Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held April 27, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Tucker, Lee Ward, Sharon Hoover, Conrad Odom, John Forney, Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey ITEMS REVIEWED: AD 98-14.00: Administrative (Young Parking Ordinance Proposal) AD 98-13.00: Administrative (Planning Commission Findings) VA 98 -3.00: Vacation (Keating John Venture) LSD 98-9.00: Large Scale Development (Lots 14/15) Sunbridge CU 98-8.00: Conditional Use (Alltel Mobile Commun) LSD 98-8.00: Large Scale Development (Arkansas Natl Bank) VA 98-4.00: Vacation (Joe Fennel) AD 98-15.00: Administrative (Amendment to Master Street Plan) • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes for April 13, 1998, were approved as distributed. Discussion of DDEP Plans and Proposals - Bootsie Ackerman • ACTION TAKEN Denied/No further action Denied/No further action Approved/City Council Approved/No further action Applicant removed from agenda Approved Approved Removed from agenda Members of the Dickson Downtown Enhancement Project present were David Glasser, Bootsie Ackerman, Lahleh Amirmoez, Jim Foster, and Richard Shewmaker. They gave their overview of their vision and plan for the future of Downtown Dickson and Square as follows: Lahleh listed read the main six items: 1. Develop and implement a plan cohesive promotional strategy to enhance economic growth of the area 2. Save the infrastructure of the Downtown Dickson Street area that imparts a sense of identity. 3. Encourage mixed use of development. 4. Promote Historic preservation and reuse. 5. Ensure the Downtown Dickson Streets is pedestrian -friendly and accommodate simultaneously vehicular traffic. 6. Promote and encourage broad choices of cultural recreational art entertainment alternatives. The focus of the DTEP was regarding connection of Dickson Street and the square with their priorities addressing parking and traffic. Mr. Glasser showed slides of their plans and studies. He stated they had originally set up the boundaries focusing on connections between the square and Dickson Street. They put the bulk of their energy on urban street improvements which involved a survey on buildings downtown. Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -2- Dickson Street and Easton Block were the principal connectors with focus on increasing pedestrian activity creating a congenial environment. The diagram reflected the public open spaces and in the infill projects which would increase the density along Dickson and preserve the fine scale. He noted the dark areas to be unbuilt areas. The next slide reflected the different vergence. The study borne out of the master plan for the University that agreed with the condensity. He noted Block and East Streets were relatively lightly traveled. He further indicated their principal focus of work was east lot on Dickson Street. He noted the next diagram showed amount of surface area devoted to parking in downtown Fayetteville. The Design Committee agreed with the recommendation, if there were alternative of taking houses and creating more parking this would be a positive move. He indicated the grey area was asphalt and parking areas. The next slide was the zoning map which included brown tones are different levels of commercial development, which meant a lot of the residential area was at risk. He stated this was not a focus of their work but stated their concern. He further stated DDET has identified one of its principles was preservation of this area. The grey areas were existing buildings and orange were proposed potential sites for infill projects . He noted Shipley Baking is one project, Holsum Bakery Project was currently on the drawing board, and the Underwood site would be on its way. He further stated the Depot site will develop a site. The next slide reflected an inventory of available of available parking downtown.. The brown denotes city -owned lots and blue was private. The issue concerning would be how to coordinate parking and making it accessible and user-friendly. The next slide showed a map of a copy given to Planning Commission. He noted downtown area was no larger than Northwest Arkansas Mall, so keep this in mind when people complain about walking distances. He felt if they could coordinate and aggregate parking then the distances would not be a problem. He indicated north was the revered post office, east is the Washington County House, south is the Hog City Diner, and to the west is the Walton Arts Center. The next slide reflected a detailed block by block study in hand form. Basic thesis underlying this improvement was to minimize curb cuts, to maximize connections for pedestrians and to increase tree planting. Several of the members had met with all of property owners who were willing to talk with them on Dickson, and plans developed were direct reflection of property owners commentary. Asa Hutchinson a million and a half dollars have been applied for, and invited to apply for the State Department of Transportation for enhancement fund in the amount of $9 million from state level. The next slide showed prospective sketches. The idea underlying the concept was not only to make it pedestrian - friendly but to add on -street parking. He stated depending on individual owner's preference of curb cuts he indicated they could get 70 to 80 new parking spaces on Dickson Street within domain. The City highway department asked the members to take their sketch drawings and using city's prepared detailed drawings of Dickson, Easton, and Block Streets showed proposed modifications. He noted at scale showing new trees, new pedestrian intersection to enhance safety, and proposed mid -block crossings, etc. He stated they were instructed by design committee to make all recommendations within public domain. He showed a drawing, which Mark Sugg a previous Planning Commissioner, made a personal effort and made careful analysis of existing building sites. He noted the red area reflected number of cars needed per City's code. He indicated the grey reflected the existing and accurate count of parking spaces available. The blue reflected potential spaces increased by virtue of street allocations previously noted. Mr. Glasser stated if Block, East, and Dickson Streets were reconfigured in accordance with the plans there would be more parking. He further noted the summary the total of 7,500 parking spaces considering parking in the aggregate according to the mall. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Page -3- 0 Mr. Ward stated it was his concern Dickson Street was not wide enough from his view. Ms. Ackerman stated they would not want to change any street directions, but this was not the consensus of everyone at the present time. She noted there were three areas where there are left turning lanes creating a more congenial pedestrian environment which would slow the traffic in this area, but stated she understood Mr. Ward's comments. ❑ Mr. Reynolds inquired when upper part of University was closed this should slow down traffic in that area. Ms. Ackerman noted the majority of the traffic had come from the north and this should have a positive impact, thereby traffic from the south would then increase. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -4- Old Business: AD 98-14,00: ADMINISTRATIVE (YOUNG PARKING ORDINANCE PROPOSAL} The Planning Commission shall have the authority to waive the number of off-site parking spaces required in C-3 and C-4 districts. Alderman Cyrus Young came before the Planning Commission. He stated the ordinance was before them and he would respond to any comments. Mr. Young did state the comments made by Richard Alexander to do away with the required findings and wanted the Planning Commission to base decisions on other things such as whether the project had economical benefit. He stated in the short term it would, but noted the same thing was stated when the square was developed and now the square was dead. He commented that John Lewis, of Bank of Fayetteville, wanted to maintain residential neighborhoods in the area, but zero consideration was given to neighborhood preservation in the last two developments approved. The criteria of waiver and fmdings is for protection of adjacent neighbors. Mr. Young stated he was not proposing to change the ordinance but wanted it to clarify the requirement of a vote to affirm findings. Public comments: Richard Shewmaker, from Dickson Street, addressed the commission. He stated that due to lax regulations adopted earlier, it has made downtown bloom the way it has and stated Planning Commission deserved credit for that. He stated it was necessary to have a commercial/residential mix in order to make downtown work. He further noted there were no projects initiated that had taken residential areas. He stated HMT and Jose's commercial developments added residential spaces to include 30 apartment dwellings and therefore increased residential. Mr. Shewmaker stated David Glasser was here because Bernice Jones paid for his involvement for the University. He noted that Mr. Glasser and some students went to some of the areas destroyed by tornadoes in South Arkansas and he and students went there to bring back their communities to life. According to Mr. Shewmaker's information he stated it was always an understanding in 1994 and 1995 there was the availability for a blanket waiver, but the ordinance does not state this. He suggested to add a paragraph with wording that if it was determined it was in best interest of city or campus area for waiver that Planning Commission have the ability to do so. There were no further public comments. Discussion: Highlighted portions of the ordinance were read by Chairman Odom. (Attached to minutes). ❑ Mr. Forney commented he had no objection to any of proposals, but requested clarification concerning 160.117 (D) as how to define spaces surplus to the site. ❑ Ms. Little stated the present ordinance contains a parking space chart and depending on the use of the site there are certain number of parking spaces required. Section D would relate to the site and square footage depending on how parking was calculated in the code. Mr. Young stated the way ordinance presently read, certain number of parking spaces would have to be replaced, but through Ms. Little's interpretation, if somebody had excess parking spaces they would not have to be replaced. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -5- Mr. Forney requested the wording, instead of surplus," unless existing parking spaces exceed the requirements specified for the proposed use." ❑ Mr. Odom stated some of the commissioners were not present. The language "in order to waive the number of parking spaces required fmdings by Planning Commission shall be based upon facts, but all those facts supported by substantial evidence." Mr. Young inquired how can that be done without taking a vote on findings. ❑ Mr. Odom stated that incorporated within motions are findings. He did not feel it was necessary to repeat the findings. He further noted he did not feel this was the best way to approach what Mr. Young was attempting to accomplish. ❑ Mr. Tucker indicated one area of improvement in section H. It says the same thing but it better delineates the findings. Mr. Tucker stated his concern reflected in the new language for D(1)(a) did not make the interpretation any easier, but more confusing and problematic. Therefore, he agrees with Chairman Odom's comments. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he understood the concerns of language based on facts and substantial evidence, but stated the Planning Commissioners should be acting that way, which he believed they were already doing. Mr. Forney further stated it would not concern him to add that language, but substantial evidence would be hard to define. Mr. Forney further stated, waivers have been made of the "in lieu" fee of $1,200 but ordinance did not reflect they have the authority to do so. ❑ Ms. Little stated there were two ways to grant a waiver in C-3 and C-4 which would be to charge the fee, and the other would be to make a determination that shared parking was available. ❑ Mr. Forney stated the Language might include language specified at bottom of 1.3 and reflect waivers meet one of conditions below. Mr. Forney stated he was concerned about the language "surplus to the site" and proposed "exceed the requirements for the proposed use", and an additional change at the bottom of paragraph 1.3 that says waivers shall meet "one of" the conditions below. Mr. Forney moved to pass Resolution Al) 98-14.00 Mr. Reynolds seconded to approve motion as stated. The roll was called and said resolution failed on a vote 4-2-0. Mr. Forney and Mr. Reynolds voted for the resolution. There were no motions or amendments proposed. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Page -6- AD 98-13.00: ADMINISTRATIVE (PLO.NNING COMMISSION FINDINGS) An ordinance requiring the Planning Commission to take a separate vote to affirm findings. Alderman Young came before the commission with a proposal which would require a separate vote on findings. Public: There were no public comments. Discussion: Mr. Forney moved to approve Resolution AD 98-13. Mr. Tucker seconded to approve motion as stated. ❑ Mr. Forney stated he supported this item due to presently incorporating in our motions but for clarity should not create an impediment. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he did not feel this was a bad proposal, but felt it was redundant. The roll was called and Resolution AD 98-13 failed on a vote of 5-1-0. Mr. Forney voted for the resolution. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -7- New Business: VA 98-3.00: VACATION (KEATING JOINT VENTURE. PP 290) LOTS 14 AND 15 SUNBRIDGE CENTER Submitted by Bill Keating on behalf of Keating John Venture for an alley way located at Lots 14 and 15 of Sunbridge Subdivision. This property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. The request is to vacate an unused utility easement. Utility easement vacation as requested by Bill Keating on behalf of Keating Joint Venture for the 20 ft. utility easement located 10 feet each side of the lot line of lots 14 and 15 Sunbridge Center. The applicant has proposed three buildings on the two lots (LSD 98-9.00). The center building will be located over the lot line and the existing utility easement. There are no known utilities located in the easement on the lot line (14/15). Vacating the proposed easement will not prevent utilities from serving the lots or adjacent properties. The proposed LSD has been reviewed at technical plat review on April 1, 1998. Further, the applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the City. The results are as follows: SWEPCO - no objections Arkansas Western Gas - no objections SW Bell - no objections TCA Cable - no objections City of Fayetteville: Water/Sewer - no objections Street Department - no objections Solid Waste - no objections. Staff's Recommendation: Approval of the requested easement vacation. Bill Keating appeared on behalf of the applicant. Public comments: There were no public comments. Discussion: Forney moved to approve VA 98-3.00. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion. Mr. Forney stated due to lack of objections of all utilities and city and staff's recommendation, this should pass without objection. The roll was called and said motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Page -8- LSD 98-9.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LOTS 14 & 15 SUNBRIDGE. PP 290) EAST OF HIRAM DAVIS PLACE AND WEST OF NEW SCHOOL DRIVE Submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located east of Hiram Davis Place and west of New School Place on the south side of Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office and contains approximately 2.10 acres. Findings: This is a three building development in the Sunbridge Center subdivision. This development will total 18,950 sf of office area. Commercial design standards apply to this project. Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. (Subdivision Committee had discussion about screening the rear setback [south side] of the buildings). 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 3. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 5 foot sidewalk with a 4 foot greenspace along all three street frontages. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the LSD approval is voided. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. d. Planning Commission and City Council approval of the proposed utility easement vacation along the lot line of lots 14 and 15 (VA 98.00-3.00). Staff Comments: Staff has a signed agreement of approval. It was also noted this project could have been approved at Subdivision but there were concerns about commercial design standards. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Reynolds, as chairman of Subdivision committee, noted the concern was the south elevation and he had visited the site and stated the rear building could not be seen from where you stand and noted the other two committee members were not present tonight. Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -9- Public: There were no public comments. Discuss compliance of commercial design standards. ❑ Mr. Tucker stated the ordinance referred to frontage view only and not the rear view and no public view on the back, therefore, he had no concern about the back side. One problem more windows at the rear or more light. Where located there is a security factor. ❑ Ms. Hoover stated her concern and reviewed the property and felt the back side of the property should be addressed. ❑ Mr. Odom stated the ordinance refers to what the public would see from right of way and not from the parking lot. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired about the three buildings show 10 feet from the property line and buildings which are free-standing and legal, and it was noted an example similar to this project was the North Hills Medical Plaza. ❑ Ms. Little we consider it a single lot and do not calculate side setbacks on the sides. Mr. Keating stated tenants like to think when they are renting a building it gives them a little ownership when they have a separate address, as opposed to making one big structure, and would allow addition of windows. Commissioner Ward move to approve this project due to most concerns having been made, and he did like the proposed three buildings instead of one. Mr. Reynolds seconded said motion as stated. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated the fire chief did not have any problem subject to conditions of approval and staff recommendations. Mr. Keating stated Dr. Nettleship owned property north of the subject property line and the New School Drive which contained pine trees which are not on subject property. He further stated trees could not be planted in the rear due to the utility easement. ❑ Ms. Little noted to the Planning Commission there was no requirement with concern to the back of the buildings. The roll was called and said motion was approved 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Page -10- CU 98-8.00: CONDITIONAL USE (ALLTEL PP 135) 4803 NORTH SHII.OH DRIVE Submitted by Belinda Bodie of Faulk & Foster on behalf of Alltel Mobile Communications, Inc. for property located at 4803 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.1 acres. The request is to allow a cellular antenna tower at this location. This project was removed from agenda by applicant. • Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Page -11 - ISD 98-8.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK), NORTHWEST CORNER OF SALEM DRIVE AND WEDINGTON DRIVE Submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of the applicant for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Drive and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office and contains approximately 1.61 acres. Findings: This project is located on a lot which was created by a lot split which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1998. The proposed LSD was tabled at the April 2, 1998 Subdivision Committee meeting due to lace of required materials for review (colored renderings). The development was next considered at the April 16, 1998 SDC meeting. Commercial design standards, signage and parking are to be resolved. The applicant has requested a waiver of the parking standards from one parking space per 200 sf to one parking space per 100 sf. The applicant has requested 36 spaces, the ordinance allows 18. The 20% allowable overage would permit 22 spaces. The applicant states a need for 15 employees and 20 customers. Refer to the letter dated March 25, 1998. The commercial design "theme" for the overall development will be set by this large scale, refer to the previous lot split for Sam Rogers (LS 98-9.00, March 23, 1998). • Recommendation: Approval subject to the following conditions: • Conditions of approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 2. Planning Commission determination of applicant's request for parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. The applicant has requested 36 spaces, the ordinance allows 18. The 20% overage allowed by ordinance would provide for 22 spaces. 3. All free-standing signs be limited to a total of two directional signs no larger than 2 feet by 2 feet to be placed where specified on current plans. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 5. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 6. The following contributions are required of Tract B as a part of this LSD per the PC approval of the lot split creating Tract B (3/23/98); a. Assessment of 1/4 of the cost of placing utilities underground to be deposited into escrow (estimate must be provided by utility company). b. Sanitary sewer assessment of $1,200.00 contribution for the Hamstring lift station. c. Salem Road bridge impact fee assessment of $2,415.00. d. Wedington Road off-site assessment of $11,850.00 (street and sidewalk). 7. The bank shall be responsible for maintenance of the island created off-site at the west entrance. • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -12- 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. d. Payment of all fees as detailed above. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the LSD approval is voided. Staff Comments: There were no further conditions, and it was noted staff had not received signed conditions of approval. Rick Rogers with CEI, representing Arkansas National Bank, came before the Planning Commission. He stated they wished to withdraw Item No. 3 since there would be no free-standing signs on-site. He further stated they had no questions or concerns about the conditions of approval. Address the waiver on parking allowance. President - Joe Ronack could answer any questions regarding variance. In the plan we have exceeded landscaping and greenspace and do believe parking requested is of necessity. Drive-in traffic at peak times and do not want traffic problems. Mr. Ward - C-1 and C-2 Current code 1/200 if commercial 1/250 does allows for 20% overage, very slightly different. Would be less and do figure parking by use and bank requires 1/200 ft. This did come up and got information from other banks and this request 1/100 sf and did not find any banks that had more and Dawn regarding information. Branch Bank - Community LSD three years ago and ratio was 1/110 to 115 sf there were other commercial proposed at the same time. Mcllroy and North College beside AQ and has 2800 sf 13 employees 5 drive and 26 parking and 2 handicapped. Banker - Community is not a branch but a main location. All employees will be customer contact people. Therefore need for a higher ratio vs bank with . Where did they come up with 36 and if could cut back to 30 could handle peak times most of the time, but below 30 there would be a concern. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Discussion: Ms. Little Planning Commission would need to address granting a waiver additional variances over 20% granted in accordance and upon fmding when additional spaces are needed. ❑ Mr. Odom stated he felt the building is well -articulated and structured and does meet the commercial design standards. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -13- The applicant stated the request for parking spaces of 36 was twice the allowance, but stated 30 could accommodate the peak times. He further stated going below 30 would put a hardship due to higher peak times generally correlate with high peak times on Highway 16. Employees would accommodate 14 employees maximum, with two of those employees would be in the drive-thru. There is a potential of 12 employees dealing with customers. ❑ Mr. Tucker stated his concerns with 14 tellers and 2 other people and questioned whether everyone would be occupied at the same time and therefore, he stated he was hesitant to allow additional parking than what the ordinance calls for. Mr. Forney stated his understanding of their parking concerns and the need, but he stated he would propose to approve with amendment parking be reduced to 30 total and those over 22 be permeable to decrease runoff and this should accommodate the developer's concerns. Ms. Hoover seconded said motion as stated. The developer stated they had provided permeable and the detention does provide for access rain water and 36 spaces rather than 30 spaces. Cost effective shows over 100 over 3-4 trees to compensate. ❑ Mr. Odom stated if applicant could not be able to complete his project with the above recommendations they could come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Odom further stated he was in support of the motion. The roll was called and said motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6-0-0. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Estes were absent. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -14- VAC 98.00-4.00: ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION BY JOE FENNEL 310 WEST DICKSON This request was presented by Joe Fennel for an existing alley way approximately 12 ft by 72.5 ft. located behind (north property line) of 310 West Dickson (pp 484). The existing alley runs west from Campbell Avenue. Recommendation: Approval of the requested alley right-of-way vacation subject to the full described area being converted to utility easement as requested by the utility companies. Staff Comments: Mr. Beavers stated he spoke with various people in the area concerning drainage. He recommended in order to maintain drainage in the subject alley the easement would need to be a combination utility and drainage easement to provide access to the drainage structure under the existing alley. The applicant stated their plan was to maintain an access easement for a neighbor which had been part of their condition of approval Ms. Little noted she had received the required proposed sublease from Joe Fennel to Joe Fennel which was a requirement to Page 7.8 pursuant to Hargis/Witt owners. Public Comments: Andrew Cozart, appeared on behalf of Nancy Lewis and Jim Hargis, and stated the sublease addressed the issue, and stated with the City maintaining the drainage concerns, this would alleviate any further concerns with his clients. He further stated there was some discussion between the landowners regarding access and the landowners are currently working on the solutions. Mr. Fennel came before the Commission and stated regarding the utility and drainage issue had been addressed and are currently working with regard to service deliveries. The file also contains correspondence from adjacent property owners. There is a request for an access easement to be provided to 316 and 318 west Dickson (Wyma Pearson). The file also contains correspondence concerning a lease and sublease at 310 and 324 West Dickson concerning access to dumpsters and also parking. Mr. Tucker moved to approve VAC 98-4.00 subject to property be converted to a utility and drainage easement and also staff comments. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. The roll was called and said motion was approved with a vote of 6-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes April27, 1998 Page -15- Ms. Little stated both Easton and Serenity Place are two items on the Subdivision committee and request any Planning Commissioners try to make this meeting if possible. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. • N tn o 1- 00 > o 00 cc o a s���s 00 _...>„ f U \` rn 0 a t -n co M 1 co 0 ,i 1� v 00 0 d Z Z s o N T z 0 H 0 SECOND P. Johnson G. Tucker L. Ward S. Hoover C. Odom [J. Forney B. Estes L. Hoffman B. Reynolds 0 t