Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-13 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 13, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds, Mark Sugg, and Gary Tucker MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Head and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Janet Johns, Dawn Thomas, Rich Lane, And Alett Little CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 69 1996 Ms. Johnson stated she had requested that the secretary correct the attendance report and redistribute the minutes. Further she stated the minutes would be approved as corrected. LS96-7 RUTH TURNER RICK OSBORNE - 5465 WHEELER ROAD 'Me first item on the consent agenda was the lot split for Ruth Turner submitted by Rick Osborne for property is located at 5465 Wheeler Road. The property is located in the county and the request is to create a total of two lots. Staff recommended approval subject to the following condition: Dedication of a 140' x 60' access easements along the western property line of tract 1. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • /V • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 2 LS96-13 WANDA SIMS 4015 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item on the agenda was the lot split for Wanda Sims for property located at 4015 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R -I and part of the property is located in the county. Staff recommended approval subject to the following condition: The applicant shall receive Health Department approval of the septic system for the existing house on the proposed 0.55 acre lot. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • CI • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 3 LSD96-16 HILAND DAIRY NORTHWEST ENGINEERS - 301 E 15TH ST The next item on the consent agenda was the large scale development for Hiland Dairy submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located at 301 East 15th Street or Highway 16 east.) The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains 25.66 acres. The proposed development is a 11,746 sf building expansion. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: I. Dedication of additional right of way to provide a total of 50 feet from the centerline of 15th Street. 2. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage and parking lot plans. 3. Construction of a 5' sidewalk along the applicant's frontage along 15th Street. 4. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the consent agenda. • Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS LS96-10 R.J. MERRYSHIP RICHARD ALEXANDER - 730 MISSION The next item on the agenda was the lot split for R.1.Mer yship submitted by Richard Alexander for property located at 730 Mission (the southeast quadrant of Mission and Rockwood intersection.) The property is zoned R-1 and the request is for a total of three lots. This application has been submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request and a conditional use request. The request is to split 0.61 acre tract into three parcels. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of 50' right of way for Mission Street (State Highway 45) and dedication of 25' right of way for Fallin Street. No additional right of way is requested for Rockwood Trail. 2. Construction of a 6' trail along Mission. 3. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, tree, water, and sewer plans. 4. No direct access to Rockwood Trail. 5. Payment of Park fees in the amount of $900 for three single family homes of $1,260 for one single family • home and a duplex. 6. Plat review and subdivision comments Ms. Johnson inquired if the developer had agreed to all the conditions of approval and Mr. Lane stated a signed copy was in the file. Ms. Little stated staff had received phone calls from persons residing on or near Fallin Street requesting that attention be called to the narrowness of Fallin and specifically a request that no parking be allowed on Fallin. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of park fees and Ms. Little stated $900 was the correct amount. Discussion ensued regarding the 25' right of way on Fallin and Ms. Little stated that would be the total amount from the centerline. Mr. Alexander stated the total right of way dedication on Mission was 50' from centerline. Intense discussion ensued regarding the location of the existing house and the proposed sidewalk locations. Mr. Alexander was not aware of the requirement for sidewalks on Rockwood and Fallin and Ms. Little responded that the report was amended at agenda session at the request of the Commission. Further, Ms. Little expressed concern in requiring sidewalks on Rockwood and Fallin due to tree preservation issues and topography concerns. Mr. Reynolds stated he would withdraw his request for sidewalks on Rockwood and Fallin (condition four was amended above to reflect this request.) Mr. Alexander stated they intended to retain all the trees on the property. Ms. Johnson stated she felt a sidewalk was desperately needed along Rockwood. Discussion ensued regarding trail • requirements along Mission and Ms. Little stated the sidewalk and trails coordinator would need to address the issues and she would forward the Commission's request. • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 5 Discussion ensued regarding the retaining wall and the effect same would have on sidewalk construction. Mr. Benton, residing at 1353 Rockwood, opposed the subject project because allowing multi family in a low density residential district would set a precedent for others to follow. Ms. Suzanne McCray, residing at 517 Fallin, opposed the subject project. Jim and Loma Beard, residing at 717 Rockwood, opposed the subject project because of drainage and traffic issues. Ms. Julie Dorrough, residing at 725 N. Fallin, opposed the subject project and expressed concern regarding the owner not occupying the proposed units. Mr. Alexander stated it was his intention to orient the building toward Mission and he assured the neighborhood and the Commission of his desire to maintain the neighborhood's integrity. Discussion ensued regarding the R -S zone designation, requirements of buildable area, and maximum number of units allowed under the R -S zone. Mr. Sugg inquired if the developer had intentions of selling the townhouses in the future and Mr. Alexander stated they had not ruled out selling the units. Mr. Sugg stated this was good in -fill development as called for under the General Plan 2020. • Discussion ensued regarding elevation drawings for this project and Ms. Little stated it was the Commission's purview under conditional uses to architecturally tie-in the proposed structure. The chair requested a motion regarding item seven on the agenda (RZ96-8.) Mr. Allred called a point of order and stated there was a motion and a second on the Floor for removing the sidewalk on Rockwood and Fallin under conditions of approval four. The chair ruled that no second was made. MOTION Mr. Sugg made a motion to approve RZ96-8 subject to conditions of approval and staff comments. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Mr. Allred called a point of order and requested that the requests be approved subject to the approval of the each other. Mr. Harbison called a point of order and inquired if the conditional use request and the rezoning could be incorporated into one motion and Ms. Little responded that was not possible. Discussion ensued regarding the voting order of the requests. The chair ruled that a substitute motion was in order. Mr. Alexander requested that the lot split be considered fust because in any event they would require approval of the lot split. . At the request of Ms. Johnson and Mr. Alexander, Ms. Little stated staff would amend the conditions of approval to delete the approval of the conditional use (originally item #1) and approval of the rezoning (originally item #2.) Note the deletions are reflected above. Further, Ms. Little noted that the lot splits would meet the minimum • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 6 requirements for lot size and frontage. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Mr. Sugg made a motion to approve the lot split subject to deletion of the approval of the conditional use and rezoning, and also deletion of sidewalks on Rockwood and Fallin but providing construction of a 6' trail on Mission, as well as no direct access to Fallin (all changes are reflected above.) Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request would create a tandem lot and Ms. Little stated that the restricted access to Fallin did not take away the available frontage but if the Commission desired staff would amend the conditions to reflect that access was permitted to Fallin. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION Mr. Allred made an amendment to the substitute motion to delete no direct access to Fallin (all changes are reflected above.) Upon roll call, the amendment to the Substitute Motion passed with a vote of 4-3-0. Mr. Odom, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Sugg voted against the motion. is Upon roll call, the amended substitute motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Mr. Odom and Mr. Reynolds voted against the motion. CU96-10 R.J. MERRYSHIP RICHARD ALEXANDER - 730 MISSION BLVD The next item on the agenda was the conditional use request for R.J. Merryship submitted by Richard Alexander for property located on 730 Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and the request is to allow construction of a duplex. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: I. Approval of rezoning from R-1 to R-2. 2. Approval of the associated lot split request. 3. Provision of a joint access agreement for the single drive that will serve the proposed lots. 4. All proposed lighting will be directed downward, away from adjacent residential properties. This item was withdrawn by the applicant. RZ96-8 R.J. MERRYSHIP RICHARD ALEXANDER - 730 MISSION BLVD • The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request for R.J. Merryship submitted by Richard Alexander for property located at 730 Mission Blvd. The request is to rezone .61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R- S, Residential Small Lot. • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 7 Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: I. Approval of the lot split request. 2. Approval of the conditional use request to allow duplexes. This item was withdrawn by the applicant. I [G 11 Cork, 1 Mr. Sugg made a motion to approve the rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -S, Residential Small Lot. Discussion ensued regarding a point of order and whether or not the motion failed for lack of a second. The chair ruled that no clear action had been taken on the conditional use or the rezoning requests. MOTION Mr. Sugg made a motion to approve RZ96-8 as presented. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson noted that approval of rezoning would require 5 affirmative votes and she noted there were only 7 • commissioners present. Further, she inquired if the applicant might prefer to withdraw at this time. After consultation between the applicant and Mr. Alexander, the item was withdrawn. Ms. Johnson inquired if the applicant understood that the conditions of approval for the lot split had been amended and Mr. Alexander stated that they understood. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Johnson stated that if the conditional use and the rezoning requests were withdrawn and the applicant wished to proceed with the requests at a later time, the process in its entirety would need to be initiated. Is 9 • Planning Commission Minutes May l3, 1996 Page 8 CU96-12 FRANCIS HOLCOMB DON GINGER -531 N WASHINGTON The next item on the agenda was the conditional use request for Francis Holcomb submitted by Don Ginger for property located at 531 North Washington. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and the request is to allow construction of a detached second dwelling (Use Unit 8.) Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Compliance with Section 160.195 with respect to screening, ingress/egress, off-street parking, and that any proposed lighting being directed downward away from adjacent property owners. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction to run with the land shall be recorded which specified that the use of the detached second unit as an independent dwelling may continue only as long as one unit on the property is owner occupied. Ms. Little presented a sample of the materials to be used for the detached second dwelling and stated that a signed copy of the conditions of approval was on file with the Planning Department. fS[el� fi7.1 Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the conditional use. • Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 9 CU96-13 CLAIBOURNE BASS ROB SHARP - 21 N. LOCUST AVENUE The next item on the agenda was the conditional use for Claiboume Bass submitted by Rob Sharp for property located at 21 N. Locust Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and the request is for a multi -family dwelling (Use Unit 9.) Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the Board of Adjustment for a variance request of 10' from the front setback. 2. Compliance with Section 160.195 with respect to screening, ingress/egress, off-street parking, and that any proposed lighting being directed downward away from adjacent property owners. 3. The proposed dwelling does not exceed 20' in height at the rear setback line. 4.. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $240 per unit. Ms. Little noted that duplexes and single family homes are a use by right in R -O zone. Further she stated the conditional use request was for multi family dwelling which implies one building however the proposal is for two buildings but would constitute a multi family situation in that more than one family would be living on the lot. She stated staff did support the current plans and that separation of the buildings is in line with the character of the • neighborhood. Mr. Schaper inquired as to why this request was not a detached second dwelling and Ms. Little responded that approval of detached second dwelling requires that one of the structures is owner occupied and that is not the case in this situation. Mr. Sharp presented an artist's rendering of the project. Discussion ensued regarding preservation of the large tree on the site which prevented expanding the existing structure. Ms. Little noted that the park fee amount had been omitted from the conditions of approval and she stated the amount was based on $240 per unit (this is reflected above.) Mr. Bass agreed to accept this condition of approval. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the conditional use request subject to conditions of approval and staff comments including the $240 per unit park fee assessment (reflected above.) Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. I Wit,\ • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 10 RZ96-7 LEWIS FORD DENNIS MOORE - 3373 N. COLLEGE AVENUE The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request for Lewis Ford submitted by Dennis Moore for property located at 3373 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and the request is for zone C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the guidelines of the 2020 General Plan. Ms. Johnson noted this project would need large scale development approval. She noted that large scale development approval would be contingent on a contribution for construction of a collector street as detailed on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Sugg inquired as to the plan for the property to be rezoned and Mr. Lewis responded that he was expanding his dealership and the service facility. Discussion ensued regarding a parcel of land owned by Mr. Lewis to the south currently zoned A-1. Further discussion ensued regarding the ownership of the large tract of A-1 land adjoining the Lewis' property. MOTION • Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the rezoning as requested. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 11 RZ96-9, RZ96-10, RZA96-11 GORDON WILKINS DAVE JORGENSEN - NW CRN MALLY WAGNON RD & HWY 16E The next item on the agenda was the rezoning and annexation requests for Gordon Wilkins submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located at the northwest comer of Mally Wagnon Road and Highway 16 east. RZ96-9 is a rezoning request for 2.73 acres currently zoned A- 1, Agriculture to be rezoned to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. RZ96-10 is a rezoning request for .39 acres currently zoned A-1, Agricultural to be rezoned to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. RZ96-1 I is an annexation and rezoning request for 9.08 acres currently zoned A- 1, Agricultural to be annexed and rezoned to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends denial of rezoning request RZ96-9, but supported amending the request to R -O, Residential - Office. Staff recommended denial of rezoning request RZ96-10, but supported amending the request to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommended approval of the annexation but staff recommended denial of the rezoning. Staff supported the annexation and amending the rezoning to R-1, Low Density Residential. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the area would have adequate fire protection due to the location and Ms. Little responded that fire protection currently extends to Lake Sequoyah which would include the subject area. • Ms. Little stated that the applicant's attorney had contacted the planning office and they had agreed to rezoning as per the staff recommendation. Mr. Tom Brown, owner of property located at 6355 E. Huntsville Road, requested that the Commission deny the rezoning from A-1 to R -O. Mr. Lane noted the general plan reflected the area as community commercial with residential to the west. MOTION Mr. Sugg made a motion to approve RZ96-9 rezoning 2.73 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office subject to staff comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve RZ96-10 rezoning .39 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • MOTION • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve RZA96-11, approving annexation and rezoning from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • 40 • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 13 LSD96-15 KMA BUSINESS CTR NORTHWEST ENGINEERS - NE CRN RUPPLE & WEDINGTON The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for KMA Business Center submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of CATACOMB LLC for property located at the northeast comer of Rupple Road and Wedington (Highway 16 west.) The property contains 2.29 acres and is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of additional right of way to provide 40 feet from the centerline of Rupple Road. 2. Improvements to Rupple Road, including the tum lane, as generally shown on the proposed LSD drawing. The exact lane widths and improvements will be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. 3. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, street, tree, water, sewer, and parking lot plans. 4. Construction of 5' sidewalks along the applicant's frontage of Rupple and Wedington. 5. The drainage, including the detention ponds, shall be privately maintained by the owner. 6. Improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria. • 7. Payment of off site sanitary sewer charges. The charges will be based upon an estimated equivalent of $200 per 130 gpd. The $200 per 130 gpd is the current residential unit off-site sanitary sewer charge. 8. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating that he understands that the City is not responsible to repair or replace any surface (other than normal asphalt or concrete pavement and grass), landscaping or trees within an easement due to the City's normal maintenance or repair or work on any water and/or sewer line or appurtenance. 9. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. Ms. Johnson stated the applicant had accepted the conditions of approval. Mr. Tucker inquired regarding the setback requirement for the sidewalk and Mr. Gray stated they would probably be constructed within the right of way and they would work with the terrain and incorporate green space. Mr. Tucker inquired regarding a shared driveway with the property to the east along Wedington and Mr. Gray stated that was not considered because there is a storm water detention in that area. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve LSD96-15 subject to conditions of approval and staff comments. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed improvements to Rupple Road and Mr. Beavers stated they would work • those out with Mr. Gray. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 14 LSD96-18 CREEKSIDE PLAZA CROSSOVER ASSOCIATES - NE CRN CROSSOVER & HWY 16 The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Creekside Plaza submitted by Engineering Service, Inc. on behalf of Crossover associates for property located at the northeast comer of Crossover and Highway 16. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 2.56 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of additional right of way to provide 50 feet from the centerline of existing Highway 16 and 265. 2. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, tree, water, sewer, and parking lot plans. The sanitary sewer will utilize one central lift station as shown. 3. Construction of sidewalks along the applicant's frontage of Highway 265 and 16. This will include crossing the creek (at the southwest) with an approved design. 4. The drainage shall be privately maintained by the owner. 5. Improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria. • 6. Easements as requested at Plat review. 7. The Owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating that he understands that the City is not responsible to repair or replace any surface (other than normal asphalt or concrete pavement and grass), landscaping or trees within an easement due to the City's normal maintenance or repair work on any water and/or sewer line or appurtenance. 8. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. On the morning of May 13, 1996, this item was postponed by the applicant who was unable to be present for the meeting. 0 Z�7 I h`` • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 15 PP96-3 SEQUOYAH PRESERVE, PUD DAN COODY E OF RODGERS The last item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for Sequoyah Preserve, a Planned Unit Development submitted by Carter Engineering on behalf of Dan and Deborah Coody for property located east of Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-1 and proposed 11 lots on approximately 7.09 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a street width waiver to allow the private street to be 18 feet wide for two way traffic (14 feet wide for one way traffic meets the PUD requirements.) 2. Approval of a waiver in culdesac length. 3. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, street, water, sewer, and tree plans. 4. Construction of a trail in lieu of a sidewalk. 5. The drainage system, including the detention pond, shall be privately maintained by the owner. 6. Improvements shall meet the City Engineer's latest criteria. • 7. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. Ms. Johnson stated the concept plat was considered at the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1996 and as a result of those discussions, the City Council passed Resolution 19-96. She stated a copy of Resolution 19-96 was distributed to the Commission members as well as a letter of opinion from the City Attorney dated May 10, 1996. She stated the resolution causes Mt. Sequoyah and its environs to be treated in a unique way. She stated this was the first project to be considered under Resolution 19-96. She stated the crux of Mr Rose's view is in the third paragraph and she read as follows... "It is clear on its face that Mr. Coody's proposed preliminary plat proposed no `connectivity' over Mt. Sequoyah. Should a majority of the Planning Commission believe that in examining Mr. Coody's preliminary plat good planning demands an examination of the desirability of `connectivity', Resolution 19-96 prevents the Planning Commission from such a decision until it is presented to the City Council. Accordingly, it is my opinion that if a majority of the Planning Commission believes that good planning requires an examination of the desirability of connectivity it may refer that issue to the City Council by requesting them to consider a resolution approving connectivity." Ms. Johnson inquired if the developer was in agreement with the conditions of approval and Ms. Little stated the engineer had signed a fax transmittal agreeing to the conditions of approval. Ms. Johnson requested that the Commission first address the issue of whether or not connectivity should be explored. Discussion ensued regarding the looped street layout on the preliminary plat. Mr. Tucker stated that in the interest of disclosure, he was a neighboring property owner but had no economic • interest in the subject development and therefore would participate in the discussion. Mr. Sugg inquired as to where the location of the Mt. Sequoyah property in relation to the subject tract and Mr. • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 16 Coody presented a map depicting same. Discussion ensued regarding the connectivity issue. Mr. Allred stated it was his opinion the Commission was revisiting old issues and that a determination had been made that connectivity was not desirable. Further, Mr. Allred stated if connectivity issues were going to be discussed, this preliminary plat should be denied and sent back for redrawn connections. He urged the Commission to consider the plat as drawn and approve or disapprove the plat based on its merit. Ms. Johnson stated the City Attorney's letter provides that if the majority of the Commission felt connection should be addressed it should be removed from this agenda and forwarded to the Council. Further, Ms. Johnson explained that she did not feel the Commission could deny the subject plat because no connection was shown and she stated that under the resolution the Commission did not have the authority to request connection to be shown. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve and look at the preliminary plat as presented. The motion failed for lack of second. Ms. Johnson noted several waivers had been requested and she felt that consideration of preliminary plat in light of the requested waiver and connectivity issues might constitute a waste of time. Mr. Sugg stated he did not feel connectivity was appropriate and the subject area was a "sacred" site. He read from • A Pattern Laneuaee as follows: "In every region and every town, indeed in every neighborhood there are special places which have come to symbolize the area and the peoples roots there. These places may be natural beauties or historic landmarks left by ages past but in some form they are essential. People can not maintain their spiritual roots and their connection to the past if the physical world they live in does not also sustain these roots. Whether the sacred sites are large or small whether they are at the center of the towns and neighborhood or in the deepest countrysides, establish ordinances which will protect them absolutely so that our roots in the visible surroundings cannot be violated." Discussion ensued regarding the reason Mr. Sugg did not second the motion. Mr. Sugg stated he did wish to discuss connectivity but that he would not support connectivity for the subject project. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the City Council because "good planning" requires an examination of the desirability of connectivity in this area. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tucker inquired as to what exactly the Commission was requesting that the City Council do. Ms. Johnson stated she was requesting that the City Council handle this as an agenda item, allow opportunity for public comment, and under Section 3 of the resolution the Council could send the item back to the Commission after their discussion. Mr. Harbison stated that he understood the motion did not include a recommendation for a • connection but rather an indication that exploration of connectivity was necessary and Ms. Johnson stated that was her understanding as well but that it was the Council's responsibility to explore the issue of connectivity not the Commission's. Further discussion ensued and Ms. Johnson stated it would be of no benefit for the Commission to • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 17 discuss the project if a higher authority would ultimately determine the outcome. Mr. Schaper addressed the Commission and stated he felt they were "going down the wrong road." He clarified that it was the Council's intent that in the absence of a proposal of a connection over Mt. Sequoyah, the Commission would deal with an individual proposal in the same way as you deal with any other. He stated it would be his sense to send this back to the Commission and other alderman felt the same. He stated the resolution only called for action if a connection was proposed. He urged the Commission to continue discussion of the subject preliminary plat. Mr. Harbison stated that with all due respect for Mr. Schaper understanding of the intention of the Council, the resolution is not clear and the City Attorney's opinion was contrary to Mr. Schaper's understanding of the ordinance. Intense discussion ensued. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Mr. Sugg and Mr. Tucker voted against the motion. Ms. Johnson directed staff to forward the matter to the City Council. • 40 • Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 18 VA96-7 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL NORTHWEST ENGINEERS - N OF JOYCE, WEST OF 71 B The next item on the agenda was the easement vacation request for Northwest Arkansas Mall submitted by Northwest Engineers for property north of Joyce Street, and west of Highway 71 Business. Staff recommended approval subject to the following condition. The concerns of the water and sewer department as well as Ozarks Electric should be resolved. In reference to a letter from Dave Jurgens with water/sewer, Ms. Johnson noted that Mr. Jurgens was in agreement with abandoning the easements under the building and rededicating easements for existing lines traversing the property. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the existing lines. Mr. Jones stated all the requested vacations were under the building and this was simply a housekeeping measure. Mr. Jones agreed to rededicate easements for existing Ozarks Electric lines under the building. Mr. Beavers explained that the Mall would be responsible for maintenance of the lines which run under the building. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the easement vacation subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.