Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 8, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Gary R. Head, and Phyllis Hall Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Pummill and Jana Lynn Britton OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular meeting of July 25, 1994 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PETITION R94-46 RALPH WALKER - OFF OF MEADOWLANDS DR, N OF WEDINGTON DR The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-46 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ralph Walker for property located off of Meadowlands Drive, north of Wedington Drive. The request was to rezone 6.37 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Tim Conklin advised this request was for a down -zoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and the staff was recommending approval of the request. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the petitioner, stated the property had originally been zoned R-2 with the intention of developing multi -family on the site; however, single-family residences were being developed instead. He added the purpose of the request by the owner was to be allowed a 20' rear setback as permitted in R-1.5 zoning instead of the 25' rear setback which was required in the R-2 zoning. NOTION Mr, Jerry Allred made a motion to approve the rezoning petition R94-46 as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tom Suchecki. The motion was unanimous with a vote of 7-0-0. 1-0 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 2 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ROLLIN BARNES DUPLEXES ROLLIN BARNES - OFF OF FRANCISCAN TR, E OF CARRIAGE WAY The next item was a large scale development plan and a preliminary plat of Rollin Barnes Duplexes submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Rollin Barnes for property located off of Franciscan Trail, east of Carriage Way. The property is zoned R- 2, Medium Density Residential and contains 2.23 acres. Mr. Don Bunn advised the subject item was a combination large scale development and preliminary plat which would need two separate motions. He added the large scale development consisted of six duplexes under one ownership with a private drive as access and the subdivision plat consisted of three duplex lots. He advised the staff recommended approval of both the large scale development and the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review Committee and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading plan for the site; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees; approval of a tree preservation plan; and a cost share of off-site improvements (the Hamestring Creek Pump Station). Mr. Harry Gray, representing the owner/developer, advised they concurred with the staff's comments. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to the staff's comments. • The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. 0 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 3 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL ROUSE COMPANY - 4201 N SHILOH DR The next item was a large scale development plan for the Northwest Arkansas Mall submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of Rouse Company for property located at 4201 North Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 12 acres. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments on the subject item other than the report included in the agenda. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, representing the developer, advised they concurred with the staff's comments. He advised Mr. Ed Pilarz was present to represent the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Mr. Ed Pilarz advised the planned expansion would increase the size of the current shopping center from approximately 574,000 square feet to 904,889 square feet. He noted it would enable them to ensure they maintained their dominance as the retail destination for all of Northwest Arkansas. He added their current estimation was only 348 of their total customers lived in Fayetteville with the remainder of the sales dollars captured coming from the outlying communities around Fayetteville. He noted they anticipated expanding and improving the shopping center would ensure the regional center would remain in Fayetteville. He added they concurred with the staff's comments. In response to a request from Commissioner Nickle for more information on the proposed improvements and the direct impact, Mr. Pilarz advised they had worked • hand-in-hand with the City staff and other developers in the area. He added a year earlier, with the cooperation of the City and Lowes, Inc., they had renovated and expanded the Zion Road/Highway 71 intersection with a new light system being installed and the capacity on left -turn lanes in and out of the center being doubled. He presented examples in the form of aerial photos and detailed traffic layouts of their intended development for the future in regard to improvements to Mall Lane and the development of Shepherd Lane. He advised they proposed to pull customer traffic past the Joyce Street intersection with a turn left into the mall. He pointed out that proposal was one of the conditions of approval in the staff's comments. Mr. Pilarz advised they would also be participating in a portion of improvements to the Joyce Street/Highway 71 intersection including the east side of the intersection. He noted they were participating in the cost of the extension of Joyce Street to the west and in sharing the cost of building a new bridge that would be required for a future extension to Gregg Street. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle in regard to the time -frame involved for the proposed traffic improvements and its interaction with the Mall expansion, Mr. Pilarz advised the plan was to have Mall Lane open before Christmas of 1994 and to open Shepherd Lane before the end of the year (with state approval). Mr. Pilarz stated the City Traffic Department had advised them they were planning to put all the light systems in the area on a computer system by the next year so the lights would sequentially change for good traffic flow. He pointed out that would eliminate the traffic problems associated with the current individual satellite timing at each intersection. He added the improvements of the Joyce/Highway 71 intersection and the extension to Gregg Avenue would be in conjunction with the City. He noted they had submitted all the proposed • improvements to the State for approval and were confident it all would occur by the early part of 1996. He advised the re -opening of the complete shopping center was anticipated in the fall of 1996. Planning Commission • August 8, 1994 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Bunn advised the City hoped to begin construction of the extension of Joyce Street to the west to tie into Gregg Street to be completed in early 1996. Mr. Pilarz complimented the City staff for their work and cooperation in this venture. NOTION Mr. Head moved to approve the large scale development plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission • August 8, 1994 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAGNOLIA CROSSING MAGNOLIA PROPERTIES - N OF SIXTH ST, W OF DINSMORE TR The next item was a preliminary plat of Magnolia Crossing submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Magnolia Properties for property located north of Sixth Street, west of Dinsmore Trail. The property was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contained 36.58 acres with 144 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised he had not included the specific off-site improvements required of the developer in his staff report. He noted the developer would be required to do off-site improvements including a cost share on the improvement of the existing low-water bridge on Dinsmore Trail and the improvement of one-half of Dinsmore Trail to city street standards where the street adjoined the subdivision. Mr. Bunn added discussion of an eventual tie -though of Rupple Road to the south off of Highway 16 through to Highway 62 had taken place, but the staff had not required the developer to provide a part of the road as part of the development. He noted, at this point, it was the City's plan for Rupple Road to tie through either as part of Dinsmore Trail or possibly go to the west and tie to Highway 62 to the west of the subject subdivision. Mr. Nickle advised discussion had taken place at the Subdivision Committee meeting regarding the location of Cottonwood Street and whether it should be moved to a more appropriate location. He noted it had been left to the staff to determine and to inform the Commission. Mr. Suchecki advised his recollection was the discussion had to do with the extension of • Rupple Road and whether or not it should come in to the west. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing the developer, advised the discussion at the Subdivision Committee had been in regard to whether Dinsmore Trail should be an extension of the main road or whether to follow the existing Dinsmore Trail. He noted the City Engineer had stated it would either be following the existing Dinsmore Trail or going to the west of the subject property. In response to a question from Chairman Tarvin, Mr. Gray advised he would like to have the staff repeat the entire list of conditions of approval including the two additions as noted by the City Engineer. Mr. Bunn stated the staff recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan or report; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; resolution of the parks requirements; construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City's sidewalk ordinance; and the off-site improvements which would include a cost share of the bridge on Dinsmore Trail and the improvement of one-half of Dinsmore Trail to city street standards. Mr. Gray advised the developer did concur with those conditions. He noted they were anxious to try to establish a portion of the cost on the bridge or the culvert on Dinsmore Trail. Bill Ashmore, the property owner to the north of the subject property, expressed concern that the developers had no plane to make natural gas available anywhere in the subdivision. He explained portions of the line which serviced his residence and crossed the subject property were actually on the surface of the • ground so the mere arrival of the equipment to begin work on the property would almost certainly remove his gas service. He noted that, while there was not a utility easement for the gas line, it had been in place 24 years. He offered a 3go 1 • Planning Commission August 81 1994 Page 6 possible solution which would be to move his gas line approximately 20 to 30 feet to the eastern extremity of the property where it would follow the eastern utility easement all the way to the northeast corner of the property. He noted he could then have the meter reattached on the dividing line between the subject property and his property. He added he was also interested in understanding what his obligations and rights were with respect to the presence of the sanitary sewer. He proposed to bring the sewer line from between lots 74 and 75 to his residence. He noted his property was a transition between 186 residences on less than 40 acres and perhaps 150-200 residences in the entire rectangle bounded by Wedington Drive, Shiloh Drive, U.S. Highway 62, and Double Springs Road. He advised there was not currently any direct connection between Wedington Drive and U.S. 62 or between Shiloh Drive and Double Springs Road which was a distance of roughly 3 miles. He stated it seemed the subject development would present an excellent opportunity for anticipatory government as opposed to reactionary government where the appropriate agencies would determine the location of a connector street. He pointed out he had been under the mis-impression that Rupple Road was actually due north of his west property line, but had realized it was in fact South 46th Street which lay due north. He noted the concept plat submitted at the rezoning hearing had shown a rim of greenspace along the northern edge of this subdivision to protect the northeast and northwest corners (lots 59 and 60, 76 and 77) which were densely covered with mature forest. He pointed out since that time the City Council had accepted $51,120 in lieu of required greenspace. He requested an additional 20 feet to the existing utility easement along the north side of the subdivision and an • agreement that, except for the trenches necessary to run utilities, the entire setback would be left undisturbed. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Ashmore advised his gas line traversed lots 76 through 83 along the eastern edge of the development and that it was a private yard line with his meter toward the street. In response to comments about the sewer line, Mr. Ashmore explained he did not want to be bound to a requirement to hook up to the city sewer, but did want to know his options. Mr. Tarvin stated and Mr. Bunn agreed that the City could not require Mr. Ashmore to connect to the sewer if he had to cross someone else's property to get to it. Mr. Nickle advised there was an easement shown on the plat between lots 74 and 75 and asked if it was possible there would be an extension to the north. Mr. Bunn advised it was possible and the City had talked to the developer regarding stubbing out the sewer to the north side at an appropriate location. He added there could be two possibilities: sewer extended to the north side of the subdivision with a manhole which could be tied into; or the granting of a private easement outside of the public utility easement between lots 74 and 75. Mr. Tarvin advised they needed to remember Mr. Ashmore's comments on a possible street connection at the Master Street Plan meetings. Mr. Gray pointed out the SWEPCO easement on the property was 100 feet wide for a total of 3.50 acres which would be left as greenspace. He added the developer would work with Mr. Ashmore during construction to take care of the gas line. He explained a private easement could be provided for gas and sewer. He noted they would work with Mr. Ashmore. 381 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 7 In response to a question from Mr. Nickle in regard to a statement of intent from the developer on clearing the land, Mr. Gray advised there was a provision in their covenants which stated anything over 6 to 8 inches would not be cleared unless it was necessary. He noted the setback in R-2 was 25 feet and they would make an effort to keep as much of it as greenspace as possible. He noted they did have to work out the drainage, but the intent was to keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Tim Conklin advised Mr. Ashmore a public hearing would be held on Monday night on the proposed Master Street Plan which would set future alignments of roads in Fayetteville. Jim Gibson, 1200 Dinsmore Trail, expressed concern in regard to the exact location of Chinaberry Street because it appeared the subdivision access was going to be very near his private driveway located across the street on the east side of Dinsmore Trail. He also expressed opposition to any extensions of Dinsmore Trail to Highway 16 and contended it was not the type of road which would lend itself to being heavily traveled. He also noted he was not interested in hooking onto the City sewer and stated he would prefer to see the lower end of Dinsmore Trail left as is with no access from the development onto it. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin in regard to Mr. Gibson's concern about the access being across from his driveway, Mr. Gray advised he did not know where Mr. Gibson's driveway was in relationship to the access to the subdivision. He noted the project was still in the preliminary stage and the access could be moved easily if necessary. He noted they would be widening the west side of Dinsmore Trail to city standards. . Bob Fairchild, representing his parents who were property owners of 74.6 acres of the mountain just above The Rink, agreed with Mr. Gray's comments about an extension of Dinsmore Trail and Rupple Road and contended it needed to be done in conjunction with this development. He noted with the potential of more housing development in that area, the current street would not be able to be used. He stated his parents' property fronted on Dinsmore Trail which was the only access to their property. He contended the logical thing to do would be to relocate the north/south road which would come through the second street from the west on the housing development and make it a four -lane divided boulevard to handle the traffic. He added the layout of the development would set the tone for the valley for the next 50 years. He also stated that, if the street was improved on the west side along this development, it would only amount to approximately 200 feet of Dinsmore Trail having a curb and sidewalk and contended the other side would still be a gaping ditch which would take the runoff from the west side of the mountain. He reiterated Dinsmore Trail was not a suitable access to the development and would devastate any development on the mountainside. Garlan Reading, an area property owner, reiterated the concerns expressed by the other speakers. Mr. Gray advised he understood the concerns of the property owners in the area, but noted a lot of it was a matter of timing and the location of Dinsmore Trail. He noted the Master Street Plan public hearing might possibly include discussion of this area. He contended that, if it was part of an ultimate plan, they needed to know now. He noted the main entrance to the proposed development would be off of Highway 62 in the form of a boulevard. He added currently the bridge on Dinsmore Trail was sometimes under water isolating the residents and a tie into Dinsmore and the construction of the entrance to Highway 62 would at least give is an alternate way out. 5841 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Nickle reiterated his question as to whether Cottonwood Street was in the right place and noted the staff was asked at the Subdivision Committee to review the area maps to determine how Dinsmore Trail and Rupple Road would tie together. He noted his concern was that Camellia Lane should possibly be extended to the north rather than Cottonwood to the west. Mr. Bunn advised he was not sure exactly how Rupple Road would line up straight south, but it would be near the west end of the subdivision. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Bunn advised the existing Dinsmore Trail dead -ended up the mountain. Mr. Allred suggested Camellia Lane should possibly be wider with an access to the north if it were going to line up with a future extension. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin advised Dinsmore Trail was not currently on the Master Street Plan. Further discussion took place in regard to the most feasible street routes for future development. Mr. Head asked if it were possible to approve the item subject to a resolution of an extension at the Master Street Plan meeting. He added an extension of Rupple Road to the south would not be completely inside the city limits. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn advised a minor arterial street would require at least an 80 -foot width of right-of-way plus, at some point, four • lanes. Mr. Conklin added if it were to function as a minor arterial, the lots would not be accessing directly on to it so the subdivision would have to be replatted with a minor arterial going north and south and access off the minor arterial into the subdivision with lots backing up to the roadway. Mr. Tarvin stated without a map, they could not decide the best route. Mr. Conklin advised that the Master Street Plan changes must be approved by the City Council so the outcome of the Master Street Plan meeting would not be official until it were approved by the Planning Commission and by the City Council as ordinance. He noted he could not ensure any certain time -frame. He added his understanding of the ordinance was that the Planning Commission could only require what was currently on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Tarvin pointed out they had two options, either to approve the subdivision as it was presented or to table it. Ms. Johnson advised that, by looking at maps, they could at least determine the exact current locations of Rupple Road and Dinsmore Trail. She contended if the plat were approved, even if they required Camellia to be stubbed out to the north, they were just guessing at what was there. Mr. Allred reiterated an access to the north between lots 63 and 64 would be needed regardless of a future Rupple Road extension. NOTION Mr. Head moved to table the preliminary plat to provide time for staff to • research where the connection needed to be. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. M Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 9 In answer to a question from Mr. Gray as to whether this would be tabled just until the next meeting and what information they needed to provide, Mr. Tarvin advised the staff would need to provide the Commission with information so that they could review a map of the overall area to decide the best location for a street. He noted he interpreted the table to be until the next meeting. Mr. Bunn asked for specifics on what information the staff needed to provide and how it would relate to the Master Street Plan hearing. Ms. Johnson advised the Commission needed to see a map with the existing roads between Highway 62 north to Highway 16 and perhaps a county map with any county roads also. Mr. Head noted they also needed an opinion from the City Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, as to what was possible and feasible. The motion passed unanimously. 0 • Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 10 FINAL PLAT OF BRADLEY ACRES BILL GRADE - N OF HUNTSVILLE RD, S OF WYMAN RD, E OF STONEBRIDGE RD The next item was a final plat of Bradley Acres submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Bill Graue for property located on the north side of Huntsville Road, south of Wyman Road, and east of Stonebridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 3.90 acres with 4 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments to add to their staff report included in the agenda packet. Bill Rudasill, representing the developer, advised they were requesting final approval of the subdivision so that they could begin construction on the property. Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the final plat of Bradley Acres subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed unanimously. • • 34351 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-19 - FOR A DUPLEX FREDDIE BOURLAND - 826 SUNSET DRIVE The next item was a conditional use request CU94-19 submitted by Freddie Bourland for property located at 826 Sunset Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a duplex. Mr. Conklin clarified Mr. Bourland Is reason for the request was to be allowed to install another kitchen in the basement of his residence. He noted the conditional use was required since separate kitchen and bathroom facilities would be considered an additional dwelling unit. He advised the staff's recommendation remained the same. Mr. Freddie Bourland submitted photographs which he stated made it clear it would not be a separate dwelling unit and was not conducive to a duplex or rental property. He advised it was his intention to have facilities in the basement for summer canning and holiday baking. The point was made by one of the Commissioners that a conditional use approval would give Mr. Bourland the right to turn this into a rental unit. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Conklin advised the conditional use would run with the property. He added if a Bill of Assurance were offered voluntarily, it would also run with the property. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Conklin advised he was not sure of the past history in regard to enforcing a Bill of Assurance and noted the City Attorney or City Prosecutor would handle it. For clarification, Mr. Conklin advised the ordinance stated any structure having kitchen and bathroom facilities which could be physically Closed off was defined as an additional dwelling unit. Mr. Bourland pointed out the facilities in the basement could not be closed off without a structural change to close the stairwell. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bourland advised there was an exterior entrance to the basement with no access from the driveway. A member of the audience, who lived on Sunset Drive, stated he did not object to separate facilities in a single residence but was opposed to a duplex and requested some assurance a duplex would not be constructed. MOTION Mr. Head made moved to allow for the additional facilities with a Bill of Assurance that the property would never be used as a separate rental unit under any circumstance. The motion was seconded by Allred. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Head stated he did not have a problem with another family member living in the basement as long as it was not used for rental purposes. The motion carried with a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Reynolds voting "no". Mr. Suchecki advised he understood the reason for the ordinance, but felt this it kind of thing should be handled administratively instead of being voted on by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 12 LOT SPLIT it & CONDITIONAL USE CU94-20 FOR A TANDEM LOT W C & BEVERLY LITZINGER - 2601 ROSEWOOD DR The next item was a lot split request and a conditional use CU94-20 request for a tandem lot submitted by W. C. & Beverly Litzinger for property located at 2601 Rosewood Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Jim McCord, representing the petitioners, stated the applicants were requesting the item be tabled. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to table this item. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Tarvin explained to the members of the audience who were present to hear the item that the rules stated if there was a motion and a second to table an item, there could be no further discussion at that time. He stated if they wanted any information returned which they had submitted, it would be available and advised them they could be present for discussion when the item was brought back to the Commission for review. I" W 3871 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 13 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 11 & #2 HOSPITALITY GROUP INC - 2000 N COLLEGE AVE The next item was a request for lot splits #1 and #2 submitted by Bryan Perry on behalf of Hospitality Group, Inc. for property located at 2000 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, Mr. Bunn advised the staff did not have any further comments to add to the staff report which was attached to the agenda packet. Mr. Bryan Perry advised the plan was to construct a Backyard Burgers Restaurant on the site and to split two lots off. He added Wayne Jones of McClelland Engineering was present if there were any questions. Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve lot splits #1 & #2 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Tarvin "abstaining". 0 Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 14 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLIT #1 JIM WILSON - 823 STORER The next item was a lot split #1 request submitted by Jim Wilson for property located at 823 Storer Avenue and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. contiguous Mr. Bunn advised the only additional comments other than the staff report were to clarify that this item and the following Alley Vacation request were dependent on each other. He explained that, unless the vacation was granted, the lot splits would not apply and approval of the lot split would have to be subject to the right-of-way vacation. Mr. Tarvin advised the map showed the subject property ran from the street on the north end to the south end with the lot split occurring about where the old garage was located. Mr. Bunn advised the map did not accurately depict the size of the property and noted the alley split the lot which was the reason for the alley vacation request. In answer to further questions, Mr. Wilson advised he wished to vacate 20 feet of the alley which ran along the north 20 -foot of lots 7 and 8. He clarified he owned lots 1 and 2, and the north 20 feet of lots 7 and 8 and was requesting a vacation of the portion of the alley which abutted those lots. He added his purpose in the requests was an attempt to have two 90 -foot lots on which to place a four-plex. He added he had an existing four-plex on the north 90 feet and • approval of the requests would allow him to place a four-plex on a separate 90 - foot tract on the south end of the property. He noted the alley created problems with setbacks and having a separate four-plex on the south end. He advised th existing house immediately south of the existing four-plex would be removed. Ms. Sharon Langley of the Planning Department staff advised she had received a phone call earlier in the day from Mrs. Cowan residing in Texas who requested the item be tabled for two weeks to allow time for her to have a representative present. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Wilson advised Mrs. Cowan owned the portion of lots 7 and 8 which he did not own and noted her property was not contiguous to the alley. In answer to a question from a Commissioner, Ms. Langley advised proper notification was received by Mrs. Cowan a week earlier and again the day of the meeting. She added Ms. Cowan's property adjoined the lot split request, but not the alley. Mr. Wilson pointed out he could have the same number of units or even more without the Planning Commission's approval, but the purpose was to have two separate lots. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Langley assured the Commission Mrs. Cowan had received proper notification of the requests. Ms. Johnson advised Mrs. Cowan had also contacted her by phone and had stated her property was adjacent to the alley and had also expressed her opposition to the alley vacation. Mr. Wilson advised he had a survey which indicated his ownership of the portion . of lots 7 and 8 which were adjacent to the alley. He explained it showed a total north/south length of 180 feet (the 140 -foot length of lots 1 and 2, plus the 20 • Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 15 feet width of the alley, plus an additional 20 feet which was a portion of lots 7 and 8). In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Wilson stated there was not anything located in the western portion of the alley which ran between the eastern line of lots 3 and 6 and Oakland Avenue. He added it did not appear to be used in any way. Mr. Tarvin reviewed the legal description and stated it did indicate Mr. Wilson did own a part of lots 7 and 8. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the lot split #1 subject to the alley vacation being approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Johnson voting "no". RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V94-6 JIM WILSON - 823 STORER ST The next item was a request for a vacation of a 20 foot east -west alley submitted by Jim Wilson for property located at 823 Storer Street and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. • NOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the alley vacation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioner Johnson voting "no". REMINDER OF SPECIAL MEETINGS Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission of the Master Street Plan Public Hearing scheduled for Monday, August 15th and the Flood Plain Public Hearing on Thursday, August 18th, DISCUSSION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION ON MAY 24, 1993 Mr. Reynolds stated on May 24th, 1993 the Commission had denied a lot split request by David Lyle. He advised there now was a home build on the lot and a "For Sale" sign in the yard. Mr. Conklin advised Mr. Lyle was not supposed to be able to get a separate deed recorded for the property until the Planning Office stamped it as approved for a lot split. He stated he did not know whether or not the County Offices would approve a deed without the city approval. He added they would contact the realtor to make them aware the property did not have split approval and should not be allowed to be sold separately. Mr, Tarvin stated it would be advisable for the City Attorney to write a letter to 40 the owner. Planning Commission August 8, 1994 Page 16 Mr. Conklin advised the staff would notify the owner, the County Clerk, and the Abstract Office that the property had not been legally split. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. • 0 39141