Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-24 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TEE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 24, 991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Jack Cleghorn, Jett Cato, and Mark Robertson Charles Nickle John Merrell, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the June 10, 1991 meeting were approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-11 BOB WALDREN - E SIDE OF UNIVERSITY, W SIDE OF GREGG, S OF DICKSON The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning request R91-11 submitted by Bob Waldren on behalf of SWEPCO for property located on the east side of University Avenue, west side of Gregg Avenue and south of Dickson Street. The property contains 3.64 acres. The request is to rezone from R-3, High Density Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Mr. John Merrell explained that SWEPCO had owned the property since 1917 and a portion of the property was used as a substation. He further explained they had a contract to sell 2.5 of the 3.64 acres contingent upon approval of the rezoning request. He stated the prospective purchaser, Bill Underwood, intended tolease offices in the existing building to contractors for businesses such as plumbing, heating, and air conditioning.. He further explained SWEPCO wished to rezone the remaining tract at the same time. Mr. Merrell explained the tract north, I-1 to the east, and R-3 include a cemetery on the west, a several warehouses on the south; arts center parking lot. Mr. Merrell recommended granting the rezoning. of land was surrounded by C-3 zoning to the to the south and west. Surrounding land uses warehouse and two residences to the north, and to the east is the Gregory Center and a future In response to a question from Ms. Britton, a representative from SWEPCO explained they were selling the southern portion of the tract to Mr. Underwood and the northern portion would contain the substation. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the rezoning as submitted by SWEPCO to rezone from R-3 to I-1. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. z07 • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-13 JIM LINDSEY - W OF SHILOH DR, S OF 15TH ST. The third item on the agenda was rezoning request R91-13 submitted by Jim Lindsey for Col. Keith Taylor for property located west of Shiloh Drive and south of 15th Street and containing 2.10 acres. The request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Allred stated the applicant had withdrawn the request. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-16 PERRY TAYLOR, NE CORNER OF HAROLD AND LEE AVE. The fourth item on the agenda was rezoning request R91-16 submitted by Perry Taylor for property located on the northeast corner of Harold Street and Lee Avenue (3224 Lee Avenue). The request is to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Merrell explained that Perry Taylor, on behalf of L. A. Truck Brokerage, had offered to purchase the subject property contingent upon a successful rezoning. He further explained that land to the west and south of the subject property was zoned C-2, but land to the north and east was zoned R-1. Surrounding land uses include a fire station, K -Mart store, offices and single family residential. He stated that generally the residential area east of Lee and north of Harold was intact except for the incursion of a day care center at the end of Lee. Mr. Merrell pointed out that historically Harold and Lee had been the boundary between commercial and residential areas. He explained this was a borderline case; however, since commercial and office uses already extend well north and east of the subject property. Staff recommended approval subject to the applicant maintaining a view -obstructing screen between his property and the residential area plus provide one parking space for every 300 square feet of interior floor area. Mr. Perry Taylor appeared before the Commission and explained that the company was a truck brokerage, not a trucking company. He stated the property would look more like a house than an office and would have only four or five employees. After discussion, it was determined that lots 1, 2, 3 on Lee Street were zoned C-2 and lots 4 and 5 were R-1 zoning. In response to a question from Mr. Merrell, Mr. Perry stated the proposed building would be approximately 1,200 square feet. Mr. Merrell stated that would require four parking spaces. Dr. Phillip E. Smith, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated he believed this was spot zoning. He stated the entire block was a residential area. Ms. Viola Jackman, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern about the future of the property. She asked what other types of businesses could use the property if the rezoning were approved. She also expressed concern regarding the parking area. Mr. Taylor explained he would remove the house, leaving as many trees as possible, and construct a small office. He explained the current vegetation screen would remain. zo( • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed five different use units by right including Bingle and two family dwellings, Use Unit 12 and Use Unit 25 which defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then read those items under both use unit 12 and 25. Mr. Merrell suggested one possible way this matter could be resolved would to have Mr. Taylor offer a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that he would only use the property for an office. He stated this was a very close call for the Planning Commission with K -Mart and the fire station in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Springborn expressed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the south. He explained that, while there was nothing of a commercial nature to the north, granting of the rezoning request would open the door to the growth of the commercial strip. In response to a question from Mr. Allred regarding the effect widening Stubblefield would have on the area, Mr. Merrell stated he did not know if the Traffic Division had done any projections regarding increase in traffic. He further stated he believed it would have a relatively insignificant impact in this area. Mr. Hanna explained there were covenants in the subdivision prohibiting rezoning. He stated he believed they owed it to the residents of the subdivision to uphold the covenants. He further stated granting the rezoning would encroach on the integrity of the neighborhood; that unless the entire block, rather than one lot, was to be rezoned, it was truly spot zoning. Mr. Tarvin stated that, while he did in part agree with Mr. Hanna, the property in the area was rental property, and he believed the rezoning would help the area. He pointed out the property was across the street from commercial property, it was adjacent to other commercially zoned property, there was no buffer between the R-1 and commercial property. He stated that an office, built to look like a house with protective covenants, could make the property look better in the future. He further explained that a business such as the one proposed would probably be quieter than a residence. He further stated he would not consider rezoning beyond this property but, in this instance, the property could be considered a buffer between the R-1 and C-2. Ms. Jackman asked, if in the future someone else should purchase the property, whether more parking spaces might be required. Mr. Merrell explained that once the property was rezoned to R -O it would remain R-0 and there was the possibility that additional parking would be required, depending upon the type of business that owned the property. He stated all of the parking would be off-street parking. Mr. Tarvin stated they had granted conditional zoning before. He suggested rezoning the property with the condition that, should the applicant sell the property, it would revert to R-1. Me. Britton expressed concern regarding the drainage in the area. She pointed out there were ditches down both perimeters of the property that handle the stormwater drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of that water should the property be graded and a parking lot constructed. Mr. Allred asked if there was data available concerning when to start replacing rental property in order to keep the area from "bottoming out". Mr. Merrell stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb. He further stated he believed this area was still highly residential. Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Tarvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would cause that much drainage problem. Me. Britton stated she did not believe there was enough room on the site for a double driveway, that the entire parking lot would have to access the street. Mr. Perry stated the parking lot would not be a big one, he would only need space for five cars. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated he believed the downside risk and effect on the neighborhood was too great. He moved the rezoning be denied. Ms. Britton seconded the motion: The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE C091-14 - DUPLEXES CHARLES SLOAN - W OF HILLCREST, N OF ABSHIER DR. The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1 area submitted by Charles Sloan for property located on the west side of Hillcrest Avenue, north of Abshier Drive. Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (146' x 660') behind Evelyn Hills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial history. He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to commercial several times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned; however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and now had a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan contingent upon the conditional use. Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the duplexes in R-1 with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed to retain all the trees along Hillcrest and construct a private drive along the west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views. Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property: (1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenspace, and (5) duplexes. He stated that, considering the established, high-quality surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear to be feasible. He further explained that the subject property did not offer much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew could not be required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed out the only other development route was duplexes. Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for approval provided that Mr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcrest Avenue be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated 1.0 9 • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 5 staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings and the shopping center. Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned R-1, one of the alternatives would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees. Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they would probably lose a number of trees along Hillcrest. Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house. Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time. Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being designated a greenspace. Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning. Mr. Merrell explained staff had found information regarding the property being zoned C-2 but the rezoning was rescinded by referendum. Me. Britton asked if the developer was proposing a single, common drive for the consideration of the property owners. She explained she saw that as a problem. Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed. Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street. Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if this item were approved. Ms. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the conditional use would make on the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when Mr. Abshier dedicated the street to the city, he included the possibility of a reverter. If it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the strip of land was used for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street right-of-way on both sides. She further stated many of the property owners had purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without a lot of traffic or noise. Ms. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize property values and there would be some predictability about what location could be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 6 to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested there may be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over. She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures. Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated he believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. He further stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested the residents could join together to keep the property mowed. E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family homes. He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be denied. Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that, when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have to destroy some of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic, impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning Commission should make the area a permanent greenspace. Ms. Trina Oliver, 1440 urged the Commission to had always be intended Hillcrest, appeared before not approve the conditional for and used as a greenspac the Commission, and strongly use. She stated the property e. Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all restrictive covenants were voided. Mr. Allred asked if there was room far 8 or 9 lots should the property develop as single family homes. Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning. Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences. He further stated the realtor had assured them that, should the subject property ever be developed, it too would be single-family residences. Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and expressed his concern over the proposed conditional use. Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace. He explained that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no restrictions. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table the item for further research. • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in July. The motion passed 8-0-0. Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real estate was non-binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if anything existed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION MEL MILHOLLAND, N OF MISSION BLVD E OF CROSSOVER RD The sixth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Timber Crest Subdivision submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The property is located on the north side of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 58 lots. Mr. Bunn had left the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the Engineer's report. He explained the property was annexed into the city and rezoned from A-1 to R-1 approximately two weeks earlier by the Board of Directors. He stated the development consists of 58 lots located on 27.5 acres. He stated that water and sewer were available to the site. He further stated there had been some question as to whether the sewer would have to be provided by a pump station or by gravity. The preliminary plat indicated the construction of a pump station; however, it has not been shown that a gravity sewer was impractical. Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they had questioned stormwater drainage runoff and deposits of slit during construction. He explained he had talked with Don Bunn regarding the storm drainage. Mr. Bunn felt the proposed drainage plan was adequate. He stated they would be willing to install catch ponds for the silt if that was the Commission's desire. At Ms. Britton's request, Mr. Milholland explained the highway department had come up with a design for discharge of stormwater. He explained the design would slow the water down but still drain by placing concrete blocks in the apron. He explained this would slow the water down and make a wider path with less velocity. Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Milholland would be giving a bill of assurance that he would build the silt ponds to contain the silt during construction. Mr. Milholland stated he would. Mr. Tarvin stated they could not contain silt during construction. When it rains, muddy water would wash silt out. He stated he believed the Commission needed to be careful that they did not impose any conditions that were out of the ordinary with development in the city. Mr. Cleghorn asked if Mr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds were necessary. Mr. Milholland stated they had not discussed them. Mr. Merrell pointed out the excavation and grading ordinance would become effective in the middle of July and this development would have to abide by the ordinance. He further stated he would like to see an effort made to reduce and control silt, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained. Z/O • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Milholland explained he would be making an effort to reduce the silt, but he never intended to give the impression that there would not be muddy water. Mr. Springborn stated he would not personally require a bill of assurance, but he would be happy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland. He explained at the last meeting he had not felt the problem had been addressed but now he felt it had been. Mr. Tarvin asked what was different about this subdivision that warranted them taking this type of stand that they had not done in the past. Mr. Merrell explained that he believed there was concern regarding this property because it bordered a stream and needed to be handled carefully. He pointed out the land was relatively level. He stated the Planning Commission always needed to be careful to not single out anyone. Mr. Mike Pennington, the developer of the property, stated it was his intent to develop the property so as to please the City of Fayetteville. He stated he believed the Commission's questions were valid. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the plat subject to plat review comments and Commission comments. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. plat was being approved with Mr. silt by constructing catch ponds The motion passed 8-0-0. Tarvin, it was determined that the preliminary Milholland making an effort to stabilize the during construction of the subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT - WEDINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, PHASE I, II, III & IV MARK MARQUESS FOR BMP DEVELOPMENT - W OF SALEM RD., N OF WEDINGTON DR. The seventh item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Wedington Heights Addition, Phases I, II, III, and IV submitted by Mark Marquess for BMP Development and represented by Harry Gray. The property is located west of Salem Road, north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 34 acres with 151 lots. Mr. Merrell stated a portion of this property would be developed for affordable housing. He explained the development consisted of four phases with a total of 151 lots on approximately 34 acres. He pointed out that Perry Franklin of the Traffic Department had expressed some concern about the additional traffic that would be generated at Highway 16 due to the development; however, any new development would generate additional traffic. Mr. Merrell stated both water and sewer are readily available to the site and the general drainage plan appears to be control drainage. He stated Mr. Bunn recommended approval subject to the plat review comments; submittal of approval of detailed plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; the tying of Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles Addition with the construction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 foot right-of-way for future street construction north from the intersection of "E" Street and "H" Street; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fees per city ordinance. 211 • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 9 Mr. Merrell explained there were numerous developers in town interested in affordable housing projects, and one of the main goals from The Fayetteville Vision project was affordable housing. He further stated the federal government was also encouraging this type of project. Harry Gray explained they were proposing a residential development of single family homes. He further explained that basically all construction along Anne and to the south would be conventional R-1 housing, and everything to the north would be smaller homes. He stated the only access to the property was at the southwest corner of the development from Salem Road. Mr. Gray requested that the city contribute toward construction of Anne Street to tie into Florene Street. He explained the street would need to be extended approximately 180 feet off-site. There was discussion regarding through streets to the north of the property. It was pointed out there was property that was being developed to the northwest of the subject property. Mr. Sterling Andrews, the adjoining property owner to the north, stated he would be developing his property in the near future and spoke in favor of the plat. Ms. Britton stated there was two ways to look at extending the pavement on Anne Street. She explained that with it graveled, it would not encourage use; however, if it were paved and extended, residents of Giles Addition would have additional ingress and egress. She stated at a previous meeting one speaker had been opposed to the street being extended, but she felt like it would be to their advantage. Mr. Allred pointed out, in the last capital improvement program by referendum, the vote was to overlay all gravel streets. Mr. Gray explained that, should the city not be in a position to contribute immediately toward the tie-in, the developer could build the subterrain and pave 24 feet. Mr. Merrell stated that would be handled by the Public Works Department, and he knew they would be happy to work with Mr. Gray. Mr. Hanna suggested that it might be a good idea not to open the street through to Anne until they had more knowledge regarding increased traffic. He pointed out that all of the people in Giles Addition would drive through the new addition and come out by the Wilson Inn. He stated the entrance on Highway 16 at that point was a bad area. Mr. Hanna suggested stubbing the road in at Anne Street and not have it connected at the present time. Mr. Marquess stated he had met with the neighbors in the Giles Subdivision. They had expressed some valid concerns on the traffic problem there already. He stated he would like to see a solution to the traffic problem in that area. He further stated the city should take a hard look at this situation right now and work toward a solution. He stated he believed a development this size should have the attention it deserved for the dollars that would be spent in the area. He stated the entire area would be growing. He explained they did not know which phase they would build after Phase I, it would depend upon the market for affordable housing and; therefore, he was not in favor of opening Anne Street at this time. • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 10 MOTION Mr. Hanna moved accept the preliminary plat as submitted subject to the plat review comments, that Anne just be stubbed in and not completed immediately, that the 50 foot right-of-way be platted to the north, construction of sidewalks per city ordinance, and payment of parks fees. Mr. Allred asked how long the stub in on Anne would last.. Mr. Hanna stated that Anne remain stubbed in until a request to open it was received from either of the city or developers. He stated he would hate the traffic to increase out the of the Giles Subdivision. He believed they should see how it developed and possibly develop some type of traffic control at the Salem Road intersection with Highway 16. Mr. Gray stated there was still the question of off-site improvement. He explained there would be approximately 180 feet between the two subdivisions that was dirt. Mr. Hanna pointed out someone would start driving through that location, making a path. He believed there should be some posts or some type of barrier. Ms. Britton stated she believed, when they got to that phase, the road should be completed and that the off-site area should be brought up to at least 24 feet wide. She stated she thought that was a good compromise on the developers part. She further stated she thought that should be done as soon as the phase was completed. Mr. Gray stated he was concerned that Don Bunn had recommended that Anne Street be tied through with Phase II. He explained that what was marked on the plat as Phase II might not be the second phase to be completed -- that it would depend upon the sales of the houses. He stated he would prefer tying Anne Street in with the last phase. Mr. Hanna agreed and stated at that point in time the traffic was developing in the area. Ms. Britton seconded the motion after a tentative regarding the stubbing of Anne Street. The motion passed 8-0-0. FINAL PLAT - DOUBLE TREE ESTATES JOHN MAHAFFEY - MT. COMFORT RD. (OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS) The eighth item on the agenda was presentation of the final plat for Double Tree Estates submitted by John Mahaffey on behalf of Leslie Howell. The property is located off of Mt. Comfort Road, outside Fayetteville city limits, and contains 22.84 acres with 10 lots. they should be able to see how timeframe had been established Mr. Merrell stated the final plat was being submitted by John Mahaffey on behalf of the owner, Leslie Howell. The development consists of 10 lots on 22.84 acres. He stated there were no significant comments from any of the utilities. Water service is available to the area and has been extended into the subdivision. Fire protection is being provided for the development through the installation of two fire hydrants. The protective covenants have already been submitted to the city. He stated it was the recommendation of the staff that the final plat be approved subject to the plat review comments. 2! Z • • • Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 11 MOTION Ms. Britton moved to accept the plat subject to plat review comments. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. THE FAYETTEVILLE VISION Mr. Merrell presented The Fayetteville Vision final goals materials. He explained the material he was handing out was the culmination of the Vision Steering Committee's work in reducing all the material down to 10 goals. He stated the Steering Committee had worked an incredible number of hours. He recommended the Planning Commission hold their next meeting at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9 in order to have a Joint Meeting with the Board of Directors and the Vision Steering Committee at 5:00 p.m., immediately following the regular Planning Commission meeting. He stated, if the Commission had no objections to have their regular meeting at 4:30 on July 9 and then the joint meeting at 5:00, staff would do a press release. DISCUSSION REGARDING SUBDIVISION MEETINGS Mr. Allred stated he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda. He explained that, while he knew they all were busy, there were often not enough people available to complete a quorum at the subdivision committee meeting. He stated he believed that was a very vital part of the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred stated the rules and regulations gave him the authority to appoint members outside the Commission to serve on the subdivision committee. He asked for direction from the other Planning Commission members. Mr. Cleghorn explained that he could not serve on the subdivision committee on a full-time basis but was available should they not have a quorum. He further explained he did need at least 24 hours notice. He suggested the permanent members of the subdivision committee give advance notice if they were unable to attend the meeting. The Commission discussed enlarging the committee and have more alternate members available. It was suggested that anyone interested in serving on the committee contact staff. Mr. Hanna explained that originally the subdivision committee did all preliminary work and then the chairman of the committee presented it to the Commission. He further explained that, unless there was something unusual on a plat, the Commission accepted the subdivision committee's report and voted on the item without further discussion. Ms. Britton pointed out, if there were four members of the planning commission on the subdivision committee, that would make twice as many meetings for half of the members. Mr. Hanna explained that the minutes of the subdivision meeting were quite lengthy, giving all of the details, so the items were not discussed again, saving the Planning Commission time. 213 Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page 12 Mr. Allred pointed out that often items were tabled, because the Commissioners did not have enough information if the item had not gone through Subdivision Committee. Mr. Cleghorn noted that at times the subdivision committee might be in agreement on an item but then, when the same item was presented to the Planning Commission, there would be disagreements and the discussion would be lengthy. Mr. Hanna suggested the Planning Commission make the resolution that they were going to accept the reports from the subdivision committee and use the reports to speed up the Planning Commission meetings. He explained, if they were going to rehash the entire item from beginning to end, there was no point in having a subdivision committee. Ms. Britton and Mr. Allred disagreed, stating they did not want to be a "rubber stamp" commission. Mr. Springborn stated that, when he was active on the subdivision committee over a period of two or three years, the questions raised in subdivision committee were essentially the same ones currently raised in Planning Commission meetings. He explained that the subdivision committee generally saw what the problems were and got them resolved before the item came to the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed to take this item under consideration and discuss it with staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.