Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-24 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday August 24, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Gerald Seiff, Frank Farrish, Fred Hanna, B.J. Dow and Sue Madison Butch Robertson and Julie Nash Ken Lazenby, Wade Bishop, Mel Milholland, Ervan Wimberly, J.W. Maddox, Ann Sugg, Jim Hatfield, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-20 KEN LAZENBY - 4 LOTS SOUTH OF PETTIGREW STREET The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-20 submitted by Ken Lazenby. Request was to rezone lots 18, 19, 22 and 23 Block 11, Parksdale Additionn • (approximately 32,125 sq. ft.), located at the southeast corner of Garland Ave. and Pettigrew St., from I-1 (Heavy -Commercial and Light Industrial) District and R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District. • Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation was; The 1970 General Plan recommends an industrial area from the main line of the Arkansas Missouri Railroad east to the West Fork of the White River along the spur line, that has since been extended into the Industrial Park. The industrial area in question extended from Town Creek south to the 71 By Pass between the Arkansas Missouri Railroad and Garland Ave. and east along the spur line between Town Creek and the spur line. The same basic industries that were there in 1970 are still there today, however, some have changed ownership and few have changed the nature of their business. Very little new industrial development has taken place in this area. The industry most closely affected by this application is Levi -Strauss which adjoins this property on the east. The only zoning changes in this Districts, that were rezoned houses, which were nonconforming area since 1970 were the R-1 to allow expansion of existing uses in the I-1 District. i\J • • • Planning Commission August 14, 1987 Page 2 .lA As the City of Fayetteville continues to grow good industrial land with railroad access will become more in demand and because there is a limited amount of this land available, it should be preserved for industrial purposes. R-2 District was not recommended. With the pending update of the General Plan the Planning 'Commission might want to delay a decision on this application to see if this area is again recommended for industrial purposes. In answer to a question from Commissioner Farrish, Wood replied his understanding was the Industrial Park did not have much land available. Wood added the Town Branch had some flood problems associated with the land and felt the Commission needed to take a look at that to see if whether or not there was land allocated for industrial purposes, that would never be used for that purpose. Jacks asked Planning Consultant Wood if he felt the area in question would grow as an industrial use. Wood replied at this point he was not sure and asked, whoever was going to do the update, take a close look at the area in question because there was flood problems in that area. Madison asked if Levi -Strauss had expanded any in the last 20 years. Carlisle said they added a couple of offices within the last 4-6 weeks. Wood said there was something under construction now, but he did not remember any large expansions. Dow asked realistically what would the length of time be for the decision on the update of the General Plan. Wood replied approximately a year to 18 months. Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for the petition as requested. Ken Lazenby stated he would accept the R-2 zoning with some type of a variance for future I-1 zoning for the area. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the requested petition. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Madison asked Mr. Lazenby if he had any immediate plans for the property in question. Mr. Lazenby replied he was proposing to build an 8-plex on the property. He said the design would be ea • Planning Commission August .14,, 1987 Page 3 1 simple so they could be transformed into offices at a later time. Madison stated in view of the Planning Consultants concerns felt zoning the property at this time would be premature on the Planning Commissions part. MOTION Madison moved to deny the petition as requested, seconded by Dow. The motion to deny passed 5-2-0, Seiff, Dow, Farrish, Madison and Jacks voting "yes" and Green and Hanna voting "nay". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R87-21 - WADE BISHOP SOUTH OF APPLEBY AND EAST OF SKULL CREEK - QUAIL CREEK The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R87-21 submitted by Wade Bishop. Request was to rezone a 36.88 acre tract of land located on the southside of Appleby Rd. approximately 1000 feet east of Gregg Ave., from A-1 (Agricultural) District to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District. Planning Consultant Wood's recommendation .was; Over the past approximately 10 years, because of the increasing cost of land and construction, the Planning Commission has granted some R-2 zoning in areas where the General Plan recommended R-1. The developer in most of these cases has indicated the desire to build single-family houses on smaller lots allowed in the R-2 District but not allowed in The R-1 Distict. The Planning Commission in response to this trend has developed the new R-1.5 District which allows single-family on small lots and duplexes and triplexes. Since the developer in this application indicates a desire to build single-family houses and duplexes the R-1.5 District is recommended instead of R-2 District. Jacks opended the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the request. Mr. Bishop stated in the past, where he had the privilege of R-2 zoning he had built duplexes very sparingly in his subdivisions. Mr. Bishop added, on the west side of his proposed subdivision there was high density and felt some duplexes could be a buffer. Mr. Bishop said the R-1.5 would fulfill his needs for his request and had no objections to the recommended R-1.5 zoning. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the requested petition. • • • Planning Commission August 1/4, 1987 Page 4 7„.t.1 There being no opposition the public hearing was closed discussion returned to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved A-1 (Agricultural) to District, seconded by recommend passed 7-0-0. and to recommend rezoning the property from R-1.5 (Moderate Density Residential) Commissioner Madison. The motion to APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT - QUAIL CREEK WADE BISHOP - SOUTH OF APPLEBY AND EAST OF SKULL CREEK The third item on the agenda was consideration of a preliminary plat of Quail Creek submitted by Wade Bishop. Property presently zoned A-1, Agricultural pendind R-1.5 zoning approval from the City Board of Directors. Property contains 36.7 acres with 102 proposed lots. Chairman Jacks advised the preliminary plat as submitted was before the Subdivision Committee for a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Farrish advised the preliminary plat as submitted was recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee subject to; 1) Plat Review Comments with the exception that the fire hydrants would comply with the State Code; 2) waiver of the street light spacing; 3) add a street light in block 3, between lots 13 & 14; 4) waiver for the sidewalk to terminate at the east property line on lot 10, block 2 because of the terrain; 5) extend the sidewalk around the inside of the cul-de-sac at the south end of John Wayne Drive; 6) accept Mr. Bishops proposal for the off-site improvements to Appleby and waive any requirement on Drake Street; and 7) specify that the developer would not be responsible for obtaining the additional ROW if needed on the north side of Appleby Road. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the preliminary plat as stated above, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Jacks recalled reviewing this subdivision once before and felt the street light spacing was the way the Planning Commission wanted it. Farrish added the street light spacing was very logical throughout the subdivision. Madison asked if Mr. Bishops proposal for off-site improvements • • Planning Commission August i(4, 1987 Page 5 9.* to Appleby were his frontage to be curbed, guttered on one side. Green advised the improvements would sides. Madison then said the improvements would sides, but Bishop would not have to give the ROW side. and sidewalk include both include both on the other Green said the conclusion was that there was enough ROW dedicated to build a street, but there may not be enough ROW to meet the City's requirements. Madison asked how long Quail Creek was from Appleby Road to the Phase divide line. She felt it would be temporarily a dead-end street. Mel Milholland advised from Phase I it would be approximately 900-1000'. Madison then said the street was beyond the maximum allowable length. Madison then asked what time frame was the extension of Phase II. Mr. Bishop replied approximately a year and a half. Farrish advised Quail Creek could not go anywhere until the future Drake Street was constructed. Madison felt a waiver of the maximum length of a dead-end street should be in order. Dow asked what the time frame was for Drake. and Carlisle replied Drake Steet was in the next 5 -year plan for construction. Dow felt that a temporary waiver could be given until the construction of Drake Street started. Madison said if an awful lot of way out. She City. Drake was never built then potentially there were lots in the subdivision with one way in and one said Mr. Bishop was sort of at the mercy of the Jacks felt this was Planning Commission of 500'. not an unusual problem and sometimes the had granted a waiver of the maximum distance Hanna felt a waiver was not needed where provisions had been made for a through street. AMENDED MOTION Farrish moved to include the waiver for the maximum length of a dead-end street forever, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Madison asked if the sidewalks would be at the curb or setback • and Mr. Bishop replied at the curb. Madison said she would appreciate it if the developer would consider spacing the sidewalk back. Planning Commission August4P4, 1987 Page 6 V\ The question was called and the motion to approve the preliminary plat as stated above passed 6-1-0, Madison voting "nay". APPROVAL OF A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - COLLEGE PARK WEST OF JAMES STREET & SOUTH OF MT. COMFORT - POLARBEK The fourth item on the agenda was the approval of a Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Polarbek and represented by Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District with an area of 9.95 acres and a total of 188 proposed units. Chairman Jacks advised this item was heard by the Subdivision Committee on August 20, 1987. Commissioner Farrish advised the Subdivision Committee moved to approve the Large Scale Developement subject to; 1) Plat Review Comments; 2) off-site improvements to widen Mt. Comfort where it adjoins the property as shown on the plat and on James Street to install a 31' wide street with curb and gutter from the existing asphalt back to the developers property and resurface the existing James Street without curb and gutter; and 3) a resolution to the access question between the developer and fire department. Jacks noted he was a little suprised to see 120 4 -bedroom units. Madison asked if notification of the property owners has been submitted to the Planning Office. Carlisle advised the notice was published in the local newspaper. She also advised there was someone in the audience that would like to speak. Steve Gunderson with McAlister and Wade stated he was there to voice some concerns of some property owners on the James Street Drive Addition. He said from reviewing the minutes of both the Plat meeting and the Subdivision Committee meeting it appeared that what was now a dead-end street and a very low residential unit would be transformed into a major thoroughfare to the proposed apartment complex. Mr. Gunderson said it appeared there were 188 proposed units going in with the James Street entrance being the closest ingress/egress from the University and that the LSD primarily would be basic University housing. He said they were concerned not only with the traffic conjestion, but also the fire hazards with only two entrances. He said if he read Section 946, paragraph 4, subparagraph d correctly, this would create a dangerous traffic condition since the developer does not propose to widen the existing 18' James Street. He added the new addition to James Street would be approximately 120' long and 31' Planning Commission August A, 1987 Page 7 wide which would create essentially a funnel fed street. He said basically his clients would like a little bit more public input before the final decision was made on the proposed apartment complex. Madison asked if return receipts were sent for notification and Carlisle replied "no" the developer advertised the proposed LSD in the local newspaper. Madison asked if any property owners were present at the Subdivision Committee meeting and Franzmeier replied "no". Mr. Gunderson said his clients understood progress had to take place and certain things must be pushed aside, but felt something of this magnitude would require somewhat of a more public hearing. He said he would like to see all the property owners on the west side and on the north side notified. Mr. Gunderson added apparently only the property owners on the east side were notified and were dealing with the developers. Seiff asked Mr. Gunderson if more time would allow him to assemble more citizens to voice their opinion. Mr. Gunderson answered yes and said he was approached today at 2:30p.m. with this matter. Seiff said it seemed to him that publication on Wednesday for a Thursday meeting was short notice, but realized it was legal. Dow asked if there was any stipulation for the notice to precede a certain amount of time before the meeting and Carlisle replied the notice had to be ran anytime prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. In answer to a question from Commissioner Madison, Carlisle replied the notice advised that a Large Scale Development Plan had been submitted to the Planning Office for a multi -family housing project and could be reviewed by the public. Farrish said if the Planning Commission was going to have this kind of problem then the regulations needed to be changed. He said a developer comes in, follows all the rules of what needed to be done and asked what other guide lines should he go by. Dow asked Chairman Jacks if the vote of a Large Scale Development from the Subdivision Committee was all the action that needed to be taken. Jacks replied as he had interpreted the code that the Planning Commission had the ability to ratify that or not if there were objections. Green wanted to know if proper procedure was for someone to appeal the Subdivision Committee decision then the Commission • Planning Commission August 241 1987 Page 8 yA would vote on whether they want to hear it and Jacks replied "yes". Carlisle read from the Code Book "The subdivision committee shall approve, disapprove, refer back to the developer for more information, or refer to the planning commission each large scale development within fourteen (14) days from the date said plan is review by the plat review committee. In the event a large scale development plan is referred to the Planning Commission, said commission shall approve or disapprove the development plan within fourteen (14) days from the date of referral, or at its next meeting". She added as a matter of procedure the LSD was brought to the Planning Commission with the Subdivision recommendation. Chairman Jacks said he had assumed in every case that the Planning Commission had the ability to object, although the ordinance did not exactly say that. Carmen Lierly, 1333 Mt. Comfort stated he had tried to find out what was going on from the owner and was unable to accomplish • that. He said he had received an agenda on Friday, August 21, 1987 of the proposed Large Scale Development.. Mr. Lierly said he had lived there for 35 years and Mt. Comfort was a very crowded street. He said another problem would be the drainage and since he was at the northwest corner where the logical drainage was he would receive an increased amount. • Madison wondered if it would be appropriate to table this item until the Planning Commissions next meeting. She said the proposal was for a large number of units and would have a very large impact especially on James Street and probably on Mt. Comfort. She said she did not know what the developers current situation was with Woodland Hills, but if that proceeds then James Street needed to be 4-laned. She said there was a potential access to Stephens on the west. Ervan Wimberly said number one, the developer did follow procedure to the best of his knowledge and experience. He said he would have preferred to have the notice in earlier, but was unable to. He said the developer did not ask for any variances and the Subdivision Committee could not approve it if they did ask for variances. He said all the requests made by the City or whoever had been agreed to. He added the other tract of land (Woodland Hills) was required to provide 40% of the cost of improving James Street. He said the developer he was representing would be paying about 40%-50% of the cost. He said the developer was very aware of the drainage on Mt. Comfort and said they would be receiving bids on Thursday afternoon for the • • • Planning Commission August ).4, 1987 Page 9 7_1\ CD Department to build and improve the drainage. He said if the bids come in under the budget the CD Department would be improving the drainage all the way up Mt. Comfort. He said it would be a matter of how the coordination of the two would be after the bids were received. Wimberly advised Mt. Comfort could not be widened until the storm drainage was installed. Jacks then said the widening of Mt. Comfort from Garland, which would be the primary access into the property would not take place for a while. Wimberly said if the bids were to high and only part of the drainage was installed the developer would be responsible to build that part of the drainage structure across the frontage of their property, with the widening of Mt. Comfort with curb and gutter to their frontage. Madison asked if Addington or not. asked if he knew "no". the access onto Mt. Comfort lined Wimberly replied it was very close and what the jog distance was and Wimberly up with Madison replied Chairman Jacks felt an expression from the Planning Commission was in order in terms of a motion to either ratify the action of the Subdivision Committee or otherwise. MOTION Farrish moved to ratify the action of the Subdivision Committee, seconded by Green and followed by discussion. Farrish commented that he was very concerned about the adjacent property owners and proper notification. He said the property was zoned R-2 and the density being developed was well within the bounds of what could be developed in R-2 property. Green added the question of access to James Street and said the question had already been addressed in connection with the Woodland Hills Development. He said the developer did not want access to James Street, but the City staff and Board felt that it should be required to have a second way out of that development through James Street. He said a lot of the same concerns were raised and questions were discussed at that time and the resolution was the developer would be required to access out through James Street. Chaiman Jacks agreed with both comments, although he said he would hate to shut off any public debate that might come in. Madison said she especially was worried that proper public input had not been received on this particular development. She appreciated that Polarbek and Northwest Engineers did follow the �1� • • • Planning Commission August 11, 1987 Page 10 Z,A letter public MOTION of the law, but she still had to question whether the good was being served appropriately here. Madison moved to table this matter until the next regular meeting, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Green asked Commissioner Madison what else did she propose the developer do. He said they had complied with the requirements of the ordinance and had been represented at two different meetings of subdivision committee and Planning Commission and asked what else would she have them do. Madison replied she would like to hear what else people have say that were going to have to live with these 532 cars in their 532 parking spaces. She said there could be access to Stevens Street and there might be a reduction in the density of this unit. She said there was a problem getting fire access to one of the buildings the way it was shown now. She felt there were a lot of options that could be looked at on the property in question and she did not know that she could see what they all were. She said the neighbors who live around there know how hard it was to get out onto Mt. Comfort or know what the sight distance was on James Street and know how bad the traffic really was. She felt the neighbors might actually be able to aid the Commission in approving this developement in two weeks. Wimberly felt some of the regulations and stipulations were a little bit out of hand. He said the developers agreed to widen Mt. Comfort, improve James Street and to him the developer without question met the legal City requirements. Wimberly felt that delaying this request for 3 more weeks was putting an extensive delay on the project. He said the zoning was there and added there was a lot of controversy when it was zoned years ago. He said the access to Stevens Street was one of the biggest objections before. He also advised the developers that he would not try to access Steven Street and they did not pursue it. Jacks asked Mr. Gunderson if he was representing people on James Street and Mr. Gunderson replied he was representing a property owner on James Street. The question was called and the motion to table this item until the next regular Planning Commission meeting passed 4-3-0, Seiff, Dow, Madison and Jacks voting "yes" and Green, Hanna and Farrish voting "nay". • • Planning Commission August 44, 1987 Page 11 v.( REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION ON A BILL OF ASSURANCE ABUNDANT LIFE TABERNACLE - DELAYED PARKING The fifth item on the agenda was consideration of an extension to a Bill of Assurance for delayed parking requirements. Request submitted by Dr. J.W. Maddox and property located at 1855 Porter Road (Abundant Life Tabernacle). Jacks asked Carlisle about the two different reports in Dr. Maddox's letter referring to, "if he did the entry way the other could slide for a while" and then later found out he had to honor the orginal contract. Carlisle explained the Bill of Assurance for the Abundant Life Tabernacle was extended in March of this year for 120 days. She said the Bill of Assurance had come due again and the City called for all the requirements to be in and she did not feel that it was within her providence to extend it any further without Planning Commission action. Dr. Maddox said he did not remember who told him about the first statement and added the administration had changed from the first time he was in. Carlisle advised the staff member who told Mr. Maddox about the entry way was no longer with the Planning Office because of such actions. Madison asked what was the requirement of the contract for the Abundant Life Tabernacle. Carlisle replied the contract was for improvements to Porter Road and the Bill of Assurance was for the paving of the entire parking lot for 52 parking spaces. Dr. Maddox addressed the sidewalk situation for the Tabernacle. he said Porter Road was a very dangerous area and the Planning Commission wanted him to make a curbing off Porter Road and install a sidewalk at that location. He said he was mowing the lawn in that area and it was very frightening to be walking down there and have someone going around that curve at 55 miles an hour side ways. He added 3 weeks ago a boy was injured at the very same curve and one week after that another boy was put in the hospital in crital condition. Dr. Maddox said he would prefer to put the sidewalk back on their property so it would be further away from the highway. He said if that were granted the church could begin work on the sidewalk immediately. Madison asked what Dr. Maddox had accomplished to date on the property in question. Dr. Maddox said a small drive onto Porter Road was installed and some parking had been paved. Carlisle said the remainder of the parking and driveway needed to Planning Commission August k4, 1987 Page 12 2.\ be installed according to the current Bill of Assurance. She added the street improvements and sidewalk were at the call of the City. Seiff asked what the cost would be to complete the parking and driveway requirements. Dr. Maddox said he was doing a section of 14'X30' at approximately $300.00 a section and estimated the total cost would be somewhere between $5000-10,000 dollars. Madison asked Dr. Maddox how long would he need to accomplish the requirements. She added that she was not inclined to allow people who renege on contracts that they had made with the City, especially an entity as honorable as a church. However in view of the fact that Dr. Maddox was misinformed in the Planning Office she felt there was not any choice, but to give Dr. Maddox an extension. Hanna asked Dr. Maddox if he was aware that chip and seal would fulfill the requirements as well as concrete. Dr. Maddox said he was aware of that, but he checked out the chip and seal at the Sang Avenue Baptist Church and felt it was a very poor quality and his congregation wanted to do better than that. MOTION Hanna moved to extend the Bill of Assurance for the completion of the driveway and parking for 2 -years from this date, seconded by Seiff. The motion to extend the Bill of Assurance for 2 -years passed 7-0-0. REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE 501 W. MAPLE - ANN SUGG The sixth item on the agenda was consideration of a change in nonconforming use submitted by Ann Sugg, for property located at 501 W. Maple. The last change of nonconforming use was for a radio station (radio station vacated in October 1986). Present use without complying with City Planning Office was for Alcoholics Anonymous. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ann Sugg apologized and said she misunderstood what was required as far as bringing the present use into the Planning Office. She added that she was not aware that everytime the use changed it would require Planning Commission approval. She said at this time she was requesting to change the use to a yarn shop. • Jacks asked Mrs. Sugg how many parking places were available at the property in question. Mrs. Sugg replied there were • Planning Commission August Xti, 1987 Page 13 p approximately 12 parking spaces on the site. She said the entire lot was paved and there were parking spaces available on two sides of the building. Jacks asked Carlisle if 12 spaces would meet the ordinance requirement. Carlisle said she could not determine the parking requirement because the use was not permitted in an R-1 zone. Jacks then asked Carlisle for the parking requirement under normal circumstances. Carlisle replied 1 space for every 200 sq.ft. of floor area. Hanna asked how many sq.ft. was in the building and Mrs. Sugg replied a little over 2000 sq.ft. Deborah Laningham, 1619 W. Maple stated she was the owner of LaPetite Yarn Shop, presently located at Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. She said when she canvassed the neighborhood she was very well received by 90% of the area and that there=were 2 or 3 that had an objection to the yarn shop. Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak either in favor of, or against this petition. • Clyde Randall, 414 E. Maple stated he was here to speak against the petition and added he had submitted a petition that he circulated around the neighborhood. He said out of 12 people that he spoke with 10 were against the use and were on the petition. He said basically the neighborhood felt this use would set a bad precedent to allow a retail use in a R-1 zone. • Mrs. Sugg stated she was not asking for a rezoning, but just a change of nonconforming use. She added anytime this use changed she would have to come back before the Planning Commission once again. She said the building had always been commercial and was a neighborhood grocery store when she was a little girl. She said after that it was a radio station for 18 years. Mrs. Sugg said the building was not suitable as a residence and had a restroom with no bathing facilities. Hanna said he could understand Mr. Randalis concern, but when there was an existing building in a neighborhood like this that had been used as a service station, grocery store and radio station felt personally the Commission had to consider the structure itself. MOTION Hanna moved to grant the request for a change in nonconforming use, seconded by Madison and followed by discussion. Seiff asked Mr. Randall if the building were abandoned how would he feel about it. Mr. Randall said he could see the building • • Planning Commission August 1-4c 1987 Page 14 Z y being used as office space, but just did not like the retail aspect in a residential neighborhood with a use that was not even permitted in the City ordinances for R-1 zoning. Madison asked if the women sold the building tomorrow then next week something else goes in. Seiff said he based his second on specifically a yarn shop. Hanna advised he intended his motion to be specifically for the use of a yarn shop only. Farrish said Ms. Laningham was buying the property that was going to be used as a yarn shop and then say she choses, as the owner to change the nature of her business to yarn, fabric and sewing machines. Farrish asked how could something like this be controlled. Seiff said he could understand a yarn shop having some related or similar accesories, but if she had a yarn shop then suddenly she decided to sell auto parts then he would say thats not what he had in mind. Farrish said he had a problem with the use changing from a radio station to a retail establishment. He said a radio station was not a retail established and they did not have the same traffic patterns. Dow said in the letter that Mrs. Sugg submitted with the agenda it said the radio station employed 20-25 people. Mrs. Sugg explained there three shifts for the radio station a day. Mr. Sugg advised this was just a relocation of an existing business that had been doing business as a yarn shop for 26 years. AMENDED MOTION Hanna moved to grant the request for a yarn shop with the stipulation that any change in ownership would need to appeal to the Planning Commission, seconded by Madison and followed by discussion. Madison advised the buyer that if the building burned and 50% of it were destroyed they could not rebuild according to the ordinance. • The question was called and the motion to approve as amended passed 6-1-0, Farrish voting "nay". Planning Commission August -ti, 1987 Page 15 it( WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT) JIM T. HATFIELD - EAST OF GOLDEN EAGLE & NORTH OF SHERWOOD LN. The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (lot split) submitted by Jim Hatfield. Property located east of Golden Eagle Drive and north of Sherwood Lane. Property zoned C-2, Throughfare Commercial and R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Hatfield advised the split would be for a residential lot directly east of the house under contruction now. Carlisle advised Golden Eagle Drive was the street that the City did not accept from J.B. Hays. Hanna asked how would the proposed lot be accessed. Mr. Hatfield explained the access would be from the circular drive & parking lot. Mr. Hatfield advised the lot he was requesting to be split was actually in the R-1 portion of three zones (C-2, R -O & R-1). Hanna asked the size of the lot to be split and Mr. Hatfield replied 125' X 100'. MOTION Hanna moved to grant Farrish. The motion APPROVAL OF MINUTES the lot split as requested, seconded by to approve passed 7-0-0. The minutes of the August distributed. OTHER BUSINESS 10, 1987 meeting were approved as Seiff acknowledged the attendance of Dennis Becker from the Board of Adjustment. There being no p.m. further business the meeting adjourned at 6:35