HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
• THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 12, 1995 at 5:30 p.m.
in Room 212 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jana Lynn Britton, Bob Reynolds, Jerry Allred, Gary Head,
John Harbison, John Forney, and Conrad Odom.
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Janet Johns, members of the press, and
others.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1995, were amended to reflect 6:20 as the correct
adjournment time.
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN GENERAL PLAN PROCESS
Ms. Little introduced the 2020 General Land Use Plan and invited the Commissioners and public to attend the Listening
Session scheduled for June 15, 1995, from 12 a.m. to 6 p.m. in Room I I I of the City Administration Building. Ms.
Little stated the 2020 Plan would be presented to the City Council on August 1, 1995.
Mr. Conklin presented the Council resolution requiring the Planning Commission and staff to revise the comprehensive
land use plan. In particular, Mr. Conklin noted section III of the resolution, population projections, map digitizing,
aerial maps, policy implementation, compact urban development, and proposed future land use. He presented the public
hearing schedule and requested the Commission review and comment on the 2020 Plan as drafted.
• Ms. Little explained the 2010 Plan the City had in place and additional ordinances to be incorporated in the 2010 Plan.
Further she explained bold and italic print were explanatory notations which will not be included in the 2020 Plan text.
Discussion ensued regarding the Commission's role in drafting the Plan, and the time line for completion and
presentation of the 2020 Plan to the City Council. In particular Mr. Forney expressed his concern regarding enforcing
a document which the Commission had not drafted and further suggested setting up a subcommittee to address the issue
of drafting the 2020 Plan. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the "hurried" schedule for completion of the plan.
Discussion ensued regarding the completion schedule.
Mr. Conklin stated the 2020 Plan was an addendum/supplement to the 2010 which was compiled after numerous public
hearings. Discussion ensued regarding the similarities and differences of the two plans.
Ms. Johnson stated most of the material contained in the 2020 Plan was a compilation of existing policies, regulations,
etc. Discussion ensued regarding the scope of the document. Mr. Conklin stated in order to further define the future
land use map it was necessary to create new land use categories and areas making it necessary to generate new
implementation strategies and policies.
Ms. Johnson stated she was not aware the Council had specifically directed the Commission to be involved and
requested the Planning staff to provide copies of all ordinances and resolutions which affect the Commission.
Mr. Harbison inquired as to whether or not the Planning Commission would have a vote on the 2020 Plan prior to being
forwarded to the Council and Mr. Conklin stated it was not specifically stated in the resolution whether or not the
Commission would make a recommendation on the Plan but the staff and Commission would present to the Council
the proposed land use plan. Discussion ensued.
Ms. Little stated the first step was to invite public comment, then recognize and integrate same into the document. She
stated the document would then be presented to the Commission and then to Council. Ms. Little stated she
recommended and would be available on a schedule similar to the one involved with the unified development ordinance
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 2
whereby Friday lunch hours were designated for forums. Discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to hold a policy
meeting on the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1995.
Mr. Head suggested forming a subcommittee and volunteered for same. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not
the subcommittee would allow public comment. Consensus was to allow public attendance but no public comment.
Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding the time line suggested by Council and whether or not it was appropriate. .
Ms. Johnson suggested the time line be extended. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated staff could meet with a
subcommittee.
Ms. Johnson appointed the subcommittee as follows
John Harbison, Chair, Conrad Odom, Jerry Allred, Gary Head, and John Forney.
Ms. Johnson stated staff would notify the members and public of meeting times. Further she stated the meeting would
be open to the public but no public comment would be heard.
i
41
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 3
OLD BUSINESS
MINI -STORAGE ORDINANCE
An ordinance to allow mini -storage units as a use by right in I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zones under
Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesale and to remove mini -storage units as an allowable use under Use Unit 17,
Trades and Services.
Ms. Little stated the proposed ordinance would allow mini -storage units as a use by right in any industrial zone (I-1 or
1-2) and a conditional use in commercial C-2 zones and she further stated the proposed ordinance provided vegetation
screening measures. Additionally she recommended no action be taken until the next meeting.
Ms. Johnson inquired as to the definition of "view obscuring vegetation." Ms. Little stated view obscuring constituted
a general height of 6 feet within 2 years. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little read the amendment to the proposed ordinance
as follows:
"...vegetation for screening shall be maintained by density sufficient to become view obscuring to a
height of 6 feet within 2 years from the date of planting. It shall be the responsibility of the property
owner to maintain the screen as long as the property remains mini -storage."
Mr. Head requested a definition of "view obscuring." Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson requested "view obscuring' be
• listed in the definition section. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Little read:
"...vegetation for screening shall be maintained by density sufficient to become view obscuring to a
minimum height of 6 feet..."
Ms. Johnson requested the definition of view obscuring be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting and be
included in the definition section of the Code.
0
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 4
CONSENT AGENDA
A. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTH STREET APARTMENTS
WALKER CONST. - E OF RR, N OF NORTH
The first item on the Consent Agenda was a the large scale development for North Street Apartments previously
submitted as Carl Walker Apartments represented now by.Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Walker Construction for
property located east of the railroad tracks, north of North Street, and west of Gregg Street. This property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains 2.15 acres.
B. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - PETROMARK
MARK CRANDEL - N OF SUNBRIDGE, E OF GREGG
The next item on the Consent Agenda was large scale development for Petromark submitted by Mark Crandel on behalf
of Petromark, Inc. This item was removed for discussion due to a split recommendation from the Subdivision
Committee.
C. LOT SPLIT #1 - BEN & MARIANE RAMEY
The next item on the Consent Agenda was lot split # 1 submitted by Ben and Marianne Ramey for property located 4610
• Wyman Road and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
D. LOT SPLIT #1 - MARCUS WALDEN
1134 CROSSOVER
The next item on the Consent Agenda was lot split #1 submitted by Marcus Walden for property located 1134 Crossover
for 5 acres and is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential.
E. LOT SPLIT #1 - HARRISON DAVIS
226 SOUTH HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD
The final item
on the Consent Agenda was
lot split 41
submitted by Harrison Davis. This item was removed for
discussion.
Ms. Little requested that B. Large Scale Development - Petromark be removed from the Consent Agenda because
Subdivision Committee did not approve the plan with a unanimous recommendation. Further Ms. Little requested that
item E. Lot Split #1 - Harrison Davis be removed. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Head made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda subject to removal of items B. and E.
Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was approved with a unanimous vote.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
40 June 12, 1995
Page 5
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - PETROMARK
MARK CRANDEL - N OF SUNBRIDGE, E OF GREGG
The large scale development for Petromark was submitted by Mark Crandel on behalf of Petromark, Inc. for property
located north of Sunbridge Drive, east of Gregg. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
2.42 acres.
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Ms. Little because Subdivision Committee did not
forward the plan with approval.
Mr. Reynolds reported that Ms. Britton and himself were the only committee members present for Subdivision
Committee and had been unable to agree on whether or not to recommend the plan. Discussion ensued regarding the
curb cuts on Sunbridge Drive and Gregg Street.
Mr. Forney inquired as to the requested waiver for additional parking spaces and Ms. Little stated there was a potential
flaw in the Parking Lot Ordinance with regard to restaurant type facilities and minimum spaces (I per 200, normally,
plus a 10% overage) being less than what is being reflected by the applicant.
Mr. Crandel stated past experience with parking for this type of business required 34-37 parking spaces. Further he
stated 19 spaces were allowed under ordinance and he presented a survey of parking counts showing the demand for
additional parking. Discussion ensued.
• Ms. Little stated 19 were allowed under ordinance and 34 were requested by the applicant. Further Ms. Little stated that,
staff would recommend that additional parking spaces would be needed but the parking count study was not verified
by staff. Discussion ensued regarding the impact a drive through would have on parking space requirements.
Mr. Steve Lair stated it was his experience that drive throughs increased parking needs. Further Mr. Lair explained the
structure would have an ATM machine, drive through car wash, and a restaurant serving sandwiches.
Mr. Allred inquired as to the number of employees and Mr. Lair responded no more than 9 employees would be present
at one time.
Discussion ensued regarding the additional staff comments and Mr. Lair stated he would accept those.
Discussion ensued regarding parking lot safety and Mr. Forney and Ms. Britton stated they felt the amount of asphalt
in the parking lot was a hazard.
Mr. Forney inquired as to the reason no tree preservation plan had been provided to the Commission and Ms. Little
stated one should have been and added the subject location prior to this plan had been a nursery and there was a line
of trees that would be removed but trees would be left trees along Gregg Street.
Mr. Harbison suggested the tree preservation plan reflect all existing trees and designate those to be preserved and those
to be removed. Discussion ensued.
Ms. Britton inquired if the island around the ATM would be landscaped and further inquired as to whether or not the
landscaping would be. done over underground fuel storage tanks and Mr. Lair responded that was the plan and the tanks
had a 30 year guarantee. Further Mr. Lair stated in his experience there had never been a reported accident in the
• parking lots for the convenience stores. Discussion ensued regarding parking spaces.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 6
Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments and wavier to allow 34
parking spaces.
Upon roll call, the motion was passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioners Britton and Forney voted no.
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 7
LOT SPLIT #1 - HARRISON DAVIS
226 SOUTH HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD
This item was also removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Lot Split # I submitted by Harrison Davis for property located 226 South Happy Hollow Road for a split of .54 acres
of a 30 acre tract zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Staff recommends approval of the lot split subject to the following:
Additional 20 feet street right of way along Happy Hollow granted off both tracks,
2. Proposed lot to include space for secondary septic tank,
Discussion ensued regarding the required amount of acreage to allow septic systems. Mr. Bunn stated the county
required percolation tests to determine allowance for septic systems. Ms. Little stated the Code had been amended to
reflect that county sanitarians have final approval of septic systems and read as follows:
"...for lots having a gross area of less than 1.5 acres an individual sewage disposal system may be
used for each individual lot when a permit for a septic system is granted by the Arkansas Department
of Health."
• Mr. Allred inquired as to what determines a requirement to hook to city sewer and Mr. Bunn stated city sewer is required
when a connection point not crossing private property is within 200 feet.
Mr. Harrison Davis stated he would accept and comply with the staff requirements.
MOTION
Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot split subject to staff comments.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 8
REZONING 95-15, 95-169 95-17 - JIM LINDSEY
CRAFTON, TULL - N OF JOYCE BLVD
Rezoning R95-15, R95-16, R95-17 were submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property
located north of Joyce Blvd. R95-15 was a request to rezone 10.75 acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial. R95-16 was a request to rezone 5.30 acres from R -O, Residential office to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial. R95-17 was a request to rezone 4.00 acres from R -O, Residential Office to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial._
The staff recommended approval of the rezonings under the provision of the General Plan that the area was planned for
a Regional Mall Activity Center area. Further the staff requested that the applicant make a statement as to the time
frame for use of the property. The stated purpose of the rezoning was to aggregate a tract of land of 50 acres for a
shopping center. The staff required that during the development phase a presentation of a concept plat for the entire
parcel addressing the street connection issues and a unified development theme:
Ms. Little presented a letter from Don McGuire from Butterfield Trail Village objecting to the proposed rezoning.
Regarding R95-16, Ms. Little stated the applicant offered a 200 feet strip to be left as a buffer but she recommended
a 220 feet buffer in a continuous line to Joyce Street. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Kirk Elsass representing Jim Lindsey and Mr. Tom Hopper representing Crafton and Tull made a presentation of
the rezoning request.
• Mr. Elsass stated the subject project was a cooperative venture with Southwestern Energy Corporation. Further Mr.
Elsass stated the additional 20 feet of buffer requested by Ms. Little was to align proposed streets in the area in the
future. Additionally Mr. Elsass stated there were plans for construction of a bank..
Ms. Johnson inquired as to whether or not the applicant would agree to increase the eastern edge buffer to 220 feet and
Mr. Elsass stated they would. Discussion ensued regarding future development of Vantage Road and dedication of street
right of way and street alignment. Ms. Little stated the Master Street Plan designated extensions north to Zion and south
to the back west property line of Butterfield Trail if the street was constructed connecting to Sain. Discussion ensued
regarding the Master Street Plan and connecting/collector street addressed by the plan. Ms. Little stated street and traffic
issues would be completely addressed during the development phase and would be guided by the Master Plan.
Mr. Forney stated he wanted to address issues regarding traffic patterns and streets. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson
inquired as to the number of lanes which Joyce would be widened and Ms. Little stated it would be four lanes. Ms.
Johnson inquired as to whether or not stoplights were planned and Ms. Little responded they were and further stated
the developer.had commissioned a traffic study which had recommended a stoplight at the subject location. Mr. Hopper
explained the results of the traffic study and impact the shop area would have on same. Discussion ensued. Mr. Elsass
stated the development came to them as an 80 acre tract and during development discussion, traffic and ordinances had
been considered. Further he stated consideration had been given to developing the southern area of the tract and
avoiding rezoning but consensus at those discussions was to develop the north area to alleviate traffic and provide
pedestrian crossings and due to the trees in the back 20 acres. Further Mr. Elsass discussed proposed development plans
and meetings with Butterfield Trails representatives wherein the buffer, landscaping, utilities, and sidewalk matters were
discussed.
Discussion ensued regarding the buffer width. Ms. Little stated R95-16 acreage should reflect 5.30 acres.
I
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 9
Ms. Britton inquired as to the amount of acreage zoned C-2 just south of the subject property and Mr. Elsass stated they
had 80 acres to the south some of which was in the flood plain. Discussion ensued regarding channel improvements
to Mud Creek.
Mr. Forney inquired as to the reason for developing the north area instead of the south and Mr. Elsass said it was better
planning to develop the north and provide streets to alleviate traffic and provide pedestrian safety. Further Mr. Elsass
stated neither Jim Lindsey nor Southwestern Energy were developing the tract and therefore would not be developing
the road. Discussion ensued regarding the decision by Mr. Lindsey to.zone theproperty R-0 instead of C-2 at inception.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Reynolds inquired as to the owner of the property located north of the subject tract. Mr. Elsass stated Mr. Lindsey
did not own that property. Discussion ensued as to the speculated owners and the effect of the moratorium on rezoning
A-1 property.
Mr. Forney inquired as to whether or not the road would be constructed south of Joyce with the subject project and Mr.
Elsass said it would not. Further Mr. Forney stated his objection to rezoning because they could develop to the south
making rezoning unnecessary. Mr. Hopper stated rezoning would match with the 2010 plan. Discussion ensued
regarding the 2010 plan and a proposed Regional Mall Activity Center area.
Ms. Britton stated there
was considerable area currently zoned C-2
which was undeveloped
and inquired asto the
necessity for rezoning.
• Ms. Johnson inquired as to the impact on the project if the request was denied and Mr. Elsass stated that substantial
money had been expended to develop the proposed north site of the tract and they would lose the invested funds and
have to start over.
Discussion ensued regarding the 2010 General Plan and various proposed/recommended commercial activity centers
in same.
Ms. Peg Anderson representing the residents of Butterfield Trail Village presented a petition with 212 signatures of
residents and 46 signatures of employees of Butterfield Trail which were signed prior to an address to them made Messrs
Lindsey, Elsass, and Hopper. She expressed concerns regarding traffic, the character of the area, flood plain
development along Mud Creek to the south, and tree preservation. She stated that Mr. Lindsey had offered a Bill of
Assurance providing retention of the R -O zoning in the 200 feet buffer, a large planting of trees on the southeast island
of the development as a screen against sights and sounds, building of a sidewalk from Butterfield Trail Village to
Lindsay & Associates offices, and providing that the proposed structures would be built as presented to Butterfield Trails
Village. Further Ms. Anderson requested the Planning Commission not approve the request until the rezoning maps
are drawn properly, and the Bill of Assurance executed. She requested the Minutes reflect the above conditions and
a copy be sent to Butterfield Trail Village. Further she requested the Commission consider concerns regarding large
scale development including landscaping and curb cuts.
Mr. Forney inquired as to whether or not they would prefer development of the south area and Ms. Anderson stated they
would prefer that option. Discussion ensued regarding development of the south area and increased traffic associated
with same.
Mr. Elsass stated they would provide the Bill of Assurance sans the sidewalk provision which would be constructed in
any event. Discussion ensued regarding sidewalk locations.
0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page 10
Dr. Thomas Mead resident of Brook Hollow Subdivision inquired as to the impact the development would have on Stem
Street and expressed his concern regarding affordable housing and traffic issues and requested the Commission consider
same. Mr. Elsass stated Stem would not be a "straight shot" and Ms. Little explained that measures had been taken to
curb excessive traffic and speed.
Mr. Don McGuire with Butterfield Trail stated that he supports the rezoning under the condition it is sold to a single,
qualified developer. Discussion ensued. Mr. Reynolds inquired if any of the proposed businesses in the development
would conduct business 24 hours and -Mr. -Elsass advised priordevelopments by the proposed developer generally.
included retail and restaurant and protective covenants would be provided.
Dr. Mary Burton expressed her concern regarding the quality of the proposed development and whether or not they
would build as presented. Discussion ensued.
Ms. Britton supported development of the south area on the grounds it provided a natural transition.
Mr. Forney made a motion to postpone the rezoning.
Mr. Allred inquired if the motion was legal and Mr. Harbison stated in his legal opinion it was. Discussion.ensued
regarding the village concept.
• Ms. Britton seconded the motion
Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 2-6-0. Commissioners Allred, Harbison, Head, Johnson, Odom,
and Reynolds voted no.
MOTION
Mr. Head made a motion to approve rezoning R95-15.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Britton, Forney, and Harbison voted no.
MOTION
Mr. Head made a motion to approve the rezoning R95 -I6 amended to reflect 5.30 acres.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Britton, Forney, and Harbison voted no.
MOTION
Mr. Head made a motion to approve rezoning R95-17.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Britton, Forney, and Harbison voted no.
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
Page l 1
PRELIMINARY PLAT - DOUBLE TREE ESTATES, PHASE Il
LES HOWELL & EUGENE TOY - W OF MT COMFORT, E OF DBL SPRINGS
The next item was the preliminary plat submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of the owners, Leslie and
Blanche Howell consisting of 27 lots on 57.00 acres.
The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments,
2. Construction of stubouts and cul-de-sacs as requested,
3. Construction of the streets at 3l feet back to back of curb,
4. Approval of the preliminary plat by Washington County,
5. Approval by the City of detailed plans for water, streets, and drainage, and
6. Construction of sidewalks along one side of each street.
Ms. Johnson stated the subject property was located in the county area.
is
Mr. Jorgensen requested discussion of sidewalk construction and stated the development was rural and no sidewalk had
been required during Phase 1.
Ms. Little stated the development was close to meeting the city standard by providing 31 feet streets with curb and gutter
and staff would waive the sidewalk request. Ms. Britton suggested a Bill of Assurance for sidewalk construction at such
time street connection to adjoining properties were proposed. Ms. Little stated staff would require a determination for
sidewalks or against sidewalks. Mr. Bunn stated subdivision regulations could be enforced in the growth area. Mr.
Jorgensen stated the streetlight requirement had already been waived.
Ms. Johnson inquired as to the total number of lots and Mr. Jorgensen stated there were 28 in Phase II and 10 in Phase
I. Ms. Johnson inquired as to whether or not sidewalks had been required for Phase 1 and Ms. Little responded no. Ms.
Johnson inquired as to whether or not there would be additional phases and Mr. Jorgensen stated there would not be any
subsequent phases. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Lance Turner inquired as to the location of an access easement and expressed concern his property might become
land locked. Ms. Johnson stated there was a road along the south edge of his,property. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Curtis Wray expressed his support for no sidewalks in Double Tree Estates on the grounds the country character
would be ruined if sidewalks were required.
Ms. Ina Wist representing Ms. Ada Masterson, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding flooding on
her property. Discussion ensued regarding drainage issues and Mr. Bunn stated the drainage would run south and
therefore not affect Ms. Masterson's land. Further, Mr. Bunn stated there was no requirement to limit runoff to adjacent
and Mr. Jorgensen stated he would look at the profiles and see what could be done to remedy the situation from his
perspective.
Discussion ensued regarding not requiring sidewalks.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 1995
Page 12
MOTION
Mr. Allred made a motion to
approve the preliminary
plat
subject to staff recommendations and deletion of
recommendation six.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Reynolds voted no.
•
0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 12, 1995
is Page 13
PRELIMINARY PLAT - COYOTE TRAIL
(FORMERLY DEANE SOLOMAN PLACE)
E.H. SONNEMAN & SARA AGEE - S OF LORI, E OF DEANE SOLOMAN
The preliminary plat for Coyote Trail was submitted by WBR Engineering o behalf of E.H. Sonneman and Sara
Sonneman Agee for property located west of Deane Solomon, north of Mt. Comfort. The property is zoned R-1.5,
Moderate Density Residential and contains 16 lots within 5.65 acres. -
The staff recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to:
1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments,
2. Approval of the drainage plan and the grading plan,
3. Approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage,
4. Construction of sidewalks along Jeremiah, township (including the west end of Township), and Deane Soloman
Road,
5. Approval of the Tree Preservation Plan,
• 6. Improvements of one-half of Deane Soloman Road to city street standards (City will pay for additional 2.5 feet
of street to bring it up to collector standard,)
7. Payment of Parks Fees, and
8. Contribution of $200.00 per lot for off-site sewer improvements.
Mr. Rudasill agreed to comply with staff recommendations. Further Mr. Rudasill stated a golf cart path would be
located between lot 8 and 9 and the street on the south end of the project would be renamed from Township to either
Moore or Amel. Ms. Little stated the 911 coordinator would need to approve the chosen name and requested any action
taken be subject to same.
MOTION
Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff recommendation and approval of street name.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
11
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 1995
Page 14
VACATION 95-5 - DAVE JORGENSEN
LOTS 10 & I1 CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PH I
Vacation was submitted by Dave Jorgensen for a utility easement for property located at lots 10 and l 1 in Crossover
Heights, Phase 1 and is zoned R-1, Low Density residential.
The request was for the vacation of a 15 feet utility easement and staff recommendation approval of the vacation and
recommends the Commission forward same to the City Council.
MOTION
Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the vacation and forward to the City Council.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Mr. Harbison abstained.
•
11
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 1995
Page 15
0
CONDITIONAL USE 95-15 - MAX PARKER
N OF NORTH, W OF LEVERETT
The request was to allow a professional office building (Use Unit 25) as a conditional use in an R-2 zone by converting
an existing duplex.
The staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Approval from the Board of Adjustment for a I foot variance of front yard setback and approval for
development of a lot 115 the required size. No work, especially tree removal will be allowed until
such time as approval is secured.
2. Revised plan to provide the 5 feet buffer between the subject lot and the house to the north.
3. Revised plan to relocate handicap parking space adjacent to the building and provide the required 15
feet buffer along Leverett Street.
4. No additional outdoor lighting.
5. Sign limited to 3 square feet.
6. Approval from the Planning Commission for 19 feet stall depth and 16 feet maneuvering lane in the
parking area.
7. Construction of the structure consistent with that presented to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Little stated the issue was difficult to make a decision and added the site could accommodate the structure but
several variances would be required from the Commission and Board of Adjustment and a survey would be required.
Mr. Reynolds inquired if the Board of the Adjustments had information on the conditional use and Ms. Little stated it
had not been presented to them. Further Ms. Little stated exact variance requirements could not be determined until
a survey was performed.
Ms. Britton objected to the handicap parking space location and suggested it be moved to parking spot 1. Ms. Little
stated there was a total of 1500 square feet and the requirement was I per 300 for a total of 5 and by relocating the
handicap space would not meet the 15 feet area requirement. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Max Parker stated he would agree to move the handicap space to the location of parking space 1 and lose one
parking space.
u [oil 111412
Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to relocation of the handicap parking space.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 1995
Page 16
CONDITIONAL USE 95-16 - SARA K. WARD
600 MISSION
The conditional use request was to allow an antique shop (Use Unit 2) within an R-1, Low Density Residential District.
The staff recommended approval of the request subject to:
I. Use of the structure as an antique shop only.
2. No outdoor lighting.
3. Construction of a sidewalk adjacent to Mission Boulevard.
4. Paving of the drive and parking bays and provision of one handicapped accessible parking space.
5. Business hours from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
6. Business space on the fust floor only. In the future, if business is conducted on the second floor
additional parking will be required.
7. Inspection by the Inspection Division and correction of any code violations.
• 8. No exterior alteration to the structure which is nonresidential in nature.
9. All conditions of code sec. 160.195 including safe ingress and egress, proper refuse and service areas,
and sign limited to 3 square feet installed flat against the wall or door without lighting.
Ms. Johnson inquired as to the traffic impact the proposed conditional use and Ms. Little stated this would help the
traffic situation by cutting back on peak hour traffic.
Ms. Britton inquired regarding the shared drive and Ms. Little stated it was shared parking and drive.
Ms. Johnson addressed the hours of operation and Ms. Little stated that 9:00 a.m. would be earliest for allowing the
business to open in light of traffic concerns.
Ms. Sara Ward stated she would not open until 10:00 a.m. and close Monday through Friday at 5:30 p.m. and Saturday
_.at 5:00 p.m. Further Ms. Ward requested clarification of the requirement for antique shop only and stated she would
prefer to be classified as an antique/gift shop and Ms. Little responded there would be no problem with candles, pillows,
and decorating accents and accessories. Additionally she added the majority of business should be antique. Discussion
ensued.
Mr. Allred suggested the conditional use be approved
and reviewed in
one year if complaints were
reported and Ms.
Little stated approval could be granted
subject to same.
Mr. Reynolds
supported same.
MOTION
. Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the conditional use for an antique/gift shop subject to review in one year.
Mr. Odom seconded the motion.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 1995
Page 17
Discussion ensued regarding the review provision and Ms. Britton suggested it be reviewed at any time.
Ms. Britton amended the
motion to approve the conditional use
for an antique/gift
shp subject to review at such time
any complaint is made.
The amended motion failed due to lack of a second.
Ms. Johnson restated the motion to approve the conditional use for an antique/gift shop subject to staff recommendations
and review in one year.
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
•
•
CI
VOTING LOG FORA 17 U(uE 1995
ISE j CF4 _,
3 �
O
o ,off a A LE- r I I�GAI, ) m, oTMET- 6-24 U
AFW, A(FK,
r
MOTION
HEAD
SECOND
ALLRED
y
y
y
y
BRITTON
FORNEY
HARBISON
7
y
y
y
HEAD
�/
I
tD
JOHNSON
Q
Y
y
8
ODOM
AMIVED Q
Y
7
�
REYNOLDS
j�
y
y
o ,off a A LE- r I I�GAI, ) m, oTMET- 6-24 U
AFW, A(FK,
C
0
VOTING LOG FOR JUNE 19ct5
4GE Zcx74
n
6�7
MOTION
oo
IF
-Vo
SECOND
O
in
lam' c�3
ALLRED
N
y
y
y
BRITTON
YIN
N
N
FORNEY
N
HARBISON
HEAD
JOHNSON
#ISH
�-
ODOM
REYNOLDS
N
y
1
y
Pmss
vd �
•
VOTING LOG FOR Q vUNF ISIS
Prx 3oF 4
I- 6-0
PAssED PA2SED
�
MOTION
�II�ED-
ALLY-
per,
SECOND
a -vi
V�twm
ALLRED
BRITTON
\
FORNEY
HARBISON
HEAD
y
JOHNSON
/
3t�C-If��
ODOM
�/
y
REYNOLDS
I
I- 6-0
PAssED PA2SED
•
VOTING LOG FOR IZ - 135
RGE A GF4
,
MOTION
t�EYNOII�j
P,
AL�E7�
AFFE,
�INOLps
APR.
g2mok)
Ate,
SECOND
Ohm
6 n
NO Ab
ALLRED
BRITTON
y
y
y
FORNEY
HARBISON
--
y
HEAD
y
JOHNSON
y
y
N4jCYA!rE—
ODOM
/
REYNOLDS
/
y
_ {� 8-o