Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday March 9, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, Julie Nash, Gerald Seiff and B.J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Sue Madison Helen Del Pup, Kelly Johnson, Dave Jorgensen, Jim Lindsey, Bill Waite, Steve Barthelomy, David Ward, Thomas Lee, Sandra Carlisle, Larry Wood, Tessi Franzmeier and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-3 HELEN DEL PUP - 2201 N. GREGG The first item on the agenda was consideration of a rezoning petition R87-3 submitted by Helen Del Pup, for property located on the west side of Gregg Ave. and the Arkansas Missouri Railroad Tract north of Elm St. Request was to rezone 13.61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; I-1 District was recom- mended for the following reasons: 1. The request was of industrial; 2. There are industrial and 3. The public facilities property. consistent with the General Plan recommendation uses adjoining the property to the north; and services are available to serve the Jacks said as he remembered the area in question was set up for sub- contractors because there was not really a place for them in town. Wood stated the Skate Place was the first use that went into that area and triggered the Amendment to the General Plan. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Wood explained the residential area to the south was recommended for industrial use and anticipated in time it would develope out into industrial property. Jacks asked if the north edge of the property in question lined up • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 2 with the south edge of the University property, and Wood replied yes. Jacks then said the road would actually come across the north edge of the property in question. Helen Del Pup, 2201 N. Gregg stated she would like to have her property zoned in uniform with the remaining property. She said the zone was not condusive with building in the R-2. Jacks asked Mrs. Del Pup if she had a major plan, and Mrs. Del Pup said she did not have a major plan. There being no one to speak in opposition against the petition the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 to I-1 as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion to recommend passed 8-0-0. Jacks advised this petition would go on to the City Board with a favor- able recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-7 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE - EAST SIDE OF HWY 71 AT SMITH ST. The second item on the agenda was consideration R87-7 submitted by the City of Fayetteville and Johnson, for property located on the east side St. (City of Greenland) Request is to rezone A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial of rezoning petition represented by Kelly of Hwy 71 at Smith the 18.87 acres from District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; C-2 District mended for the following reasons: was recom- 1. The property to the south is zoned C-2 District and the property south of that is in the Greenland City Limits and is zoned Industrial; 2. The property is owned by the City of Fayetteville and the change to C-2 District will not change the use; and 3. The property fronts on a principal arterial which contains commercial zoning to the north and south of this location Jacks said on the surface the letter comes out asking for 19 acres to be rezoned to C-2 for a sign, and said obviously that was not what the Airport had in mind. Kelly Johnson employed by the City of Fayetteville, stated she worked at the Airport, and said basically Mr. Wood covered everything she had to say. Mrs. Johnson stated the rezoning was not just for a sign alone, but included the terminal building plus parking. IA1 • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 3 There being no opposition against the petition the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hanna moved to recommend approval of rezoning from A-1 to C-2 as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion to recommend passed 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-5 ROBERT B. WESTPHAL 6 B.B. COBB - SOUTH OF HWY 62 WEST OF FINGER RD. The third item on the agenda was consideration of 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 Com- mercial for the north 30 acres, and R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential District for the remaining 53.49 acres on the south end. This item was tabled at the February 23, 1987 meeting. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; • The General Plan recommends that a corner out of both the east and 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 was 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, seems reasonable in its allocation of commercial development at the interchange. The second question, which is more related to this application, is 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. Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 4 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 unrealistic, 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. • Seiff asked Larry Wood what and Wood replied the 570' was to the east was C-2 property, and Wood replied yes. Seiff but only 300' was developed. MOTION figure was the depth on the 400' X 570', the depth. Seiff said Larry Wood mentioned and asked if that was the Drive In Theater, said the depth of the drive in was 1100', Nash moved to bring this item off the table, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 8-0-0. Jacks advised this item was tabled at the last meeting to give the proponents and opponets time to discuss the situation. Dave Jorgensen said he requested this rezoning be tabled at the last meeting with hopes of being able to work out some differences with the surrounding property owners. He said he spoke with the owners and they were not interested in selling any property around Mr. Leflar's property. Jorgensen asked the Commissioners to refer to the recommended Hwy 62 land use Plan. He said basically what he was requesting was approval of the recommended Hwy 62 land use Plan with two exceptions. The first exception was that the recom- mended plan called for the middle section to be R-2, and he was requesting R-1.5. The second exception was for the requested C-2 on the entire frontage of Hwy 62. Jorgensen added most of that property would be commercial one of these days, and said at least he was requesting an adequate depth to plan for proper frontage of roads, drainage, parking, and facilities required for commercial development. Farrish asked if there was a plan for the requested rezoning. Jorgensen said there was a very preliminary plan, which showed two entrances off Hwy 62 with the roads going into the commercial development into the proposed residential portion. Jacks stated in the area recommended that most of it Seiff stated at the last where Jorgensen was requesting R-1.5 was should be Low Density. meeting Jorgensen requested this request 43 Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 5 be tabled for two weeks so that he would have a chance to speak with the property owners, and may be come to some agreement. Seiff said apparently from what he understood Jorgensen did not take the oppor- tunity to speak to the property owners. Mr. Jorgensen stated he spoke with Rob Leflar, and of course the other owners. He said he had hoped there was a possibility that the property owners might sell some property to Mr. Leflar, but the owners did not want to sell. Jorgensen said he also wanted to find out if the owners would rather have an R-2 density request rather than the R-1.5, and after talking with them he said they preferred the R-1.5 density. Seiff then stated the reason for the request Mr. Jorgensen an opportunity, going in reverse the owners whom he represented, if they would their request. Seiff added Mr. Jorgensen spoke but did not speak to anyone else. to table was to give order, to speak with be willing to change to Robert B. Leflar, Jorgensen stated most of the opposition centered around the amount of density per acre. Seiff stated he remembered some other concerns as well as the density, and said he was sure they would hear those same concerns again tonight. Jorgensen said if the request for rezoning was approved, the drainage would be improved, but at this point the plan was too preliminary to know how he would do that. In answer to a question from Commissioner Farrish, Jorgensen explained if the property on the northeast corner was rezoned to commercial, naturally it would border Finger Rd. Robert Leflar, 1495 Finger Rd stated most of this same material was covered last week. Mr. Leflar said he would like to see the property stay as it was, but if developed, it should be in accordance with the land use plan. There were 3 major issues; 1) would the plan be a good community plan to have commercial strip development all the way along Hwy 62; 2) would the Medium Density Residential area be appropriate; 3) if there was to be commercial rezoning at the southwest corner of the intersection between Hwy 62 and Finger Rd., how deep should that be; Mr. Leflar stated that Mr. Jorgensen had been in contact with him at the end of the two week period. He added there was a reasonable alternative to the rezoning request for the commercial strip. Mr. Leflar stated when people enter the City from the west, that was a first impression of what Fayetteville was all about. Mr. Leflar stated Mrs. Brown was unable to attend this meeting, and asked him if he would express her opposition. Duncan Martin, 3570 W. Finger Rd. stated he wanted to speak in support • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 6 of his neighbors. He said there were 2 issues he wanted to discuss. Mr. Martin said it appeared that the subdivision would enter on the down side of a blind hill and that would be most hazardous. He said the other point was the drainage and water problem. Frank Sharp, 2163 Smokehouse Rd stated as he recalled the property that the strattons owned north of the drive had been to the Planning Commission with a request to go -further north away from the Highway. He added they had been denied twice by the Planning Commission, and the Board of Directors to not extend more than 200-300'. He said the drive in theater property was developed 300' south and as he recalled that was done before it was annexed into the City Limits. Mr. Sharp also would like to have the Planning Commission retain their concept of developing at major intersections rather than stripping Hwy 62 or any other Highway. Billy Smith, 3511 W. 06th stated he had 5 acres that bordered the property in question and was concerned about the drainage problem. Jo Ann Whitlatch, 1630 Finger Lane stated her property adjoined the property in question. She said she expressed her concerns at the last meeting. She said there was a little hill and a curve in the area that she lived, and it was a very dangerous spot. She said if that strip of road opened into a housing development, it would be very dangerous and also would be damaging to the nature of the Lane as it was a Road. She said she understood that the City would never pave that strip because it was a dead end road, and City policy stated they do not pave roads that do not go through. Sandra Carlisle said to her knowledge that was not a City Policy. Mrs. Whitlatch felt that 12 homes per acre was a little intense for the general character of the area. A citizen who lives just west of the property in question said the property in question was under water 2' deep last spring. He said there was a water problem, and the only solution was to zone it correctly so that the developer could do the drainage right. Louise DeMarco, stated she owned 50 acres immediately adjoining the property in question to the south. She wanted to know how this could be rezoned without knowing more about the plans for the property in question. Dave Jorgensen stated whether the property was rezoned commercial or residential the drainage was still going to be a problem. He said it sounded like an expensive problem; however,it would be faced sooner or later. Jorgensen added he would not have a problem with agreeing that Finger Lane not be a road into the proposed subdivision. Jorgensen (16 • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 7 said it was a matter of what the surrounding property owners would prefer, dress shops or grandview apartments facing Hwy 62. Barbara DeMarco stated she had not heard the question as to do they need something out there on the Highway. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission for comments. Dow stated the General Plan needed some fine tuning, and this was an example of where it was reasonable. She said toward the by-pass there was more commercial development and that was reasonable. She said C-2 zoning was allowed on either end of the property in question, but the plan discouraged strip zoning and felt that was an important issue. Dow said the Plan intended Medium Density development along the Highway with R-1 in the rear. She also added Finger Rd. was a local street and felt commercial property should not front a local street. In general she felt it was a good plan and they should stick as close to it as they could. Farrish stated there were actually two different requests, one concerning commercial zoning and the other concerning was residential zoning. His feeling on the residential zoning request for R-1.5 was not consistent with the General Plan in the actual use that would happen with it. He said the commercial zoning was taken with mixed emotions because if the General Use Plan called for R-2 zoning and it's zoned commercial then there would be a good arguement because of the scale on the property. He said one thing he would like to see if rezoned commercial on the Hwy was to limit the number of accesses. He said strip zoning to him was a lot of accesses onto Highways that created traffic problems as opposed to large tracts of land with limited accesses. For those reasons Farrish would be in favor of rezoning the C-2 as requested, but change the R-1.5 to R-1 zone only. Jacks said this was a big issue with the Planning Commission to abandon the Plan for Hwy 62 west. Jacks stated he was out in that area today and made a decision that he was not ready to abandon the Plan He also saw it as having a rather large implication from the future in that 16 East was a similar kind of problem Nash stated she was on the Planning Commission when Highway 62 east of the by-pass was messed up by allowing it to be totally stripped. She wanted to confine as much commercial as possible to the inter- sections around the by-pass. Green stated limiting the development to the areas around intersections was great in concept, but practically, it would leave a bunch of little small pieces of property with no room to develop a sizeable complex of any kind. Green agreed with Commissioner Jacks and felt this was rib • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 8 sort of overkill on the commercial zoning, but felt Larry Wood's proposal left very little opportunity to do anything of real significance. Green said he was not convinced that the rule of thumb to limiting development to major intersections was appropriate across the board. He thought there was some evidence of that when they considered rezonings around major intersections, and then receive complaints about the traffic at major intersections. MOTION Farrish moved to recommend the south 53.49 acres from A-1, to R-1, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Farrish asked if the Planning Commission could rezone without a request. Jacks replied if it was a lesser intense use than ttte request. Farrish stated he would like to vote on the two rezonings separately. Green said Mr. Jorgensen made the statement that the property requested for R-1.5 was primarily R-2 in the General Plan. • Jacks stated that was not correct and that primarily the property was recommended for R-1. • Green said looking at the two maps, and without benefit of a scale, it looked to him like at least a good chunk of what they requested for R-1.5 was R-2 in the Plan. Green added he was not sure what the motion was based on was right and felt it needed to be clarified. He said Commissioner Farrish was saying rezone the property to R-1, and as he understood Farrish's theory to be was because the General Planned called for R-1. Green asked Mr. Jorgensen how deep his commercial area went off Highway 62. Mr. Jorgensen said approximately 788'. Nash stated she thought she heard Mr. Jorgensen say the owners did not want to accept an R-1 zoning. Mr. Jorgensen stated the owners would prefer R-1.5, but thought they would not object to the R-1, if that would be the only alternative. Green stated he felt that Commissioner Farrish's sketch was incorrect. He said if he thought it was right, he would go along with him because what he said made sense. Green said he would be willing to vote for the part on the Plan that was shown to be R-1, and the remaining that was shown R-2 he would be willing to vote for R-1.5. The question was called and the motion to recommend R-1 District for eot 1 • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 9 the south 53.49 acres and Jacks voting "yes", MOTION passed 5-3-0, Seiff, Robertson, Dow, Farrish and Nash, Green and Hanna voting "nay". Farrish moved to recommend approval of rezoning the remainder of the property C-2 as requested with the stipulation that the accesses to Highway 62 be limited to two. Jacks advised that type of motion was not legal and was called contract zoning. Jacks added the developer could offer a Bill of Assurance, but it would have to be offered. Jorgensen stated the developer would accept a Bill of Assurance for the limited accesses. MOTION Nash moved to deny the petition to rezone the property to C-2, seconded by Dow and followed by discussion. Green asked if this part of the petition was denied, would that mean they could not come back with another request on this property for 12 months. Carlisle stated that was correct or unless there was something unusual or a change that was not known. Jacks added there was a re -hearing process for the developer as to, if -they could prove some new element or something. Seiff stated the long range Plan recommended the east and west corners for commercial. He said this request was for the entire acreage to be zoned commercial. Seiff asked if the Commission could take the recommendation and vote on it only, and Jacks replied "yes". Robertson asked if this motion to deny passed for the commercial request, could the Planning Commission make another motion to rezone the east and west corners C-2 as recommended by the Planning Consultant. Jacks replied "yes" the Planning Commission had done that before. Green said if this was denied, then could the developer come back with a different proposal say in two weeks if they wanted to. Jacks stated as long as there was something changed. The question was called and the motion to deny the C-2 request passed 7-1-0, Nash, Green, Seiff, Robertson, Dow, Farrish and Jacks voting "yes", and Hanna voting "nay". Acb 1 • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 10 MOTION Robertson moved to recommend approval of the C-2 zoning for the ends of the property being 600' of frontage and 300' depth on the east side, and 400' frontage and 300' of depth on the west side, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Farrish stated the reason he did not like the motion was because he would rather that come from the developer of the property. He said what if the developer needed 302' in the plan that they come up with. The question was called and the motion to recommend approval of C-2 for the east side with 600' of frontage and 300' of depth, and on the west side with 400' of frontage and 300' of depth passed 5-3-0, with Seiff, Hanna, Robertson, Dow and Jacks voting "yes", and Nash, Green and Farrish voting "nay". CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE (AIRPORT) 4500 S. SCHOOL The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a conditional use request submitted by the City of Fayetteville for the Airport. Property zoned A-1, Agricultural (pending City Boards approval for C-2 District). Kelly Johnson representing the City of Fayetteville explained the reason for change was an in -field area that was 3-4 feet below the highway level on Hwy 71. She said they were continually receiving complaints from the traveling public that was not familiar with the facility. She said the people did not know where to turn off for the airport and requested a conditional use for the airport so they may have a larger sign than what was available for A-1 District. MOTION Dow moved to approve the conditional use as requested, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - JIM LINDSEY APPLEBY STREET APARTMENTS PHASE II The fifth item on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Jim Lindsey. Property located at Appleby and Gregg Street, and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Frank Farrish, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee advised the Large Scale Development Plan for Appleby Street Apartments Phase II (108 units) was approved subject to; 1) plat review comments; and 2) deter- mination of the green space requirements. 4G • • • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 11 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FULTON STANTON TANDY RESTAURANT SUPPLY - HWY 112 NORTH The sixth item on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Fulton Stanton. Property located at Hwy 112 North and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Farrish advised the Large Scale Development Plan was approved by the Subdivision Committee subject to: 1) plat review comments. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - BILL GRISSO CONDO PARKING LOT - RAZORBACK & WALTON The seventh item on the agenda was Plan submitted by Bill Grisso. corner of Walton and Razorback and approval of a Large Scale Development Property located at the southwest zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. (R-0 zoning classification pending Board approval on March 17, 1987). Farrish advised the Large Scale Development Plan was approved by the Subdivision Committee subject to: 1) plat review comments. DETERMINATION OF PARKS DONATION - APPLEBY STREET APARTMENTS JIM LINDSEY The eighth item on the agenda was consideration of Parks fee for Appleby Street Apartments. Bill Waite, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, said the parks department split this into 2 recommendations. He said they had dealt with this property for sometime now, and would still like to have that area for a park. Under the Green Space dedication require- ments, Appleby Street Apartments Phase I and II the land dedication requirement was 1.92 acres. Mr. Waite said in addition to that acreage the Parks Department would like to acquire contiguous with the acreage a total of 5.2 acres at the intersection of Gregg and Appleby. Mr. Waite advised the first recommendation was to accept the land dedication, and also would credit Mr. Lindsey with 3.38 acres of land dedication to further the development in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Waite said PRAB could not accept with the land dedication the requirements for building Drake street. He said in other words the problem was who would pay for Drake Street if and when it goes out. Mr. Waite stated if a Bill of Assurance could be given for the improvements to Drake Street, the PRAB would very much like to have the land. The City Board directed the PRAB they could not accept the land if it entailed accepting responsibility to build Drake Street; therefore, cash would be accepted in lieu of land dedication. 22 • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 12 Jim Lindsey stated this had gotten so complicated he did not know what to do with it. Lindsey said there was an appraisal that was done on the land. Mr. Waite stated the full appraisal was for $63,000 or about $5,000 an acre. Lindsey stated the survey was being done over. Lindsey stated the only thing he could do was pay the City the $18,000, and also said in order for this to be settled today he would have to know 3 things: 1) what would he get for the land; 2) what was the cost of the street and; 3) how would the future credit be allocated. Lindsey stated the $5,000 per acre would not be acceptable to him because he had nearly $12,000 an in the land with excavated creek and everything else. Lindsey asked if amenities were put on the site would that have any affect on the parks requirement. • Jacks replied for a private park "no". • Green advised there was a provision in the ordinance that would allow a waiver based on that type of thing. He said one had been granted to Butterfield Trail. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Lindsey stated he did not know if he would put in the 108 units or the 84 units. He said he would just have to analyze the situation. Jacks asked what the Parks Board wanted from the Planning Commission at this point. Mr. Waite stated PRAB wanted some type of decision as to land dedication or money in lieu of land. Lindsey explained he would like to pay the Parks Board the money with the option to renegotiate if it appeared appropriate down the line. Robertson asked if it would be appropriate to table this matter for two weeks so that Mr. Lindsey and the Parks Board could work out their differences. Jacks advised it was the duty of the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Board, if in this instance, the Parks Board should take the money or the land. • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 13 MOTION Robertson moved to table this item until the next regular scheduled meeting, seconded by Nash. The motion to table passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR DELAYED PARKING IMPROVEMENTS FAYETTEVILLE BIBLE CHURCH - 2783 MT. COMFORT RD The ninth item on the agenda was ments for the Fayetteville Bible Bible Church and represented by Institutional. a request for delayed parking improve - Church. Submitted 'by the Fayetteville Steve Barthelomy, property zoned P-1, Steve Barthelomy, 2809 Mt. Comfort Rd. stated that the Membership, and Board, of the Fayetteville Bible Church was requesting the City to grant permission for them to install 14 of the required 26 parking spaces. He said in return they would offer a Bill of Assurance that within 5 years the remaining parking would be completed. Jacks asked Mr. Barthelomy what the Church was basing the request on. Mr. Barthelomy stated at this time they did not need the required 26 spaces because the congregation was not that large. Farrish said he thought 5 years was a little to long for the required spaces. MOTION Farrish moved to grant the request for a period of 2 years, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE - ANTIQUES & GIFTS DAVID & SANDY WARD - 218 BLOCK STREET The tenth item on the agenda was a request for Conditional Use for an Antique & Gift shop, submitted by David & Sandy Ward. Property located at 218 Block Street and zoned R-0, Residential Office. Mr. Ward explained he and his wife would like to operate an Antique and Gift shop. Seiff asked if they had leased the building yet, and Mr. Ward said no the property owner was waiting on the Planning Commission's decision. 2 V • Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 14 MOTION Hanna moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by Robertson. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE - PLANT NURSERY THOMAS C. LEE - 2104 MISSION BLVD. The eleventh item on the agenda was a request for Conditional Use for a Plant Nursery, submitted by Thomas C. Lee. Property located at 2104 Mission Blvd, and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Lee explained he would like to change from a non -conforming use to a conditional use. Mr. Lee stated the property owner had agreed to long term lease for Mr. Lee, and he was present at this meeting for any questions regarding the situation. MOTION Seiff moved to grant the conditional use as requested, seconded by • Robertson. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. • REPORT FROM ERNIE JACKS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Jacks advised he would be talking with the Board of Directors on Wednesday morning. He said they would be discussing the Subdivision Regulations that the Planning Commission had gone through and made revisions on. Jacks advised the Subdivision Regulation revisions had gone with the two engineers (Ervan Wimberly and Mel Milholland) to the Public Works Department. He said two or three minor changes were requested. Jacks noted one thing they wanted to change was the ordinance require- ing Rational Nexus contribution from owners on drainage. Jacks said they requested that be omitted from the ordinance because they did not think they could find an equitable way of doing it. Jacks also advised they wanted more control over lots splits. Jacks stated the engineers wanted the Subdivision Regulations to be altered or amended by the Public Works Department with the approval of the Board of Directors, and without a public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks advised Stan Green, Frank Farrish and himself agreed to talk about off-site improvements. Jacks noted a committee was set up and Stan Green would Chair. Planning Commission March 9, 1987 Page 15 Jacks stated the retreat was scheduled for March 24, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. at the Fayetteville Country Club. MINUTES The minutes of the February 23, 1987 meeting were approved with the following corrections. Change the spelling from Leftler to Leflar Change the spelling from Louis to Louise Change the spelling from Joan to Jo Ann Sandra Carlisle advised that Larry Wood and herself got together on the Request for Proposals on the new Plan. She said until the update committee had completed all of their business that might relate to her RFP's they could not send anything out. She added if that did not get done this year, there would be no money available next year. Jacks stated after the next update meeting with the Chamber of Commerce representative they would be in a position to get serious. Seiff stated one of the requests that had come up at an update meeting was for the Planning Commission members to have I.D.'s and parking permits He said then when they park their cars during the Planning Commission meetings they would not receive tickets. Seiff added this request had been passed on to Jeremy Hess. Seiff said Jeremy Hess had said that the Board of Directors were receiving I.D.' and that the City was possibly getting some type of plastic machine that made I.D.'s and he would make sure the Planning Commission received I.D.'s with mention to the Board. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.