Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 14, 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, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill Charles Nickle, J. E. Springborn, and Jett Cato MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Cleghorn and Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Traci Paul, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992 were approved as corrected. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-39 E. J. BALL - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF MISSION BLVD. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-30 for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Mission Boulevard, and contains 5 acres. The request, as presented by Neal Albright, was to rezone the five acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. In connection with the rezoning, the applicant is also requesting a conditional use and large scale development for a home center. Me. Little stated the request was for three actions, the first being a rezoning. She explained the subject property was located just north of the intersection of Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard) and Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and was currently zoned C-1. She advised the request was to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, with a Conditional Use under Use Unit 21 to allow the construction of a home center and sales of building materials. She explained that under C-2 zoning a home center would be allowed, which permitted the sale of appliances and hardware but not lumber. She further explained the sales of lumber were only allowed under Use Unit 21 which required a conditional use under C-2 zoning. Me. Little advised the Commission that to the south of the subject property there were two uses: at the corner of Highways 265 and 45 was the Mercantile Store and to the west was the Worthen Bank. She further pointed out to the west of the subject tract was apartments in an R -O zone and across the street to the east was a four -unit shopping area zoned C-1. She explained the proposed use was one of heavy commercial activity and would normally be associated with an intersection of major arterial streets. She noted both Mission and Crossover were classified as principal arterial streets. She pointed out the subject tract was not at the intersection, but slightly north. Ms. Little stated the proposed use would serve an area which was rapidly growing and where there was no comparable facility for the sale of lumber. She further advised most of the companies selling building materials were to the north of Fayetteville with only two such companies within in the city limits - Meeks Lumber Company located to the west of Township and Home Lumber Company on South School. She pointed out there were no such lumber companies on the east side of town even though that area was a rapidly developing part of the city. Ms. Little further stated the Planning Department received numerous complaints regarding the delivery of materials through neighborhoods. She stated she was • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 2 not certain of the amount of traffic the center would alleviate should it be located on the east side of town, but it should alleviate some of the problem. Ms. Little advised the large scale development had been before Plat Review and the Subdivision Committee. She stated there were several items which would need to be discussed regarding the large scale, such as drainage and screening. She recommended approval of the rezoning and conditional use to permit the construction of a home center and building material sales center. She explained the alternative would be the construction of a neighborhood shopping facility with as many as 10 to 12 shops, generating far more traffic than the home center. Ms. Britton asked in what zone a lumber yard was normally located. Ms. Little explained Use Unit 21 was allowed in C-2 as a conditional use or in I-1. She explained "Unit 21 includes warehousing, wholesaling and trucking of the type which is usually located to serve the central business district and is easily served by rail and highway transportation". Ms. Britton asked how much C-2 acreage was in the area of the intersection. Ms. Little advised the land to the south of Highway 45 was mainly C-2 with the land to the north being mainly C-1. She stated approximately 40 acres was C-2. She further stated the largest tract of C-2 was being developed residentially. Mr. Springborn pointed out one of the home building centers in Springdale had a traffic signal in connection with the in and out traffic. He stated that did not seem compatible with low traffic figures. Ms. Little pointed out there was a large residential development to the west of National Lumber. She stated she was not aware of the concerns which prompted Springdale to install a stop light. Ms. Britton stated there must be a lot of traffic generated since they had to have the State's approval in order to put in a traffic light. Mr. Neal Albright appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the applicant had fulfilled all of the conditions of approval as outlined by the Subdivision Committee. He further explained how he had calculated the drainage. He advised all of the drainage would be directed at one culvert located approximately 300 feet north of the subject tract. He further noted he had calculated the difference in drainage after construction of the development. He noted pre -development value was 5.55 CFS and post -development value was 12.03 CFS. Mr. Nickle asked the impact downstream from the existing development on the east side of the highway. Mr. Albright explained the run-off went into a natural drainage ditch as it was discharged from the culvert. He stated there were very few houses down stream. Ms. Britton expressed concern that most of the drainage shown on the plan was off-site. Mr. Albright stated the property was owned by one property owner and public easements would be provided for off-site drainage. He stated the city engineer had requested a private line due to limited access to the drainage across the property. 111 • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 3 Mr. E. J. Ball explained the history of the property. He stated they were aware there was a drainage problem but they were currently working on that problem and installing a drainage system. He pointed out the drainage system and grading needed to be accomplished on the subject tract even if the rezoning request and conditional use were denied. Mr. Jim Lindsey stated Mr. Ball was doing the drainage system and grading of the subject tract at his own expense. He explained the drainage system had to be completed prior to any use of the property. He noted they had applied for and received a permit for that purpose. He further pointed out the highway department did have a plan to enlarge the drainage going under Highway 265. Mr. Lindsey further pointed out the home center portion of the request could be done without rezoning but the materials portion could not. He advised the materials portion backed up to apartments that he personally owned on one side and Mr. Ball owned on both of the other sides. He also pointed out the corner containing the liquor store and the corner with the Hot Wheels were both zoned C-2. He expressed his belief that it was not out of the question to rezone the property to C-2. Mr. John Willet, a resident of Park Place Subdivision, stated he did not believe the growth in the subject area was a commercial growth. He stated the commercial businesses in the area were those types that served the neighborhood. He further stated he believed the residents of the neighborhood would not be opposed to a home center but were opposed to a lumber yard because it was not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Lingarro, a resident of Park Place Subdivision, stated he had not been aware of this requested action until 45 minutes prior to the meeting. He stated a number of other Park Place residents would have been present had they known about the request for rezoning. He asked the Commission make sure such a rezoning would not undermine the integrity of the property values in the area. Mr. Chet Caldwell, 2705 Copper Oaks Plaza, stated he had worked at a lumber yard while in college and it would generate a great deal of traffic, most of which would be 18 wheelers. He pointed out the area was already heavily congested with traffic. He further noted that a normal rain storm caused a minor flooding area without additional development of the subject property. He stated it would be nice for the area to develop into small businesses which would enhance the community. Mr. James Remby, Crossover Road, stated he believed it was inappropriate to rezone this property to C-2. He pointed out there were railroads at most lumber yards. He further stated the actual zoning for this type of business was industrial. Ms. Pat Donahue, a resident of Park Place Subdivision, pointed out this was a major thoroughfare into Fayetteville and there had been a study recently done regarding making these thoroughfares pleasant entrances. She stated she could not understand spending money to make an entrance beautiful and then putting in a lumber yard. She also expressed concern regarding large trucks in the area and the safety of children. She urged the Commission to reject the proposed rezoning. Mr. Cooper Lee, a business owner on Mission, stated that, while he did business with lumber yards and this location would be convenient for him, he was concerned about the beauty of the entrances into Fayetteville. He pointed out the Fayetteville Public Schools owned property east of the intersection on the north side of Mission Boulevard. He stated he believed in the near future another school would be constructed at that location. 130 • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 4 Me. Little stated Use Unit 16 was the applicable unit for hardware stores and sale of appliances. She stated that would also require C-2 zoning. She also pointed out C-2 was required for the liquor store on the corner. Me. Little also advised the Commission a sign was posted on the property on August 28 (14 days in advance of the hearing); the legal notice was placed in the newspaper on August 30 and the agenda notice was published September 13. Ms. Britton stated there was already a hardware store in the area that was zoned C-1 The hardware store owner stated he had requested the property be rezoned in 1987 but was denied. He further stated he had been told C-1 zoning was all he would need for a hardware store. Ms. Britton stated she found irony a beautiful, wooded lot being destroyed in order to build a lumber yard. She pointed out one of the goals of the City through the Vision Project was to preserve the beauty of the community. She expressed her belief C-2 zoning did not seem to be needed in the subject area; that there was already more than adequate C-2 zoning which had not been developed as C-2. She further stated neighborhood commercial zoning seemed to be serving the area quite adequately. She further stated that technically the lumber yard was an industrial development and would be more appropriate along a railroad. She advised her other objection was that the property did not have dual access. Ms. Little stated she had found hardware stores were located in both Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping Goods, and Unit 16. She pointed out Unit 15 was permissible in C-1. MOTION� Ms. kitVmoved to deny the rezoning. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nickle stated the conditional use and large scale development were now moot. CONDITIONAL USE CU92-22 - APARTMENTS KIRK ELSASS - S OF KANTZ LANE, W OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item was a request for a Conditional Use for a 36 unit apartment complex in R -O, Residential Office, presented by Kirk Elsass for property located on the south side of Kantz Lane, west of Crossover Road and containing 1.4 acres. In conjunction with the conditional use the applicant also requests approval of a large scale development for Oakshire East Apartments. Ms. Little explained the subject property was located on lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 of Kantz Place, currently zoned R -O, Residential -Office. She stated the request was to allow the property to be used under Use Unit 10, High Density Residential, for the construction of 36 units on 1.4 acres, a density of 25.71 units per acre. She advised the Commission that, under the current zoning of R- 0, a maximum of 9 units would be allowed; the request would approximately triple the density normally allowed. Ms. Little stated the property was currently wooded and undeveloped with surrounding uses primarily residential apartments. She noted there was one exception to the east and that was the office of Elizabeth Knowles, Ph.D. She pointed out there were numerous other apartments in the area and they were • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 5 primarily six- and eight-plexes and were well landscaped. She had calculated density for the apartment complex of the subject property and found a density of 27.37 unite per acre. Me. Little recommended approval of the requested conditional use provided landscaping commensurate with the surrounding apartments be incorporated at the frontage along Kantz Drive. Mr. Nickle asked the zoning immediately to the west. Ms. Little stated it was R -O with an apartment. She stated lots 5 through 9 were developed as apartments. Mr. Kirk Elsass stated the proposed complex was identical to existing apartments in that area. He pointed out there could be a strip center put in the location rather than apartments due to the zoning. He stated from the calculation of one car from a single unit and two cars from a two-bedroom unit, there would be approximately 60 automobiles. He advised this area was a residential area. He further stated he was willing to listen to any concerns by area residents and work with them to resolve those concerns. Dr. Elizabeth Knowles, a clinical psychologist, appeared before the Commission and advised her office was directly to the east of the proposed apartments with the apartment parking being adjacent to her office. She presented a petition signed by 34 property owners in the area opposed to the conditional use. She listed increased traffic, excessive noise, and violation of privacy and confidentiality of her patients. She stated the area was a residential area and, as pointed out in the protective covenants, allowed medium density apartments. She advised this project qualified as a high density apartment. Dr. Knowles expressed concern the trees would be destroyed. She pointed out this area was a buffer from the higher density dwellings in the area. She requested the Commission deny the conditional use request. Ms. Little stated that under R -O zoning, single family and two-family dwellings were allowed and, under Use Unit 8, a density of four families per acre in the case of single-family dwellings and seven families per acre in the case of two- family dwellings. She explained high density residential was allowed with the conditional use. Mr. Nickle asked if screening was required: Ms. Little explained screening was not required since all of the property was residential. She further advised that, if the property were commercial, screening would be required. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Dr. Knowles stated her usual business hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Chet Caldwell, 2705 Copper Oaks, explained the back of his property faced the subject property. He advised the Commission that, when he had purchased his home, there had been only one apartment complex in the area. He stated there was already traffic congestion from the existing apartments. He advised the average apartment resident had 4.3 visitors per week. He expressed his opinion that high density residences caused stress problems including domestic violence, and problems with children. He requested the Commission deny the request for a variance. Mr. Nickle pointed out it did not appear that part of the area had developed as an R -O district. He stated R -O was to be a buffer between Commercial Development I8i • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 6 and Residential Development. He stated he believed the R -O zoning was the perfect zoning for the area. Ms. Britton pointed out R -O was a less dense residential development than what R-2 allowed. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the request. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. Mr. Elsass withdrew hie petition. Ms. Britton withdrew her motion. PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHWEST ACRES, PHASE III JEFF ALLEN - OFF CARRIAGE WAY, N OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a preliminary plat for Northwest Acres, Phase III, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Jeff Allen for property located off Carriage Way, north of Wedington Drive. The property ie zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 4.63 acres with 18 lots. Ms. Little explained there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives other than the request of additional easements and crossings agreed to by the owner. She noted staff had commented on the drainage, streetlights, and street names. She advised the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Me. Little stated Mr. Bunn had recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plane for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinance; and resolution of the street names issue. Mr. Harry Gray explained they had not resolved the street name issue as of yet but they would work it out. MOTION Mr. springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - MISSION BOULEVARD SUBDIVISION GORDON WILKENS - S OF MISSION, W OF CROSSOVER The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Mission Boulevard Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkens for property located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.65 acres with 32 lots proposed. Ms. Little reported there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting. She noted staff comments had included questions on drainage, street lights, and fire hydrant placement. It had also been mentioned that an access to the east for future development would 183 • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 7 be required. She stated the subdivision committee had recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission subject to plat review and staff comments. Me. Little stated Mr. Bunn had recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage facilities; an access to the east for future development; waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac; payment of parks fees and construction of sidewalks per city ordinances; and installation of a fire hydrant on Highway 45 as recommended by the Fire Chief. Mr. Dave Jorgensen reminded the Commission originally it had been requested this tract of land be rezoned to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, which had been denied. He stated the owner had agreed to provide access to the tract of land to the east and had reduced the number of lots from 32 down to 29 and increased the size of the lots. He noted the length of the street was unusually long and they were requesting a waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Britton stated she had already spoken with Mr. Jorgensen earlier regarding the plat. She explained she had advised if they would move the access to the east one lot to the south it would coincide with the utility easement and a waiver for the cul-de-sac would no longer be necessary. Mr. Jorgensen stated that would be no problem. Ms. Little pointed out the waiver to the length of the cul-de-sac would still be required until the street to the east was developed. It was determined that it was improbable access to the east would hook into Highway 265. Ms. Little pointed out the northern part of the property to the east was zoned C-1. She explained it was an accommodation due to the length of the subject property to find another way to provide for development to the east. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the preliminary plat with the condition that the east access be relocated one lot south of its present location (between lots 22 and 23) and subject to staff comments, together with a temporary cul-de-sac waiver. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PHASE II DICK & BILL KEATING - E OF CROSSOVER RD., N OF WHIPPOORWILL The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Crossover Heights, Phase II, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dick and Bill Keating for property located east of Crossover Road, on the north side of Whippoorwill. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 7 acres with 20 proposed lots. Ms. Little explained the developers planned single-family homes with the exception of Lots 11 and 14, which would be duplex lots. She noted there were no significant comments at the plat review meeting other than requests for easements and crossings which had been agreed to. She stated the subdivision committee had recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to approval of the cul-de-sac design. She stated Mr. Bunn had recommended approval of the • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 8 preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision comments; approval of a grading plan and drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks and payments of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; and resolution of the cul-de-sac design issue. Mr. Jorgensen stated it did not appear there was a problem with the turn radius on the cul-de-sac but he would be getting input from the city staff prior to final design of the cul-de-sac. After discussion regarding the cul-de-sac, Mr. Nickle noted it would be appropriate to have approval of the final design of the cul-de-sac by the fire chief and city engineer. Mr. Doug Ashton, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the size of the lots. He pointed out the covenants on his property required a minimum lots size of one acre. He stated most of the lots were one and a half to two acres in his subdivision. He also pointed out the entire neighborhood was made up of single family homes. Ms. Britton asked the dimension of the frontage of hie property. Mr. Ashton stated it was approximately 220 feet. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Ms. Little explained that, should the developers wish to put in apartments, the density was 24 families per acre or 168 units. Mr. Nickle expressed pleasure that the developer was limiting the density since the property was zoned R-2. He pointed out they had made an attempt to upscale the property from the zoning requirements. Ms. Britton expressed concern that the lots were inconsistent with the lots across the street. Mr. Springborn stated Ms. Britton'e point was well taken but the zoning had been in effect for a number of years at that location. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #2 AND #3 FRANCES LANGHAM - NE CORNER OF OLD MISSOURI AND ERROL ST. The next item was a request by Frances Langham for two lot splits and three conditional uses on property located at the northeast corner of Old Missouri Road and Errol Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The conditional use is for one duplex on each of the three lots created. Ms. Little explained the proposal would split the property into three lots with lot 1 containing 0.66 acres (containing an existing house) and lots 2 and 3 would contain 0.28 acres each. She noted they would face and have access to Errol Street. Ms. Little stated Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the lot splits subject to the extension of water (6 -inch) and sewer to serve each of the lots; the placement /as • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 9 of a fire hydrant at the end of the water line; the granting of easements as shown by separate instrument; the construction of sidewalks as required by city ordinances; and the payment of two parks fees. She further explained that for the conditional uses the request was to allow a duplex on lots 2 and 3. She advised the entire parcel of property was 1.22 acres and the request included that at some point in the future the single family home also be allowed to be made into a duplex. She recommended approval of the conditional uses. Ms. Britton asked if the sewer extension went through the BMP Development property. Mr. Gray explained Development property Mrs. Frances Langham the existing house. into the front yard widen, the character should the street be the sewer would hook up to the line going through BMP • gave some background information regarding the property and She advised the road right-of-way was quite wide and went of the house. She pointed out that, should the street be of the house would be changed. She requested the option, widened, to be able to add to the house, making a duplex. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot splits subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to grant the conditional use for lots 2 and 3 only. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Britton explained she did not believe the widening of Old Missouri Road should be a determinant on changing the existing house. She pointed out there would be access on Errol Street. Mr. Sickle stated that, should the road be widened, the applicant could come before the Planning Commission at that time. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Langham stated she did not know they could separate the conditional use requests. She further stated she had needed the conditional uses on all three lots. CONDITIONAL USE 0092-23 - TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICE WADE BISHOP - SE CORNER OF APPLEBY RD. &.QUAIL CREEK DR. The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow a temporary real estate office presented by Wade Bishop for property located on the southeast 186 • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 10 corner of Appleby Road and Quail Creek Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Me. Little stated her office had been notified earlier that day that Mr. Bishop desired to table the request until the October 12 meeting. She stated the options available were: withdrawal of the request and have a neighborhood meeting or read the item and then table it until October 12. Me. Little explained the lot was currently vacant and at the entrance to Phase I of Quail Creek Subdivision. She stated the applicant was proposing to install a small sales office 10' x 20' in area, with a concrete parking pad of 20' x 20'. She noted the petitioner was also requesting a waiver on the requirement for provision of the sidewalk along Quail Creek Drive. She advised the temporary sales office was requested to assist in the sales of lots and homes in Phase II of the Quail Creek Subdivision. Ms. Little also advised the Planning Office had received a petition signed by 24 residents of the subdivision in opposition to the conditional use. Me. Little recommended that the applicant construct a single-family structure commensurate with the existing homes in the area and temporarily use that structure as a sales office for a period not to exceed one year. She further noted staff would recommend approval of the request if the petitioner would agree to construct a single-family structure; she did not support the waiver of the sidewalk requirement. Me. Helen Eaton, an adjoining property owner, stated she was representing the entire neighborhood. She expressed her belief that her children's safety was being threatened; her property value was being threatened; the beauty of her home was being threatened. She showed various pictures, both of the area and of the proposed building. She stated they had moved into the neighborhood because it was a residential area; that all of the residents had signed a covenant that the property would remain residential. She explained she was a school teacher and in her classroom she did not tolerate cheating but she felt they were being cheated. Ms. Eaton read a portion of the protective covenants for Quail Creek Subdivision, Phase I: "3. No residence shall be constructed that is less than 1,000 square feet heated area, excluding carports, garages and storage rooms...7. No noxious or offensive trade shall be carried upon any lot nor anything done thereon which may be of an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. This area is for residential purposes only." She explained the covenants were drawn up and signed by Wade and Peggy Bishop on December 11, 1987. She stated a temporary sales office was very offensive to all of the property owners. Ms. Eaton further pointed out the intersection of North Hills and Appleby currently had numerous wrecks. She stated a sales office on that corner would cause more wrecks. She also advised there was a median on Quail Creek which would cause customers to make a u -turn in front of her house. She asked about parking for the office. Ms. Eaton showed the Commission a picture of a brush pile which Mr. Bishop had assured the residents was temporary. She stated the pile had been there for four and a half years. She asked how long the sales office would be "temporary". She further noted Mr. Bishop had a beautiful office a half a mile from the subject tract. She told the Commission the rules she made the children in her classroom follow: do not harm others - she stated she did not want more wrecks at the intersection; be considerate of others - she stated other people parking in front of their /87 • • • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 11 houses and using their driveways was not considerate; be honest - she stated if they meant temporary to not let it mean five or ten years; no cheating - she requested they not allow Mr. Bishop to go back on his promise in the covenants; don't be a nuisance to others - she requested they not allow one lot disrupt the value of the entire neighborhood; and use your own supplies - she stated Mr. Bishop already had one office and they would like for him to use it. She asked the Commission to follow the same rules she requested her nine year old students follow. Mr. Wade Bishop stated he believed there was a gross misunderstanding about the sales office. He explained they were developing another 43 lots in the Quail Creek Addition and had hoped to have a small sales office at the entrance of the subdivision. He advised that if he had one customer a day stopping by the office he would be pleased. He further advised there would be no employees for the sales office. He stated the lot would look nicer with a sales office than it did now. He agreed he had a 1,600 -foot office a half a mile away but, since he was the only one in the office, he did not believe he needed something that large. Mr. Bishop stated he believed the proposed office was attractive. He further stated he would like to talk to each of the residents personally so they would understand what he wanted to do. He further reminded the Commission the property was zoned R-1.5 which meant he could construct a duplex on the lot if he desired. He stated he would much rather have a sales office than a duplex on the lot. He advised he would not build a single-family dwelling at that location due to the considerable traffic on Appleby Road and the lot was not suitable for a single family dwelling. Ms. Mary Holiman, a Quail Creek property owner, expressed concern for the safety of the neighborhood children. She stated she was fearful a sales office would increase traffic in the subdivision. She further pointed out the protective covenants stated there could be no temporary buildings in the subdivision and all of the residents had abided by those rules. Mr. Bishop stated they had used the temporary office at other locations for other subdivisions and had not received a single complaint about the building. Mr. Pat Bledsoe, 3034 John Wayne Drive, stated when he purchased the property he had understood it was to be only single family residences. He further stated he was not aware they could have duplexes in the subdivision. He objected to the sales office being in the subdivision. Mr. Brent Wallace, a resident of the subdivision, stated that while the residents of Yorktowne Addition might not have been concerned about a temporary sales office, the residents of Quail Creek were concerned and did not want it in their neighborhood. He requested the conditional use be denied. Mr. Springborn asked Ms. Little if she had discussed her recommendation of a single-family home being used as the temporary sales office with the applicant. Ms. Little stated she had not discussed it with the applicant. She further stated that, while R-1.5 allowed a duplex, the plat might restrict the use. She stated she would have to check the plat before knowing whether a duplex would be allowed. Mr. Springborn asked the applicant if he would object to proceeding with the recommendations of staff. Mr. Bishop stated he would object because the lot was at a busy intersection and not suitable for a single family dwelling. He stated he would provide a privacy fence. /B8 • Planning Commission September 14, 1992 Page 12 Mr. Allred stated generally there was a provision in protective covenants for a temporary sales office. He also recommended moving the temporary sales office to Phase II. He pointed out there would be increased traffic to show the houses so the sales office would neither increase nor decrease the volume of traffic into the subdivision. Mr. Springborn stated he believed the application for a conditional use was inappropriate for the present development in the area. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to deny the conditional use. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. Mr. Allred stated he thought the applicant had asked for the item to be tabled. Mr. Nickle explained they had a public hearing and had heard the input from both the applicant and the residents. He stated there would be no reason to table the matter. Mr. Bishop stated it was his understanding that, since the he and the residents were present, they would listen to the comments but table it in order to give them an opportunity to work out the problem. He stated he did want to talk to the residents. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table the request. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried with Commissioners Suchecki, Allred, Pummill, Cato and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn and Nickle voting "no". Mr. Cato requested that, when this item came back before the Commission, it be placed first on the agenda. WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 & t2 BOBBY LEE ENNIS - N OF ZION RD., E OF CROSSOVER RD. The last item on the agenda was a request for two lot splits presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Bobby Lee Ennis for property located north of Zion Road, east of Crossover Road. The property is located outside the city limits. Me. Little explained the proposal involved the splitting of a 7.13 acre tract to form three lots: Tract 1 containing 2.63 acres and having frontage on Zion Road; Tract 2 containing 1.93 acres with an existing home; and Tract 3 containing 2.57 acres and also having an existing home. She noted all three tracts had access to Zion Road. She stated staff recommended the lot splits be approved subject to the approval of the County Planning Commission. Mr. Milholland stated he was present to answer any questions they might have. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 16,