Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-12 Minutes46 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 12, 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, Phyllis Hall Johnson and Jana Lynn Britton OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION OF MASTER STREET PLAN — TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING RESULTS Ms. Alett Little advised the members of the Transportation Subcommittee had voted, at their meeting last week, unanimously to cancel the special meeting scheduled to discuss the Master Street Plan planned for Thursday, September 15th, 1994. Ms. Little pointed out the staff had some responsibilities in terms of public notification even when a meeting was canceled. She suggested thee Commission discuss why the meeting was canceled and if it would be rescheduled. Mr. Jerry Allred, Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, explained the reason for postponing the meeting was because the Commissioners had only received the revised Master Street Plan as they arrived at the meeting which resulted in an inadequate time to review it. He noted the Subcommittee determined it was in the best interest of the City and the community to postpone the public hearing to allow adequate time for review and discussion before the plan was to be brought before the full Planning Commission. Mr. Tarvin contended there were a number of changes made to the map from the original (most of which were generated outside of the Committee). He used the example of Lafayette Street which had been labeled as a "minor arterial" on the original map and then had been changed on the new map. He stated that, to his knowledge, the Committee had nothing to do with the original designation of Lafayette or with it being changed. He advised the committee chose to have some time to review the changes to the map and then discuss further. Ms. Little stated the staff would need a decision on when the meeting would be held. She added the staff had understood the Transportation Subcommittee had made their recommendations to the Planning Commission as of August 15th and the Planning Commission had then received comments from the public. She added the amended map was generated in response to the listening day session the staff had in the Planning Office as well as the comments received at the public hearing. She further stated the staff felt that, in order for the Planning commission to be able to vote on the changes, the changes would need to be shown on the map. She reiterated the staff needed a decision as to when further public comment would be taken and how staff should respond to the public comment. Mr. Tarvin reiterated the map had changed and there were further anticipated changes. He advised the Subcommittee had determined it would be better for the Committee to feel comfortable with the map and then review it with the public. He noted it was difficult for the public to comment with one week's notice on a • Planning Commission September 12, 1994 Page 2 map which the Committee had only seen for five minutes. He advised they had not felt prepared to discuss the map at that time with no chance for review. He further explained there were a number of people making changes to the map that the Committee did not have any control over and they were unsure what their role was. Me. Little explained the Transportation Subcommittee had begun work in December of 1993, made a recommendation to the Planning Commission which was forwarded to staff at the end of July and the public meeting was held in August. She added it had been her understanding the Subcommittee had been retired at that point and the recommendations of the Subcommittee had been moved on to the Planning Commission. She stated she believed there was a fundamental question as to how the Planning Commission wished to response to the public comment and also, if there was to be a Subcommittee again, what level of the public comment they wanted to take since there would be a need for that comment to be repeated again for the whole Planning Commission, Mr. Allred stated it was his understanding, as past chairman of the Commission, that subcommittees were appointed for the entire year which would mean they were not retired even if they were not meeting. Ms. Little pointed out at the end of their meeting they had agreed the committee was disbanded. Mr. Allred noted the procedural error was sending the plan back to the Transportation Subcommittee with the revisions. He contended it should have been sent on to the Commission. Ms. Little stated Mr. Allred was probably correct. She noted the staff had been trying to response to a request from the Subcommittee to be apprised of what was happening prior to the plan coming to the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred pointed out they needed to establish a proper procedure so they could follow it. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised it was the responsibility of the Committee to make recommendations to the Commission and they had done that. Mr. Tarvin stated that, if it were the responsibility of the Committee to make recommendations to the Planning Commission, he did not understand how the Committee could do that if it no longer existed when the map was changed. Me. Little responded the Committee had made recommendations which had been placed on the map. She advised the current changes now on the map had come from public input. Mr. Tarvin asked who decided what changes were made on the map. Ms. Little responded basically everything which had been suggested was on the map. Mr. Allred stated they needed to get back on track and decide how to proceed with it. Ms. Little reiterated the staff needed a decision as to whether the public • meeting would be held as initially scheduled. MOTION Planning Commission September 12, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Allred made a motion to postpone the public hearing which had been planned for September 15th, 1994. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. Ms. Britton stated it seemed the transportation issue was not progressing forward, but backwards. She noted that, as a member of the Committee, she felt their job had been completed and that they had handed it off to the full Commission. She contended that, in order for the Commission to reach an eventual decision and pass the Plan on to the City Council, the Planning Commission should hear from the public on Thursday evening. She added she felt it was not prudent to delay it any longer. Mr. Tarvin advised the Committee had informed the press the public hearing was canceled. He contended they could not proceed with the public hearing now and expect people to be prepared. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the staff now had both maps available for public view, but the only one they had been giving copies of was the first one. She added they needed to get to the point where they had a map that proposals could be taken on and could be generated in a form that could be colored coded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nickle stated he felt the Planning Commission needed to have at least a • Subcommittee recommendation on a map and also whatever public comment had been made to this point. Ms. Little stated they could give them the original map and the one with changes. In answer to further questions from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated her opinion was the public should be presented with the most revised map. Mr. Reynolds contended the information needed to be presented to the public so that they could give input. Mr. Allred explained the Subcommittee did forward to the Planning Commission the first map for discussion and a public hearing was held on it. He added, however, they did not make that recommendation because that was a draft. Mr. Tarvin stated the Subcommittee had set a meeting date of September 22nd to formulate a map with their recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Allred contended the Subcommittee needed to have the responsibility of formulating a final draft of the Master Street Plan to be presented to the Council in its entirety for approval. Ms. Johnson stated the question was whether the public hearing should be with the Subcommittee or with the Planning Commission. NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to send the Plan back to the Transportation Subcommittee for formulation of a recommendation to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1421 . Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING PETITION R94-48 DAVID A PHELAN - 2469 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-48 submitted by David A. Phelan for property located at 2469 E. Huntsville Road which contains 2.5 acres. The request is to rezone the property from R-1, Low Density Residential and A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised Mr. Phelan had indicated he was willing to pave the area for the used car lot and would do some screening, but had not agreed to screen the entire street aide which would be required by code. He advised the staff's recommendation remained the same. Mr. Phelan advised he had been given some confusing information and noted Mrs. Langley of the Planning Office had informed him of the required buffer zone at the last minute. He stated he was advised a buffer zone would not allow anything he was trying to sell to be seen because it would be behind a wooden fence. He noted he was proposing to put in a used car lot and not a salvage yard. He contended if he had a fence, no one would see what he had for sale. He noted he was then informed he could ask for a variance. He added the information in the packet incorrectly stated if he did not get his zoning variance, he did not want the rezoning. He advised he submitted another letter to replace the first one in the packet, but the letter had not been replaced as he requested. He stated he had been contacted again a few days ago by a member of the staff for more information as to what type of cars he would be selling and what type of service he would be providing at which time he was informed his lot would have to be covered with asphalt. He contended the staff kept bringing up other requirements he had not been informed of originally. He noted he was aware the Planning Commission had already heard the negative recommendation, but he was asking for further consideration. Mr. Reynolds requested information as to the care currently parked on the back of the subject property. Mr. Phelan advised he had purchased and repaired the care over a period of time and they were all in working order. He added the commission fees at car auctions were very expense because there was a commission when a car was bought and when it was sold. He noted that fuel costs were also extremely expensive. He explained he needed a lot in order to make any money at the business. He stated he and his partner wanted the opportunity to use the subject tract for their business. Mr. Allred asked why screening would be required on the north side of the property. Ma. Little advised screening was required between any commercial and residentially zoned property. She noted there was residential property on the south and north side. She noted, however, if the zoning were changed to commercial it would be a case of commercial property abutting residential. She added there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to what screening was required and pointed out it would not have to be a board fence but could be vegetative. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised technically the property across the street did not abut, but it was adjacent to the subject . property. y2z Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Allred contended they had a similar situation on North and Garland and the City took the opposite stance on it and determined it property across the alleyway was not abutting. Ms. Little pointed out the consideration at North and Garland was not screening, but whether two-thirds of the property owners immediately adjacent to the property objected to a rezoning petition. She explained the screening was still required on the lot at North and Garland had been enforced on that lot. Mr. Allred contended the issue was the same and he felt they should be consistent. He contended that property acrose the street was not technically adjacent. Mr. Nickle asked if there were any other zones where a used car lot was allowed as conditional use instead of a use by right. Me. Little advised it was not allowed in C-1, the lesser commercial zoning, or in R -O which left C-2 as being the least commercial zoning which allowed a used car lot. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little advised all the adjoining property owners had been notified. Mr. Phelan advised he personally contacted all the owners of property which touched or was across the street from his property and had not received any objections. He added he had agreed to put in shrubs for screening, but not a fence. • Ms. Little explained the screening requirement did not automatically require a fence; vegetation was permitted. She added it did have to be completely view - obscuring so vegetation had to meet the height requirements at planting and an ultimate height of 6 feet. She advised view -obscuring meant nothing was to be visible through it. She pointed out the Planning Commission did have the authority to waive the screening requirement if there was a specific reason. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the western edge of the property was approximately 209 feet from the Watson's grocery property edge. Mr. Allred advised if they were still going by the 300 feet on either side of an intersection for a commercial node, then this property fell right into that definition. He noted if this rezoning were approved, he had no problem with the screening requirement between this and the R-1 side. Mr. Reynolds asked if they could require a bill of assurance on the screening and the parking lot paving. Ms. Little advised they could request that and pointed out, if this rezoning were approved, there was no assurance under the C-2 zoning that the car lot was all that would be developed there. Mr. Phelan advised he had no plans to do anything other than the car lot on hie property. He stated he was willing to put up a screening between his property and the property adjacent to his on the west side because the neighbor had requested slats on his chain-link fence only and not a board fence. Ms. Little advised the slats would not be allowed, only vegetation or the board fence were acceptable. • In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised sidewalks were not requested at the time of rezoning. She added the subject development would not 423 Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 6 be required to go through the large scale development process because a building permit was not required for establishing a parking lot. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the rezoning to C-2 as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Allred stated the only conditions in his motion regarding screening would be whatever the ordinances required. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Allred stated his motion would include paving the parking lot if that was what was required by the City ordinances. AMENDED MOTION In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Allred amended his motion to include a waiver of the screening requirement on the north side of the property (along Huntsville Street). The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 9-0-0. • J kaqI Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Tarvin advised a change in the order of the agenda had been requested since most of the people in the audience were present to hear the last item, Vacation V94-5. VACATION V94-5 CARL LEWIS - BETWEEN 1534 6 1571 ARTHUR'S COURT The next item was Vacation V94-5 submitted by Carl Lewis for property located between 1543 and 1571 Arthur's Court and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was to vacate a 50 -foot right-of-way easement. Me. Little advised she had been requested to give clarification on this item. She noted staff had included with the agenda packets most of the former discussions on vacations of right-of-way in the subject area. She explained the tract was the southern most connection off of Victoria Lane. She noted some of the information in the agenda packet did refer to the vacation of Revere Place, approved in March of 1994. She reiterated they were only considering the connection from Victoria Lane to Arthur's Court. Mr. Mike Fisher, a resident of the Boardwalk Subdivision, presented to the Commission a petition signed by in excess of 50 people in the subdivision in support of Mr. Lewis' proposal that the right-of-way be modified. Mr. Carl Lewis stated as members of both the Boardwalk and the Park Place Subdivisions, the neighborhood was concerned about the potential for the paving of the 150 to 200 feet of right-of-way which would make their subdivisions a thoroughfare. He noted their concerns were for the safety of their children and the protection of their neighborhood against crime. Mr. Dave Bevis spoke in support of Mr. Lewis' comments and reiterated his concerns. Mr. Bill Denton, the resident manager of Boardwalk Subdivision, expressed their desire to have the access open for emergency vehicle use, but not for through traffic. Other residents of this area expressed their support for the request and reiterated concern for the children's safety and protection against crime. Ms. Pat Molle expressed concern that, if the right-of-way was opened, it would serve as a shortcut for traffic through their neighborhood. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised that, if the street were ever to be proposed to be opened, it would require a public hearing in the form of the capital improvements program. She added in this particular case, since there had been discussion since Phase I of Park Place Subdivision, there had been an agreement that street would never be connected without a public hearing before the Planning Commission. She pointed out as it currently existed there was a 50 -foot right-of-way somewhat compromised by the construction of homes very close to it, but it was public right-of-way which had been designated for emergency access only. She advised it would take either a petition from local residents that the street be connected or a proposal from a possible Street Committee at the Council level. Mr. Tarvin clarified the request was to vacate the right-of-way, but to leave it open as an emergency access. Ms. Little stated she did not see how the easement could be vacated, but still • left open for emergency access. r y� • Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Tarvin asked, since there were utilities in the right-of-way, if there was a way it could be an easement and still be available for emergency access. Mr. Don Bunn advised it could possibly be termed an access easement for a specific purpose, emergency vehicles. He stated the easement could be narrowed. Mr. Allred pointed out both subdivisions should be responsible for policing the use of the access. He noted that, if it were narrowed and traffic started cutting through, the city would not be able to enforce the emergency access. Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, if the right-of-way were vacated and the City decided to build a street there, it could be condemned and built anyway. Ms. Little noted there would be cost associated with acquisition if the land was condemned to build a street. A resident advised the right-of-way had been used by a lot of people since he had lived there the last 45 days. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to deny the petition to vacate the right-of-way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion passed 6-3-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Nickle, Head, Johnson, • Britton, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioners Tarvin, Pummill, and Suchecki voting "not'. • 401 • Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 9 FINAL PLAT - MISSOURI OARS SUBDIVISION SCOTT JONES & LIN -HILL COMPANY - S OF ZION RD, S OF OLD MISSOURI RD The next item was a final plat of Missouri Oaks submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Scott Jones and Lin -Hill Company for property located south of Zion Road, east of Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 8.24 acres with 22 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments to add to their staff report. Mr. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, had no further comments. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the final plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 10 FINAL PLAT - STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION, PHASE II KELVIN HOLMES - S OF WYMAN RD, WEST OF STONE BRIDGE RD The next item was a final plat of Stone Bridge Subdivision, Phase II submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Melvin Holmes for property located south of Wyman Road, west of Stone Bridge Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The property contains 3.93 acres with 10 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments. Mr. Jorgensen had no further comments. NOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the final plat as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion passed unanimously. • • qZ • Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 11 FINAL PLAT - WILLOW SPRINGS, PHASE II RALPH WALKER - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF RUPPLE RD The next item was a final plat of Willow Springs, Phase II submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ralph Walker for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1.51 Moderate Density Residential, and contains 12.21 acres with 55 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no additional comments. Mr. Jorgensen had no additional comments. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the final plat subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. • 0 14;2Q Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 12 FINAL PLAT - SUNBRIDGE CENTER MAE NETTLESHIP - E OF GREGG ST, N OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a final plat of Sunbridge Center submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mae Nettleship for property located east of Gregg Street, north of Township Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains 40.89 acres with 20 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no further comments. Mr. Jorgensen had no comments. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised Mr. Jorgensen had developed the alignment of the streets which gave the best chance for a possible eventual access through to College Avenue. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the final plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed unanimously. • • 14�0 I • Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 13 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT *1 8 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-20 W C fi BEVERLY LITZINGER - 2601 ROSEWOOD DR The next item was a first lot split and conditional use CU94-20 request submitted by W.C. and Beverly Litzinger for property located at 2601 Rosewood Drive and zoned R-11 Low Density Residential. The conditional use request was for a tandem lot. Mr. Bunn advised the staff had no additional comments. Ms. Little advised David Holoman had recently filed a lawsuit because his lot split was denied on the opposite side of the street from the subject tract. She added they had recently been requested to review Mr. Holoman's property for a lot line adjustment and the staff had denied the lot line adjustment. Ms. Britton stated it appeared there was a right-of-way running through the subject property. Ms. Little advised it was a utility easement. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jim McCord, representing the Litzingers, stated the easement could not be used as access because there was a severe drop-off of both boundary lines (including the utility easement) which made it physically impractical for a driveway. Ms. Britton advised that seemed more feasible to her than putting a second driveway down the side of the existing house. • Mr. McCord advised the plan was to use the existing driveway and extend it. He added the Holoman case mentioned earlier was totally unrelated to this application which should be considered on its own merit without reference to that case. He explained that, unlike the Holoman case, the Litzinger property consisted of 2.8 acres with a proposal to split the lot approximately in half for two lots of 1.4 acres each, which would compare favorably with the other lots in Rosewood Estates. Mr. McCord pointed out for any conditional use for tandem lot development the ordinance required the Planning Commission determine the tandem lot development would not significantly reduce property values in the neighborhood in regard to size of lots. He noted that, as far as fair market value, Dave Fulton of Dave Fulton Realty would address that issue. Mr. Dave Fulton advised the property, if split, would compare favorably with the other lots in the subdivision. He contended there was absolutely no way new construction on the subject property could damage the existing property values. In answer to a question, Mr. Fulton advised the subject lot would be valued at $40,000 to $60,000. Mr. McCord referred to a memorandum he had provided to the Commission. He noted that, as far as the second requirement in the ordinance that the terrain of the area be such that a standard subdivision was not feasible, the site had severe slopes and drop-offs which made the property comply with that requirement. He stated the protective covenants would also protect the property values by requiring any new dwellings be at the same or exceed the quality of the dwellings constructed in 1973 when the protective covenants were filed. • Mr. McCord further stated the ordinance required a private drive to serve the tandem lot with a 25 -foot easement and noted the proposal was to use the existing driveway because of the terrain on the property. He noted the Litzingers would dedicate and record a perpetual private 25 -foot easement coinciding with the existing driveway and the extension of the driveway to the proposed tandem lot. He added access to any new structure on the tandem lot would be no more difficult for emergency vehicles than access to the existing structure. Mr. McCord stated that, in regard to the next requirement of the ordinance which required the safety zone between driveways meet subdivision requirements, there would be a joint driveway so that requirement would be met. He added that, as far as the requirement that the tandem lot meet the lot width and lot area requirements of the zoning ordinance, the tandem lot would be 1.4 acres clearly exceeding the 70 foot width and the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. response to a comment by Ms. Little, Mr. McCord advised tt Rose (the original developer) approve any new dwelling uni ause Mr. Rose had not lived in Fayetteville for 15 years. In response to a comment that property, Mr. McCord contended Gertrude Cosby, a neighbor to the subject property, presented a petition signed by seven residents of Rosewood estates (with the exception of one who owned property adjacent to it) in opposition, citing concerns that the split would devalue existing homes and that no additional access would necessitate construction of an access road of no less than 300 feet. She disputed the comment that the subject lots at 1.4 acres would be as large as others in the neighborhood since her own was 3 acres and others were also larger. Virginia Croft, 2603 Rosewood Drive, adjacent to the Litzinger lot, expressed opposition citing concerns including property values. She pointed out the protective covenants stated that if no one contested the covenants after 20 years (which would take a majority of the property owners), they were automatically accepted. She contended since 20 years had lapsed with no agreement to change the covenants, the lots as they were plotted would still stand. She noted the Litzingers had signed in protest of the Holoman lot split earlier. She cited the Richardson- Little Rock Planning Commission Court of Arkansas made a decision which she contended was lot splitting dispute. She stated the decision was t Commission's decision on the original plotting of the lc Mr. Holoman stated he accepted the decision on his property and did n to change it. He noted the people who made a request for a lot line a had nothing to do with him. He pointed out lot #9 in Rosewood Estates split into two legal lots. Ms. Little advised what Mr. Holoman was referring to was a lot line adjustment which was permitted administratively to make lots larger. She advised there were three existing lots and the owners of the lots on either side purchased part of the lot in the middle. She further noted the property line adjustment had been approved by the staff before she came into office. . Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 15 Mr. McCord contended any house built on the lot would clearly be $80 plus per square foot because a person would not pay $40,000 for a lot and built a shack on it. He advised the minimum covenant requirements were 1,800 square feet. He reiterated the proposed lots would compare favorably in size to most of the existing lots. He stated the covenants did not address the splitting of a lot so a majority of the property owners in the subdivision would not have to approve a lot split. Mr. McCord contended the Commission had the authority to administer the Subdivision Regulations and had the authority under the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance to approve a lot split and a tandem lot if all the requirements of those two ordinances were met. Mr. McCord advised that, in regard to the Richardson case cited by Me. Croft, the majority of the Supreme Court held the Planning Commission exceeded its authority when it denied approval of a plat on considerations other than the minimum standards set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance. He reiterated the Litzinger's proposal complied with each and every minimum standard in the City's zoning ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to deny the lot split request. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-2-0 with Commissioners Tarvin, Reynolds, Nickle, Head, Pummill, Suchecki and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioners Johnson and Allred voting "no". 0 Y331 Planning Commission Meeting September 12, 1994 Page 16 DISCUSSION OF STORAGE UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON CROSSOVER ROAD In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the gravel area inside the fence at the storage units recently developed on Crossover Road was required to be paved. She noted they also were required to screen any outside storage area and construct the sidewalk in front of their property. She explained that, at the time the large scale development was approved by the Planning Commission, no outside storage was indicated so the staff had agreed to the gravel area on the inside with the exception of paved areas for the cars to go around the mini storage units. She noted the staff was still in discussions with the developer about paving that area. CONSENT AGENDA There was discussion in regard to going back to using a Consent Agenda for items such as final plats with the stipulation that nothing the staff had recommended against would be placed on the Consent Agenda. The consensus was to go back to having a Consent Agenda to save time. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 0 0