Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A NESTING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 22, 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, Ren Pummill, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Gary R. Head, Charles Nickle, and Jana Lynn Britton MEMBERS ABSENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others DISCUSSION OF SWEPCO TOWER Floyd Hornaday, SWEPCO, appeared before the Commission to give a statue report on the SWEPCO tower located on Mt. Sequoyah. He advised they were currently running the system parallel with the existing radio system and were in the process of installing a radio site in Rogers. He explained once they had installed the radio tower in Rogers, they would be able to get the coverage needed in the Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers/Eureka Springs area which would enable them to take out the old system. He advised, however, it would be several weeks before they could remove the antenna and building on Mt. Sequoyah. Ms. Britton advised concern had been expressed to her by neighbors in regard to the fence across the private easement between the property owners and the removal of the gate which had been purchased by the neighbors. She explained removing . ' the gate gave the public access to road which upset the neighborhood. Mr. Hornaday asked if she was referring to the alleyway easement on the north side. Ms. Britton advised it started out on the north and ended up on the east side of the tower. Mr. Hornaday stated he was not aware of a private easement, but there was an alleyway between their property and Warner Cable. He added it was hie understanding that the gate was on their property because they had let the neighborhood use part of their property to go into the back side of Mt. Sequoyah. He advised they had made provisions for access to that area again as shown on the map presented by Hailey/Associates/Architects. Ms. Britton advised her understanding was the neighborhood did not want that access and that was why the gate was there. She noted their concern was the public was now using the access. Mr. Hornaday advised the proposal was to give the neighbors that security back with a paved pathway and a gate if it was needed. Mr. Reynolds advised the neighbors had expressed to him they would prefer the gate be replaced with a key given to the neighbors only so the public could be kept out. Mr. Hornaday assured the Commission they had discussed the security and were willing to work with the neighborhood. Kim Hessee, a representative of Hailey/Associates advised they had identified the AdhL three following needs: a need to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance N� to the neighborhood, a need to provide property security and definition while allowing the required restricted access to adjoining property owned by Sequoyah Methodist Church (with an issue of safety concern in those access points), and a need to improve site drainage and eliminate the current erosion problems. She advised since this was basically a landscaping concern, their company contacted Bill Hall of CEI to look at the site to review the problems and issues. Bill Hall, CEI Engineering, a landscape architect, stated the issue of access had been addressed in the concept plan submitted to the Planning Commission with a fence running along the west side of the property with a gated entrance by the road. He stated one of their primary concerns was the issue of screening the buildings from the street and they had chosen mostly native plantings (such as Eastern Red Cedar, Redbud, and Sumac) which would blend in with the wooded lot. He added, as far as addressing the drainage issue, they looked at creating a swale around the south side of the building to divert some drainage into an existing drainage channel running through the property. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton regarding the proposed location of the fence, Ms. Little advised a 25 -foot view triangle had to be maintained from any intersection. Mr. Hornaday advised they were proposing a split -rail fence relying on the vegetation for the screening. ' Me. Little stated the general idea was that the fencing be view -obscuring and reiterated that the 25 -foot view triangle would be required to maintain ingress/egress in a safe manner. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Hornaday advised they proposed to remove the old facilities before they began the landscape work in approximately six weeks. • Ms. Britton contended a definite time -frame was needed since this project had been going on for approximately a year. Mr. Hornaday advised they could do some of the landscaping before taking out the old facilities. In response to further comments, he reiterated until they had the new radio system fully operational, they could not take the old system out. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated she did not believe it required a building permit to start on the tower work. Mr. Allred asked why the Planning Commission were reviewing this and contended it should probably be handled by either the Engineering Department or the Inspections Department, then be approved administratively by the staff. Ms. Little advised the Commission had previously asked the staff to have SWEPCO give a status report. She advised the installation of the tower required a conditional use from the Planning Commission which had been granted with conditions. She explained that, due to the number of citizen complaints received by the City and the Planning Commission, they were continuing to have SWEPCO keep them up-to-date on the progress and future plans. She added this was the first the staff had seen of their plans and had been unaware they had retained the services of an landscape architect in order to meet the conditions the Planning Commission had prescribed. Mr. Allred contended they should have the same amount of time as anyone having a building permit before it came back to the Planning Commission with any problems. He contended the Planning Commission was not authorized to deal with this kind of situation without a formal public hearing with both sides being notified. 0 There being no further discussion, the Commission proceeded with the agenda. Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 3 MINUTES: The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 1994 were approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PETITION R94-47, LOT SPLITS #1 & 2, AND CONDITIONAL USE CU94-21 . CHARLES S ROBERT NICLE - BEHIND 1813 MISSION BLVD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-47, a Lot Split Request for #1 and 2, and a Conditional Use request for a tandem lot submitted by Charles and Robert Nickle for property located behind 1813 Mission Boulevard and zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The rezoning request is to rezone the property to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Nickle recused himself from this item. Mr. Conklin stated the staff had no additional comments to the staff report except that a separate motion would be required for each of the requests associated with the subject property: the rezoning petition, the lot split request, and the conditional use request for a tandem lot. Robert Nickle, one of the property owners, advised they concurred with the staff's recommendation. MOTION • Mr. Allred made a motion to grant the rezoning petition R94-47 as requested subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. LOT SPLITS #1 6 2 MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot splits #1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU94-21 NOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve Condition Use CU94-21 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 4 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA INDUSTRIAL PARR, PHASE II BERT HANNA - S OF 15TH ST, W OF INDUSTRIAL PL The next item was a large scale development plan for Hanna Industrial Park, Phase II submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Bert Hanna for property located south of 15th Street and west of Industrial Place. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and contained 12.5 acres. There were no additional staff comments. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing Bert Hanna, advised the developer was proposing a 114,000 square foot building located behind the same sized building which was currently nearing completion for his Hanna Potpourri operation. He stated they were requesting a parking variance in conjunction with the second building since approximately 180 parking spaces were required and only 55 employees were anticipated. NOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development plan with the parking waiver as requested subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 7-0-1 with Commissioner Head abstaining. is C 403 • Planning commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 5 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN .O. BACK YARD BURGERS :OCOLLEGE The next item was a large scale development plan for Back Yard Burgers submitted by McClelland Engineering on behalf of Hospitality Group, Inc. for property located at 2036 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.27 acres. The staff had no additional comments. Mr. Wayne Jones with McClelland Consulting Engineers, representing Hospitality Group, advised they were requesting approval of the large scale development subject to a waiver of the required sidewalk along College Avenue due to the fact there was no existing sidewalk either to the north or south (with paved parking north across Mazzio's Pizza and the adjacent shopping area) of this location. Ms. Britton stated most of the businesses in that area did not have a sidewalk, but there was a strip of concrete with the planting island. She asked if there would be any space where a pedestrian could access one parking lot to the next. Mr. Jones advised pedestrians could walk across the landscaped area between the back of the islands and the front of the building area. He explained there was approximately 20 feet on the north and south which would be landscaped with grass and trees and could be accessed by pedestrians. Ms. Britton expressed concern about the culvert stating it might be a deterrent • for pedestrians. Mr. Jones advised the culvert in question was to the south of the Poplar Street area where the miniature golf course was located. He pointed out it was approximately 250 feet south of the subject property. He noted there was a curb inlet in one of the islands, but it was all paved. Me. Britton expressed concern pedestrians would not be able to walk through the area easily. She suggested they install a break in the curb so that a pedestrian could access from one parking lot to the next. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development for Back Yard Burgers subject to the staff comments without a waiver of the required sidewalk. Me. Little advised they were looking at a broader issue which was whether the City had a commitment of building the sidewalks along the major streets and whether the City had a commitment to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) which required they provide handicapped accessible walkways. Me. Britton seconded the motion. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Jones advised the sidewalk was shown on the south side and the north side in the landscaped area on their plat. He reiterated they were requesting a waiver of the sidewalk where the landscaped area was located. He explained the south side of the sidewalk would be located at the property line roughly at the back of the islands currently located along College Avenue and the one on the north side would be approximately 3 or 4 feet from the property line. Mr. Allred contended the fast traffic along College Avenue made it dangerous for • pedestrians so the sidewalks would not serve a purpose unless they were set back. Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Jones advised the difference between the curb and the sidewalk was a minimum of 10 feet. Mr. Nickle clarified the plat showed a sidewalk on the north island and a sidewalk on the south island. He stated he had presumed they would install a handicapped accessible ramp on each side to tie in with the drive. Mr. Jones explained they were requesting a waiver across the landscaped islands. Ms. Little advised they had scaled the location of the sidewalks on the copy of the plat and determined there was approximately a 10 -foot separation from the curb to the sidewalk on the south side and approximately a 15 -foot separation on the north side. Mr. Tarvin clarified the motion stated the large scale development be approved subject to requiring the sidewalk to be constructed across the landscaped area on the north and the south Bide with the walkway between the landscaped areas only being a hard -surfaced parking lot. The motion failed 3-4-1 with Commissioners Nickle, Reynolds, and Britton voting yes; Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Head voting no; and Commissioner Tarvin abstaining. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development plan with a waiver of- the fthe sidewalk requirement as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried 5-2-1 with commissioners Nickle, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Head voting yes; Commissioners Reynolds and Britton voting no; and Commissioner Tarvin abstaining. E Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 7 The next item was a large scale development plan for Tanneberger Offices submitted by Dennis Becker on behalf of Rick Tanneberger for property located north of the Highway 71 Bypass and east of Highway 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains .62 acres. Ms. Little advised this item was included in the agenda packet as an informational item since it was no longer required to go through the Planning process approval because it had been exempted from the Overlay Ordinance by the recent action of the City Council. She added this information was being given to the Planning Commission so they would be aware of the types of developments taking place. She advised the plat provided information which indicated the amount of open space (including the area within the right-of-way) would have achieved the 258 open space requirement of the Design Overlay District Ordinance. She added the area within the right-of-way would normally not be allowed to be counted as greenspace. Mr. Dennis Becker, architect on the development, suggested reviewing this item with the Large Scale Development for North Park Place since they were both just for the Commission's information. Mr. Becker pointed out the Design Overlay District required a 258 open area and the Tanneberger Offices project came very close to meeting all the design overlay requirements. He added North Park Place did not meet those requirements because • the amount of building to land area was twice as much as in the Tanneberger Large Scale Development. He added the Overlay District requirements resulted in the developer suffering a reduction of the maximum developable property (in other words, the size of the building). He explained there was approximately a 258 reduction in the buildable area in the North Park Place Large Scale Development based on the existing ordinances prior to the adoption of the Overlay District. He pointed out they would still have the parking screened, the trees, and the berming in North Park Place even though it was exempted. He noted it was a ironic that one of the purposes of the Overlay District was to preserve and enhance the economic value of the property when the development aspect was reduced by 25 to 308. Mr. Becker explained the counter argument would be that green was good and the property would increase in value with all the green space. He contended the requirement of the wall 5 feet away .from the property line cut the visibility of the rest of the 25 feet on the property and did not allow the benefit of enhancing the greenspace of the entrance into Fayetteville. He suggested that the wall be moved back. He pointed out the Overlay District addressed the issues of traffic and safety and suggested the sidewalks be pulled back a little bit for safety. Mr. Becker contended the statement in the Overlay District that buildings be "architecturally designed" was meaningless since that could mean anything. He asked the Commission to consider these things as they perfected the Overlay District Ordinance. He suggested incentives be offered to developers to increase the number of trees in the parking area, etc. • yob Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 8 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRI STATE PRECAST TRI STATE DEVELOPMENT - E OF MCCOLLUM AVE The next item was a large scale development plan for Tri State Precast submitted by Al Johnson on behalf of Tri State Development for property located east of McCollum Avenue. The property is zoned 1-1, Light Industrial and contains 15 acres. Mr. Don Bunn advised the staff had no further comments to add to their report. A representative of the development stated they hoped to get approval so they could proceed with construction. Mr. Arthur Miller, a resident of Willoughby Road, expressed the need for improvements to McCollum Avenue before additional traffic traveled on it. Mr. Nickle asked if the developer would participate in the cost of improvements to half of the street (McCollum Avenue). Ms. Little advised the staff had made such participation a condition of approval in the staff report stating that a contribution of cash in lieu of off-site improvements (equal to one-half of a city street for the length of the subject property) would be required. She added the plans were to install a full city street to the entrance of the development rather than just half of the street because of the current condition of the street. . In response to a comment from Ms. Britton, the development representative stated when the concrete solidified it was used on the lot. He further explained the water hydrated the concrete mix so there was no runoff. He added they had filed a storm water management plan. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development plan subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Mr. Reynolds voting no. • N07 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLINGTON PLACE DON GINGER - N OF HWY 45, E OF HWY 265 , The next item was a preliminary plat of Willington Place submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Don Ginger for property located north of Highway 45, east of Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 38.88 acres with 28 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the staff had no additional comments. I \Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing Don Ginger, advised this was a ,revised plat prepared to accommodate the needs and concerns of the Planning Commission offering an allowance for through traffic from Starr Road to a potential extension of Township Road, In response to a comment from Shea Lastra, Mr. Tarvin stated the plat showed right-of-way being dedicated for a future extension of Township Road. Ms. Lastra asked what the standard procedure was for creating rights-of-way for streets which had not officially been through the Planning Commission for final approval. Ms. Little explained there was a process where they designated collector and above streets on the Master Street Plan and required right-of-ways of those as they go through the planning process and a separate process where they required connection of any local streets known, She noted that every street was not shown on the Master Street Plan. In response to further comments from Ms. Lastra, Ms, Little reiterated, as a part of any subdivision process, connections were required of subdivisions to streets to provide circulation, She added the extension of Township had not been placed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street, but that did not mean it would not be extended as a local street. Ms. Lastra expressed concern with the assumption that the extension of Township would exist was being made in regard to this development. She noted it was her understanding that the citizens would have input into the decision regarding the extension of Township. Ms. Little advised there were two requirements for a subdivision: that it have two entrance and two exits; and that cul-de-sacs over 500 feet in length not be allowed without a waiver from the Planning Commission. She explained the connection was needed in order for the development to meet those requirement. In response to further questions from Ms. Lastra, Ms. Little stated the required connection did not necessarily have to be an extension of Township Road, but noted in all likelihood it would be. Ms. Lastra reiterated the residents who were interested about the possible extension of Township would be very concerned about the decision-making process currently going on for the extension of Township before it had received final approval. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the reason a 60 -foot right-of-way was requested and shown was because the right-of-way that the City was building for a connection to Township School was 60 feet. She pointed out the current right-of-way on Township between Highway 265 and Old Wire Road was • a 50 -foot right-of-way with a 32 -foot street. Mr. Tarvin mentioned that a member of the staff, Mr. Ed Connell, had attended a N Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 10 right-of-way seminar sponsored by the State and had been informed by the State Highway Department that, if a City required right-of-way from developers without compensation, the City could lose their grants for construction when the project came along. He added it was part of a federal law, the Uniform Relocation Acquisition Act. Ms. Little advised that was true and it applied to any project for which federal funds were used and noted what was being discussed was not currently a part of the State or federal highway system. Mr. Tarvin stated his point was the plan was to extend Township one way or another in spite of people objecting to such extension. Ms. Little stated there was a need to either to make that decision so the Commission could then accept plats and act on developmental requests or stop accepting plats until the Master Street Plan decisions were made. Mr. Tarvin asked what would happen to the right-of-way in the subject project if a decision was made not to put the Township Road extension on the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little advised there would still be a street there, it would just be a local street and not a collector or above. She explained the requirement was for developers to construct one-half of any public street to which they were adjacent. She added, however, taking the right-of-way did allow for a connection at some future time if needed. Ms. Little further stated the property immediately to the west was being developed as a school district site and the property immediately to the east had been fully developed, therefore the street could not proceed in a straight manner. She stated she had spoken to at least two developers who were interested in the property immediately to the north which was the only intervening piece of property between Township and the school and Savanna Estates. She pointed out the City was looking for future connections with particular regard to accessing the elementary school. Mr. Harry Gray stated the valid point as to the legality of requiring the right- of-way had been brought up at an earlier meeting and he requested the Planning Commission's direction. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Mr. Tarvin voting "no". r Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 11 140 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAGNOLIA CROSSING MAGNOLIA PROPERTIES - N OF HWY 62, W OF DINSMORE TR The next item was a preliminary plat of Magnolia Crossing submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Magnolia Properties for property located north of Highway 62 and west of Dinsmore Trail. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 36.5 acres with 144 proposed lots. Mr. Tim Conklin advised an aerial photograph had been included in the agenda which reflected the area between Rupple Road and Highway 62. Mr. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representative of the developer, advised it had been determined since the last meeting that Dinsmore Trail was a part of the Master Street Plan. He noted, based on that information, he requested the plat be approved as submitted. A resident of 3900 Dinsmore Trail expressed her concern about drainage problems in the area and potential problems relating to the possible extension of Dinsmore Trail, Bill Ashmore of 1071 Dinsmore Trail advised that, with respect to his gas line which had been discussed at the last meeting, all of the line had been located and noted the meter was located at the northwest corner of lot 15. He stated it seemed reasonable that his gas line could be moved and placed within the easement trench around the perimeter of the property. He requested the consideration of an additional 20 -foot of easement along the north side of the property in an attempt to preserve more of the current mature forest and expressed concern in regard to potential drainage problems. He suggested the collector street be started north from 6th Street to eventually connect U.S. 62 to State Highway 16. He noted he would be glad to grant the City the right-of-way to extend the street even further north. Jo Sanders, Magnolia Properties, advised the drainage problem would be taken care of by the engineering firm and added they were very committed to preserving as many trees as possible. She stated their covenants restricted clear -cutting of the lots. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn advised the southern extension of Rupple Road along the western boundary of the development would not be considered at this time as long as Dinsmore Trail was on the Master Street Plan. He noted there had been some discussion of moving Dinsmore Trail to the west. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had not requested right-of-way off the western boundary of the development since the street was not in place on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Tarvin pointed out Township was not shown on the Master Street Plan either, but an extension was being considered. He asked how it was different than Dinsmore Trail. Ms. Little advised they had been requiring the off-site improvements to Dinsmore Trail because it was on the Master Street Plan. She added, in looking at both the aerial and topographical maps, the staff agreed the better place to extend Rupple Road would be to the west. She advised Dinsmore Trail in that case would be kept open as a local street. Mr. Nickle verified the connection to Cottonwood Street was the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee, Ms. Little stated the connection to the property to the west was required because 410 1s Ir Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 12 it would provide a second access to the large acreage to the west when it was developed. In response to a request for clarification from Me. Fairchild who was an owner of property to the northeast of the subject property, Ms. Little clarified the plat showed improvements to Dinsmore Trail and off-site improvements to the bridge. She advised Cottonwood Street would provide access if Rupple Road was extended in a north/south manner to the west. She added the process pointed out the need for the updating of the Master Street Plan because a better route than what was shown on the Master Street Plan had been determined. She noted the staff's major improvement requests would be to Dinsmore Trail as opposed to any extension of Rupple Road because of how it was currently shown on the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little pointed out even if the Master Street Plan were amended to show a Rupple connection to the west, the same improvements would still be required to Dinsmore Trail plus the extension of right-of-way for Rupple. In response to a question in regard to the 35 -foot of dedicated right-of-way shown on the map, Mr. Bunn advised if Dinsmore were improved, additional right- of-way would most likely be needed from the other side. In answer to further questions, Ms. Little advised the extension of the street would be driven by the need created by development. She advised that, if it were necessary to alleviate major traffic problems, the City could use the power of eminent domain to require the properties necessary for the connection to be made. In answer to questions from Mr. Allred and Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised there had been discussion in regard to right-of-way to the north for future development. She pointed out it had been determined the property owner had access to Dinsmore and any development would probably go over to any future extension which would provide two adequate accesses. Ms. Fairchild reiterated a recommendation of a west exit because of the potential development of their land causing two exits of two developments within approximately 50 feet of each other. Ms. Britton pointed out, and Mr. Gray agreed, that Cottonwood Street could be moved to the south to possibly create another lot. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated 80 feet of right-of- way would be required if Rupple Road was extended to the south. NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments. Ms. Britton asked if Cottonwood Street could still be moved if this were approved as shown on the plat. A representative of Magnolia Properties explained the location of Cottonwood Street was for aesthetic purposes since they intended to utilize the remaining greenspace in the SWEPCO easement for gazebos and landscaping. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. Mr, Len Shafer, a resident of Fayetteville, expressed concern about the potential for heavy traffic on Dinsmore and suggested an access to the west should be required. I• 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 13 The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Nickle, Suchecki, Pummill, Allred, and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds, Bead and Tarvin voting •'no". 412 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 14 FINAL PLAT OF BRIDGEPORT ADDITION, PHASE I CREEEWOOD HILLS DEVEL40PNEBT CORP. - S OF NT COMFORT, W OF RUPPLE The next item was a final plat of Bridgeport Addition, Phase I submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Creekwood Hills Development Corporation for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 27.04 acres with 61 proposed lots. There were no further comments from the staff. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, advised they were seeking approval subject to the staff's comments. He pointed out the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report attached to the agenda. He advised the issues raised in paragraph 4 of the staff report including the bridge construction were being discussed between the developer's attorney and the City Attorney for the best solution. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the final plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion was unanimous with a vote of 7-0-0 (Mr. Pummill left the meeting early). 1• 413 I• is Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-18 - ANTIQUE STORE SHEA CRAIN 6 GARY WEIDNER - 351 N HIGHLAND AVE The next item was a conditional use request CU94-18 submitted by Shea Crain and Gary Weidner on property located at 351 N. Highland Avenue and zoned R -O, Residential -Office. The request was for an antique store. The staff had no further comments. Ms. Shea Crain, one of the property owners, presented a drawing of their proposal. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the first floor was where the conditional use approval was needed. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve a conditional use for an antique store on the first floor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. q141 • Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-22 - DUPLEX DENNIS BECKER - 212 OKLAHOMA WAY The next item was a conditional use CU94-22 submitted by Dennis Becker on property located at 212 Oklahoma Way and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a duplex. The staff had no further comments. Mr. Dennis Becker, the petitioner, advised the property had been a duplex since at least 1974 even though the zoning was R-1. He explained he was required to seek approval of a conditional use to be allowed to make improvements to it. MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the conditional use for a duplex. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed unanimously. k15 MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion was passed unanimously. Limp Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 17 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-23 - VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE R.H. STEPHENS - 2118 W PARNELL DR The next item was a conditional use CU94-23 submitted by R.H. Stephens for property located at 2118 W. Parnell Drive and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a vehicle towing and storage operation. The staff had no further comments. Mr. R.H. Stephens advised he was seeking approval for a vehicle towing/ storage/recovery business on a property located at the western side of the previous Food -4 -Less parking lot on Highway 62. He stated he ran a towing and storage business and the city ordinances did not clearly specify the zoning needed for that type of business. In answer to a question in regard to the access to the business, Mr. Stephens advised the main access to his business was at the southeast corner of the Food - 4 -Less parking lot. Ms. Britton clarified if there were complaints about this business, it would be reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Little agreed. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern in regard to the potential danger to neighborhood children from the guard dogs inside the chained -link fence. Mr. Stephens explained the only way children would have access to the property would be from Parnell Drive into his backyard since he lived directly behind the fence. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion was passed unanimously. Limp Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 18 WAIVER To SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 E. PATRICIA BOWMAN & WILLIAM E. DANNER - 4366 BRIDGEWATER LANE The next item was a lot split #1 submitted by E. Patricia Bowman and William E. Danner for property located at 4368 Bridgewater Lane. The staff had no further comments. Mr. Bill Danner, one of the petitioners, stated he was seeking the lot split approval to deal with his mother's farm. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Danner advised his mother lived in the northeast corner of the present 7.6 acres and the split was the west 3.12 acres. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the lot split subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. I* Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1994 Page 19 VACATION V94-7 - UTILITY EASEMENT CLARY DEVELOPMENT CORP - W OF NALL LN, N OF JOYCE BLVD The next item was a vacation V94-7 submitted by Greg Bone on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located west of Mall Lane and north of Joyce Boulevard and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate a utility easement. The staff had no further comments. Mr. Bone, the petitioner, had no additional comments. NOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the vacation as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. N18 J