Planning Commission

March 24, 2014 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meeting on Monday, March 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. A request to review and approve the minutes of the February 24, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. A request to review and approval to close a portion of the 60’ right-of-way of West 2nd Street that lies adjacent to and south of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Block 10 in the McClure and Bayliss Additions to the City of Russellville, submitted by Kirk & Dana Warren. (ST.14.02.74) 3. A Public Hearing requesting to review and a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow sales and display of pools, spas, and decks for property located at 1807 South Arkansas Avenue submitted by Arkansas Valley Pool & Spa. (SP.14.03.121) 4. A Public Hearing requesting to review and a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow an auto body repair shop for property located at 905 East 28th Street, submitted by Oscar Segovia. (SP.14.03.122) 1  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 2014, @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 24, 2014, at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Herschell Hargus Secretary Aldona Standridge Doug Skelton Jimmy Davenport Mike Wilkins Council Liaison Richard Harris Members Absent Vice-Chair Eric Westcott Jimmy Sims Todd Meimerstorf Also present: City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, Fire Marshal Richard Setian, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Building Inspector Brian Holstein, Georgia Hindsman, Jeff Browers, James Kusturin, Jodi Kusturin, Dana Warren, and Kirk Warren. Welcome The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the February 24, 2014, Regular Meeting. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Standridge and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business (Agenda Item #3) was A Public Hearing requesting Commission to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow sales and display of pools, spas, and decks for property at 1807 South Arkansas Avenue. Submitted by Rodney Scoggins d/b/a Arkansas Valley Pool & Spa. (SP.14.03.121) City Planner Harris said this property was the subject of a rezoning request last year. At some point in the past, lots in the subdivision had been recombined resulting in this lot being primarily C-2 (Highway Commercial), but with a narrow strip of residential zoning along its eastern edge. The result of the request was that the property was all zoned C-2. The property owner had stated that he was going to use the property for an antiques shop; however, health issues have made that impossible and now Mr. Scoggins is renting the property and wants to use it for his pool business. That business includes outside storage of materials and tools, including trailers and a tractor, making it a Special Permit Use in C-2. If you recommend approval of this request, I strongly suggest that you include a requirement that any outside storage of materials or equipment be screened from public view. During the Technical Review Meeting, an 8-foot fence was discussed. Along the side of the highway there is an elevation change, with the lot being considerably higher than the roadway. A 6-foot fence combined with the elevation change should screen the drop lot pretty completely. I’m a little concerned that an 8-foot fence will look like a stockade. On the east side of the property there is a different situation. Generally, the operator of the more intense use has to provide the screening fence. However, there is an existing fence separating the subject property from Ms. Hindsman’s property, and a good portion of that fence was inadvertently built on the subject property. If the City requires Mr. Scoggins to put up his own screening fence, he will have to put up another fence that will be parallel with and very close to the existing fence, and will be even further within his own property. Also, if it is 2-feet taller, will that be visually beneficial or not? The other option is to remove Ms. Hindsman's fence, which appears to still be in excellent condition. If you recommend approval, Mr. Scoggins' proposal will be subject to all code requirements. These include Commercial Building Design, signage controls, and drainage plan. Planner Harris said he had heard that Mr. Scoggins planned to utilize the fences for some sort of illustrations. Commercial Building Design standards are pretty strict about that sort of thing, and illustrations of pools would be considered signage. It may not be possible to include illustrations on the fences. With a Special Permit use commissioners have some latitude as to what they feel is appropriate for this location. You are not compelled to do anything other than review the evidence and make a decision as to whether you think this use fits in this location. It is an unusual location in that one side is on a busy state highway, a body shop is almost next door, and there are mixed uses along AR7. However, the property backs right into the neighborhood. It is tough to judge with such circumstances. Mr. Harris said great care is called for in this decision. Chairman Boyd asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. Scoggins declined. The chairman opened the floor for input from the public. Ms. Hindsman, owner/occupant of the residence that adjoins the subject property on the east then spoke. She had questions because the notification letter said: The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a special permit that will allow us (Arkansas Valley Pool and Spa) to have raw materials (pipe, lumber, palletized rock) on our location as well as a tractor and a concrete mixer. These are for business purposes, and will be parked on location when not in use in between jobs. Said equipment will be located as best as possible so that not to be an eyesore to our community. Ms. Hindsman said it does not mention any type of building that will be built to house any of the things listed. My concern is it sitting out in the open, like it is now. Ms. Hindsman then passed out photos showing the lot's current condition. She said there has been no development since a home on this lot several years ago. There is only one entrance into it and that is from 19th Street. She said she bought her home knowing that there was a possibility of the subject lot being used for other commercial purposes, and she did not have an issue with that. My next door neighbor is the Salvation Army. I like the little neighborhood over there, but some of what they’re proposing may not be for the best with Arkansas Avenue being right there. The driveway is just a dirt path into the lot. There is a sewer main and utility line near the back of the lot. I think at this time what they are proposing is storage use only and I don’t think it is going to look very good. There is one spa standing up onsite there now, and I think what is proposed may create an issue with vandalism because it is just going to be out in the open. As far as my fence not following the property line, I can do something to fix that. Ms. Hindsman said she had concerns that the lot is leased by Valley Pool. My question is how long is the lease for, what is the future development, what is going to be left 2 there if in two years they decide that they need to go somewhere else, or do their business elsewhere. If nothing is done on the driveway it will be mangled up really good by lots of heavy equipment being rolled over it and things being moved in and out. Ms. Hindsman asked if there is a plan for a building with a paved driveway and proper signage, as well as screened storage for the things that are already on the lot now. Mr. Scoggins said he planned on buying the property, but couldn’t do the improvements, such as hard surface parking, before purchasing the property. Everything will be parked on hard surface as it is laid out on the site plan. I’m waiting to see whether or not you approve our business going on that property. As far as being there one year or two years and leaving a grassy lot all torn up, that will not happen. There are bad ruts there now, but we did not make them. Chairman Boyd asked Mr. Scoggins if he had plans for a structure and a fence. Mr. Scoggins said yes. It is not noted on the drawing that commissioners have, but we want a wrought iron fence that will go right along the easement all the way around the property so that there is a gate to keep anyone from getting in. That way there will be no chance of blocking vision along AR7 or of drivers trying to pull into the property from AR7. Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Scoggins if he had drawings or plans that depicted exactly what he was planning on doing. Mr. Scoggins showed the commission an elevation of the building, and added that he would like to do something on the fence with digital images of installations. Mr. Wilkins said he wanted to see an actual plan showing the exact layout on the lot, including elevations - a full-scale development plan - of the lot that shows exactly what you are going to do. I think I can probably support this if I see something like that and the building official, code enforcement officer, and city planner are okay with it. Mr. Scoggins said he wasn’t aware civil drawings were needed, that he was here for the Special Use Permit and the submitted drawing shows that everything would be behind the fence. Commissioner Wilkins asked for a time frame for the improvements. I have driven 19th Street many times and I want to make sure that officials are happy with the way everything is laid out. I don’t want anything built that may obstruct vision of drivers on the corner because that is a heavily traveled street and there is a little bit of a blind spot coming up from the south. Chairman Boyd asked City Planner Harris if the commission’s request for civil drawings was procedurally consistent. Mr. Harris said with a Special Use Permit review commissioners have a lot of latitude into what can be required, but what Mr. Wilkins is suggesting is above and beyond what we have typically seen in Russellville. To a great extent, our review is to determine if this use is appropriate at this location. As to the site plan, we require enough information so that we know generally the area of the building, that there is adequate parking, and that he is going to have a privacy fence to screen equipment and supplies. You can require elevations, but it has not been our practice. You are asking applicants to spend fairly serious money with no notion whether they are going to be approved or not for the Special Permit Use itself. As for hard surface parking, screening, etc., all those things are covered by the ordinance. Mr. Harris further stated that the applicant would have to comply with Commercial Building Design standards, which include a list of acceptable materials for the facades that face the street. Illustrations of 3 pools or installations that Mr. Scoggins has done probably will not be approved as wall or fence coverings. Alderman Harris asked Planner Harris to clarify why a Special Use Permit was needed for this particular development in C-2. Planner Harris said Mr. Scoggins' business entails a lot of outside storage. The stated intent is to have equipment and materials outside, including a tractor on a trailer. When you talk about controlling appearance, you are somewhat getting away from health and safety issues and into what can be a very subjective area, but the trend in Russellville and many other cities is to do just that. What Mr. Scoggins is proposing is essentially a contractor's drop lot. When such a use is located on a commercial street you may not want piles of materials, as well as concrete mixers, tractors and other equipment visible from the street. That is why screening is generally required and the use is considered as a Special Permit Use. Commissioner Skelton asked for clarification as to what was being requested. The reason for the petition for the Special Use Permit appears to be that Mr. Scoggins is asking to display pool, spas, decks, without first constructing a building. Planner Harris stated that the Special Use Permit is a bit like a mini PUD (Planned Unit Development), in that the City can be more specific in the requirements for development of the site and use. If Mr. Scoggins proposes a 1500-square foot building with screening fences around his equipment yard and paved parking in the front, that is what is reviewed. If that is what the commission and City Council approve, then that is what he has to have. If he doesn’t have that in a reasonable length of time, then he will have to vacate the property. Commissioner Wilkins said he wanted to clarify something. He told Mr. Scoggins that he was not trying to run your cost up but in the past things have been brought before the Planning Commission and approved and then when it was built it was not what the Planning Commission thought they were getting. Mr. Wilkins said he wanted to see this lot developed, but doesn’t want to be led to believe that I’m approving a development with a building and other things there and then that not occur. Mr. Wilkins said Arkansas Avenue has commercial uses that have old furniture and clothes piled in front. That is blight and I don’t want it to continue. I don’t think your proposal is bad, but I want to make sure that whatever we approve is what gets put on the lot. Mr. Wilkins said he wants this development to enhance the property and have a positive visual impact on South Arkansas. Planner Harris said the commission could recommend explicit conditions about those things, and make the Special Use Permit contingent on compliance with those conditions. Commissioner Skelton asked how you make special provisions if we don’t even know what’s being proposed. Mr. Harris said what I think Mr. Wilkins is talking about is outside display of spas and other inventory. If you feel like that is something that you don’t think is appropriate for this location, you can make it an explicit condition of the approval. As for Mr. Scoggins having a building or not, I don't think Community Development will issue a business license to put stuff on a vacant lot. This is not a full blown site plan, but it does show a building footprint, screening fences and parking. If that is approved, he cannot deviate from it. 4 Commissioner Wilkins asked Mr. Scoggins for his expected time frame for developing this project. Mr. Scoggins said he wanted to have the building done by next year at this time, but said he would not start for 6 to 8 months because he wanted to buy the property. I’m not going to buy the property until I know that I can do the plan and have the business approved. Planner Harris said he was not aware that Mr. Scoggins intended to wait 6 or 7 months before he begins. I would have to state my opinion that it would not be acceptable to me for him to use the lot for 6 or 7 months without proceeding to construct with what is shown on this plan. Building Official Holstein said before Mr. Scoggins can start the development he has to get a building permit. The building will have to have civil engineering designing the outside area. He also has to have a buffer between residences and the commercial business. Commissioner Skelton said he felt like we are asking to be doing this piecemeal. Mr. Skelton asked Mr. Scoggins if there would be a problem with him getting a more complete site plan and presenting it to the commission. Mr. Scoggins said that is what he submitted. Commissioner Wilkins asked if it would be 6 months to a year before development started, with equipment stored on the lot until that time. Mr. Scoggins said he would like to have a couple of signs and a trailer with the business name on it until everything is constructed. He said he needed the signs up for a year and that he would not store anything on the yard other than a couple of signs and the trailer with my name on it for advertising. I can’t put up a 'Future Home of Arkansas Valley Pool & Spa' sign if I can’t even buy the property because you don't approve what I want to do with the land. He said he had made an offer on the property and it had been accepted. He expected to close in 30 days. City Planner Harris said he had less problem with Mr. Scoggins site plan than some of you, but I have to state that if he is not going to initiate construction then he should not be allowed to place equipment or signage on the lot. Such a sign might constitute an off-premise sign, which would likely be impermissible both by City zoning code and Arkansas Highway Transportation Department regulations. Without Mr. Scoggins getting underway to create what is on the plan, I would be very nervous about just allowing signs and equipment on the parcel. That would be very unusual to allow just his trailers and an advertising sign that would probably constitute an off-premise sign. Alderman Harris asked if all Mr. Scoggins needs from the time that he purchases the property to the time that he starts construction of the building is to put up a couple of signs that say “Future Home Of,” and to park a trailer with the business name of the lot. Alderman Harris said we aren’t talking about storing spas and pool materials, are we? Mr. Scoggins said not until the building and everything is constructed and it is behind the fence. Alderman Harris said for clarification, between now and the time that you start construction we are talking about a couple of signs that say “Future Home Of” and a trailer with your name on it, but there will be no other articles on that property until you construct your facility. Then you will store the materials and equipment that you need to do your business behind the fence. Mr. Scoggins said yes. 5 City Planner Harris said the typical process is a plan is submitted for a Special Permit Use. If it is approved, the property is developed and the use moves in, not the use moves in then 6 months later the property is developed. I hate to put up hurdles for Mr. Scoggins, but we are getting far afield from the standard process in that we are talking about allowing things out on the lot for several months, including a trailer and an off-premise sign. We are flipping the process. Mr. Wilkins said if we give conditional approval for the sign and you don’t start development of within a reasonable amount of time, then you must take the sign down and clear out, leaving the lot in good repair. Mr. Wilkins said he wanted to support the proposal, but I can’t support it as is. Chairman Boyd asked Planner Harris that if the commission were to grant a Special Use Permit with conditions tonight would we be running afoul of our written and governing procedures. Planner Harris said the Special Permit process gives latitude in what can be approved. Again, I have less issue with Mr. Scoggins’ plan, than with what he states he wants to put on the ground. My problem is the idea of utilizing this property prior to any development. That is just not how it is done. The property is developed and then the use moves into the developed property. Mr. Scoggins said he is okay without a Special Use Permit until the building and everything is done. I would like to have a sign up that says “Future Home Of,” with no trailer or anything else. I will stake-off the lot so nobody can drive into it. I will maintain the property, and I’ll buy the property. If I get this drawing drawn by an engineer, can I buy it and do what I want to do? Commissioner Hargus agreed with Commissioner Wilkins we need to have some kind of sequence of events there and proposed timetable. Commissioner Wilkins made the motion to give approval to erect a sign for 12 months and it must meet all the code requirements and if he doesn’t he will take it down. City Planner Harris said it is very unusual to come in for a special use permit and end up with a sign permit. We do not have any one-year temporary sign standards. Alderman Harris said I am going forward with the Special Use Permit for the facility and the equipment on the lot once construction is taking place. I think there are some concerns as to what we are going to end up with. You have this lot drawing. Is there any way without a lot of expense that you could do an artist’s rendition? You mention a fence and I can’t visualize exactly what you are talking about. Is there any way without a lot of expense to provide the commission with an artist’s rendition of what the fence and building will look like from the street? Commissioner Wilkins asked if it would be possible to table this until next meeting and you bring us back in a sketch that shows what you are planning to do with the lot, and give us a timeframe for construction. Mr. Scoggins said he would rather do that. Commissioner Skeleton also requested a list of materials to be used for the exterior. Mr. Scoggins said he would have it at the next meeting. Commissioner Wilkins withdrew his motion. 6 Commissioner Davenport made the motion to table this item for 30 days and bring it back as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilkins and passed unanimously. Chairman Boyd said the next agenda item involves Recovery Zone, which is a local business that provides speech and language therapy services. My wife is a speech pathologist and provides the same type of services, so I had planned to recuse myself from this portion of the discussion and ask Vice-Chairman Westcott to moderate this item. However, due to a death in his family, Mr. Westcott could not be here. Therefore, the responsibility to moderate this item falls to our next officer, which is our secretary. Secretary Standridge, I yield the floor to you to handle Item #2. The Third Order of Business (Agenda Item #2) was a request to review and recommend approval to close a portion of the 60’ right-of-way of West 2nd Street that lies adjacent to and south of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Block 10 in the McClure and Bayliss Additions to the City of Russellville. Submitted by Kirk & Dana Warren. (ST.14.02.74) Planner Harris reminded the commissioners that they only make a recommendation to the City Council on this request. Some elected officials have expressed a desire to retain this right-of- way (ROW) with some talk about the potential to extend 2nd Street. Mr. Marks, who represents the Robert Carpenter Trust, which owns the property to the south side of this section of the 2nd Street ROW, notified the Planning Department by mail that he objects to the vacation. In previous actions, the City vacated a longer segment of 2nd Street west of this property to allow the construction of the Walmart Neighborhood Market. Walmart indicated in discussions related to that review that they would not favor a city street entering their parking lot near the northeast corner of their building on an alignment that might encourage through traffic that would pass directly in front of the store’s main entrance. Another unusual factor is to have a public street end abruptly at the edge of an already developed private property and feed right into that private parking lot. Finally, if the vacation petition is denied by the City Council, the applicants can request a "Permission to Use" waiver that would allow them to use a portion of the 2nd Street ROW. Those waivers are formalized agreements between the City and property owners that allow the property owners to use a portion of the ROW, but if the City decided to utilize the 2nd Street ROW they would give the property owners a certain length of time to vacate and the property owners would not be compensated for any losses for improvements that they’ve made. Mrs. Dana Warren introduced her husband Kirk, along with James and Jodi Kusturin, their partners in Recovery Zone Pediatric Therapy Clinic and its sister company Equestrian Zone Riding for a Reason. We have been operating since 2004 in Russellville. We bought the property on 1915 West Main Street to expand our Recovery Zone Pediatric business. When you drive up that street there is an asphalt turnaround that gave me the illusion that our property extended farther into 2nd Street than it did. We bought the property and then realized when we went to pave the parking lot that our property didn’t go back as far as we had assumed. That is what started our quest to vacate 2nd Street. Mrs. Warren reiterated what Mr. Harris said that there are elected officials that want to see 2nd Street developed. It is my understanding that the cost to construct 2nd Street up to Walmart is expensive and Walmart does not want 2nd Street 7 entering into the northeast corner of their building for two reasons: 1) a safety hazard for pedestrians, and 2) citizens would use the Walmart parking lot as a cut through to get to Vancouver. Mr. Marks submitted a letter opposing the closing. Mrs. Warren said she believed there is an Arkansas Statute that allows us to vacate our half with or without their approval and that is the request for your consideration. When we do our parking we will have enough parking for 24 spaces if we get 30'. If we don’t get the 30' we will have to eliminate some playground area in the backyard, which we don’t want to do. We’d rather do that than incur the potential cost that might be incurred to operate under a “Permission to Use Waiver,” though I’m grateful for that option. If you look at the pictures you can see all the trees we would have to remove. We will have to undercut and go in with gravel to be sure the parking lot meets code. Mrs. Warren said we would be afraid to put that type of money into a parking lot we might lose. I think we would opt to try and go ahead and reduce some of the backyard and make a more precarious type of parking situation, but still get in the appropriate amount of spaces. It would not allow us for any growth or expansion, which is the reason we would prefer to vacate 2nd Street and gain the 30 feet to enhance our parking. A significant part of 2nd was vacated for Walmart. I know we are not Walmart. We are two little-bitty people, but it would very much enhance our locally-owned business. The Carpenter Trust property would still have access on Tulsa and Utah. Commissioner Skelton asked how the Carpenter Trust property would be accessed. Planner Harris said currently they have Tulsa coming directly into the property and frontage on the 2nd Street ROW that goes from the eastern edge of the Walmart property to about halfway between Seattle and Tulsa. If this request is approved, 2nd Street would be left with a 30-foot ROW, which is inadequate for a street. They would still have Tulsa and the dogleg off to the west of 2nd Street. There would also be a segment of the 2nd Street ROW leading to Seattle. The question is whether the City would spend the money to develop 2nd Street if it is going to dead- end at the private parking lot of an entity that has voiced its opposition to such an extension. Commissioner Wilkins asked if we approve this are we essentially vacating the whole ROW because you are taking a big hunk out. We are nullifying the ability to use that ROW. City Planner Harris said yes there is 30 foot remaining on the south side, which would likely be inadequate for a street. Commissioner Wilkins said he had spoken to some city officials and it’s not that they oppose this request, but they want to see the Walmart development completed first. Mr. Wilkins said if we approve this request it is wiping out that whole ROW. Alderman Harris said he couldn’t speak for the Council, but there was a concern expressed at the Council meeting Thursday about giving up this ROW permanently. One councilman pointed out another street where the City had given up the ROW and now regretted it years later. So there is concern by the Council. Alderman Harris said one of the options that seemed reasonable was the “Permission to Use" waiver. Mrs. Warren said that is great if not for the substantial cost to remove all the trees. Mr. Kirk Warren said that is our fear because it is going to cost thousands and thousands to remove those trees, do the undercut, compact the gravel, and then asphalt. Our concern with the waiver is that we could lose our investment if the City needed to reclaim the ROW. With a vacation, the City could condemn it and take it back, but they would have to at least maybe reimburse some of our expenses. 8 Mrs. Warren said during the Detroit street project the City condemned our playground. We were in business and they offered us compensation for our land, but it was going to hurt our business and decrease the number of children we could have on the playground at any one time. We worked with Planner Harris and City Engineer Oakes and we were able to take a little bit of the alley to make up for that difference and we didn’t take any compensation for that land. That is how I know we can have a fully functioning operating business and the City can come in and say we need your land so we are condemning it. That is the reason we want the 30 feet to vacate and if in 20 years the City decides to develop 2nd Street, then condemn it and take it back but at least we would get a little bit of compensation for the substantial costs we will incur. Commissioner Hargus asked Mrs. Warren if she was asking for a vote on vacating at this time and not considering the “Permission to Use” waiver. Mrs. Warren said yes. Commissioner Skelton asked if this would not hinder the future development of the Carpenter’s property. Commissioner Wilkins said there is no answer to that question. It might, or it might not. Commissioner Skelton said it would hinder their future access. City Planner Harris said they would still have access to South Tulsa but it would reduce their access on 2nd Street. Commissioner Hargus made the motion to vacate the northerly 30' of the 60-foot ROW. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mrs. Warren said if we could gain 15 feet on the easement it would almost be meeting in the middle where you could have the street in the future on the 45' ROW that remained, and they could build their parking. Mr. Warren said there is a 60' ROW but the street is only 20' wide, so there would still be 20' on either side of the road. Mr. Warren asked if we could get 15 feet of the easement and if 2nd Street ever was developed then it still could go through there without interfering with our parking lot. City Planner Harris asked City Attorney Smith if the Warrens could consider a reduced request since the commission only makes a recommendation to the Council. City Attorney Smith said since the request is to close a portion of the ROW then there should be no problem. Commissioner Skelton said if the road should go through 10 years from now, would the street go through or adjacent to the parking lot. Mr. Warren said it would be an offset of 15 feet from the middle. Planner Harris said currently they don’t have a setback for parking lot. Mrs. Warren said we would be grateful for 10 feet because it would save us from having to take out all the flower beds, trees, and reduce the size of the playground. Alderman Harris said if we give them 10 feet and then at some point we open 2nd Street, then that would allow someone to pull directly into a parking space directly from 2nd Street. Does city code allow parking spaces to be directly adjacent to the street where drivers could pull right into a parking slot, and then back out into the street? Mr. Warren said if we gained 10 feet there would actually still be 10 feet between our parking lot and the edge of the street. City Planner Harris said you are not allowed to pull directly from a space into the street. The only time you can do that is single-family or duplex in a residential area on a minor street. 9 Commissioner Wilkins asked if we approved a 10 foot vacation, would that leave sufficient width for the construction of a street. Planner Harris said we have 50-foot right-of-ways and that is the absolute minimum. Mr. Wilkins said the current ROW is 60'. Commissioner Skelton asked what the setoff is from the center of the road to the parking lot. City Planner Harris said that depends on what street they decided to build, and whether it lies right in the middle of the ROW. If you take 10 feet away then it is going to be slightly less flexible, but if they are talking about a minor two-lane street it would be a 26' street. You are reducing the amount of area between the pavement and the property line generally used for utilities. I don’t think it would impose any insurmountable issue, but any time you reduce ROW width you complicate things a bit. These questions might be answered a little more ably by the City Engineer/Public Works Department between now and the council meeting. Commission Skelton said if we vacate 10 feet then the City can build a 26-foot street that will leave 7 feet between their parking lot and the road if they went right down the center. Commissioner Skelton made the motion to recommend vacating 10-foot of the ROW. Commissioner Wilkins seconded the motion and it passed unanimously The Fourth Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting to review and recommend approval to the City Council for a Special Use Permit to allow an auto body repair shop for property located at 905 East 28th Street, submitted by Oscar Segovia. (SP.14.03.122) City Planner Harris said this is an existing building on 28th Street. The surrounding uses lean heavily toward high-intensity commercial/light industrial, making this location suitable for auto repair/body work. There are some issues with the building, but they are outside the purview of Special Permit review. You can assume that the other issues must be handled to the satisfaction of the appropriate department. Water and sewer are not issues for us. That is a continual and pre-existing existing condition. The question before you is whether this is an appropriate location for an auto repair business. The owners have indicated they are going to address the water and sewer issues and that will be a condition they will have to meet. City Inspector Holstein said the building will have to meet all city codes and Fire Marshall Setian said the building will have to meet all fire codes before approval can be given. Mr. Jim Lynch with City Corp said he did not know what it would take to do a water main extension. I don’t know if that is going to happen or not so I don’t want to say ‘yes he is going to do it” or “no he is not going to do it,” because of some of the other things that we ran into tonight. But he has contacted our office about what it will take. Commissioner Standridge made the motion to recommend approval as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilkins and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned. ___________________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 10