gone so far as to stipulate house sizes which to her was equivalent to covenants. She felt the City deserved to have this reviewed for possibly street lights and drainage. She said the 6 houses currently on Danita may be happy with the current situation does not mean they know there would be 2 new homes across the street. Dow said the Commission had stipulated for the lot split on Smokehouse Trail that they would never request the City to install a street at the City's expense. Dow stated as the motion stood it was a little to vague for her. The question vas called and the motion to grant the request as submitted tied 4-4-0, Green, Seiff, Hanna and Robertson voting "yes", and Dow, Farrish, Madison and Jacks voting "nay". MOTION Green moved to grant the request as •submitted with the stipulation that the people would not expect the City to improve the street, seconded by Hanna. The motion to grant the lot split as requested passed 6-2-0, Green, Seiff, Hanna, Robertson, Dow and Jacks voting "yes", and Parrish and Madison voting "nay". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-5 ROBERT B. WESTPHAL & B.E. COBB SOUTH SIDE OF HWY 62 & WEST OF FINGER ROAD The third item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-5 submitted by Robert B. Westphal and B.E. Cobb, and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates. Property located on the south side of Hwy 62 running from Finger Rd. west 2207.86 feet. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commer- cial for the north 30 acres, and R-1.5 for the remaining 53.49 acres on the south end. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; The General Plan recommends that a corner out of both the east and • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 5 west ends of the property under application for C-2 District, be considered for commercial use Recent discussions at both the Planning Commission and City Board concerning commercial development along Hwy 62 have raised at least two questions about the General Plan recommendations. The first question was, is there adequate future commercial land indicated in the Plan at the interchange of Hwy 62 and Hwy 71? The other question was, is it worth trying to restrict commercial development along Hwy 62 from the Farmington City Limits to Garland Ave. When there are already commercial uses scattered along the whole route? The first question is not easy to answer because it depends on so many factors. It depends on the topo of the land around the interchange, the nature and placement of existing development, the location of other streets, and the proposed density patterns in the surrounding neighborhoods, to mention a few. The Plan, considering the four factors above, seemed reasonable in its allocation of commercial development at the interchange. The second question, which was more related to this application, was a matter of Plan goals and City policy. It is better planning to avoid stripping out commercial development along principal arterial streets. However, if the location of existing commercial development makes it to difficult to achieve the Plan goals, it may be necessary to try to make the best of a previously unplanned situation. It is better to allocate commercial property on an arterial street with good depth and length than is to convert small lots one at a time. If the Planning commission feels, that the existing commercial development makes the Plan recommendation unrealsitic, then the C-2 District portion is recommended. If the Planning Commission feels the General Plan recommendations can be achieved then a 600' X 788' tract on the east end and a 400' X 570' tract on the west end of the portion requested for C-2 District is recommended. The remainder of the C-2 District request would then be recommended for R-2 District. The R-1.5 District portion is recommended. Wood stated there had been 3 or 4 amendments to the General Plan out on Hwy 62. He said basically the General Plan as it stood in 1970 was not realistic in terms of Hwy 62 because the Plan indicated Low Density Residential and a little commercial. Wood stated in 1972 the first amendment was made to the General Plan. He said the second amendment came in with some commercial at the interchange and One Mile or Finger Road. The last amendment was in 1984 which expanded the commercial at the interchange north and south, and basically left the remainder of the plan alone. Wood said since the last change there had been two deviations from the plan, first was the church at Old Farmington Road to R-0, and the second was from Old Farmington Road north of the interchange to • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 6 C-2. Madison asked if the Drive In Theater next to the property in question was C-2, and Wood replied "yes". Madison then asked how large was that parcel, and Wood replied approximately 1100' deep. Wood said not all of that property was used for the Drive -In, and Madison asked how many acres, and Wood replied approximately 20-30 acres. Madison asked if it would be logical to expect that Drive -In Theater to remain a Drive -In forever, and Wood replied "no". Madison said in a sense there was a large chunck of C-2 property stored up close by. Dave Jorgensen requested to table this item until 2 weeks from tonight so he may have a chance to speak with some of the people who were here to speak in opposition. Also it would give him a chance to speak to Larry Wood about his recommendation because he did not fully under- stand what it meant. Jacks said the question before the Planning Commission would have to come from a motion from the Planning Commission. Jacks said there were a lot of people at this meeting as the result of the public hearing, and felt the Commission should hear their complaints. Dave Jorgensen said prior to tonights meeting he had no idea that there would be this kind of opposition. Mr. Jorgensen said he would work with Larry Wood on this as to what the existing General Plan was. He said he also would take into account what the Commission's thoughts may be on commercial zoning for Hwy 62. Mr. Jorgensen thought the R-1.5 was allowing a higher density use than what the surrounding property owners would like to see, and possibly if there were a change it would go to R-1. A Citizen from the audience stated he was for it and against it for the following reasons. He said he owned property along Hwy 62, he said he was for the commercial part of it on the flat ground, but when they get up on that mountain they are going to cause an awful lot of water shed on the lower property. Robert B. Leftler, 1495 Finger Road stated he was surrounded on 3 sides by the property in question. Mr. Leftler said the first point he wanted to make to the Commission was that he hoped the Commission would find the residential proposal to be too dense for the surrounding uses. He would favor an R-1 District for the inland area away from the Highway which was called for in the General Plan. He also wanted to speak in favor of the City's General Plan as far as not stripping out Hwy 62 West. Finger Road was purely a residential area at present, • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 7 and the proposed commercial development which would come approximately 800' up from Hwy 62 would change the residential character of Finger Road. Currently the General Planned called for scattered commercial development rather than stripped, and he would have no objection at all to continue with the current General Plan. Mr. Leftler would ask the entire strip area as proposed might raise some hesitation in the Commissions minds. Mr. Leftler added one thing about the Drive -In Theater which was currently zoned C-2. He said it was true that the Drive -In was approximately 1100' deep, but only about 300' of that was currently used for the Drive -In, and the remainder was currently forest. Mr. Leftler said if the commercial development could be limited to 300' in depth along Finger Road it would be much more favorable from his point of view. Robert A. Leffler stated his remark was more in the nature of explanation rather than argument. He said there was some need for the background involved in this situation. The property involved was the home of the late Charles J. Finger and the Finger Family whom his wife was the youngest child of. He said when the late Mt. & Mrs. Finger died he and his wife acquired the property. He said they did not plan to develope the property, and realized it would eventually be developed. He said the home place was separated from the property, and the remaining property was sold some 18 years ago to Cobb & Westphal. Mr. Lefler said at that time he spoke with Cobb & Westphal about the prosepective developments, and there was nothing in the contract of sale that governed what type of development. He said the main part of the conversation with Mr. Cobb was to the effect that that area back to the south was residential property, and at the time the back portion of the property would be appropriate for large residential homes. He said in that same conversation the property along Hwy 62 would eventually become commercial property, but the property to the south would presumably be used for nice residences of a sort that might be limited to one acre. He said the south part of the property was not the kind of property on which 9 residences could be put to one acre, and felt a great deal of the feelings that were represented by the people here tonight was that the area that lies back from Hwy 62 could best be developed for spacious residences. Louis DeMarco stated she owned 76 acres which adjoined the property in question. Her concern was the appearance of Hwy 62 west if it was zoned commercial all the way. She said that was a tourist area, and the existing commercial property now was extremely unattractive. She said there was a salvage yard property contained in a chain link fence, but they were pile 8 to 10 high. Who would want to live in a house or what type of housing addition would want to over look a salvage yard, and the existing establishments. She was concerned about the nature of the housing that would go in there, because it would have to serve people who were aesthetically unaware of their kp° • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 8 surroundings. Joanna Whitlatch, 1630 Finger Lane stated the property in question joined her property on the north and on the west. She has 4 acres on the east side of Finger Lane, and 10 acres on the west side. She said there was a strip approximately 70-80' wide between the north side of her property and the south side of Robert B. Leftlers. She said since she had not seen a plan as to what the developer had planned on doing, that she was concerned that strip may become a roadway into a housing development which would dump a lot of traffic onto Finger Lane. She also said the bottom part of the land was called Goose Creek which was rather swampy and marshy and was concerned on the drainage of that. She added there were no sewers in that area, although sewer was along Hwy 62 west. Herbert Fowler, stated he lived at the end of primarily concerned about the strip developing of He said Cities did not properly grow that way Commission looked at College Avenue there was a strip zoning should not be permit any longer. Finger Lane, and was commercial property. anymore, and if the good example of why Dave Jorgensen said he was glad to hear the comments and concerns on the property in question. He once again asked to table the request until the next meeting, and possibly have the owner get together with the people who were concerned. He said it was too early to come up with any kind of a plan, but the developer would like to improve the drainage if at all possible. Also the possibility of a road just south of Mr. Leftler's property, although it was too early to tell where the roads would be. Madison stated before this was tabled she wanted to correct one thing that Dr. Leftler had said. Madison said R-1.5 would allow 12 families per acre and not 9, whereas R-1 would allow 4 unless duplexes. Madison said at this point she was not ready to give up on Hwy 62, it did not look so great, but on the other hand the property in question was about the best looking piece of property out there, and the only piece that might be suitable for residential developmemt. Hanna felt in view of Mr. Jorgensens express and desire to work with the homeowners, and to speak with Larry Wood a little on the recommenda- tion as to strip zoning, that the Commission out of common courtesy should grant his requet to table. MOTION Hanna moved to table this item as requested by the representative, seconded by Seiff. The motion to table passed 8-0-0. 'P\ • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 9 Jacks advised this would be back on the agenda two weeks from today, unless something changed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-6 PARKER LTD., (NR. GRISSO) - SW CORNER OF WALTON ST. S RAZORBACK RD. The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-6 submitted by Parker LTD., Mr. Grisso, and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates, and Dewitt Smith. Property located at the Southwest corner of Walton Street and Razorback Road, and contains 1.16 acres. Request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to R-0, Residential Office. Jacks clarified this request had been omitted from the agenda in error, and was asked by staff to hear this as item 114 so the rezonings would be kept in order. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; R-0 District was recom- mended for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends public as the future land use, which implies that the area will probably be acquired by the .University at some future date. If that happens then the land may be used for any purpose the University wishes. At the present time the University has a mixture of uses on the west side of Razorback Rd. These include an alumni center, parking, bus maintenance and depot, tennis center, athletic practice fields and physical plant; 2. The structure to the south is a child care facility; and 3. The uses in the R-0 district are not out of character with the uses which already exist along razorback rd. Dewitt Smith of Coldwell Banker, and Faucette Real Estate stated he and Dave Jorgensen were representing the rezoning petition in question. Mr. Smith advised the proposed plan was for a parking facility. Mr. Smith said the spaces would be sold in Condominium or individual parking spaces, and they would be sold to individuals for their personal use for athletic events. Jacks asked if the parking lot would be assured once the property was rezoned, and Mr Smith replied "no". Hanna asked what was intended for the two older homes on the property in question. Mr. Smith said and if not the Dow asked if if it were economically feasible they would move them homes would be removed. the parking lot would abut Kinder Care, and Mr. Smith Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 10 said it would abut the northern line of Kinder Care. Seiff asked Mr Smith if he could give some insight on the architectural design or perhaps something on the landscaping. Mr. Smith stated the facility would contain approximately 110 parking spaces, and in addition there would be a support building that would contain bathroom facilities for male and female, and a pavillion area. He said the intention at this point was the pavillion would be on the second 'level of the building, and some parking would actually occur under a portion of the building. Mr. Smith said the character of the use would be that persons who owned parking spaces would arrive 2-3 hours before game time and would have a chance to visit with refresh- ments available to them. Also they would be able to use the lot again after the game, and until the traffic had dissipated. Mr. Smith said Mr. Grasso would agreed formally at the LSD hearing to provide landscaping satisfactory to the requirement, which would include replacing the trees that would have to be removed. Hanna asked what the plans were for the property during the rest of the year. Mr. Smith said the lot would be used for football games, basketball games and other events. Madison stated she did not have a lot of trouble with the R-0 zoning, but the thought of a concrete acre was despicable as far as she was concerned. She said the lot would almost add to the frivolity that it would only be used for the 3 Razorback games a year. She said the University did have some critical parking needs, and would encour- age them to make the lot more useful. Mr. Grisso commented on two questions saying that the lot would be subdivided and sold to individual people. He said this type of parking lot was used in several places in the country (South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida) and it was new to Fayetteville, but not uncommon. He said the people who ended up owning the spaces would probably be glad to lease them on an annual basis for University use, but it would be impossible for him to guarantee that. As for the landscaping question he felt like the entire property would be a big improvement over what was there now. Mr. Grisso stated he planned on a very attractive fence for Razorback Road, expensive shrubs, and trees, etc., and on the back side there would be a 6' high wooden privacy fence. Mr. Grisso added he wanted to build a very attractive structure, but really did not know how he could guarantee that without the rezoning. Dow said she would feel a lot better about this if she could be assured of some nice landscaping, particularly to buffer Razorback Road. Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Grisso said he understood that, and he certainly planned on land- scaping, and wanted to make this as attractive as possible, and not just one acre of concrete. Madison said she would be interested in knowing if there were going to be breaks in the concrete. Mr. Grisso stated in the middle of the lot would be a 2 -story building that was going to be very attractive. Green stated the Commission was almost addressing a Large Scale Develop- ment and added the question before them was only if this was appropriate for R-0 or not. Green said he did not know how anyone could come in and guarantee the Commission what they were going to do for landscaping when they were not even obligated to do the plan that Mr Smith had been telling them about. Green was not saying the concerns were not valid, but thought they were a step ahead of the game. Mr. Grisso added he had to sell and merchandise this lot and it would behoove them to make it attractive. Bill Gleason, 1425 Markham Road stated attractiveness lies in the eyes of the beholder, and while the owners may think a large concrete parking garage was attractive, he did not. He said even though this may be R-0 it was basically a commercial enterprise. Mr. Gleason felt the owners were asking them to desecrate their neighborhood so the fat cats in Little Rock could have some place to park. He also felt the parking lot would be detrimental to the west side of the campus and the whole residential area would be affected. Mr. Gleason also felt the next thing would be another commercial request for that area, and would sincerely hope the Commission would give serious con- sideration before they approve this rezoning petition. Mr. Smith clarified that the facility was not a parking garage, it was merely pavement on grade. He said the only structure involved was the pavillion or support building. Seiff stated he was concerned with the building part, and felt the Commission had an R-0 request which permits the parking lot itself, but he did not think R-0 would allow a building that could be used for commercial purposes. Green asked Mr Smith if they had spoken with the City Attorney about the building part of the plan, and.Mr. Smith stated "no", and his only conversations had been with Sandra Carlisle, and as he understood the building part would be acceptable in R-0 zones. Carlisle stated the lot would be privately owned, and would not be oss • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 12 commercial. She said nothing would be leased, sold or rented out, and they would own the property themselves and use it as a communal building. Seiff then stated he must have misunderstood when Mr. Smith said that in the building people would be dispensing drinks, not meaning hard liquor. Mr. Smith stated the building provided a location where the owners may join together with whatever they bring in with them. Green stated they were not going to operate a liquor store or anything like that. Madison asked would the building be considered a private club in a sense. Seiff replied it would be like a private club, and felt the legality of that needed to be addressed. Green said the building was like a private club, but no more than a club house in a residential neighborhood was like a private club. Madison said it was a great surprise that R-0 zoning allowed parking lots. She looked through the code book, and never found any use unit that allowed parking lots. Carlisle said she had an opinion from the City Attorney as to the use unit for a parking lot. Green stated the proposed property could be zoned. use was probably the least intensive the Jacks asked what the day care with a conditional use. was zoned, and Carlisle replied R-2 Madison asked Sandra Carlisle if the screening and setback requirements would apply to the proposed request. Carlisle stated that would be addressed at the Large Scale Development meeting. Mr. Smith said they had anticipated getting into the details of those items at the Large Scale Development and making certain commitments at that time. He said they would make commitments at this time regarding landscaping and setbacks or whatever was deemed necessary. Jacks asked if he was saying they would follow City ordinances. Madison said Mr. Smith was offering to break the concrete with a Bill of Assurance. ufr • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 13 Mr. Smith said they would follow City ordinances, but also were proposing to do some things that were not spelled out with regards to landscaping. Jacks asked Mr Smith if he was saying that he would enter into an agreement specifying additional landscaping beyond the City ordinance, and Mr. Smith replied "yes", as to the specific number of trees, and location. Mr. Gleason stated the rezoning was not published in the local newspaper. Jacks stated legal requirements were for publication in the newspaper, and added it was mistakenly left off the agenda, but the legal require- ments had indeed been conformed with. Sandra Carlisle clarified the notice for the rezoning petition was advertised in the local newspaper 15 days prior to this meeting, which was on Sunday February 8, 1987 in the legal section. Hanna stated the property was presently zoned R=2 which would allow a 30 unit apartment house with 60 parking spaces. Hanna felt there would be a need for some legal problems to be worked out as to how could they sell individual parking spaces to individuals. MOTION Green moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-2 to R-0, seconded by Hanna. The motion to recommend passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS KEITH 6 NANCY GARTON - 2625 WARWICK. The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Sub- division Regulations for a first lot split, submitted by Keith and Nancy Garton. Property located at 2625 Warwick, and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Garton stated 22 years ago he purchased 4 acres of land and built a home on it. He said they would like to split .53 acres off the 4 acres, and sell it as a lot. Mr. Garton said he did not intend to split any more property off the orginal 4 acres. Madison asked if Warwick was paved at that location, and Mr. Garton said it was not paved, and there were 3 homes built at that location in the last year. Dow asked if the property in question was part of the Huntingdon Sub- division. toCo • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 14 Mr. Garton said his property was not in Huntingdon Subdivision. Mr. Lehren stated he and his wife wanted to purchase the property if the split was approved by the Commission. He said at some future time they would like to build their home at that location. Madison asked if Warwick was planned to be extended because it was stubbed out. Mr. Garton said he dedicated 30'of Warwick to the City, and at that time Mr. Bailey, who owned the land across the street, would dedicate 30'. Mr. Bailey had since sold his land to the Huntingdon Sub- division and homes were built to the back of it. Green houses MOTION said Mr. Garton's home used the street already, and the two on the corner of Warwick and Oak Bailey have driveways to Warwick. Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Green said when he first looked at the property he thought this would be a good example of why off-site improvements should be required. He said there were 3 other houses that were already being allowed to use Warwick, and with 1 more lot he did not see that as being much of an impact at all. Jacks asked if Green was interested in a stipulation whereas the property owners would not ask the City to pave the street. Mr. Garton said he preferred the street just like it was and would not ask the City to pave Warwick. AMENDMENT Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested with the stipulation that the property owners would not ask the City to pave Warwick, seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DON SHACHLEFORD - EAST HUNTSVILLE & CHERRY LANE The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Sub- division Regulations for a second lot split submitted by Don Shackleford. Property located at the corner of Huntsville Road and Cherry Lane, and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Lloyd Bowling, representing Mr. Shackleford, said they were requesting • • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 15 to split off 1.43 acres. Mr. Bowling said Cherry Lane was a gravel unimproved street, and did not believe that street was going anywhere. Madison asked if the required 30' of ROW had been dedicated for Cherry Lane. Carlisle stated the ROW had been met. Madison said she did not see how the garbage trucks could turn around because Cherry was so narrow. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Mr. Bowling said the lot with the existing home was .58 acres, and 1.43 for the requested lot split. MOTION Green moved to grant the lot split as requested that the property owner would not ask the City seconded by Hanna. The motion to approved passed "nay". OTHER BUSINESS with the stipulation to pave Cherry Lane, 7-1-0, Madison voting Jacks advised the Committees would remain as they are with the exception of the Subdivision Committee. Jacks advised that Frank Farrish would be the Chairman for the Subdivision Committee, and Jacks would become an alternate. Hanna advised the Update Committee would meet on March 2, 1987 at 4:00 p.m., and asked that the Planning Office send a memo to the members of that Committee, and a phone call as a reminder. He also requested a room be reserved for the meeting. Jacks stated there was a need for the Planning Commission to meet informally. He advised a retreat could be an opportunity to discuss some overall issues, such as the lot split regulations. After discussion it was decided the Planning Commission would meet on Tuesday March 24, 1987 at 5:00 p.m., and the location would be the Fayetteville Country Club. Jacks requested that Planning Consultant Larry Wood and City Manager Don Grimes attend the retreat. MINUTES The minutes of the with the following Page 16, paragraph February 9, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed correction. 3, change residence to residents • • Planning Commission February 23, 1987 Page 16 There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.