Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-13 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was hld on Monday July 13, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113, West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Gerald Seiff; B.J. Dow, Julie Nash and Frank Farrish MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Jim Cramer, Dave Jorgensen, Floyd Thomas, Jerry Allred, Collins Haynes, Larry Poage, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, and others APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF A FINAL PLAT COLT SQUARE BLOCK 2 - JIM CRAMER The first item on the agenda was consideration of a replat of a • final plat of Colt Square. Submitted by Jim Cramer, property located south of Township and west of Green Acres Rd. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Jacks asked Mr. Cramer if he was just replatting the middle portion of the property and Mr. Cramer replied "yes". • MOTION Hanna moved to approve the replat as submitted, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 8-0-1, Farrish abstained APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT HILLSIDE SUBDIVISION - SAM MATHIAS The second item of consideration was a preliminary plat submitted by Sam Mathias and represented by Dave Jorgensen. Property located east of Old Wire and south of Stewart. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, contains 5.77 acres and total lots proposed 15. Jacks advised the preliminary plat was heard by the subdivision committee and turned discussion over to Commissioner Farrish. • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 2 Farrish advised the preliminary plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee contingent upon; 1) proof of notification; and 2) separation of the utility and drainage easement. Carlisle advised proof of notification had been submitted to the Planning Office. Madison asked if lot 10 was still unbuildable. Jorgensen said it was very possible that the final plat may be changed to 14 proposed lots and combine lot 10 with lot 9. Farrish said Mr. Jorgensen had indicated at the Subdivision Committee meeting that the developer may replat lots 7, 8, 9 and 10. Madison asked if the utilities would be overhead or underground. Mr. Jorgensen replied all the utilities would be underground. Madison asked if the last street light on lot 9 would meet the 300' requirement. Jorgensen replied the street light on lot 9 would be approximately 300' to the next light in the Creekwood Subdivision. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the preliminary plat as submitted subject to plat review comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. Due to an error on the Planning Commission agenda some people were present to speak for the Hillside Terrace Subdivision which was an error. The subdivision to be discussed was the Hillside Subdivision. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -LOT SPLIT FAYETTEVILLE LODGE - FLOYD THOMAS The third item on the agenda Subdivision Regulations (Lot 525 West 15th and zoned Industrial. was a request for a waiver of the Split). Property located at I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Mr. Thomas stated he was the Master of the they would just simply like to sell because it was not used with the exception Lodge (740). He said part of their property of mowing. Seiff asked in relationship to the Lodge property where was the approximate location of Dunn Street. Mr. Thomas replied that 19 ko • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 3 Dunn Street was west of their property. Seiff said he notice a commercial building behind the Lodge with an access road to the building which he assumed was on their property. Mr. Thomas said the access road was not on the Lodge property. MOTION Madison moved to grant the request as submitted, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT JIM LINDSEY - 4044 N. COLLEGE (STATE SOCIAL SERVICES ADDITION) The fourth item on the agenda was consideration of a large scale development plan submitted by Jim Lindsey for the State Social Services. The proprety is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District and contains 2.21 acres more or less. Commissioner Farrish of the Subdivision Committee advised the Large Scale Development had been review by this committee. He said the plan met all the requirements and was approved contingent upon 1) proof of notification. Carisle advised that the proof of notification had been submittedto the Planning Office. Al Hughes, 1765 N. College representing the property owner to the north. He said to the best of his knowledge there was only one objection. He said the trash container was unscreened on the north edge. He said from his and everyone elses experiences people have a tendancy not to hit the dumpster, but if they do the trash blows out and soforth. Carlisle explained the plan did show the dumpster to be screened. Jacks advised he did not see a note on the plan to indicate if the dumpster would or would not be screened. Madison asked if the Sanitation people had any comments about the location of the dumpster. Carlisle replied "no" and screening would not be required because it did not abut an R-1 property. Madison wondered if it would be appropriate to speak with Mr. Lindsey about this matter. Mr. Hughes said he did not have a chance to do that and added the owner of the property only received a notice on Thursday. Mr. Hughes said he went to the Planning Office and was told by Tessi Franzmeier that it was too late and that the Subdivision had already voted to approve the LSD. Mr. Hughes also was told if • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 4 anyone were going to object they should have been present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Hughes said 20 years ago when he was on the Planning Commission the thing that concerned them was trying to keep the public aware of what was going on. He respectfully submits that if something was going to be built next to him and it was advertised by the legal description he would not even know it. He said he had spoke with 12-15 people sense Thursday, asking if something were going to be built and the notice was in the paper by legal description, would they recognize it. He said the answer to that was none of those people new their legal descriptions. He said 20 years ago they were trying to have some means of getting the immediate property owners notified, but he just did not believe that a notice in the newspaper was adequate. Jacks said the answer to that question was the Planning Commission had just finished going through the Subdivision Regulations. He said Larry Wood was presently trying to work up all their notes into a document they could deal with. Jacks said unless he was badly mistaken they would require with the revision that Large Scale Developments be notified by certified mail. Mr. Hughes felt that should be something to give careful consideration particularly for a Large Scale Development because that was just for anything over an acre. He said this just happened to be 1.01 of an acre. Farrish explained items that were addressed at the Subdivision Committee. He said according to the plat the trash receptacle was on the north side of the property towards the west. He said quite frankly he presumed the dumpser was in existance because the existing building and all the other parking was in existance. Jacks added there were no comments from Wally Brt of the Sanitation Department as to what would be required. Jacks said the screening could not be required and Carlisle added she would call Mr. Lindsey and ask him if the dumpster could be screened on three sides. Jacks noted that the screening was not a legal requirement to do so. MOTION Farrish moved approval of the Subdivision Committee with the exceptance of this Large Scale Development with a stipulation that Sandra Carlisle, Director of Planning, contact Mr. Lindsey • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 5 and request he consider screening the trash from the property on the north, seconded by Nash. The motion passed 9-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT JERRY ALLRED - LOT 16, BLOCK 7 MEADOWLARK ADDITION The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Split). Submitted by Jerry Allred for property located at lot 16, block 17 of Meadowlark Addition. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jerry Allred stated his request was to take the one large lot and cut it in two, making two smaller conforming lots to build two smaller homes on the lots. Jacks asked the size of the lots and Mr. Allred replied one lot would be 70' and the lot to the east would be 77.5'. Madison asked if Mr. Allred had checked the covenants on this addition to see if there were any prohibition against replatting. Mr. Allred replied there were no covenants on this addition that he could find. Madison then asked the reason for the easement shown on the plat. Mr. Allred said the easement was there so the utilities could service the two lots. Seiff asked Mr. Allred if he owned the lot to the north and Mr. Allred replied he did not own that lot. Seiff added from what he could see this would be the only lot of that size and all the other existing lots were on a 147' lot. MOTION Seiff moved to grant the request as submitted, seconded by Hanna. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE - MOSQUE KHAN MASOOD - NE CORNER OF REGAN & ARKANSAS AVE. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use for a Mosque. Request submitted by Khan Masood and represented by Collins Haynes. Property zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Collins Haynes of Haynes & Associates stated his firm had been retained by the Islamic Society of North America to provide architectural engineering services for the Mosque. He said the • Mosque would be built for the Islamic student poplulation of the University of Arkansas. This building would be built on the corner of Reagan Street and Arkansas Avenue, presently there was Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 6 a large white house at that location. He said there was a parking lot behind the property and a small duplex. Mr. Haynes said their intent was to place a payer hall which essentially was a Mosque, and was not in the traditional word a Church on the property in question. Mr. Haynes presented a membership list of the Mosque to the Planning Commission. He said there would be approximately 60 members and 4 of which live off -campus who were Doctors and Surgeons. Mr. Haynes presented a site plan of the proposed Mosque to the Planning Commission and explained the design of the Mosque. He said the students would meet on Friday at 1:30 and 99% of the members attend the University where they could walk from the University. He said the students do not have automobiles and have no intention of having automobiles. He said the membership would change yearly as students graduate they leave and new students come in. He said the steady congregation would be somewhere from 60-85 members and possibly 100 for special occasions. Jacks asked if they were also requesting a waiver on the parking requirements and Mr. Haynes replied "yes". Mr. Haynes said 90% of the congregation lived on campus and do not have automobiles. He said it was a student organization and was not meant to be a community organization. He said primarily they would meet on Friday from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Mr. Haynes also added if the students did have cars they could park in the student lot to the west. He said most of the students who would attend do not have cars and it was traditional to walk. Madison asked if this would go through Large Scale Development and Carlisle replied "no" because the property was less than 1 acre. Mr. Haynes was asked how many stories would the building be. Mr. Haynes explained the front of the building would be two stories and the rear would be three stories. He said the only difference would be the minaret would be approximately 10-15' taller. Hanna asked how many square feet would be in the building. Mr. Haynes replied approximately 8000 sq.ft. Seiff asked if the parking requirement was not waived how many parking spaces would they be required to have. Mr. Haynes said that figure would come from the footage in the auditorium and that was a little different because there were no seats in the prayer hall because they kneel and use prayer rugs. • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 7 Jacks said in that case it would be calculated on congregation size. Carlisle replied the required number of spaces would be 31 and they only have room for 10. Seiff then said they were asking for required spaces. a waiver on the other 21 Madison asked why this group was not seeking a rezoning rather than the requested conditional use. Mr. Haynes said they were told they needed a conditional use for a church in a residential zone. Madison then said a rezoning for P-1, which would abut P-1 would allow churches by right. Madison said she would feel better about a rezoning because of notification of adjacent property owners. She said there was no sign on the property. Mr. Haynes said they had notified all of the adjacent property owners. Carlisle advised notification conditional use was not required, owners had been mailed an agenda of of property owners for a but all adjoining property the proposed Mosque. Madison felt very uncomfortable waiving more than half of the required parking spaces especially in the part of town where parking was at such a premium. She said this would also be reasonably close to the arts center and wondered if the building might someday be used for other purposes by other people. Mr. Haynes said a Mosque was somewhat different in religious nature. He said it could never be changed and could only be what it was a Mosque forever. Madison asked if this was the most practical location of this religion in Northwest Arkansas. Mr. Haynes said this location was the most practical because it was very close for the students. Madison added once the structure was built and as a reality more people of this faith discover it, they may very well have automobiles. She also did not think they could use University parking on a regular basis. Hanna said did have personally he would have no objection to the conditional use, but an objection to waiving those parking spaces and he would not waive them. Nash said the very nature of the University was that the parking was limited and she understood their point that this would be used by non -driving students. Mr. Haynes said that was not the A\ • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 8 point they have to walk because it was tradition and as he said 90% of the people lived on campus. Nash said most of the student religious centers have the same parking problems as well as the dormitories and fraternities. She said she could not see the Planning Commission discriminating in this case because of the parking. Madison said she did not see any reason to compound the problem. Hanna said there were only 60 members now, but in 10 years there may be 600 members. • Mr. Haynes said the building the occupancy load by code for they got that many more people MOTION and prayer hall could not service more than 90 people. He said if they would have to move. Farrish moved to grant the conditional use request and waive the parking requirement, seconded by Nash and followed by discussion. Madison said she voted against the motion for 2 reasons. She felt this should be a rezoning and was very opposed to waiving the parking. Dow said she did have some reservations about the limited parking, but felt this was a very unique situation. She said this was a culture which did minimize the use cars and felt this was an appropriate situation for the Mosque. Carlisle stated with the Planning Commissions approval off-site parking could be requested somewhere on campus that was within 300' of the Mosque. Green said he would feel more comfortable with that than waiving the required parking. He asked Carlisle if they could get permission from the University to use a lot with a designation of off-site parking and Carlisle replied "yes". Jacks felt the University would not go with the dedicated parking. Mr. Haynes added no the University would not dedicate parking. Hanna said the Doctors that were going to attend do not leave every four years and asked what was to keep the population from expanding. • Mr. Haynes said the prayer hall was strictly limited by code. Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 9 Farrish said one of the things that did not bother him about the parking was that it was a self policing situation. He said this was intended primarily for the student body and they would have parking passes at the University. He said anyone else would have to risk the rath of the University police department. Green said he had one problem and that was an 8000 sq.ft. building that would only accomodate 68 people. Mr. Haynes said the prayer hall alone would only accomodate 68 people. Mr. Haynes said 50 members were males and approximately 20 females and they were segregated. Green asked how many people would be living there and Mr. Haynes said possibly 3 and that depended on how many sqare feet they could get. Seiff felt looking at the welfare of the community that it was a terrific thing to have a Mosque in the community. He felt it was a more rounded community to welcome that particular belief. The question was called and the motion to grant the conditional use request and waive the parking requirement past 7-0-0, Hanna and Madison voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LARRY & VALERIE POAGE - 5645 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The seventh item on the agenda was Subdivision Regulations (Lot Split) Poage. Property located at 5645 E Density Residential District. This property. a request for a waiver of the , submitted by Larry & Valerie Huntsville Rd, zoned R-1, Low would be the 3rd split on the Larry Poage stated he had a piece of property on the corner of Ed Edwards Rd and Huntsville Rd. He would like to sell the corner part and retain a lot which was 90.77' X 290 with his existing home. MOTION Madison moved to approve the Hanna. The motion to approve OTHER BUSINESS request as submitted, seconded by passed 9-0-0, A discussion from the neighbors on east Lafayette for the removal of the Highway 45 designation from Highway 265 to 471. Jacks advised the Planning Commission had sent a recommendation to the TAC and the Fayetteville, Springdale Transportation Policy • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 10 Committee. He added the TAC had sent back a recommendation, which had gone to the Policy Committee. He said the TAC recommended against the amendment for the following reasons. 1. After two 3 -hour peak traffic counts were taken, it was revealed that only six (6) "heavy" trucks traveled this route. The TAC did not believe this warrants an amendment. 2. Even if the designation was made, traffic volumes would not change for either automobiles or trucks. A current City ordinance would not allow the City to prohibit current truck traffic from one point in the City to another. 3. If S.H. 45 was eliminated from the State system, S.H. 180 would have to be eliminated also since it would not tie into a State system route. 4. The designation change would be very expensive for the City since all future maintenance and improvements would have to be made solely by the City. Chairman Jacks also noted a letter had been received from the Washington County Historical Society which expressed the support and efforts of the Planning Commission to reduce commercial traffic at that location. Another letter had been received from Robert and Marion Wyckoff, essentially saying the same thing for relocation of that route. At this point Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing for testimony from citizens of the neighborhood. Mary Frances Newbern, 403 N. Washington stated that by way of explanation she wanted to say their request for a place on the agenda for this evening had been mailed two weeks ago. She said it had been delivered by mistake to the University of Arkansas. She said to of postponed this item for two weeks would have presented a real hardship and they do thank the Commission for hearing them tonight. Ms. Newbern added because the traffic on East Lafayette Street, which was designated Highway 45 had become almost unbearable. She said some of the property owners on that street came to the Planning Commission on May 26, 1987 asking for relief. Ms. Newbern said the neighbors had reminded the Planning Commission of a plan which was suggested many months ago by a former member of the City Board of Directors. She said the plan was the re- routing of Highway 45 around Fayetteville, using Highway 16 East, Crossover Road, Highway 265 and Joyce Street. They understood that the Planning Commission had voted favorably on this • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 11 suggestion, but that it had not been referred to the Technical Advisory Committee for approval. She said the procedure had now been followed and TACs recommendation, as it was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times was negative. She said they feel this Advisory Committee had considered their request from a purely commercial view point, with no regard for the human needs of those people who are affected by this unhappy situation. She said since a number of TAC members live outside of Fayetteville they may not realize that Highway 45 cuts right through the center of the Washington Willow District. She said the streets were lined with beautiful restored homes and tourist come from miles around to admire the perfect examples of various types of architecture of the past. She said school children were brought to learn by studying the Historical District and artists come to capture the beauty of the blooming Azalea and Dogwood trees. Ms. Newbern said the owners who live in these homes were working hard and spending freely to preserve this historic area for the enlightment and enjoyment of future generations. Ms. Newbern stated the heavy traffic on Lafayette Street and on Mission Street also was a critically serious problem and they had returned tonight to discuss it further with the Planning Commission, who are citizens of Fayetteville:' She said several property owners were here to tell the Planning Commission why they consider this situation to be a vital one which needs attention now. Her hope was that the Commission would vote to disregard TACs advise and proceed with plans of the re-routing of Highway 45. Nash asked if the Commission chose to disregard the advise from the TAC how would they proceed? Jacks replied he did not really know. Dow thought a resolution could be presented to the City Board. Jacks said he was not sure what the real legal arrangements would be between the City of Fayetteville and Springdale. John Burrow, 409 E. Lafayette said basically his argument against doing this was that the City got a real bargain. He said they get the streets maintained and the down side would be they would not be controlled. He said one of the big motivators that had gotten them up here was the prospect of that street actually being made more of a Highway rather than less of one. He said the assertion by the TAC was that only 6 trucks went by was nonsense. He said the neighborhood was going to provide the City Board with a 24-hour count of the number of trucks in any one given day. Mr. Burrow added the weight limit was 70,000 pounds • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 12 and when trucks go over that manhole in front of his home you could feel the vibration all the way throught the house which was cracking the plaster. He said they realize they were forcing the issue and it may very well be that a compromise measure might be more preferable, than the one they were actually advocating. He thought the long term development of the traffic in through and around Fayetteville ought to provide for an alternate from a major Highway artery coming through a quiet residential neighborhood. Marion Wyckoff, 391 N. Fletcher wanted to re-emphasize that air polution from the toxic fumes from the trucks and the automobiles. She said the vibration from trucks shook their homes and cracked the plaster. She frequently watches big trucks as they fail to negotiate the corner and run up over the new curb the City just installed. She added there were deep ruts in the ground between the sidewalk and street, and the grass that was planted there has long since been destroyed. She said Highway by definition should be the most expeditous way to move traffic past the town. Highway 45 as presently constituted, reminded her of certain small towns, where the Highway was deliberately routed right through the middle of town, at the lowest possible speed in order to corner as many tourist dollars and. ..speeding fines as possible. Bob Brezenski, 412 E. Lafayette read a letter from the principal of St. Joseph's School (Ann F. Wilson); As you consider the re- routing of Highway 45, please reflect on the following facts; 1. Over 100 children attend St. Joseph's School which is located on Lafayette Street 2. Children cross the street to retrieve playground balls often 3. Children take walking field trips and must walk along Lafayette St. 4. the noice from the current traffic is detrimental to the learing process. After thoughful consideration, I hope you will find in favor of the re-routing of Highway 45. Mr. Brezenski also said he had spoke with the principal of Washington School and after checking the records there were 167 children on her roster which use the intersection of Lafayette and college. Madison asked if item number 2 was a viable statement and asked • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 13 if there was really such an ordinance. Carlisle said she had wondered about item 2 also and did if that were true. not know Green said what item number 2 was saying was that the City could not stop trucks from making local deliveries. Seiff said he thought the Planning Commission had voted to recommend this to the TAC. Jacks said as he remembered the Commission really did not recommend, but sent the motion to the TAC without a recommendation. Farrish thought the Commission was debating whether the traffic should be routed to the north or to the south or where it was going to connect. Farrish said the Commission sent that to the TAC for them to advise which was the best way to connect. Nash also felt the Commission had asked for TACs assistance, not there vote. Jacks said in this process he was very suprised to learn that Highway 45 designation ends at College and picks up again at Lincoln. Jacks said Larry Wood had told him there was a gap that simply did not exist between Highway 471 and Lincoln. Farrish said it was actually between Prairie Grove and Lincoln, and did not go all the way to Lincoln because it cut through on Highway 68 then to Arkansas 59, Mrs. Wyckoff said she had asked Larry Wood what authority the TAC had and he told her the TAC was purely advisory. Jacks noted that was body (Fayetteville, which he sits on and body had. true, but then the TAC reported to another Springdale Transportation Policy Committee) he really did not know what authority that Nash felt it was not up to this body to try an decide a particular route. She felt the final judgement would be up to the Board of Directors. MOTION Nash moved to recommend next meeting, remove the and Mission (Highway 471 to the Board of Directors that at their Highway 45 designation from Lafayette to Highway 265), seconded by Hanna and • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 14 followed by discussion. Green said he did not think the Board of Directors could remove a State Highway designation. Green said he would be willing to recommend to the City Board that the Planning Commission felt something needs to be done to solve this problem. He added, but to take the State Highway designation from 45 would not solve the problem. He said the one point TAC made was valid in that changing names was not going to change the way traffic goes, and that was his concern about this solution. Green said he also would be willing to ask the City Board to have the appropriate people on City staff to look into a possible solution to this problem. Nash said she would be willing to amend her motion to add alternate truck routes be marked. AMENDMENT Nash moved to amend her motion to include alternate truck routes be marked. Mr. Brezenski said a great deal of the traffic was people in big trucks with maps in their hands looking for Highway numbers. He said if the Highway number was moved that would oliviate all the trucks. Green felt the Commission was operating in a vacuum, because the only information that had indicated this would not solve the problem. He said he did not agree with everything in the TAC report, but did agree with what was being proposed was not going to solve the problem. Once again Green said he felt the Commission was operating in a vacuum as they tend to do with no information, no advise at all from the people on the City payroll about what alternatives there were. He said this was not a way to plan for the traffic flow and thought it was probably a way to address some concerns on a very short term basis, but not to solve the problem. Green said the addition to the motion dearly changed his opinion. Matt Havens, 400 N. Washington said the flow of traffic would not be changed if the sign was changed. He said all over the country there were signs that said "Business Route No Through Trucks Allowed". AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED MOTION Farrish then moved that in light of the TAC statement that State • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 15 Highway 180 would have to be removed from the State system if State Highway 45 was eliminated, the Board of Directors designate alternate routes of equal length as a swap to the AHTD so that maintenance and improvements would not be made soley by the City, seconded by Dow and followed by discussion. Nash asked if the amendment was added to the motion, then in affect the City could say "if we don't get any swap out then we're not going to move the Highway". Green said they could say anything they want and it would not really have any bearing on the decision. Nash felt the last amendment should be a separate motion, because it sounded exclusive. Farrish then said he did not have a problem withdrawing his amendment and Dow withdrew her second. Madison said she understood Commissioner Greens' point, but did not know what else the Commission could do. She said this has been a problem for at least a year. She said regardless of what does result if the Highway was changed she felt it was inappropriate for a State Highway to go through that part of • town. There was at least two elementary schools on that Highway and it was not good for State Highways togo in front of two elementary schools. Madison said she saw the report saying most of the traffic was local traffic and felt the City should darn well pay for it. Mrs. Newbern said at least 100 of the children who attended Washington School go by her house. She said the children ride their bicycles and skateboards on the sidewalk in front of her home where there is no parking. She said the trucks come within inches of the children and one of these days a child was going to make a mistake and flip off the sidewalk and be seriously hurt or killed. Green felt this was not the solution, particularly now that he understands the change would be from Highway 265 to 471. He said the Commission had not really done anything to make anything happen and the only discussion the Commission had was among themselves. He said he was not an expert on routing roads and felt as he said early they were operating in vacuum and would not accomplish anything. He said it was a problem and the only real solution was to offer an alternate route that works and enables people to get to where they want to go. Seiff felt the Commission should make it a little stronger and • believed the traffic should be re-routed from Highway 265 south to Highway 16 then west to Highway 471 then south again on 71. He disagreed with Commissioner Green because if signs were posted • • Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 16 people would follow them. He said that would be the most logical route for any kind of a commercial vehicle and felt the Commission should take a stand and recommend that proposal as an alternate route. Hanna said throughout the country Cities have a business route marked. He said if the designation was routed at Highway 265 with the business 45 left just like it was, people would have enough sense not to go through town. Jacks advised the motion before the Commission included a provision for futher routes to be developed. Green said he thought Commissioner Hanna came close to a solution that would work. Green said that was to leave the Highway 45 designation on Lafayette and mark it business 45, and put a 45 sign pointing south on Highway 265 and on Highway 16. Green said that makes more sense than anything he has heard yet. Nash said the Highway 45 designation would still be on the map. Hanna said tourist or Nash said Highway 45 City still if the map showed another Highway 45 designation the whoever would have another choice.. she was not sure of putting business on top of sign. She said it was still a State Highway and had very little control over where it goes. Jacks felt they were better off with a routes to be developed. He said suggestions for a workable idea. the the motion that said further that could be one of the The question was called and the motion to recommend to the City Board at their next meeting, to remove the Highway 45 designation from Lafayette and Mission (Highway 471 to Highway 265) and further routes be developed. The motion to recommend passed 8-1-0, Green voting "nay". The question was called and the second motion made, in light of the TAC statement that State Highway 180 would have to be removed from the State system if State Highway 45 is eliminated, the Board of Directors designate alternate route, seconded by Dow. The motion to recommend passed 9-0-0. Madison asked if this recommendation would go to the next Board of Directors meeting. • Carlisle replied "yes" the next Board meeting was on Tuesday, July 21, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. ��b • • • 1 Planning Commission July 13, 1987 Page 17 There being no futher business the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.