HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-27 Minutes•
•
}..Vo C . }AMPIts-'i- Z dLIL.c Io s,no,..3
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January 27,
1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki (arrived late), J. E.
Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill, Charles
Nickles and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Cleghorn
Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
Mr. Allred called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Kenneth Pummill, the
newest member to the Planning Commission, and Jack Springborn, a returning member
to the Planning Commission. He further explained there was also another new
member, Tom Suchecki, who had not yet arrived. He also introduced the staff
members.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 1991 and
Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1991 were approved as
distributed.
Mr. Allred explained that, since the Commission had not meet at their regular
meeting on January 13, 1992 due to inclement weather, they would first hear those
items scheduled for the January 13th meeting and then hear the items scheduled
for the January 27th meeting.
REZONING REQUEST R92-1
RICHARD MAYES & E. D. MAYES - 1641 N LEVERETT
The next item on the agenda was a request presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf
of Richard Mayes and E. D. Mayes for property located at 1641 N. Leverett. The
request is to rezone R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the subject property was occupied by Mayes Auto, a non-
conforming use in an R-2 zone. She stated the properties to the west and south
are also zoned R-2, while properties to the east are zoned R-1, R-2 and C-1.
She further noted land uses in the area were residential since the parcel zoned
C-1 had not developed as commercial property.
Ms. Little informed the Commission that the City of Fayetteville was in the
process of acquiring right-of-way for improvements to both Sycamore and Leverett
Streets. She stated Sycamore Street was a scheduled project in 1993. She noted
Leverett Street was also planned but was not a currently scheduled project. Ms.
Little explained that acquisition of right-of-way for Sycamore Street would cause
the demolition of 16.5 feet of the Mayes Auto building on the north. She further
explained that, when the building was constructed, the subject property was zoned
industrial but with the passage of the 1970 zoning ordinance, it became a non-
conforming use. She stated Mayes Auto had operated in the present location for
over 40 years.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 2
Ms. Little stated Mayes Auto was requesting rezoning of the lots at 1639 and 1641
N. Leverett from R-2 to C-2 to allow for replacement construction. She explained
the right-of-way acquisition would result in loss of the use of the present
facility.
Ms. Little explained the rezoning request had come to the Planning Commission as
a direct result of City action to acquire right-of-way to widen Sycamore and
Leverett Streets. She further stated her original recommendation, which
. accompanied their agenda packet, was to deny the rezoning to C-2. She explained
she had done further research in the meantime and found the City had a history
of allowing this type of rezoning so long as the owner entered into a Bill of
Assurance that the rezoning would be limited to the reconstruction of the present
business. She stated her recommendation was to rezone the property to C-2 with
a Bill of Assurance from the Mayes that they would reconstruct their present
business for continuing the same type of occupation and the rezoning would be for
the life of the continuation that business.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained Section 160.141
read as follows: "Any use which is permitted as a conditional use in a district
under the terms of this chapter (other than a change through Planning Commission
action from a nonconforming use to another use not generally permitted in the
district)...11She stated her belief that the Planning Commission did have
authority to authorize the continued non-conformance use.
Mr. Nickle asked what the zoning would revert to should the business fail to
continue operation.
Ms. Little stated it would revert to R-2, the current zoning.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the Mayes would have the option of selling the business and
another business continue on the premises.
Ms. Little stated the Mayes could not sell the business unless it was continued
as the same type of business. She explained the business was currently a non-
conforming use and had been since passage of the 1970 zoning ordinance.
Mr. Dave Jorgensen appeared before the Commission and asked if the business would
be conforming in C-1 zoning.
Ms. Little stated it would not.
Mr. Jorgensen explained that Mr. Mayes had established the subject business when
the surrounding land was agricultural. He stated the business had been in
operation for approximately 40 years. He further stated that, by the City
widening the street and taking 16.5 feet of Mr. Mayes property, Mr. Mayes would
either have to rebuild or go out of business.
Mr. Richard Mayes stated he was hesitate to re -construct the building unless it
was properly zoned. He further stated his other options were to either quit
business or move.
Mr. Gary King appeared before the Commission representing five of his family
members, all property owners immediately to the south of the subject property.
He stated they were not opposed to the rezoning of the garage portion of the
property but were opposed to rezoning the area where a house was located.
Ms. Little explained the house, located at 1639, would have to be removed and the
property rezoned in order for the garage to meet the setbacks.
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 3
Mr. King stated that to rezone the single family house would change the character
of the neighborhood. He further stated he could appreciate the position the city
was in but did not think the solution should involve the remainder of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Jerry Sweetser appeared before the Commission and explained he owned the
property diagonally across the street from the subject property and considerable
property on Leverett. He stated the garage was Mr. Mayes livelihood. He further
stated he was in favor of the rezoning.
Mr. Allred asked if the property were rezoned to C-2 if screening would be
required and a dustless surface for the parking area would be required.
Ms. Little stated both would be required.
Mr. Springborn asked what the setbacks would be for C-2.
Ms. Little explained the property was located on a corner. She further explained
when a corner property was involved the two fronts would be 50 feet and the two
sides would be 15 feet. She explained that R-2 property would require 25 feet
for the two fronts and 8 feet for the two sides. She further pointed out that,
should Mr. Mayes choose to landscape, the front setbacks could be reduced by 50%,
making the setbacks 25 feet.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen explained they would
have to tear down the house in order to meet the setbacks.
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to rezone the property contingent upon the owner signing a Bill
of Assurance that, should the business cease to be an auto shop, the zoning of
the property would revert to R-2.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
Me. Britton expressed her belief it was unfair to Mr. Mayes to encourage him to
expend capital on a piece of property that at some time would revert back to R-2.
Mr. Allred pointed out the Commission could re-evaluate the zoning at that point
in time.
Mr. Springborn stated he saw two problems -- the first was to look out for Mr.
Mayes and see that he could continue his business but it was also the
Commission's obligation to protect the value of the adjoining property owners.
He stated one would have to take precedence over the other.
Ms. Britton stated she would not have an objection if the property were to be
zoned neighborhood commercial but she did not believe the rezoning was in the
best interest of the City.
Mr. Allred pointed out the Commission's options were to either rezone it C-2 or
not allow Mr. Mayes to rebuild.
Mr. Springborn suggested they allow Mr. Mayes to continue doing business under
the non -conforming use.
Mr. Allred stated the ordinance would not allow anyone to add to a non -conforming
use. He also pointed out that, if this business were going to have a negative
impact on the neighborhood, it would have done so during the last 40 years. He
expressed his belief that the business would help the neighborhood.
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page.4
The motion passed 5-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Pummill, Tarvin, and
Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn and Britton voting "no".
Mr. Suchecki joined the meeting.
REZONING REQUEST R92-2
MIKE PRICE - NORTH OF 6TH ST., WEST OF SHILOH DR.
The next item to be heard was a request for rezoning submitted by Mike Price on
behalf of Sam Mathias for property located north of the lot at 2724 West 6th
Street, containing 3.40 acres. The request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density
Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little stated the subject property was occupied by a vacant commercial
building formerly used as an antique market She explained the property was also
located west of Shiloh Drive and fronted on Rutledge Drive. She stated the
subject property was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, with property to the
north zoned A-1, the east zoned R -O and C-2, to the south was A-1 and to the west
was R-1 and A-1. She explained the surrounding land use was residential.
Ms. Little stated the property owners planned to demolish the current structures
which front on Sixth Street and to construct on the entire parcel of 4.5 acres
a facility for storage. She explained that three of the five adjoining
landowners had stated their preference that the property be developed as mini -
storage as opposed to apartment units and had requested by petition that Mr.
Mathias provide a Bill of Assurance that the land would be used to build a mini -
storage facility only.
Ms. Little explained the petitioner had requested the rezoning to achieve
compatible zoning with the remainder of his property and to allow development of
the two parcels as one.
She recommended approval of the rezoning request. She explained that the
proposed project would require Large Scale Development, allowing staff to address
any problems at that time.
Mike Price appeared before the Commission and explained that, while the property
to the north was zoned A-1, it did contain a commercial structure. He also noted
there was commercial property to the south.
Ms. Little stated there were both residential and commercial areas across the
highway from the property.
Mr. Price explained Mr. Mathias had offered a Bill of Assurance that only mini -
storage units would be constructed. He further explained they would provide
screening from the adjoining properties.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated mini -storage units
were found under Use Unit 21 - Warehousing and Wholesale which was permissible
under C-2 with a conditional use. She also stated Use Unit 21 was permitted by
right under I-1 and I-2.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the rezoning to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance that
only mini -storage units would be constructed.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
chi
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 5
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Commissioners tackle, Springborn, Allred, Pummill,
Tarvin, Cato and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no".
REZONING R92-3
RICK OSBORNE - 1220 N. GARLAND AVE.
The next item on the agenda was a request for a rezoning of property located at
1220 N. Garland Avenue (part of the Oak Plaza Shopping Center) presented by Rick
Osborne on behalf of Thomas James. The request is to rezone the property from
C-1, Central Business Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Me. Little explained the parcel under consideration was the building formerly
occupied by the Dillon's Food Store. She stated the property abutted and had 536
feet of frontage along Mt. Comfort Road, a collector street to two streets
designated on the master street plan as major arterials.
Ms. Little further explained the current zoning on the subject parcel was C-1
with zoning to the north being C-2, to the east R -O, to the south C-1, and to the
west C-1 and C-2. She further noted that zoning for the parcel located southwest
of the intersection of Garland and Wedington (Parson's property) was under
appeal, however would probably be either R-1 or C-1 depending on the outcome of
the appeal. She stated the structure on the lot was physically attached to other
commercial property to the north and shared parking with other commercial lots
zoned C-2. She further stated the petitioner had requested rezoning for two
reasons: (1) to accommodate a prospective purchaser, and (2) to achieve zoning
consistent with other similar shopping centers.
Ms. Little recommended the subject property be rezoned C-2. She explained that
c-1 zoning was primarily to serve neighborhood commercial needs, while C-2 zoning
was primarily to serve areas along highways. She noted Mt. Comfort was a
collector street which connected North Street with Garland (Hwy 112).
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Me. Little answered there were two
zones within the same shopping center, with fire walls between the buildings.
Ms. Britton asked what uses were permissible in C-2 that were not permissible in
C-1.
Ms. Little stated the following uses were permissible in C-2: cultural and
recreation facilities, trades and services, commercial recreation, large site
commercial recreation, and, upon appeal to the Planning Commission, a recycling
center.
Mr. Osborne appeared before the Commission and explained that half of the subject
property would be used by the Arkansas Book Store. He stated they did want to
be competitive with other shopping centers in the community as well as the rest
of Oak Plaza Shopping Center.
Mr. Mark Lucas, 1139 Oakland, appeared before the Commission to express his
concern that a bar or club not be put in the building.
Mr. Osborne stated that was not a possibility.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
3
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 6
The motion passed unanimously.
ANNEXATION - 6561 JEANFAY LANE
ANDREW HUCRINS - S OF JEANFAY, W OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD
The next item on the agenda was an annexation submitted by Andrew Huckins for
property located on the south side of Jeanfay Lane, west of Double Springs Road
(6561 Jeanfay Lane).
Alett Little stated that items 5, 6, 7 and 8 were inter -related and suggested
that ,the reports be given on all items before voting. If the lot split request
did not receive an affirmative vote, there would be no reason to rezone or annex
the property. In addition, in the event that the Planning Commission recommended
annexation and the City Board denied the same, there would be no need for the
conditional use or the lot split.
Mr. Allred suggested that they review
starting with the lot split.
Alett Little reiterated that it would be
decision is made.
these agenda items in reverse order,
advisable to hear all reports before any
Ms. Little explained that the area had been developed into duplexes along Jeanfay
Lane and a single family homes. The property is partially within the City limits
and partially within Washington County. Total acreage is approximately 1 acre
with a duplex home on the property. Currently the area is zoned A-1,
Agricultural. Land uses to the north are vacant; to the east single family
duplexes; to the south a church; and to the west single family. The area behind
the duplex which Mr. Huckins wishes to split into a tandem lot is vacant. There
are no dwellings located in the area to the east and to the intersection of
Double Springs Road, nor to the west for several lots. She further explained Mr.
Huckins desired to split the lot and construct a single family home on the tandem
lot which would be created. Ms. Little noted that, with the lot split, the area
of the tandem lot and the area of the lot on which the duplex is located are both
less than the two acre minimum lots required for a septic tank. She stated the
existing duplex was currently served by this tank. Due to the size of the lot,
Mr. Huckins requires sewer service from the City. She further stated that, since
a portion of the lot lies within the jurisdiction of the County, it would require
annexation in order to commit City sewer service. She noted the sewer tap fee
was substantial and would be paid by Mr. Huckins.
Ms. Little continued to explain that the lot split and tandem lot were required
if the owner was allowed to construct a single family home. The annexation and
subsequent rezoning would be required in order for the single family home to
receive City sewer. Ms. Little recommended that the Planning Commission first
address the request for a lot split.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained that, in order
to accomplish the construction of a single family home and the required sewer
system, there would be a subsequent requirement for annexation and rezoning.
Mr. Allred asked if the County's two acre minimum requirement for the sewer was
a part of the health code.
Mr. Bunn responded the City required the acreage. He explained they needed
sufficient land to provide for two systems for backup.
Mr. Tarvin asked for verification that the City was willing to do the off-site
improvement to the sewer.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Bunn responded that the owner would be responsible for extending the sewer
which would involve a manhole and short extension at a cost of approximately
$1,500.
Ms. Britton inquired whether the actual location of the proposed home would be
on City property and whether County property had to be crossed for access.
Ms. Little responded that the lot itself was primarily on County property. She
explained the existing duplex was partially within the City and partially within
the County. She further explained the sighting of the home behind the duplex,
if allowed to stand without annexation, would also be partially within the City
and partially within the County.
Mr. Huckins addressed the Planning Commission stating that he had lived in the
duplex sitting on the front part of the property and simply wished to split the
lot and build a home for his family on the back side. Mr. Huckins explained that
he would be continuing upkeep on the duplex. He further noted the monies saved
by not having to purchase a lot, would be used to make improvements on the duplex
and property. In addition, the duplex would be hooked into the City sewer
service. He stated the 175 foot extension from the existing City sewer would
cost approximately $6,000.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated all adjoining
property owners were notified.
Mr. Allred stated that an order of procedure needed to be
suggested that they consider the conditional use and tandem lot
same was successful, follow with the other requests.
Jackie Freedle, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Planning Commission
and presented a petition from property owners on Jeanfay and adjacent lots to Mr.
Huckins, opposing the multiple dwelling rezoning of the subject property as it
was in direct conflict with the surrounding property.
Neal Florer, a property owner in the area, asked if Mr. Huckins' requests were
granted and he built a house, what street and guttering requirements would be
imposed and who would maintain the house and the street.
City Engineer, Don Bunn, responded that under Mr. Huckins' proposal, no
improvements would be required. He explained that access off the street behind
the duplex would be accomplished as a result of Mr. Huckins' tandem lot
application, which private drive would provide a 25 foot access off Jeanfay back
to the planned home.
Mr. Florer stated the existing gravel drive was an easement by Charles Clevenger
and not a plotted or recorded easement.
Mr. Bunn stated that he was recommending against the tandem lot because it did
not meet ordinance requirements. He explained that an unusual terrain condition
must exist making it the property unsuitable for normal development. He further
noted the tandem lot request was not appropriate in terms of the neighborhood.
established. He
first and, if the
Ms. Little stated that there was a recorded easement on the west side of the
property, having been recorded June 5, 1990.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to deny the request for a lot split and tandem lot,
primarily because there was no unusual terrain to justify the tandem lot.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 8
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION
Ms. Britton made a motion to table agenda items 5, 6 and 8.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE C092-1 - TANDEM LOT
ROBERT NEDRRANZ - NW CORNER OF FRITZ DRIVE & PROSPECT
The next item on the agenda was a conditional use request by Robert Neukranz for
a tandem lot on property located on the northeast corner of Fritz Drive and
Prospect which is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Allred noted the following item on the agenda was also a request by Mr.
Neukranz for 3 lot splits on the subject property.
Don Bunn explained that tracts B, C and D were to be split from the original
tract of 1.57 acres; said lots ranging in size from two-tenths to three -tenths
of an acre, with the remaining tract A containing nine -tenths acre. He explained
Tract A contained an existing house. He further explained that Tracts A, C and
D were legal lots for R-1 rezoning and had proper street frontage; however, Tract
B did not have the 70 foot frontage requirement, therefore a tandem lot was
necessary. Mr. Bunn further explained that water was available to all lots in
question although direct sewer was not available to Lots A and D. He stated
sewer line would have to be extended at Mr. Neukranz's expense.
Mr. Bunn reported that Staff recommended approving the lot splits and the tandem
lot, due to the uphill terrain which was not readily amenable for standard
development of the property as a subdivision. He stated the conditions for this
approval were dedication of an easement for the existing 12 inch sewer line to
the City; extension of necessary sewer line to serve tracts B and C; and payment
of parks fees.
Ms. Britton asked if there was enough side yard between the existing house and
the proposed property line.
Ms. Little responded that
that the width of Lots B,
Norma Gabbard, a resident
understand what was being
there was eleven feet.
C and D is 85 feet.
across from the subject
planned for the lot.
Ms. Little further explained
property, stated she did not
Mr. Bunn explained the only use that Mr. Neukranz would have for the lot would
be to build one single family residence on each lot.
Ms. Gabbard stated that she had no objection to Mr. Neukranz's proposal.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the three lot splits and tandem lot, subject to Staff
requirements already identified.
Mr. Allred suggested that they vote on each item separately to avoid confusion.
In response to a question from Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Bunn explained a tandem lot is
a lot which does not have 70 foot frontage on a public street.
5
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 9
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the tandem lot.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot splits with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE CU92-2 - DUPLEX
DON GINGER - N OF OLD WIRE ROAD, E OF STRAWBERRY DRIVE
The next item was a conditional use application for a duplex submitted by Don
Ginger, on property located on the north side of Old Wire Road, east of
Strawberry Drive, which is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little explained that Mr. Ginger was requesting the conditional use for
construction of one duplex. She further explained that under the zoning
ordinance, a two-family dwelling was permitted in an R-1 district as a condi-
tional use. Ms. Little continued to explain that the subject property fronted
Old Wire Road at a distance of 144.82 feet and extended to the northwest for a
distance of 285 feet on the east lot line and for a distance of 275.8 feet on the
west ,lot line. She noted Old Wire Road curved along the frontage of the subject
lot; Oak Bailey Drive was located within two-tenths of a mile to the east and
Strawberry Drive was located approximately five -hundredths of a mile to the west.
Ms. Little reported that Staff recommends approval of the conditional use to
construct a duplex. The lot is deep and fairly level, allowing for several
sighting options for duplexes; however, the lot does not exceed an acre in size
and would not be subject to large scale development. She stated the additional
concern regarding line of sight along Old Wire Road had the potential to be
addressed under improvements scheduled for Old Wire Road.
Mr. Ginger stated he was available to answer any questions.
Tommi Perkins, an adjoining property owner, objected to the conditional use
application. Ms. Perkins, a real estate broker, stated that placing a duplex in
this location would drastically devalue the property in the area. She also noted
this location had a blind curve with heavy traffic.
Sandra Wommack, an adjoining property owner, stated that she had not been
notified of the meeting. Ms. Wommack further concurred with Ms. Perkins in
opposing construction of a duplex on this property.
Bruce Smith, an adjoining property owner to the north of the subject property,
addressed the Planning Commission, in opposition to the conditional use
application. Mr. Smith requested further information on the type of duplex;
whether the same would be rental property, and the value of the planned duplex.
Mr. Ginger responded that the proposed duplex would be 1,500 square feet on one
side with three bedrooms and two baths and approximately 1,200 square feet on the
other side with three bedrooms and two baths, a two -car garage, with an
approximate value from $120,000 to $130,000.
b
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 10
Ms. $ritton asked if Mr. Ginger could give an example of another duplex that he
had built in Fayetteville.
Mr. Ginger responded that he had no such example, but had recently constructed
a house in Park Place.
Mr. Allred pointed out that there was nothing to bind the Commission's decision
based on Mr. Ginger's information unless he chose to provide a bill of assurances
that the duplex would be built to certain specifications.
Pam Johnson, an adjoining property owner on Strawberry Lane, stated
to the conditional use application as a multiple family dwelling.
her belief that it would reduce the value of her property. In
noted a multiple family dwelling would produce more of a traffic
curve than already existed. Ms. Johnson advised that there was
property located in the area and she was concerned that they too
conditional use applications.
her objection
She expressed
addition, she
hazard on the
other vacant
would request
Mr. Tarvin reported that in his inspection of the area, he saw no other multiple
family dwellings; therefore, the conditional use request did not comply with the
character of the neighborhood and he believed the same would have a detrimental
effect.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to deny the request for the conditional use request.
Me. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE C092-3 - HOME OCCUPATION (BAKERY)
STEVE AUST - 302 ILA STREET
The next item was a conditional use application for a home occupation (bakery)
on property located at 302 Ila Street, zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Ms. Little stated that the dwelling was situated on the corner lot at the
intersection of Ila Street and Shady Avenue. She explained this was a well-
established, well-maintained older section of the City. She stated the
petitioner had applied for a conditional use to permit a home occupation to
prepare baked goods to be sold from his home. She further stated the dwelling
fronted on Ila Street; however, the drive to the garage exited on Shady Avenue,
where parking would be available. She pointed out there were two off-street
parking spaces and 3 alternate on -street parking spaces on Ila Street.
Ms. Little reported that Staff recommended approval of the conditional use to
permit by ordinance, the location of a bakery at 302 Ila Street. She further
read the definition of "home occupation" as "an occupation, profession or
avocation conducted in a dwelling unit on a part-time or full-time basis, for
which financial compensation is received and which generates motor vehicle
traffic to the dwelling unit by patrons or clients of the occupation, profession
or avocation conducted therein. A non -traffic generating occupation, profession
or avocation conducted in a dwelling unit by one or more members of the family
occupying the premises shall be considered a residential use and not a commercial
use. The term home occupation shall include a child care facility handling not
more than six children at one time."
Ms. Little continued to read Section 160.085 of the Zoning Code which sets out
the limitations, regulations and requirements for home occupations in A-1, R-1,
7
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 11
R-2, R-3 or R -O Districts. She noted no exterior alterations of the structure
could be made which were of a non-residential nature. She further noted no
advertising, display, storage or other external evidence of a business was
permitted except that for each dwelling unit with a permitted home occupation,
one unanimated, non -illuminated home occupation sign which identified the home
occupation was permitted if such sign was erected flat against the wall or door
or displayed in a window and did not exceed three square feet in area. She
further stated no such sign was allowed in an R-1 district. She explained no
person could be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on
the premises. She stated no mechanical equipment could be used which created a
disturbance such as noise, dust, odor or electrical disturbance. She further
stated no parking spaces other than normal residential parking spaces were
allowed.
Ms. Little noted home occupations in an R-1 district were subject to further
conditions: (1) "No conditional use permit for a home occupation in an R-1
district shall be issued for a period exceeding one year but such permit may be
for a period shorter than one year. Upon expiration of the conditional use
permit, the Planning Administrator shall have the authority to renew a
conditional use permit for the same period as originally authorized if the
Planning Administrator has received no complaints or opposition from residents
of the neighborhood in which the home occupation is located. The Planning
Administrator may refer the proposed renewal of a conditional use permit to the
Planning Commission for final decision. (2) No home occupation shall be open to
the public earlier than 7:30 a.m. or later than 5:30 p.m., provided the Planning
Commission may vary the restrictions imposed hereby
upon a determination that such a variance will not adversely affect the health,
safety, peace, tranquility, or welfare of the neighborhood in which the home
occupation is located. (3) No home occupation shall be allowed in an R-1 district
if the Planning Commission determines that the home occupation would generate
such excessive traffic as would adversely affect the safety, peace, tranquility
or welfare of the neighborhood."
Steve Aust, petitioner, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated that a
letter he submitted to the Commission set out his intentions. He explained he
fully intended to abide by the ordinance in order not to disrupt the flow and
tranquility of his neighborhood. Mr. Aust stated that, although he had received
some opposition to his application, he had obtained a petition signed by his
neighbors who were not opposed. He presented a map showing the various
neighborhood support and opposition. In addition, Mr. Aust stated that he had
received a letter from the Health Department stating that they were well in
control of pest control in the subject neighborhood.
Mr. Nickle asked how Mr. Aust intended to control odors generated from his
business.
Mr. Aust responded that there was no
business or from his every day baking.
central heat and air in his home so that
way to control odors either from his
Even so, he indicated that he did have
his windows would not normally be open.
In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Aust stated that he would be
marketing his baked products commercially to the public from his home and
offering a delivery service as well as on-site pick-up.
Mr. Nickle asked what the volume of his business would be.
Mr. Aust responded that this would be his only source of income and he would bake
for as many hours a day as was required.
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 12
Joel Hirsch, 622 Wilson, addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the
request. Mr. Hirsch stated that he opposed the use of R-1 zoned property for
retail sales. In addition, he inquired as to the number of conditional use
permits granted in the last couple of years for retail sales in an R-1 zoned area
and stated that to his knowledge there were no such uses in this contiguous R-1
area. Mr. Hirsch further stated that Ila was a very narrow side street with no
curb and gutters and the bakery would create a dangerous condition with the added
retail traffic congestion. He further noted the external changes or
modifications to the structure which were prohibited by the ordinance had already
occurred with the removal of a garage door and placement of windows and a door
as in a commercial establishment. Mr. Hirsch further reported that the Planning
Commission had previously rejected a special use permit two blocks from the
subject location for a psychologist/counsellor.
Ms. Little stated that she was not familiar with the application for the special
use Mr. Hirsch referenced for a psycho -therapy clinic; however, the Planning
Commission approved on January 14, 1991 a conditional use at 306 W. Adams for the
home occupation and operation of a law office for William George Michael.
Rudy Moore, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Planning Commission and stated
he lived in the same block as the proposed bakery and was directly affected by
the use of a retail/commercial establishment within this R-1 zone. Mr. Moore
stated that Mr. Aust should have to go through the same procedures as everyone
else in starting a business, investing in property in a commercial or properly
zoned area. In addition, Mr. Moore questioned the Staff's recommendation for
this special use permit and further questioned whether the building and safety
codes could be met. He noted traffic would be generated not only by customers,
but suppliers and inspectors as well. Mr. Moore questioned whether the proposed
bakery met the test of a home occupation; whether it would truly be a family
operation as well as complying with the restrictions for hours of operation (not
to begin until 7:30 a.m.), which he saw as unlikely in this case. He expressed
his belief that a commercial operation like this would generate not only odor,
but trash and refuge. In closing, Mr. Moore stated that the main issue was one
of compatibility with the neighborhood.
Ms. Little stated that Staff's recommendation was based on the information
supplied by the applicant and according to the regulations, Mr. Aust could be
permitted the home occupation for this particular use, provided he met all
conditions.
Mr. Aust responded by stating that matters of ventilation, etc. were monitored
by the Health Department, who verified that the establishment was conducted in
a safe and healthy manner. He further stated that, with regard to operating
hours, there was nothing that stopped him from getting up at 7:30 a.m. in the
morning and baking and delivering until 7:30 p.m; as long as he didn't conduct
business with the public or suppliers prior to 7:30 a.m. With regard to the
other concerns, Mr. Aust reiterated that he intended to comply with the ordinance
and not disrupt the flow of traffic in the neighborhood. He explained that in
most cases he would be soliciting business from restaurants and delivering his
goods.
Mr. Allred asked how long Mr. Aust anticipated needing a home occupation.
Mr. Aust responded that, although he could not commit to a certain length of
time, his intention was to get out of his home occupation in a year or so. In
response to Mr. Allred's question regarding whether the Planning Commission could
grant the conditional use permit on a 6 month trial, Ms. Little responded that
they had the authority to grant the permit for any length of time. Ms. Little
also verified that, if the bakery did not comply with the ordinance, the Planning
Commission could revoke the same at a later date.
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 13
Dennis Ledbetter, Fire Department, addressed the Planning Commission, and advised
them that anytime a residential home was converted into a business with
commercial equipment, there were certain fire and building code requirements that
must be met.
In response to Mr. Springborn's questions, Mr. Ledbetter responded that if this
residence was to be commercial, it would have to be inspected according to the
fire code and plans should be presented to the Building Office for approval and
issuance of permits to remodel.
Ms. Little stated that this particular case was considered a home occupation and
not commercial; therefore, unless the Planning Commission made this a condition,
this proposed home occupation would not require these inspections. She further
explained the project was not considered a conversion, but a residential property
from which a home occupation would be conducted. She stated that any changes
that Mr. Aust made to the premises were subject to building codes, electrical and
plumbing.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to deny ttie conditional use for a home occupation.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-3 with Commissioners Nickle, Pummill, Tarvin, Cato, and
Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Springborn, and Allred voting
"no".
Commissioner Allred announced that the Planning Commission would take a ten
minute recess.
FINAL PLAT - PINE HAVEN ADDITION
GORDON WILKINS - E OF AZALEA TERRACE, S OF OLD WIRE ROAD
The next item on the Agenda was the final plat of Pine Haven Addition, submitted
by Harry Gray on behalf of Gordon Wilkins, on property located east of Azalea
Terrace and south of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains 1.25 acres with 4 lots.
Mr. Bunn reported that there were no significant comments by the plat review
committee or the subdivision committee. He stated staff recommended approval of
the final plat for the Pine Haven Addition, subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; the execution of a contract with the City for the
installation of public improvements; and the payment of parks fees as required
by City ordinance.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - TRESSLER PARK (MALL)
AARON MILLS - N SIDE OF JOYCE BLVD, E OF HWY 71
The next item was a large scale development, Tressler Park Mall, submitted by
Aaron Mills, for property located on the north side of Joyce Boulevard and east
of Highway 71. The subject property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 14
Mr. Bunn explained this was a large scale development submitted by Tressler
Development Corporation. He stated the development consisted of a shopping
center on 11.7 acres, located north of Joyce Boulevard, between Old Missouri Road
and North College. Mr. Bunn reported discussion at the plat review meeting
consisted of details for utility services and easement requests.
Mr. Bunn further reported that staff did not have any significant comments on the
development. He explained there would be water extended east from Joyce
Boulevard. He further noted there had been discussion regarding parking being
in excess of that was required by ordinance and staff had requested that the
number of spaces for the first phase be reduced. He further stated staff
suggested landscaping for the parking lot and along Joyce Boulevard although
landscaping could not be required at this point.
Mr. Bunn stated that staff recommended approval of the large scale development
for Tressler Park Mall, subject to plat review and subdivision committee
comments; the granting of all necessary easements by separate instrument;
subsequent approval of water, sewer and drainage plans; and approval of a
preliminary grading plan.
In response to Mr. Allred's question, Mr. Nickle responded that the subdivision
committee met on this matter and Mr. Bunn had addressed their concerns regarding
parking and landscaping.
Fred Derwin, architect for the Tressler Park project, addressed the Planning
Commission, stating that he concurred with all comments made by Mr. Bunn and Mr.
Nickle.
Ms. Britton inquired about the fence to each side of the entryway of Tressler
Park; to which Mr. Derwin responded that the fence was simply decorative and
fit the character of the building. He noted the fence was to be small and open
in order not to block vision.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development of Tressler Park Mall
subject to staff comments.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WATSON'S GROCERY
JIM WATSON - S OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD, INTERSECTION OF HUNTSVILLE
AND CROSSOVER ROAD
The next item was a large scale development, Watson's Grocery, submitted by Tom
Hopper on behalf of Jim Watson, for property located south of Huntsville Road at
the intersection of Huntsville and Crossover. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained that this large scale development consisted of a grocery store
and laundromat as well as rental space to be developed at a later date. He
further stated there were no significant issues raised at either the plat review
or subdivision committee meetings. He noted staff discussed parking space
requirements, set -back and screening requirements. He informed the Commission
the traffic light for Highways 16 and 265 was scheduled to be installed in 1992.
He also noted location with regard to the flood plain was discussed as well as
the need for a grading plan for the subject site.
9
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page •15
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale
approved, subject to plat review and
preliminary grading plan; and approval of
site.
development for Watson's Grocery be
subdivision comments; approval of a
water, sewer and drainage plans for the
Tom Hopper stated he was present to answer any questions.
Ms. Britton stated that, in view of the planned Highway 265 widening project, it
did not appear that the center line and the entryway lined up with Highway 265.
She asked if there were plans for a left turn lane.
Mr. Hopper responded they were coordinating the traffic light and entrance with
the Highway Department and the highway permits had been submitted for approval.
He stated that R. C. Walker with the permit department had reviewed the plan and
had not issued any negative comments He further stated there were plans for a
left turn lane at the intersection.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the large scale development for Watson's Grocery,
subject to staff comments.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion:
The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT - #1
PHILLIP EZELL - 3351 WEDINGTON DRIVE
The next item on the agenda was a lot split submitted by Jeff Caudle on behalf
of Phillip Ezell for property located at 3351 Wedington Drive. The property is
zoned R -O, Residential Office.
Mr. Bunn explained that the proposal was to split an existing 3.57 acre tract
into 'two tracts, one containing 1.15 acres and the remaining tract containing
2.42 acres. He stated utilities were available to each tract and both had access
to Highway 16. Mr. Bunn further reported that staff recommended approval of the
split.
Mr. Caudle appeared on behalf of Phillip Ezell to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot split.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
MARJORIE NIBLOCK - SW CORNER OF APPLEBY RD, N COLLEGE AVE
The next item on the agenda was a lot split submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf
of Marjorie Niblock for property located on the southwest corner of Appleby Road
and North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained the application is for a first split of property located at
the southwest corner of Appleby Road and North College Avenue. He stated the
property contained 7.24 acres with a proposed split of 2.49 acres. He explained
I0
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 16
the purpose of the split was to allow sale of the property to the Aldi
Corporation for a discount grocery store.
Mr Bunn recommended the lot split be approved, subject to the dedication of an
additional five feet of street right-of-way along Appleby Road and subject to
final approval of the Aldi large scale development.
Mr. Nickle asked whether the property immediately south of the subject property
was part of the property to be split.
Mr. Dick Rogers appeared on behalf of Mel Milholland and responded that the
property immediately south was Hermans and was not included in the lot split.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the lot split, subject to staff comments.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT - #1
BILL CLEVELAND - SW CORNER OF APPLEBURY & HOPE
The next item on the agenda was a lot split submitted by Bill Cleveland for
property located on the southwest corner of Applebury and Hope. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained that the original tract on this split was Lot 14 of Block 6,
Jackson's First Addition and contained approximately two-thirds of an acre. He
explained the proposal was to divide the lot into two tracts of one-third acre
each. He noted there was an existing house on proposed parcel No. 1. He
explained the proposed one-third acreage per lot was somewhat smaller than the
lots in the immediate vicinity, said lots varying from four -tenths of an acre to
nearly one acre. He stated there was water available to each of the proposed
lots and sewer was located on the south side of the subject property. Mr. Bunn
explained the exact location of the sewer service line had not been identified
but in order to accommodate sewer service for the existing house, there would be
an easement required off parcel No. 2 and may need to be relocated to allow for
a house on that parcel.
Mr Bonn recommended the lot split be approved, subject to an easement being
granted to the sewer service line and payment of a parks fee.
Mr. Suchecki asked about the ditch/creek running south of the vacant lot proposed
to be split, and whether an easement would be required in order to put a house
that close to the ditch.
Mr. Bunn responded that they were required
property was not in a flood plain. He
practical limitation. He explained there
ditch nor did they propose to take one.
to be out of the floodway, but this
further stated it was a matter of
was no drainage easement along this
Ms. Britton stated that when she examined the property, the corner flag seemed
to be on the other side of the drainage channel. She stated she did not see how
they could fit a structure in the remaining space.
Ms. Carolyn Schluster explained they had planned on a deck going across the
drainage channel. She noted their proposed structure would conform with all city
setback regulations.
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 17
Mr. Cato inquired as to the respective covenants regarding lot splits.
Mr. Bunn responded that this was an old subdivision and he was not aware of any
restrictive covenants. He noted there was a place on the application to indicate
information regarding restrictive covenants in relation to lot splits. He noted
there were no restrictive covenants indicated on this application.
Ms. Britton asked if neighbors were notified of this proposed lot split.
Mr. Bunn responded that there were no notification requirements for lot splits.
He explained there had been some discussion about this type of notification prior
to a change in administration.
Mr. Nickle stated that the Planning Commission had discussed implementing lot
split notification over a year ago and at that time it had been the desire of the
Board that all adjacent, adjoining property owners be notified prior to lot
splits.
Ms. Little stated that the adjoining property owners were notified in this case.
She explained she would need to check the sign log in the office to see if a sign
was posted.
Ms. Britton expressed her concerned about the policy, stating that adjoining
property owners have a right to be notified.
Ms. Schluster stated she had personally notified the neighbors.
Ms. Britton stated that, from her viewpoint, there was not sufficient space to
place a house on the split property to be compatible in size, value, etc., to any
of the homes in this area.
Mr. Suchecki stated that to split this lot would make it out of conjunction with
everything else in this area, i.e. nice, well -kept, older homes with large yards.
Mr. Springborn stated that he envisioned problems with the terrain features
relative to this type of split.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to deny the lot split application.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Allred reported that "Other Business" consisted of the January 27th agenda.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ALDI GROCERY STORE
ALDI INC. - SW CORNER OF APPLEBY & N COLLEGE AVE
The first item addressed was a large scale development for an Aldi Grocery Store,
submitted by Martin Florie, Director of Real Estate for Aldi, Inc. for property
located on the southwest corner of Appleby and North College Avenue. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 2.49 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained that this property is the same as approved for a lot split on
the previous agenda. He stated there were no significant comments at the plat
review from any of the utility companies and that all easements appeared to be
satisfactory. He further noted all utilities were available on the site with the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 18
exception of sewer. He explained the sewer lines would have to be extended to
the site from the north but easements were available for the extension. He
further explained Aldi's would be responsible for the widening of Appleby Road
on their side to allow for the full 31 foot width. He noted that a condition of
the previous lot split approval was subject to an additional 5 feet of right-of-
way required on the south side. Mr. Bunn stated staff had suggested that
landscaping be provided. He further stated a preliminary grading plan had been
submitted and approved.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the large scale development be approved, subject to
plat review and subdivision committee comments; extension of sewer to serve the
site; widening of Appleby Road on the south side to allow for full street width
of 31 feet; approval of a final grading plan; granting of all utility and roadway
easements by separate instruments.
Mr. Tarvin reported that the plat review committee reviewed several issues in
regard to this development and there were none left unresolved. He stated the
committee recommended approval of this large scale development.
Mr. Florie, Director of Real Estate for Aldi, Inc. was present to answer any
questions.
Mr. Ledbetter inquired whether this building would be sprinkled and whether there
were plans for additions in the future. He further stated the Fire Chief wanted
to be on record that the building was only 40 square feet under the sprinkler
system requirement.
Ms. Little stated that the building was just under the minimum of 15,000 square
feet and sprinkling was not required. She noted that, since this area was in a
Number 1 fire zone, should there be additions made to the building making it
larger, it will need to be sprinkled according to Mr. Ledbetter.
Mr. Florie noted the square footage of the building was 14,860 square feet, the
same size as all of the Aldi stores. He explained the building had not been
designed to evade the sprinkler system requirement.
Mr. Allred asked if an extension was built on the store, whether they would then
require that the entire building be sprinkled.
Mr. Ledbetter explained the entire building would have to be sprinkled once it
reached 15,000.
Me. Little pointed out it would be easier to sprinkle the building now rather
than to go back at a later time. She noted the ordinance required sprinkling at
15,000 square feet, and the building was approaching that limitation. She
further noted the developer did have the option to include sprinkling. She
explained that, should Aldi's build an addition and the square footage exceeded
15,000, they would be required to sprinkle the entire building.
Ms. Britton stated that, according to the plans, the sloped grassed areas would
be left exposed for as long as 150 days. She questioned whether some sort of
quick cover could be used. She also asked whether there was a drainage plan for
this area. She explained the return of vegetation to such a large area would
also help to control the dust the fill site will produce.
Mr. Rogers explained there were subsequent plans proposing a large scale
development on the adjoining property to be presented in the near future that
would address the fill being removed.
Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Bunn for verification that the grading excavation ordinance
required temporary control for erosion and further suggested that such temporary
control for erosion could be included in final grading plan.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 19
Ms. Britton stated the last time she spoke with Perry Franklin, he indicated that
there was a stoplight proposed at the intersection of Highway 71 and Appleby.
She explained the intersection was already high volume.
Ms. Little explained the next proposed traffic signal was to be located at
Highways 265 and 16 in mid summer; therefore, it would be at least a year before
a signal would be installed at this location.
Mr. Bunn reported that Terry Franklin had stated that there would be problems at
the subject intersection and they would need to have a permit issued by the
Highway Department. He explained a traffic signal could not be installed at that
location until the Highway Department granted approval of the same. Mr. Bunn
further explained that the Highway Department would not issue a permit for future
traffic projections.
Mr. Nickle asked if the Commission could require the developer to make a left
turn lane from Appleby onto College.
Mr. Bunn responded that this has been suggested.
Mr. Springborn made the observation this was the first time in four years that
he has seen a representative from the Fire Department present at their meetings.
He expressed hope that close attention was paid to the representative's
observations.
Mr. Bunn explained the Fire Department had a representative at every plat review
meeting and they commented on every plat.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Springborn, Allred, Pummill,
Tarvin, Cato, and Suchecki voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no".
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAYETTEVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST
JAMES KEY - E SIDE OF DEAN SOLOMON ROAD, S OF MOORE LANE
The next item was a large scale development for Fayetteville Church of Christ,
submitted by James Key, for property located on the east side of Deane Solomon
Road, South of Moore Lane. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential
and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.5 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained this large scale development was for a planned church
building. He stated there had been no significant comments by the utility
companies present at the plat review meeting; the water service initially would
be on Shiloh Road. He explained staff was requesting that an additional 5 feet
of right-of-way be granted for roadway purposes off the east side in order to
make a 25 foot roadway easement. He noted the planned 36 inch line may be
constructed along Dean Solomon Road and staff was requesting a 30 foot easement
to accommodate that line.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved, subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; the granting of the required roadway
easement and water line easement by separate instrument.
Mr. Osborne reported that all the easements have been noted on the plans and,
would be filed as separate documents.
13
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page •20
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - REGENCY 7 MOTEL
TERRY DILL - W SIDE OF SHILOH DRIVE, N OF OLD FARMINGTON ROAD
The next item was a large scale development for Regency 7 Motel, submitted by
Leonard Gabbard for Terry Dill, for property located on the west side of Shiloh
Drive, north of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and contains 1.15 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development was for Regency 7 Motel,
consisting of 32 units on 1.15 acres submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf
of the owner, Terry Dill. He stated there were no significant comments at the
plat review or subdivision committee meetings. He noted staff was requesting
that sufficient right-of-way for Old Farmington Road be granted on the south side
of the property for the utilities and a requirement for fire hydrants to be
located along Shiloh Drive near the north end of the development. He further
noted Shiloh Drive was maintained by the State.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved, subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; dedication of the existing right-of-
way; and approval of a drainage plan for the site.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
CONCEPT PLAT - FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION
MARK FOSTER & RALPH BROPHY - N OF RIDGELY DR, W OF CROSSOVER RD
The next item on the agenda was presentation of a concept plat for the
Foster/Brophy Subdivision, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster
and Ralph Brophy, for property located north of Ridgely Drive and west of
Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
40 acres with 61 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained this was a revision of a concept plat submitted to the
Planning Commission at their December 9, 1991 meeting. He stated the revised
development consists of 62 lots on 40 acres, which was a reduction of 6 lots from
the original number.
Mr. Bunn reported that, since the original concept plat was submitted, there had
been three preliminary plats submitted which appear on this agenda for Phases VI,
VII and VIII of Park Place Addition. He noted Phase VI of Park Place Addition
is located immediately north of the subject property. He explained that, with
the completion of Phases VI and VII, the Foster/Brophy concept plat area would
have an eventual ingress and egress to Highway 265, which was different from the
original concept plat submittal. Mr. Bunn further reported that the major
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 21
concern expressed at the plat review meeting, in connection with the original
concept plat, was whether there would be a through street planned to the east,
between Lots 1 and 24 in Phase III, to allow for access to a future development,
as well as allowing subsequent access to Highway 265. Mr. Bunn stated that they
were still recommending that the right-of-way be required at this location
because of uncertainty as to final development of the Park Place plats.
Mr. Nickle asked in which Phase the east access would be located.
Dave Jorgensen, representative for the Foster/Brophy Subdivision, addressed the
Planning Commission stating that as a result of the last Planning Commission
meeting, they were resubmitting the concept plat. He explained the east access
into Rob Lewis' property would be in Phase III. He stated he had put the 50 foot
access between Lots 12 and 13, although it was not the ideal alignment for a
street. He explained it could be realigned in a more direct east/west route and
still have access to the property. He also noted there was access to the
property through Phase VIII of Park Place.
Mr. Jorgensen continued to explain the history of this project with a grid system
of 111 lots measuring 85'x120'. He explained the plat submitted at the last
Planning Commission meeting had contained 68 lots which caused concern with
regard to size of lots, access in and out of the project, and drainage. Mr.
Jorgensen reported he had since addressed all concerns at a meeting with
adjacent property owners.
He explained the individual concerns of the adjacent property owners had been
addressed as follows: 1) Size of Lots - size was reduced to 58 lots. 2) Ridgely
Drive Intersection - although not the best situation, it was the best access to
Ridgely at this particular point. He noted plans to tie into Phase VI of Park
Place would solve the ingress and egress issues. 3) Drainage - preparation of
an overall drainage plan for the subject 40 acres as well as Park Place. He
explained the preliminary drainage study identified several locations with
drainage problems and control of this drainage was planned through run-off in a
southerly direction. He stated that approximately 11 acres would drain in a
southeast direction down to the proposed intersection. He further stated they
would install adequate underground drainage pipe to handle the water along the
east side of Ridgely, remove and replace drainage pipe across to Manor Drive,
improve the ditch that ran along the east side of the private drive south of
Manor Drive, and addition of drainage soil along the south portion of the project
to eliminate drainage onto Dr. Harder's property. He noted another drainage
path occurred in a northeasterly direction for which drainage facilities would
be needed to reroute the flow along property lines and eventually into Park
Place.
Mr. Jorgensen stated the project would require a drainage study to be performed
for both Foster/Brophy and Park Place.
At Mr. Nickle's request, Mr. Jorgensen produced a map showing the different
drainage areas in the vicinity of the subject subdivisions.
Mr. Nickle asked if the adjoining property owners had been advised of the revised
concept plan.
Mr. Jorgensen responded that drainage was one of the biggest concerns of the
adjoining property owners and a drainage plan had been presented at the property
owners' meeting. Mr. Jorgensen continued to explain that the preliminary
drainage study was an attempt to determine, not only the basic drainage areas,
but also the flow before construction and the approximate flow following
construction.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page.22
Mr. Springborn inquired as to the drainage situation west of the tract.
Mr. Jorgensen responded that on the west side, drainage comes off of Shadow
Ridge. He explained that, according to the contour maps, the drainage pipe
across Manor Drive drained 11 acres and the remainder drained from Ridgely.
Mr. Springborn further asked what size of conduit would be needed to handle the
drainage.
Mr. Jorgensen explained that it was possible that on the east side of Ridgely a
42 inch pipe would be needed, running across Manor Drive. He stated the existing
pipe running across Manor Drive would barely handle the existing need, over-
flowing periodically. He explained the residents at the intersection of Ridgely
and Manor were periodically flooded with the existing drainage structure and it
would require replacement.
Ron Skeith, a resident of Manor Drive, stated he was a registered professional
engineer. He expressed his concerns regarding drainage in the Foster/Brophy
Subdivision. Mr. Skeith stated that neighbors in the area had attempted to solve
the existing drainage problem and the 20% increase in drainage proposed by the
subject project would cause serious problems. He explained he did not believe
the proposed culvert would solve the drainage problem.
Ms. Britton asked if they could not require a detention pond to be placed on the
property if Mr. Skeith's calculations were correct.
Mr. Bunn stated the Planning Commission could require a detention pond.
Mr. Tarvin referred to the ten year frequency in storms and asked Mr. Skeith to
what frequency he was referring.
Mr. Skeith responded that his statement that a 20% increase would force the water
into his home was based on his observations from living there for the last 23
years, and the flooding occurred at least once a year.
Mr. Tarvin further asked Mr. Skeith, as an engineer, if he had a particular
solution to the drainage problem.
Mr. Skeith responded his solution would be to not put any more water on his
property.
Ms. Maryann Bassett, a resident of the area, addressed the Planning Commission
stating that in her 27 years of experience, every time someone built above them,
they got more water from every side. In addition, she expressed her concern
with the increased traffic a subdivision would cause. She expressed her belief
that, while landowners should be able to develop land, it should not be at the
risk of the safety, liveability, and comfort of the existing residents.
Bill Bassett, 2210 Manor Drive, addressed the Planning Commission stating they
had hoped that when the time came for this area to be developed, that it would
be developed in such a way and manner that the lots would be large allowing for
less destruction of trees and shrubs which hold water. He stated the drainage
in the area was a serious and critical problem and believed the developers,
engineers, architects, etc. on the project should be required to satisfy the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors that the drainage problems would
be addressed and solved. He explained density or the lack of density in the
subject subdivision would cure the drainage problem and the safety problem. He
stated the rights of the landowners to develop their property to its highest and
best use were tempered against the rights of adjacent and nearby property owners.
In conclusion, Mr. Bassett requested that the Planning Commission review this
project in such a manner so as to place appropriate and reasonable restrictions
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 23
upon the developers and to make this subdivision somewhat compatible to the
existing homes.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn responded that staff had not
conducted a drainage study. He explained the developers would do the study and
present the same for approval. He stated the drainage study was simply a concept
on how the drainage could be handled. He further stated the Planning Commission
could impose restrictions for off-site improvements necessary to handle drainage.
Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Bunn saw a possibility that the drainage problem could
not be solved.
Mr. Bunn explained they could always build a ditch or lay a pipe large enough to
handle the drainage but at some point it became cost restrictive. He stated
that generally it was impossible to design a system that would handle all of the
water, all of the time; the systems are designed on a given frequency. He
explained that the ordinance did set out the frequency storm that was required
to be handled.
Mr. Tarvin stated that he would like to know what the ordinance required in the
design criteria as far as storm frequency.
Mr. Pummill asked what recourse the existing property owners had if the design
was taken into consideration by the City, accepted and then did not work.
Mr. Bunn explained their recourse would be through the courts against the
developers and engineers. Mr. Bunn further stated that as long as the ordinances
were met as far as frequency of storms designed for and the developer/engineer
followed the ordinances, he did not know exactly what the City's liability would
be.
Mr. Jorgensen explained that, should the storm drainage system not work, the City
had the right to ask the developer and engineer to correct the problem. He
further stated the developer could offer a bill of assurance that he would have
to solve the problem if the system did not work. He further stated it was his
job and responsibility to solve drainage problems and he believed he could solve
this one. He pointed out the preliminary drainage plan addressed in general
methods of handling drainage problems. He explained if the drainage plan was
approved, the actual design phase would address solving the drainage problems.
Mr. Jorgensen continued to explain that, in Mr. Foster's other project, the
drainage facilities were not installed as they should have been and he had been
attempting to solve those problems.
Steve Noland, 2451 Manor Drive, addressed the Planning Commission regarding his
concerns on density, traffic and water problems associated with the subject
project, and requested that the developers and consultants address the problems.
David Horner, 2400 Manor Drive, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the
drainage. problem.
Don Stanton, 2532 Ridgely, stated 61 lots with two -car garages would produce 250
cars at the corner of Ridgely and Crossover.
•
Bruce Armstrong stated that the property on the east and south sides of the
development averaged approximately 3-3/4 acres per home. He stated the smaller
lots would not fit in with the area. He further stated he would like 2 to 3 acre
lots with less homes, less traffic and diminished drainage problems.
Bob Zierak, a resident of Shadow Ridge, addressed the Planning Commission stating
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 24
that the people in the neighborhood in question would be getting all the water
that came off of his property. In addition, he stated that the one issue that
had not been addressed was the loss of green space and wildlife in the area.
Paul Noland, 2190 Manor, stated that if a bill of assurance was required for
drainage and traffic, that before Phase II of the project commenced, a second
access could also be required through the bill of assurance.
Mr. Allred questioned how either approval or disapproval of the concept plat
would relate to the preliminary plat for Phase I.
Mr. Bunn explained the concept plat did not require a vote.
Mr. Allred stated that the Planning Commission would not take any action at this
time on the concept plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION, PHASE I
MARK FOSTER & RALPH BROPHY - N OF RIDGELY DR., W OF CROSSOVER ROAD
The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for the Foster/Brophy
Subdivision, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster and Ralph
Brophy, for property located north of Ridgely Drive and west of Crossover Road.
The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 14.20 acres with
20 lots.
Mr. Allred stated that the Commission needed to consider all concerns previously
voiced on the concept plat when discussing the preliminary plat.
Mr. Sickle stated that he believed the drainage concerns were valid and suggested
that it was the Planning Commission's duty to require the developer to solve the
drainage problems on-site and make any off-site improvements required in order
to prevent adverse affects on downstream landowners. He explained it fell under
the auspices of the City Engineer to approve a drainage plan. He explained he
would need Staff recommendation that there was a way to handle the drainage. He
further stated the proposed drainage plan was not the answer if it increased off-
site drainage.
Mr. Allred suggested they could approve the preliminary plat subject to an
acceptable drainage plan being resubmitted at a public hearing.
Me. Britton explained the technical level of the drainage plan was over their
heads and they would need staff expertise.
Mr. Suchecki stated he had seen systems designed by engineers using accurate and
precise definitions and laws that did not work. He further stated that he tended
to lend a lot of credence with the residents.
Mr. Tarvin stated that he would prefer to see the presentation of a drainage plan
prior to approving the preliminary plan. He also expressed his view that the
traffic concentration and access needed to be further addressed.
Ms. Britton asked whether the developer would be required to develop the
intersection at Ridgely and the entry into the new development totally with curb
and gutters.
Mr. Bunn explained the street going into the subdivision from Ridgely would be
a 31 foot street with curb and gutter and curbs would probably be added on the
northeast corner and west side.
16
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 25
Ms. Britton stated that she would like to see the developer be required to
improve the total intersection which would divert drainage at the southeast
corner.
Mr. Tarvin asked how the lot sizes compared with the lot sizes on Manor Drive.
Ms. Basset explained they were smaller.
Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Allred if it would be in order to table this matter until
a drainage plan was submitted to the City Engineer for inspection and approval.
Mr. Allred stated it would.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to table the preliminary plat for the Foster/Brophy Subdivision
pending the consultant's submittal of a drainage plan in sufficient detail to be
approved by the City Engineer.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARR PLACE PHASE VI
JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF VICTORIA LN
The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VI,
submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located west
of Crossover Road and south of Victoria Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains 11.26 acres with 25 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained that, while the subject subdivision was located immediately
south of Phase V of Park Place, it did not connect to the original Park Place
Subdivision. He further explained Phase VI was tied to Phases VII and VIII and
would have a connection to Highway 265 with an eventual connection south to the
Foster/Brophy Subdivision.
Mr. Bunn reported that there were no significant issues raised at the plat review
meeting and the main issue raised at the subdivision committee meeting was that
of drainage in the area. He stated it had been suggested by the committee that
a master drainage plan be prepared and submitted which would encompass all three
submitted phases of Park Place and would include any impact from development to
the south.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review
and subdivision committee comments; the submittal of a master drainage plan of
the Park Place area including Phases VI, VII and VIII; submittal and approval of
detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; payment of required parks
fees; and accordance with City ordinances for the construction of sidewalks.
Me. Britton pointed out that Londonberry Drive was too straight and would
encourage people to exceed the speed limit regardless of the posted speed.
Mr. Jorgensen responded that could be accommodated in Phase VIII as the alignment
in Phase VIII did not line up exactly with Phase VI. He also suggested there
could possibly be additional offsets.
Mr. Bunn reported that the Planning Commission, upon appeal of the residents of
Park Place, had approximately a year and a half ago decided against making a
connection between the existing Park Place and the new phases of Park Place. He
Ib
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 26
explained the access easement had been left only for the purpose of emergency
vehicles.
Ms. Britton asked if Phase VI access would be constructed before Phase VIII; to
which Mr. Jorgensen responded that Phase VIII would have to be constructed first.
Mr. Jorgensen verified that development to the south of Phase VIII is the reason
for providing access through Phase VIII.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VI, subject
to staff and committee comments; submission of a master drainage plan and off-
sets in the street.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARR PLACE PHASE VII
JIM LINDSEY - B OF CAMBRIDGE RD, W OF CROSSOVER RD
The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VII,
submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located east
of Cambridge Road and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains 6.31 acres with 12 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained this subdivision was located immediately east of the existing
Park Place addition and north of Phase VIII of Park Place. He recommended the
preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee
comments; the submittal of a master drainage plan of the Park Place area
including Phases VI, VII and VIII; submittal and approval of detailed plans for
water, sewer, streets and drainage; payment of required parks fees; and
accordance with City ordinances for the construction of sidewalks.
Mr. Bunn explained that the Parks Board decided whether a donation of land is
appropriate in any given subdivision, or whether payment of parks fees should be
made.
Ms. Britton stated that if Phase VII of the development was approved, it could
not be developed prior to its access.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VII,
subject to staff recommendations.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARE PLACE PHASE VIII
JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF MISSION BLVD
The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VIII,
submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located west
of Crossover Road and south of Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains 20.05 acres with 32 lots.
1`1
•
•
Planning Commission
January 27, 1992
Page 27
Mr. Bunn
Phase VI
together
a waiver
VIII.
explained that Phase VIII was adjacent to Highway 265 and tied with
to the west and Phase VII to the north. He further explained Phase VII
with Phase VIII makes a total cul -da -sac of more than 500 feet requiring
of the minimum distance for cul -da -sac, to be approved along with Phase
Mr. Bunn reported considerable discussion from the utility companies on this
particular plat and noted easements had been changed at the request of the
utility companies. He reminded the Commission this phase had been before the
Planning Commission over a year ago and was approved; but due to the passage of
a year without any action, the phase was required to come back before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Bunn further reported that Staff requested that the
roadway easement adjacent to Highway 265 be increased to fifty feet on the
developer's side due to the plan for widening Highway 265 to four lanes at some
point in the future. He informed the Commission that, according to the City
Master Street Plan, this was an arterial street and up to 100 feet of easement
was required. He also noted staff was requesting that sidewalks be installed
leaving a green space between the sidewalks and curbs.
Mr. Bunn stated that Staff recommended that the preliminary plat be approved
subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; the submittal of a
master drainage plan of the Park Place area including Phases VI, VII and VIII;
submittal and approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage;
payment of required parks fees; and accordance with City ordinances for the
construction of sidewalks.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that he concurred with the requirements.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat for Park Place Phase VIII,
subject to plat review, subdivision and staff recommendations and comments.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
Ms. Britton stated that, since Londonberry Drive was a straight shot, it should
be curved and have the east section of Londonberry come in at a right angle to
the new street alignment; otherwise, it would be another Township.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that was a good idea; however he had not had a chance to
discuss it with Mr. Lindsey.
Mr. Springborn stated that he was satisfied leaving it to Mr. Jorgensen's best
effort; to which Ms. Britton responded that he would then have to change it.
Mr. Allred stated that it will then take an amendment to their motion to change
it.
MOTION
Ms. Britton made a motion to amend the current motion that the preliminary plat
be contingent upon the alignment of the road being changed so it would not be a
direct site line.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion to amend passed unanimously.
Mr. Allred then called for a vote on the motion to
including the waiver of the cul -da -sac link, even
approve the preliminary plat,
though it might be changed.
ADAM STREET TOWNHOUSES - GLENN SOWDER (LSD) 125
ADAMS, CATHY (LS #1) 43
ADDITION TO GARLAND GARDENS - JOE FRED STARR (LSD) 85
ALDI GROCERY STORE - ALDI INC. (LSD) 12
ALEXANDER, RICHARD (CU92-9) 42
ALLRED COMMENDATION 23
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 98 OF CITY CODE 247
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 247
APP. OF AMENDMENT TO COVENANTS FOR SEQUOYAH S. SUBDIVISION 264
ARCHER, JULIAN (V92-1) 240
ASPEN HEIGHTS - MB3 PROPERTIES (PP) 132
AUST, STEVE (CU92-3) 7
BALL, E. J. (R92-21) 178
BAYLEY TOWNHOUSES - KIRBY ESTES (LSD) 96
BENEVOLENT BUILDING CORP. (R92-31) 207
BERRYMAN, JAY (CU92-26 & LSD) 229
BERRYMAN, JAY (CU92-26 & LSD) 241
BILLY BROWN ESTATES (R92-14, R92-15 & LS #1, 2 & 3) 73
BISHOP, WADE (CU92-23) 186
BMP DEVELOPMENT (R92-41) 250
BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS 228
BREW PUB - C. THOMAS PEARSON JR. (CU) 149
BULLARD, MARILYN (CU92-7) 22
BUTTERFIELD MEADOWS - BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP) 135
BUTTERFIELD MEADOWS ADDITION - HARRY GRAY (PP) 31
CAMPBELL SOUP CO. (V92-3) 263
CARNES, RALPH (R92-35) 225
CHRIST ON CAMPUS (CU92-17) 167
CLEVELAND, BILL (LS #1) 11
CLEVENGER, CLIFFORD & MARY (R92-28) 147
COMMISSIONER WORKSHOP 34
CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAYS 24
COWBOY STEAKHOUSE - MIKE COLLINS (LSD) 159
CRAFTON PLACE - JIM LINDSEY (LSD) 97
CROSS STREET SERVICES - CHUCK WEBB (LSD) 190
CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PHASE II - DICK & BILL KEATING (PP) 184
CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PHASE III - BILL & DICK KEATING (PP) 211
CROSSOVER HEIGHTS - BILL & DICK KEATING (FP) 99
CURTIS, MICHAEL (V92-2) 262
CURTIS, NELSON & GLENN OLDHAM (R92-23 & R92-24) 121
CURTIS, NELSON & GLENN OLDHAM (R92-23 & R92-24) 141
CURTIS, NELSON & GLENN OLDHAM (R92-24) 157
•
CURTIS, NELSON & GLENN OLDHAM (LS #1, 2 & 3)
CURTIS, NELSON & GLENN OLDHAM (LS #1, 2, & 3)
DICKEY, VONELL (R92-34)
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
158
121
224
194
ELSASS, KIRK (CU92-22) 181
EMERALD SUBDIVISIONS - J. B. HAYS (FP) 171
ENGINEERING RESOURCES, INC. - ENGINEERING RESOURCES (LSD) 226
ENNIS, BOBBY LEE (LS #1 & 2) 189
EZELL, PHILLIP (LS #1) 10
FAUCETTE, GEORGE ( CU92-10) 50
FAYETTEVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST - JAMES KEY (LSD) 13
FIRMIN, JACK JR. (LS #1 & 2) 88
FLEA MARKET ORDINANCE 164
FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION, PHASE I (PP) 15
FOSTER/BROPHY SUBDIVISION - MARK FOSTER & RALPH BROPHY (CP) 14
FOXRUN ADDITION REPLAT - DAVE JORGENSEN (FP) 41
GARAGE SALE REGULATIONS 24
GARAGE SALE ORDINANCE 100
GARRIOTT, WILLIAM (LS #1) 261
GENEVA SWEETSER ESTATE (LS #1 & 2) 261
GINGER, DON (CU92-2) 6
GLENN, VERNON (LS #1) 260
GRAY, HARRY (LS #1 & 2) 35
GRAY, HARRY (R92-6) 19
GRAY, HARRY (LS #1) 80
GRAY, HARRY (R92-8, R92-9, & R92-10) 26
HALEY, MARY JANE (LS #1) 137
HALEY, MARY JANE (LS #1) 155
HALEY, BAY I. (R92-40 & LS #1) 249
HAMMOND PLAZA - MEL MILHOLLAND (PP) 48
HANNA WAREHOUSE - BURT HANNA (LSD) 214
HARRELSON, BARBARA (CU92-28) 259
HOME DAY CARE FACILITIES 24
HOUSTON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION _ HARRY GRAY (FP) 56
HOYET GREENWOOD ESTATE (R92-36) 233
HUCKINS, ANDREW (ANNEXATION) 4
INTRODUCTION OF REGIONAL PLANNING MEMBER 60
JIM BLACKSTON SUBDIVISION - JIM BLACKSTON (CONCURRENT PLAT) 87
JORGENSEN, DAVE (R92-18 & LS #1 & 2) 78
JORGENSEN, DAVE (LS #1) 66
KEATING, DICK (R92-32) 209
KEATING, DICK (R92-39) 246
KEATING, DICK (R92-38) 245
KEATING SUBDIVISION - DAVE JORGENSEN (PP) 41
KEATING, DICK (R92-12) 40
KELLY, LYNN (R92-33) 223
KELLY EXCAVATION - LYNN KELLY (LSD) 213
KNOX, DR. LUKE & DR. CYNTHIA KNOX (R92-19) 90
LAND USE PLAN 82
LAND USE RESOLUTION 60
LANGHAM, FRANCES (LS #2 & 3) 185
LEVERICH, ROSEANNE (CU91-17) 205
LOWE'S HOME CENTER - LOWE'S HOME CENTERS (LSD) 237
MAGLOTHIN, E.E. JR. (LS #1 & 2) 52
MARVIN, KEN (CU92-8) 28
MASTER STREET PLAN 34
MATHIAS MINI -STORAGE - SAM MATHIAS (LSD) 28
MAURER, JAMES (LS #3) 51
MAYES, RICHARD (R92-1) 68
MAYES, RICHARD (R92 -I) 83
MAYES, RICHARD (R92-1) 1
MCANARNEY, ROBERT & CYNTHIA (R92-42) 253
MCCONNELL, RUSSELL (LS #1) 136
MERSKY, DAVE & HARRIETT NEIMAN (CU92-15) 123
MISSION HILLS - ROB. MERRYSHIP (PP) 171
MISSION BOULEVARD SUBDIVISION - GORDON WILKENS (PP) 183
MONTEZ, DR. CARMELLA (R92-21) 116
MONTEZ, DR. CARMELLA (R92-21) 102
MONTEZ, CARMELLA (LS #1) 99
N. HILLS NURSING CENTER - RICHARD OSBORNE & TOMMY HOLLAND (LSD)214
NETTLESHIP, DR. MAE (R92-25, R92-26, & R92-27) 121
NETTLESHIP, DR. MAE (R92-25, R92-26, & R92-27) 144
NEUKRANZ, ROBERT (CU92-1) 5
NEWSOME APARTMENTS - BO NEWSOME (LSD) 103
NIBLOCK, MAJORIE (LS #I) 10
NON -CONFORMING LOTS 24
NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION - CHARLIE SLOAN (FP) 212
• NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE III - JEFF ALLEN (PP) 183
NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES - DAVE JORGENSEN (PP) 49
NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES - JAMES MOORE (FP)
NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES, PHASE III - JEFF ALLEN (FP)
OAKSHIRE EAST APARTMENTS - KIRK ELSASS (LSD & CU92-22)
OLD WIRE ROAD SUBDIVISION - SAM MATHIAS & BUD TOMLINSON (PP)
OLD WIRE SUBDIVISION - MIKE PENNINGTON (PP)
OSBORNE, RICK (R92-3)
OWEN, TIM (R92-7)
OWEN,TIM(LS#2&3)
PARK PLACE, PHASE VI - JIM LINDSEY (PP)
PARK PLACE, PHASE VIII- JIM LINDSEY (PP)
PARK PLACE, PHASE VII - JIM LINDSEY (PP)
PARK PLACE, PHASE VI, VII, & VIII - JIM LINDSEY (FP)
PARSONS, CAROLINE (R92-29)
PETTUS, LAMAR (R92-5)
PETTUS, LAMAR (R92-5)
PHEBUS, ROLAND (LS #1)
PHILLIPS, JIM & RICK ROBLEE (R91-23)
PHILLIPS, JIM & RICK ROBLEE (R91-23)
PINE HAVEN ADDITION - GORDON WILKENS (FP)
PRATT WOODS ADDITION - JULIAN ARCHER (PP)
•
PRESLEY, ROSE ANNA (CU92-14 - HOME OCCUPATION)
PRICE, MIKE (R92-2)
PROVIDENCE PLACE - GERALD MCARTOR (FP)
PROVIDENCE PLACE ADDITION - JERRY & CINDY MCARTOR (PP)
QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASES II & III- MEL MILHOLLAND (PP)
RAGSDALE, RAY (LS #1)
RANTIS, DARYL (LS #1)
RANTIS, DARYL (R92-11)
'R\tEOInREGENCY 7 MOTEL - TERRY DILL (LSD) ,
-7RIDGEMONTE ESTATES - MB3 PROPERTIES (FP)
RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION - JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLEE (PP)
SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
SAVANNA ESTATES, PHASES I & II - MARK FOSTER & BUDDY PEOPLES
SEQUOYAH MEADOWS, PHASE I - HARRY GRAY (FP)
SHADY ACRES - BMB PROPERTIES (PP)
SHERWOOD, RONNIE (LS #1 & 2)
SHREVE, KEITH (LS #1)
SIEDSCHLAG, THOMAS (CU92-10)
• SIMPLEX MOTEL - SIMPLEX MOTEL GROUP (LSD)
SKATEBOARD PARK - REVIEW (CU91-7)
98
258
200
173
216
3
25
26
16
17
17
168
165
36
18
163
138
119
8
253
102
2
134
86
64
137
114
37
1 162
118
24
(PP) 127
49
130
162
239
57
126
66
• SONNEMAN, E.H. (R92-13) 54
SPRING CREEK NORTH ADDITION - HARRY GRAY (CONCURRENT PLAT) 57
STEWART, JIM (CU92-6) 20
STILLWELL, BRONSON (CU92-24) 191
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 34
SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED IN 1991 60
TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION - MEL MILHOLLAND (FP) 55
TRESSLER PARK (MALL) - AARON MILLS (LSD) 8
UPTEGRAFT, LARRY (CU92-12 - TANDEM LOT & LS) 59
VACATION OF VANEVENTER STREET 227
VILLINES, DANNY (R92-22) 120
VILLINES, DANNY (R92-22) 139
VISION PROJECT 63
VISIONS REPORT 23
WALNUT PARK, PHASE I - HARRY GRAY (FP) 50
WALNUT PARK ADDITION - HARRY GRAY (PP) 29
WALNUT HAVEN ADDITION - HARRY GRAY (CONCURRENT PLAT) 81
WALNUT VIEW ESTATES - R -CON, INC. (PP) 113
• WALNUT PARK ADDITION, PHASE II - DON JOHNSON & DAVID JOHNSON (FP)191
WALNUT PARK ADDITION, PHASE III - CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO. (FP) 256
WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - BURT HANNA (LSD) 64
WATSON'S GROCERY - JIM WATSON (LSD) 9
WESTERN HILLS VENTURE (R92-20) 92
WILLIAMS CENTER, INC. - JIM MEINECKE (LSD) 94
WOODBURY PLACE - MID -SOUTHERN INTERPRISES, INC. (FP) 257
WOODBURY PLACE - MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, INC. (PP) 161
WOODFIELD ADDITION, PHASE II -HARRY GRAY (FP) 56
WOODFIELD ADDITION, PHASE III - BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP) 258
WOODLANDS ADDITION - HARRY GRAY (PP) 81
WOODY, JOAN (LS #1) 59
•
YANCY, TRUMAN (R92-17 & ANNEXATION) 75
YOUNGMAN, DALE (CU -92-11- TANDEM LOT & LS) 58
ZONING ORD. AMENDMENT• AUCTIONS, FLEA MARKETS, & GARAGE SALES 44