HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 8,
1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickles Kenneth Pummill
J. E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, and Jerry Allred
Jack Cleghorn
Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1992 were
approved as distributed.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-19
DR. LUKE KNOX & DR. CYNTHIA KNOX - NE CORNER OF JOYCE & OLD MISSOURI RD
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing of Rezoning R92-19 or property
located at the northeast corner of Joyce and Old Missouri Road, presented by Dr.
Luke Knox and Dr. Cynthia Knox. The request is to rezone 3.67 acres from A-1,
Agriculture, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial.
Mr. Bunn stated Ms. Little had recommended approval of the rezoning with concerns
that the zoning application did not address the entire tract owned by Dr. Knox.
He further stated that Joyce Street was planned to be four -lanes, originally in
1993 and 1994, but would probably now be at least one year later.
Dr. Luke Knox appeared before the Commission and requested consideration of
rezoning the property. He explained there was a golf course and club house
immediately across the street from the subject property, a church within a few
hundred yards (on Joyce Street). He also pointed out there were multiple office
buildings, a large retirement community and multiple apartment complexes,
duplexes and a new housing subdivision the vicinity. He further explained the
reason for the rezoning was to place a small convenience store on the subject
property. He stated it was currently necessary to travel several miles to a
grocery store. He noted this would offer significant service to the surrounding
community and act as a convenience center.
Dr. Knox also foresaw the widening of Joyce Street and a stop light at the
intersection of Old Missouri Road and Joyce Street as well as the intersection
of Joyce and Highway 265.
He also noted he had many letters of support from surrounding landowners in
agreement with his current plans. He further stated his plans were for an
aesthetically pleasing structure. He noted it would behoove his interest to
maintain the quality of building and landscaping since he also owned adjoining
property.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Dr. Knox stated he was still in the
planning stage on the structure and did not yet know how large of a building
would be erected.
Ms. Britton stated she did not understand why 3.67 acres was needed for just a
convenience store.
TO
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 2
Dr. Knox stated they had kept in mind that Joyce Street would be expanded to four
lanes with the existing right-of-way. He also pointed out they would need
parking for the convenience store.
Ms. Arlene L. Hudson, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Commission
and stated the entire block was residential. She expressed concern that a liquor
store or laundromat might go in on the corner. She stated a church or
professional offices would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Dr. Knox stated he did want to keep the corner aesthetically pleasing. He
further stated he wanted to keep the area as a nice community.
In response to a question from Ms. Hudson, Dr. Knox stated he had moved down the
street approximately one mile.
Ms. Polly Baker stated there was a church within 200 feet of the subject property
which would not allow, by city code and state statute, the operation of a liquor
store.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn stated the adjoining property
owners had been notified.
Ms. Britton stated she believed the site was an appropriate place for
neighborhood commercial. She noted the Vision Project had brought out there
needed to be more neighborhood commercial opportunities. She did, however,
express concern regarding the sightline of the subject property. She explained
that in approaching the property from the east there was a crest a hill (with a
sign stating "Dangerous Intersection") and from the north there was also a crest
of a hill plus a curve. She expressed her opinion that, at this time, this was
not a good rezoning. She suggested after Joyce Street was widened it would be
more appropriate.
Mr. Tarvin stated he was surprised that more property owners were not present.
He stated Old Missouri Road was a division point between the R-1 zoning and the
R-0, R-2, etc. zoning. He agreed both Joyce and Old Missouri would be major
streets. He further stated his initial reaction was that the rezoning would be
an encroachment into the residential area.
Mr. Allred pointed out in the last year there had been a number of apartments and
single family homes developed in that area and those people needed neighborhood
shopping. He stated the Visions Project had determined the desire for more
neighborhood shopping areas. He noted this rezoning fitted with the request by
the residents of the community. He agreed with Mr. Tarvin that should the
property be rezoned, this should be the last commercial property to the east on
Joyce. He.stated if they were not going to use the guidelines of the Vision
Statement, they should scrape it. He further stated there were some problems
such as sight distance that he believed would be taken care of when Joyce was
widened.
Mr. Allred pointed out the safety aspect of the rezoning was their responsibility
but the feasibility was not within their purview.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the rezoning.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Ms. Britton stated she believed one of the other corners would be better for
safety reasons.
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Springburn agreed with Me. Britton and stated he also supported the view of
Mr. Tarvin.
The motion passed 6-2-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Suchecki, Pummill,
Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting
"no".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 92-20
WESTERN HILLS VENTURE - S OF WEST 6TH, W OF SHILOH DR
The next item was a public hearing on rezoning 92-20 for property located south
of West 6th Street, west of Shiloh Drive, presented by Tom Hopper on behalf of
Western Hills Venture, to rezone 1.44 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential,
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained the property was currently used as a mobile home park. He
stated the property to both the north and east were zoned commercial, with the
subject property located within a larger tract of R-2. He further stated the
petitioners also owned a tract to the north and adjoining the subject property
which they planned to develop concurrently. He noted the northern parcel had
frontage on Highway 62.
Mr. Bunn stated staff had recommended to approve the rezoning to C-2.
Tom Hopper explained Western Hills Venture was in the process of selling the
subject property to an individual who wished to develop the property
commercially.
• Ms. Britton asked what would happen to the remainder of the mobile home park.
•
Mr. Hopper stated it would remain as a mobile home park. He explained that, when
the large scale development was submitted, there would be some fencing and
separation between the two developments.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hopper stated they were planning
on constructing a motel on the property.
Ms. Britton asked if all of the property owners in the trailer park had been
advised of the rezoning request.
Ms. Langley stated the property owners were notified. She explained many of the
residents rented either space to park their mobile home or rented mobile homes.
Mr. Hopper stated the majority people affected were aware of the rezoning
request.
Ms. Britton asked if the frontage property also fronted on Shiloh.
Mr. Hopper explained the property fronted on Highway 62 and the access road into
Rolling Hills Park but did not front on Shiloh. He noted the access road would
not be a part of the subject development however an agreement for access would
be worked out.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Hopper explained that the access
had not been determined at this time but would be worked out at the time of
submittal of the large scale.
Mr. Allred stated he was thinking in terms of future maintenance - whether it
would be the responsibility of the city or the developer.
1z
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Nickle asked if there would be any people displaced.
Mr. Hopper stated there were some trailers involved in the rezoning area. He
further stated the owners of the mobile home park were in the process of working
out the relocation.
Me. Britton stated she would prefer they had access to the road
Mr. Hopper stated there was an agreement that access would be available.
Ms. Britton stated she was not talking about the road into the mobile home park
but access to Shiloh.
Mr. Hopper stated he would look into that.
Thomas Mathias, a resident of the mobile home park, appeared before the
Commission and asked if there was a need for the motel. He pointed out there was
a Park Inn motel adjoining the property. He noted they had previously had trees
to block out the noise from the highway but after the Park Inn was built those
trees were gone and they now had the noise. He further stated the owners of the
park had offered to relocate the trailers but he wanted to be sure there was a
need for another motel. He pointed out there was a Holiday Express just up the
road, another new motel was being built, and the Park Inn all within the same
area.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Mathias stated he owned a mobile
home and rented space in the mobile home park. He further stated his mobile home
was located in the area being considered for rezoning.
Mr. 0. A. Cook, an adjoining property owner, asked which portion of the mobile
home park was under consideration.
Mr. Nickle stated it appeared to be the northeast corner of the mobile home park.
Mr. Cook stated that, if they were going
access road would have to be a public
objections to the rezoning but believed
area.
to construct a motel, it appeared the
road. He further stated he had no
there was a flooding problem in that
Mr. Nickle noted there was nothing that would require the roadway to have public
access. He further stated he did not believe the city would want to take it for
maintenance.
Mr. Ed Faust, a resident of the mobile home park, stated he was neither for nor
against the rezoning. He expressed concern that he was in the middle of the
transaction and had been told his mobile home would be relocated at no cost to
him. He explained he wanted to be sure such relocation costs would be paid.
Mr. Dennis Cameron, a resident of the mobile home park, appeared before the
Commission and explained that approximately 15 mobile homes and 40 people would
be affected. He further explained the park owners had acquiesced on a
conditional basis to sell the property. He stated the conditions were that all
the costs of moving the mobile homes would be paid by either the buyer or seller
and that no cost would be incurred to the home owners. He stated the residents
were just asking for reassurances that the promises being made to the mobile home
owners that the expenses incurred would be paid would be upheld. He stated he
would be for the rezoning only if those promises were kept. He further expressed
his personal opinion that a motel was not an efficient enterprise for the
property. He stated he would rather see some other type of business enterprise
on the subject property. He pointed out all the other motels in the area.
9 /
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Allred asked if the city had any jurisdiction to enforce such an agreement
described by the previous speaker.
Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe the city could enforce such an agreement. He
stated he did not know if it could become a condition of the rezoning. He
explained a large scale development would come before the Planning Commission and
it was possible that such an agreement could be a condition of the large scale
development. He told Mr. Cameron he had the right to come before the Planning
Commission again when the large scale development was considered.
Mr. Cameron noted it was stated on the record that the promises had been made to
the mobile home owners and assurances had been given to them.
Mr. Hopper explained that relocation of the residents and their homes was part
of the sales contract between the buyer and seller. He noted the buyer would be
paying the relocation costs.
Ms. Britton stated she would feel better
in more than one direction. She pointed
in and out of the subject property since
about the request if there was access
out it would be difficult to maneuver
it was so close to the intersection.
Mr. Nickle expressed concern regarding the residents that would be relocated.
He pointed out the property had been rezoned for a mobile home park and now the
owner wanted to do something for his economic benefit which would result in
displacing the residents. He stated he believed the owner had some
responsibility since he had developed the mobile home park. He pointed out that
should the buyer and seller not honor their contract, the residents would be
"left out in the cold".
Mr. Cato stated it appeared the buyer and seller had worked out arrangements that
were satisfactory to the residents of the subject mobile homes. He expressed his
opinion that the buyer and seller were being thoughtful in their approach rather
than just trying to evict the residents, they were willing to pay the relocation
expenses.
MOTION
Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Mr. Allred concurred with Mr. Cato. He pointed out the subject property was
rental property and with a 30 day notice the residents could be asked to move
their mobile home. He also noted the subject property had been for sale for
quite some time and had been in transition for 3 or 4 years.
Ms. Britton noted she was not only concerned about the residents being relocated
but also about the residents that would be left in the mobile home park. She
pointed out she did not believe it would be a very desirable neighborhood with
a motel located there. She expressed her belief the residents had to be
considered.
The motion passed 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Pummill, Cato and
Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Springborn and Nickle voting "no".
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WILLIAMS CENTER, INC.
JIM MEINECRE - E SIDE OF CROSSOVER, S OF OLD WIRE
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for the
Williams Center presented by Jim Meinecke for property located on the east side
op(
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 6
of Crossover Road, south of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R -O,
Residential -Office, and contains 1 acre.
Mr. Bunn stated the large scale development consisted of a proposed dance and
gymnastic center. He explained the Plat Review discussion centered around the
accessibility of sewer to the site. He noted sewer did not appear to directly
access the site but was some distance to the east. He further noted access would
require crossing other property.
Mr. Bunn also explained that, according to ordinance, an acre and a half was
required for septic tanks, the applicant either needed to access an existing
sewer line or obtain extra land to make the installation of the septic tank
possible.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the plat
review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks along
Highway 265; and resolution of the sewer problem. He explained the Board of
Directors did pass an ordinance which amended the 1.5 acre requirement to allow
waivers under certain circumstances which included approval of the State Health
Department. He noted the ordinance would not go into effect for another 30 to
45 days.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Meinecke explained the property
was currently being serviced by a septic system. He further stated he had met
with the property owner to the east of the subject property and a city employee
regarding accessing the sewer line. He explained it appeared he would be
accessing the sewer line.
Mr. Meinecke explained that approximately 5 years ago he had decided to expand
his business. He stated he originally had thought he would add on to the
existing building and rezone the property. He noted he found that had not been
feasible. He further stated that approximately 2 and 1/2 years ago he had
rezoned the adjoining one acre to the south to construct another building. He
also informed the Commission he had adequate room behind the existing building
to construct the new building but he believed it would be more aesthetically
pleasing to the area to construct on the lot to the south.
Mr. James Remby, adjoining property owner, stated he was not speaking for or
against the project but did want to make some comments and observations. He
explained Mr. Meinecke was tripling the size of his usable space and appealed to
Mr. Meinecke's judgment regarding the appearance of the building and landscaping.
He also noted the old building would be sub -leased, which would cause an
immediate increase in volume of approximately 25% or greater of the traffic in
the area. He encouraged the City to not allow commercial development beyond Mr.
Meinecke's project.
Mr. Charles Pence, adjoining property owner, asked for the constraints in R -O
zoning.
Me. Langley explained R -O allowed residences and professional offices.
Mr. Pence explained there was a serious traffic problem in the area. He
suggested a traffic light at Old Wire Road and Highway 265. He recalled two
serious accidents at that intersection.
Mr. Bunn explained the Highway Department controlled issuance of permits for
traffic lights. He further explained the city requested, on a periodic basis
that the state look at various intersections and determine whether traffic lights
were warranted. He stated they generally did not issue permits until certain
criteria was met, including traffic count, number of vehicles turning, etc. He
9c
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 7
further stated the city had requested the state look at the intersection in
question but as yet had not met the criteria for signaling.
Mr. Pence asked Mr. Meinecke if he was still planning on planting pine trees to
the north of the building.
Mr. Meinecke stated he had already planted over 100 trees and planned to continue
such plantings. He further stated he was planning a curved drive on the north
side of the building so he would keep an area clear for the driveway.
Mr. Bunn stated the uses allowed in R -O zoning by right included city-wide uses,
government facilities, single family and two-family dwellings, offices (which
included advertising agencies, artist studio, barber shops, beauty shops - with
6 or fewer chairs, computing service, data processing service, drafting service,
dental clinic, financial institutions, funeral homes, medical clinic, office
building, special welfare agencies, studios for teaching the fine arts, sale of
supplies and equipment such as architect and artists supplies, business machines,
dental supplies, medical and optical supplies, office furnishings, scientific
instruments, services such as auto parking garage, blueprinting, employment
agency, photocopying, printing, postal service, etc.
Mr. Meinecke also reminded the Commission that he had signed a Bill of Assurance
that limited the use of the property.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - BAYLEY TOWNHOUSES
KIRBY ESTES - NW CORNER OF MELMAR 6 LEVERETT
The next item was a request for approval of a Large Scale Development for Bayley
Townhouses presented by Kirby Estes for property located on the northwest corner
of Melmar and Leverett. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained the development consisted of 51 units located on approximately
5 acres. He stated all utilities appeared to be readily available to the site.
He further stated the Subdivision Committee did not have any significant comments
and recommended the large scale development for approval.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of grading and drainage
plans; dedication of all utility easements by separate instrument; construction
of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees.
Mr. Estes explained Mr. Bayley, owner of the property, was planning on
constructing an aesthetically pleasing project. He also noted they would
preserve as much of the vegetation as possible.
Ms. Britton noted they had received a letter concerning drainage problems on
another large scale development in the same area. She stated the area would be
further impacted with three large scale developments in the same vicinity.
Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Estes if he was aware of a letter received from Z. L. and
Nary Thomas concerning drainage problems in the area. He stated one of the
q6
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 8
recommendations from staff was that the City Engineer had to approve grading and
drainage plans.
Me. Britton noted the Thomases stated there was already a drainage problem and
they objected to additional development in the area. She requested that the City
Engineer closely scrutinize the drainage plan.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Estes explained there was a
drainage swale located at the northeast corner of the property to which run-off
naturally drained. He stated they would be sure the drainage continued in that
direction. He further noted they would use fill to create a building pad.
Mr. Nickle stated the Commission was aware that additional development would
cause additional drainage. He further stated they relied on the City Engineer
to be sure the grading and drainage plans were developed to his approval.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments, in particular the grading and drainage plans.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CRAFTON PLACE
JIM LINDSEY - E OF GARLAND, N OF MELMAR DR.
The next item was a large scale development for Crafton Place, presented by Tom
Hopper on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located east of Garland, north of
Melmar Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn stated the development was on 3.57 acres and had originally contained
96 units, making a density of 27 units per acre. He noted the limit on density
for an R-2 zone was 24 units per acre. He explained that, since the report had
been written, one of the units had been deleted to bring the density to within
the 24 units per acre.
Mr. Bunn further stated there were no significant comments at plat review meeting
or subdivision committee meeting. He stated this was the development directly
addressed by the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Thomas.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and
drainage plan; execution of all required easements by separate instrument;
payment of parks fees; and construction of sidewalks.
Tom Hopper presented the revised plat to the Commission. He explained it had
been their original intent to make this development an extension of Bradford
Place which would have allowed the 96 units. He further explained that, once
they were aware of the problem, they deleted Unit H from the original plan
leaving 84 units. He stated he was in agreement with the requirements set out
by the city engineer. He also agreed they needed to closely scrutinize the
drainage from the subject site.
Mr. Hopper further explained that 10 years ago when Bradford Place was originally
constructed the plan was to construct Ernie Jacks Blvd; however, the development
was never completed and the street was not constructed. He stated they now
proposed to construct Ernie Jacks Blvd. to city standards from Garland east 660
feet. He pointed out this would allow two accesses into the complex.
97
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 9
Mr. Hopper also stated they would take care of the "swamp" areas referred to by
the Thomases and hopefully, all of the other drainage problems. He stated they
would attempt to take the run-off to the west.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Hopper explained they were working
with the property owners of Bradford Place to allow the pond to be developed as
a "wet" pond to increase the detention.
Mr. Cato asked the status of the paving of Ernie Jacks Boulevard.
Mr. Bunn explained the street would be constructed by the developer.
Mr. Marlin Mayes, an adjacent property owner, and concurred with the Thomases
regarding the drainage problem.
Mr. Nickle explained the City Engineer would be looking at the drainage plan for
the development. He pointed out Mr. Hopper had expressed hope the situation
would be improved over what it was presently.
NOTION
Mr. Allred move to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments.
Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES ESTATES
JAMES MOORE - N OF WEDINGTON OFF CARLESBAD TRACE
The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Northwest Acres
Estates presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of James Moore for property located
north of Wedington Road, off Carlesbad Trace. The property contains 4.72 acres
with 16 proposed lots and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the representatives
of the public utility companies other than an additional easement being request.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; execution of a contract between the developer and
the city for the unfinished improvements, including street lighting and the
installation of a permanent cul-de-sac at a later date; construction of
sidewalks; and payment of park fees.
Me. Britton asked if the cul-de-sac was not installed by the developer, could the
City construct it and then charge it to the builder.
Mr. Bunn stated they had not worked out the wording but there would be some
guarantee that it would be constructed at some time in the future.
Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with all of the staff comments.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
98
•
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 10
FINAL PLAT - CROSSOVER HEIGHTS
BILL & DICK KEATING - E OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION
The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Crossover Heights
presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill and Dick Keating for property
located east of Crossover and south of Mission. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential, and contains 12.07 acres with 44 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments from any of the utility
representatives at the plat review meeting; however, the street superintendent
had pointed out some drainage that may not have been taken into consideration by
the engineer in the development of the drainage plan. He further stated the
subdivision committee had recommended approval of the plat.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; execution of a contract with the city on the
unfinished improvements, including the streetlights and the construction of a
cul-de-sac at some time in the future if development to the north does not occur;
construction of sidewalks; payment of parks fees; and review of the possible
drainage problem as pointed out by the street superintendent and resolution of
that problem.
Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in agreement with the staff comments and had
contacted the street superintendent regarding the drainage problem. He noted
they were in the process of solving that problem.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments and staff comments.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
CARMELLA MONTHS - 2850 OLD WIRE ROAD
The next item was a request for a lot split of property located at 2850 Old Wire
Road by Curtis Wray on behalf of Carmella Montez. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential, and A-1, Agricultural.
Mr. Bunn stated the total amount of property was 8.57 acres and the parcel
proposed to be split off (Tract B) was 1.26 acres. He further stated Tract B
conformed in all respects to the zoning ordinance and would be a legal sized lot
for R-1 zoning; however, the existing house on Tract B was on septic tank and any
split of property would have to conform to the ordinance requirement of at least
1.5 acres. He noted all other utilities appeared to be available to both sites.
Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved subject to either altering the lot
size of Tract B to conform with the 1.5 acre minimum size or obtaining a variance
from the size requirement as provided by ordinance. He noted the Board had
passed an ordinance regarding the 1.5 acre minimum size but that ordinance did
not go into effect for 30 to 45 days after adoption.
Mr. Wray explained Tract A was for sale and they did have a contract on the tract
at the present time. He further noted they would have to request a waiver on the
minimum lot size.
Mr. Allred asked if it was feasible to connect to the city sewer.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June -8, 1992
Page 11
Mr. Bunn explained Tract B was not adjacent to a sewer line.
Mr. Allred pointed out that any developments on the property would have to tie
into a sewer.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Wray stated he believed there
would be a large scale development before the Planning Commission on Tract A in
the near future.
Ms. Britton suggested that with the sale of Tract A Mr. Wray should make sure
there would be access for sewer to Tract B.
Mr. Wray stated he believed sewer would eventually be available to Tract B.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated there was an ordinance
that a property had to hook up to a sewer line if it was within 200 feet if
access was available.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to grant the lot split subject to staff comments and
recommendations.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
GARAGE SALE ORDINANCE
Mr. Nickle stated the Commissioners had a copy of the proposed garage sale
ordinance.
Mr. Bunn stated Ms. Little had indicated the comments given at a previous meeting
on the garage sale ordinance had been incorporated into the proposed ordinance
including: (1) no charge for permit; (2) a permit may be acquired by calling the
Planning Division; (3) signs may be posted, provided they are removed following
the sale; and (4) provision for "rain dates" had been built into the ordinance.
Me. Britton stated it was difficult to discuss the ordinance without Ms. Little
being present.
Mr. Nickle agreed. He asked if the Commission desired to give further comments
or if they wanted to take action.
Mr. Allred suggested giving further comments and then vote on it at the next
meeting.
Mr. Springborn stated he was fearful they would then end up with two sessions of
comments. He further stated he believed the item should be tabled until Ms.
Little was present.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to table the garage sale ordinance.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
‚Go
•
Planning Commission
June 8, 1992
Page 12
VISIONS REPORT
Mr. Nickle stated all of the Commissioners had a copy of the report. He further
stated he had not had time to review the entire document. He explained that,
with'Ms. Little not being present, he would prefer to table this item.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to table the Visions Report.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
/01