Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-25 Minutes• MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 25, 1995 in the Board of Directors Room on the second Boor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Chuck Nickle, Gary Head, John Forney and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Reynolds OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Rich Lane, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Ms. Johnson advised the date "August l l" appeared in the minutes rather than the correct date of September 11. She asked that the Minutes be corrected. The minutes stood approved as corrected. PUBLIC HEARING - RZ95-31 HAROLD & KAY PIKE - 5556 TACKETT DRIVE The next item was a public hearing for RZ95-31 submitted by Harold and Kay Pike for property located at 5556 Tackett is Drive. The request was to rezone .57 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson advised the rezoning request was for approximately .57 acres of a tract containing 2.95 acres. She noted the applicant had requested the rezoning to facilitate the future possibility of adding a second residential dwelling (the next item on the agenda was a lot split application). She explained the rezoning was requested because, under A -I zoning, a minimum of 2 acres was required to construct a single family home. She reviewed the infrastructure, adjacent land use and zoning and the general plan. She advised staff had recommended approval of the R-1 zoning since the General Plan called for the subject area to be developed as residential. Mr. Nickle moved to recommend approval of RZ95-31, subject to staff comments. Mr. Head seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. 0 ; I9 Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 2 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT LS95-32 HAROLD & KAY PIKE - 5556 TACKETT DRIVE The next item was a request for a lot split submitted by Harold and Kay Pike for property located at 5556 Tackett Drive. The property is zoned R-1 (Rezoning Request RZ95-31). Ms. Johnson advised the requested lot split was on the same tract as the previous rezoning request. She explained the applicants were requesting a split of 0.57 acres from a 2.98 acre tract. She noted staff recommended the split be approved subject to a payment to the City of an amouni equal to the cost of improving one-half of 54th Street along Tract A to city street standards, and construction of sidewalks in accordance with the City's Master Sidewalk plan. Ms. Little advised she and Mr. Bunn would like to discuss the necessity of improvements to 54th Street. She explained they were not certain if the Planning Commission wanted to assess the cost to a single-family lot but had recommended the improvement in order to maintain consistency. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated he recommended a sidewalk be required. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a reason staff believed the property between the subject tract and Highway 16 West would not be developed. Ms. Little explained immediately to the north of the subject tract were all single family homes on large lots; to the northeast were the Clevenger duplexes along a private drive; and at the intersection of Highway 16 West and 54th Street • was a small church. She advised the likelihood of further development in the subject area within the next 10 years was rather slim. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained that, if the city placed monies in an escrow fund for the street improvement and the funds were not used within five years, the matter would be reviewed and after a period the money would be credited or refunded to the developer. Ms. Britton asked about taking a Bill of Assurance for street improvements. Mr. Bunn explained the ordinance allowed two or three different methods of providing funding for off-site improvements. He stated the city had been requiring applicants to pay into the escrow fund. Ms. Little stated it appeared the cost to the applicant for improvements to 54th Street would be approximately $4,500. Harold Pike, the applicant, advised he was opposed to constructing the sidewalk since there were no other sidewalks in the area. 0 Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 3 Ms. Johnson explained that was often the case in a new area but, as the property in the area developed, sidewalks would be constructed. In response to a question from Mr. Pike, Mr. Bunn advised the sidewalk would need to be constructed immediately, prior to the construction of any structure on the lot. Mr. Pike further advised it would be economically unfeasible to make the street improvements to 54th Street and he would like to postpone the lot split request since he had not been aware of the additional costs. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the request subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. is 0 W41 11A Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - RZ95-32 ZION VALLEY- LLC - S OF ZION RD., E OF HWY 71B, W OF HWY 265 The next item was a public hearing on rezoning request RZ95-32 submitted by Jack Torre on behalf of Zion Valley, LLC, for property located south of Zion Road, east of Highway 71B, west of Highway 265. The request is to rezone 27.72 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Ms. Johnson advised the applicant was making the request with the intent to construct a townhouse development. She noted the development would contain approximately 100 units (slightly less than 4 units per acre; however, the R-2 zone was required in order to develop town homes). She pointed out Zion Road had traditionally developed with multi -family to the south and single family to the north. She reviewed the adjacent land uses and zoning. She advised staff recommended approval of the R-2 rezoning which was consistent with the General Plan 2010. She noted rezoning to residential would also be consistent with the uses to the north, west and east. She stated traffic concerns as well as water and sewer service would be addressed at the large scale development phase. Mr. Rich Lane, Associate Planner, advised there was an 8' inch sewer connection available off of Stems Street Mr. Odom asked if the applicant was offering a Bill of Assurance regarding the density of the tract. Ms. Little stated she was not aware of any Bill of Assurance. Mr. Robert Lefler, representing Zion Valley, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions • Mr. Nickle noted the density was significantly less than that allowed by R-2 zoning and asked if the applicant was offering a Bill of Assurance regarding the density. Mr. Lefler stated they would offer a Bill of Assurance. In response to a question from Mr. Fomey, Ms. Little explained that neither R-1 nor R-1.5 allowed town home development. She went on to say that town houses required zero lot lines and that was only allowed under the R-2 zone. She advised town houses units could be sold separately but a duplex or triplex had to be sold as one unit. Mr. Jim Ray, an adjoining property owner, expressed concerns regarding vandalism to his property. He requested a privacy fence from Zion Road to approximately 400 feet south along his property line. He then requested that, after the first 400 feet, the fence be chain link with barbed wire over and above for the remainder of the length of the property. Ms. Johnson advised it was not appropriate to discuss particulars such as fencing until the applicant was at the development stage. She explained the Commission was looking at whether the site was an appropriate place to have the type of development proposed. He advised that, when the apartment development (Lake View Apartments) had been considered, it had been clearly stated there would be a connecting road between Zion Road and Joyce Street. He pointed out there still was no connecting road. He asked at what point the Commission would consider such items as fencing, roads, etc. Ms. Little explained that, if the applicant did not propose separate lot lines, the project would come before the Commission as a large scale development. She advised Mr. Ray would receive notification of both the Subdivision • Committee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting where public comments were taken. She noted staff would then know where street connections would be proposed. Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Ray stated he wanted to be sure his property would be secure. Mr. William Giese, a resident of Zion Road, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern regarding the traffic on Zion Road. He complained the intersection at Old Missouri and Zion Road was very dangerous. Ms. Maxine Hutchins, a resident of Zion Road, advised many things had changed on Zion Road during the last 12 years since she had lived there. She stated the changes were not for the good. She complained of the vandalism from the existing apartments. She told the Commission they were destroying the City of Fayetteville by taking away the beauty, the environment and the nature. She went on to say she did not believe the proposed development was good for Zion Road or the City of Fayetteville. She presented a police report showing all of the calls because of the existing apartments. She also complained of traffic on Zion Road. She advised a number of years earlier the Commission had told her there would be no more apartments on Zion Road but they had lied. Ms. Johnson stated she could not imagine the Planning Commission speaking about what type of development would occur in the future. She explained the only matters a Planning Commission could speak about was items currently before it. Ms. Hutchins stated she had to live there but did not see any of the developers living in the area. She advised she did not think the Planning Commission should approve the rezoning. Ms. Little advised that, at the public hearings on the 2010 Land Use meetings, it had been determined that generally single family dwellings would be north of Zion Road and multi -family developments would be south of Zion Road. • In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated improvements were scheduled to the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Zion Road in either 1996 or 1997. She reminded the Commission they had approved a subdivision named Missouri Oaks and, as a condition of the development, they had required improvements to Zion Road. She advised they had taken money from that developer for the off-site improvements. Mr. Allred encourage staff to have the present applicant also contribute to street improvements during the large scale development process. Mr. Lefler advised they were offering a Bill of Assurance regarding the density of the development. Mr. Forney asked about the density of other developments in the area. Ms. Little stated she was not sure of the exact density but was sure Lakeside Apartments was developed more densely than the proposed development. Mr. Forney pointed out the General Plan had designated the subject area as residential. He advised the proposed 4 units per acre was much less dense than allowed by R-2. He stated the property could have been developed much more densely. MOTION Mr. Head moved to recommend approval rezoning request RZ95-32 with a Bill of Assurance limiting the development to 100 units. • Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - RZ95-36 GAYLIA S. DALTON - 1625 GILES ROAD The next item was a public hearing on rezoning request RZ95-36 submitted by Melanie Stafford on behalf of Gaylia S. Dalton for property located at 1625 Giles Road. The request is to rezone .37 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Ms. Johnson reviewed the adjacent land use and zoning. She advised staff recommended denial of the request, explaining the property had been rezoned less than two years earlier from A -I to R-1. She noted a conditional use had been granted at that time allowing a duplex. She stated the owner of the property at that time had requested R-2 zoning in order to develop a triplex. Ms. Little reviewed the history of the site and adjacent properties. She stated the tract immediately to the west had recently been rezoned to R-1.5, which allowed the construction of duplex and triplex. She advised the staffs recommendation of denial had been based on previous action of the Planning Commission. She also pointed out there were single family homes in the neighborhood, particularly to the north. Ms. Melanie Stafford, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and noted the property immediately to the north of the subject tract was rental property. She advised the adjoining properties to the east and south of the subject site did not object to the rezoning. She explained they did not plan on building outside the existing structure but to use the space already within the structure. is Ms. Britton asked if there was a minimum square footage for a dwelling under the city ordinances. Ms. Little advised the minimum square footage for a single family home was 600 square feet but she was not sure of the minimum for multi -family structures. Ms. Stafford advised there was approximately 800 square feet in the 2 -bedroom unit and 600-650 square feet in the 1 - bedroom unit and the remainder was approximately 800 square feet. Ms. Little explained the Building Inspections Department did check square footage when doing their inspections to determine if the structure would meet the Southern Building Code. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Stafford stated all of the units were rental units. Mr. Harbison asked the reason for staffs recommendation of denial. Ms. Little stated the primary reason was the recent decision by the Planning Commission. She advised nothing had changed from the previous request except the owner. She also reminded the Commission that, when they had considered rezoning the property immediately to the west, there had been discussion as to whether they were introducing uses incompatible with surrounding properties. She noted on the south and west side of the subject tract there were existing duplexes and triplexes. She stated there was a concern regarding protection of the single family homes in the area. Mr. Allred asked if they could approve a conditional use for a triplex. Ms. Little stated a conditional use would only allow a duplex. • Ms. Johnson asked if the property would meet the bulk and area regulations. Ms. Little stated a triplex under R- 1.5 would require the lot size to be 10,890 square feet. She advised the lot did FI Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 7 qualify. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised there was a single family home to the south, a single family home to the east and a home to the north which, if being used as a duplex, was not legal (the records reflected same as a single family home.) She stated she believed staff would have recommended denial of the request without the previous decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney stated it appeared that, with .37 acres, the density would allow a second duplex unit on the site if rezoned to R-1.5. Ms. Little explained it would depend on how the units were situated on the site and if the setbacks could be met. Ms. Stafford offered a Bill of Assurance limiting the site to three units and no expansion of the exterior walls. Mr. Allred pointed out none of the neighbors were present to object. He stated the structure did need renovation. MOTION Mr. Head moved to recommend approval of rezoning request RZ95-36 with the offered Bill of Assurance. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • The motion carried 5-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Forney, Harbison, Head, and Johnson voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Nickle and Odom voting "no". • Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - RZ95-37 PAT TOBIN - N OF POPLAR, E OF LEVERETT Ms. Johnson advised Mr. Tobin had requested the public hearing on RZ95-37 for property located north of Poplar and east of Leverett, be postponed. • 0 a66% owl Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-29 (HOME OCCUPATION - CHILD CARE) MARYE K. VINES - 934 GREGG AVENUE The next item, CU95-29, was a request for a conditional use for a home occupation - child care submitted by Marye K. Vines for property located at 934 Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential. Ms. Johnson reviewed the surrounding zoning. She also advised that, while the structure was non -conforming, the applicant had been granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment. She pointed out the applicant had been operating a Registered Family Day Care Home under a conditional use in the neighborhood at a different location for the last three years. She noted staff had recommended approval of the conditional use request subject to (1) no signage be installed which was greater than 3 square feet in area, (2) no more than 300 square feet of gross floor area be utilized for the home occupation, and (3) that the applicant provide a minimum of 400 square feet of fenced play area. She further stated that, should the conditional use be approved, the applicant was also asking for a waiver of the hours of operation. Ms. Little advised staff had received numerous letters in support of the request. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained the current conditional use at 601 Wilson would be void if the Planning Commission approved the conditional use for 934 Gregg. Marye K. Vines appeared before the Planning Commission and advised she did not intend to install any signage. She advised she did have a stipulation from the fire marshal that she had to provide 35 square feet per child. She explained that, since she only took care of infants (5 children under the age of 18 months), cribs and playpens took up additional • space. She requested that she be allowed to use additional space for her home occupation. She stated she was willing to comply with the stipulation that she provide a minimum of 400 square feet of fenced play area. Ms. Little noted the ordinance read: "...shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the gross floor area nor more than 300 square feet." She stated 30% of the gross floor area would 527 square feet. Ms. Vines stated that would be adequate for her needs. Ms. Little stated staff would amend their recommendation to 527 square feet. Ms. Vines informed the Commission one of the reasons for her move was to provide easier access to her property for the parents of the children. Mr. Nickle asked if there was adequate off-street parking space. Ms. Vines stated there was ample parking space off the street. Ms. Johnson advised the driveway did allow vehicles a tum -around. Mr. Bob Brandon, an area resident, appeared before the Commission and stated he had no objections to the day care center. He pointed out the difference between the subject proposal and the one made by Mr. Sowder a few weeks earlier, was that the day care center was an existing operation in the neighborhood. He asked for assurance that the property would not become a permanent day care center if the applicant, at some future date, sold the property. Ms. Little explained the conditional use, since it was a home occupation, was connected to the applicant rather than the • property. Ms. Britton pointed out the property did have access from Adams Street, as well as Gregg. Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 10 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve CU95-29, subject to staff comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Harbison, Ms. Little explained that, under the current regulations, the operating times were from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. She advised Ms. Vines had a request for a waiver to those times and the waiver would require separate action by the Commission. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. Ms. Little advised the applicant had requested a waiver of the operating times, allowing her to open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Vines advised those were her current hours of operation. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the variance. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. • The motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0. • W Planning Commission Meeting • September 25, 1995 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE - CU95-30 (PARKING WAIVER) GREG HOUSE - 315 ROLLSTON The next item was a request for a conditional use submitted by Greg House for property located at 315 Rollston. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial, and the request is for a parking waiver (24 spaces). Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission this item had been reviewed by them approximately 7 months earlier. She stated the Commission had granted a waiver of three off-site parking spaces based on the structure being used exclusively as office spaces and residences. She explained there was now interest in constructing two restaurants on the ground floor of the structure with the second floor remaining residential. She noted there were 20 existing non -conforming parking spaces. She stated there was a letter from the University Baptist Church which allowed the applicant to use the church parking on a first come, first serve, basis except on Sundays. She further noted the applicant also wished to make some use of the city parking lot to the west. She stated staff did recommend approval of the parking waiver. Ms. Little advised the church parking lot was within 600 feet as specified by Section I60.117(E)(4) of the City Ordinances. She read as follows: "Shared Parking. Formal arrangements which share parking between intermittent uses with nonconflicting parking demands (e.g. a church and a bank) are encouraged as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one user at the same time." Ms. Johnson asked how many parking spaces were available in the church lot. • Mr. Richard Alexander, representing the applicant, advised there were 102 parking spaces. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the highest utilization of the lot was all day on Sundays. She went on to say there was also some utilization of the lot on Wednesday night but it did not reach capacity. She advised she believed there was always 24 spaces available except on Sundays. Ms. Johnson asked when the City assessed fees in lieu of adequate parking spaces. Ms. Little stated it was under the provisions of C-3 and C4 parking. She then read as follows: "An in lieu fee of $1,200 for each on-site parking space waived shall be paid to the City. This money shall be held in an interest bearing account and shall be expended for public parking facilities within the district it is collected within ten (10) years from the date it is collected.." She explained the ordinance required either the in lieu fee or, "Adequate public parking facilities are available within 600 feet from the entrance of the structure." In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the applicant was requesting a permitted location as a conditional use. She went on to say shared parking was not a waiver under Section H. She advised waivers were granted when public parking spaces would be used; use of the church parking lot was not considered public parking. She noted shared parking was encouraged in the ordinance. She further informed the Commission they did have the authority to entirely waive the 24 parking spaces or charge $1,200 per space waived. Mr. Odom asked if any of the church parking spaces had been designated to other commercial developments. Ms. Little stated there was no record of any businesses using the UBC parking lot. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Ms. Little stated she was not comfortable in saying the city parking lot was • adequate public parking within 600 feet since that was the heaviest used parking lot. Ms. Britton asked how a patron of the restaurant would know where to park. Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Alexander advised they would put up signs notifying their customers of the parking lot. Mr. Allred asked if the employees could be required to use the 24 spaces rather than customers. Mr. Alexander stated he believed the leases stipulated the employees had to use the church parking lot. He further stated there was a public parking lot to the south on School Street which was also within 600 feet of the building. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. Alexander advised the tenants would be open on Sunday but there was very little use of the parking lot on Campbell Street and no use of the parking lot to the south on School Street. He also pointed out there was parking available on Dickson Street on Sundays. He advised most people visiting the establishments on Dickson Street walked at least 600 feet from the parking. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that there was not sufficient signage designating the parking lots as public lots. Mr. Alexander advised the applicant was willing to work with the City in providing signage. Ms. Little stated she did not think there would be a problem in installing signs at the entrances of public parking lots but she did see a potential problem with off-site signs. Mr. Nickle advised he believed there should be a sign in front of the business to inform patrons where designated parking was located. is MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the conditional use for a parking waiver based on the staff comments and the stipulation regarding notification of off-site parking. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson pointed out the motion did not require the employees to park at the church parking lot. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Nickle amended his motion to include the employees of the businesses would utilize the off-site parking at the University Baptist Church except on Sundays. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Odom, Johnson, Head, Nickle, Allred, Forney and Harbison voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". • aqo • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 13 FINAL PLAT - FIELDSTONE SUBDIVISION, PHASE III CASTLE DEVELOPMENT CO. - N OF WEDINGTON. W OF CARLSBAD TRACE The next item was presentation of a final plat for Fieldstone Subdivision, Phase III submitted by Al Harris, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Castle Development Company for property located north of Wedington (Highway 16West), west of Carlsbad Trace. The property is zoned R-1.5. Ms. Johnson advised staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to (1) plat review and subdivision committee comments; (2) completion of all improvements within the subdivision, including street lights; (3) payment of the $56.00 per unit sewer assessment fee for improvements to Hamstring Creek sewer pump station; (4) submission of "as -built' drawings; and, (5) 20 -foot pedestrian access between 57 and 58. Mr. Al Harris, Northwest Engineers, advised the zoning for the tract was R-1.5 and was for duplex development. He stated the owners had agreed to give the 20 -foot access easement but were concerned whether there was a need for the easement. Ms. Little stated there would not be pedestrian access to the park if the easement was not obtained but other adjoining subdivisions would have access. Ms. Britton noted there was a utility easement between lots 58 and 59 which could be used as dual access. Discussion ensued regarding whether it connected to the park. Ms. Little stated staff recommends the motion to include that pedestrian access be granted either between lots 57 and 58 or between lots 58 and 59. Mr. Forney inquired regarding the discontinuity between Patrick and DesArc streets. Mr. Harris noted there was a • ravine in the subject area and Ms. Little stated effort was being made for a grid pattern in development but since the preliminary plat was approved several years prior, corrections might not be feasible. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bunn stated it could be achieved by realigning lots and adjusting lot lines which might be impractical if lot sales had contacts pending. Ms. Britton stated misaligned streets reduced speeding through residential areas. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Master Street Plan reflected Patrick as a collector street and Ms. Little noted there was not sufficient right of way dedicated. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the Final Plat subject to staff comments and provision of an access easement to the public lands between lots 57 and 58 or lot 58 and 59. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. 0 05/ • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 14 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LSD 95-34 - HIGHWAY 112 BUSINESS CENTER VERNON MCBRIDE - W OF 72 S OF VAN ASCHE The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Highway 112 Business Center submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Vernon McBride for property located west of Highway 71 and south of Van Asche. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 5.43 acres. Staff recommended approval of the large scale development subject to: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Installation of the additional fire hydrant as requested by the Fire Chief, 3. Dedication of the additional right of way along Highway 112 by warranty deed, 4. Construction of sidewalk along Highway 112, 5. Resolution of the entranceway issue, 6. Resolution of the sewer easement issue, and 7. A notation on the plat of the trees to be preserved. • Mr. Bunn stated a revised plat had been submitted indicating the line extension and fire hydrant. Further he stated the building had been moved to allow for maintenance of the sewer line. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Ms. Britton inquired regarding the entranceway and Mr. Jorgensen responded it was to facilitate loading and unloading of vehicles. Ms. Britton stated she felt the two entrances would increase conflict points along the road way. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated staff would prefer one entrance/exit. Mr. Jorgensen stated their concern was traffic congestion and he stated it was his opinion that two entrances/exits would better facilitate ingress and egress. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jorgensen agreed to pave around the building. Ms. Little noted calculations of the additional paved area would be required for drainage and grading permits. Mr. Nickle noted the adjoining property to the east was owned by this petitioner and if the property was developed similarly, traffic circulation would increase. Ms. Little stated it would be better to have a throat to allow for stacking of cars if the adjoining property developed similarly. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would accept one 46 feet entrance with a median. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the Large Scale Development subject to staff comments with the plat reflecting one 46 feet entrance consisting of three 12 feet lanes and one 10 feet median. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Ali M • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 15 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS LSD 95-35 - NORTHWEST NURSING CENTER TOMMY HOLLAND - 27 EAST APPLEBY The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Northwest Nursing Center submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Tommy Holland for property located at 27 East Appleby. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural, and contains 3.85 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, 2. Construction of the perimeter driveway as requested by the Fire Chief, 3. The addition of a street light if required by the City, and 4. Final grading plan and drainage report. Discussion ensued regarding a meeting with the Fire Chief and construction of the perimeter drive. Ms. Little stated staff would support the drive paved past the dumpster pad to the east property line of John Ashton and to the west one- third of the way to the property line of David Kleck, and between the two points, 6 inches of compacted gravel which would allow for grass to grow. Is MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments and construction of the perimeter drive as agreed to by the Fire Chief. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Mr. Forney inquired if the existing curb would remain as is and the developer stated that it would. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. 0 N // • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE CU95-33 - PARKING WAIVER TOMMY HOLLAND - 27 EAST APPLEBY The next item on the agenda was the conditional use request submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Tommy Holland for property located at 27 East Appleby. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and the request is for a parking waiver. Staff recommended approval of the parking waiver contingent upon the area to the west remaining vacant, in case the use changes, additional parking would be required. Mr. Harris agreed to the condition that the west remain vacant so that in the event the use was changed, additional parking requirements could be met. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the CU95-33 subject to staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. • 40 ;I • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 17 VACATION VA95-9 - PAUL AND DELORES PRICE S OF HIGHWAY 16 W, E OF EVA AVE The next item on the agenda was the vacation request submitted by Paul and Delores Price for property located south of Highway 16 West, east of Eva Avenue. The request is to vacate road right of way. The staff recommended the right of way be retain therefore denial of the request for the following reasons: 1. The portion of the right of way will be required by the State Highway Department for the widening of Wedington. Acquisition of the right of way for this project is now underway. 2. The City is considering the use of a portion of this right of way for an entrance sign. Ms. Price submitted tax records showing they had been paying taxes on the subject tract. Ms. Johnson stated taxes were assessed based on the ownership of the property regardless of whether or not a subject tract had right of way. Further she stated right of way and condemnation proceedings were of legal nature and could not be resolved by the planning commission. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to deny the vacation. is Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 0 eq, • Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 18 WAIVER OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS - JULIAN ARCHER BOIS WARC SUBDIVISION The next item on the agenda was the wavier of street improvements submitted by Julian Archer for Bois d'Arc Subdivision. Staff recommended approval of the waiver for 26 feet wide street with on street parking prohibited. Mr. Bunn stated the ordinance provided for narrower streets and precedence was set in other subdivisions. Further he stated this particular subdivision was heavily wooded and a 26 feet wide street would accommodate preservation of those trees and the street would not be heavily traveled. Ms. Little stated the Master Street Plan addressed narrow streets under the residential streets option. Discussion ensued regarding phased construction of the street versus completed construction of the street. Mr. Bunn requested the street be constructed in its entirety. Mr. Allred objected to the waiver. Ms. Britton inquired as to the width of the divided portion of the street and Mr. Bunn stated the divided part would not change. Ms. Britton stated she did not have a problem with 26 feet street and stated she did not see a need for parking restrictions. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney noted that repaving narrower streets would save the City money and slow traffic. isMr. Jorgensen stated the construction of the street would be by phases and it would come back before the Commission within the next few months. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jorgensen stated phase I would be the south half of the subdivision. Discussion ensued regarding phasing. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to deny the street waiver. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jorgensen stated the request was for a waiver to construct a 26 feet street through the whole subdivision which would be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval of phases. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Allred withdrew the motion. MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to approve the waiver for a 26 feet wide street. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Mr. Allred and Mr. Head voted against the motion. I've u • VOTING LOG FOR q /z5 /95 L4 8-0 r0 0 MOTION ic��e SECOND% ALLRED.4 BRITTON -� FORNEY,4� r7 HARBISON g HEAD `f JOHNSON3 NICKLE 7 s ODOM/ REYNOLDS--�- 8-0 r0 0 • • VOTING LOG FOR Q IZ5 P95 / I or YJon &�O-o MOTION SECOND ALLRED BRITTON -;t4-e,2.�O FORNEY ::41- (�� LU HARBISON HEAD 1k JOHNSON 2 . NICKLE,#- JG' �p O ODOM/ 9 REYNOLDS av &�O-o • • VOTING LOG FOR 9 Z5 %95 & �o '-0 g o0 o %'/' D I3 MOTIONfQC� SECOND ALLRED-#- / BRITTON,:0� y%0 FORNEY,A- HARBISON?"g HEAD JOHNSON j f NICKLE ODOM/ REYNOLDS X & �o '-0 g o0 o %'/' D I3 • • VOTING LOG FOR 'ik5hf 4 MOTION SECOND ALLRED fAJ/ BRITTON � &14 FORNEY� HARBISONO HEAD JOHNSON/3 NICKLE ODOM REYNOLDS Cl • L VOTING LOG FOR 4 5 /95 50 MOTION 7� SECOND IJp ALLRED # / BRITTON A FORNEY,#7 HARBISON-*�'g HEAD � [� JOHNSON.:�63 NICKLE �4# 5 ODOM -:ij REYNOLDS 50