Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-23 Minutes• • • • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 23, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, and Jett Cato MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the September 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved with the correction that Ms. Leverich was licensed by the state. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-20 MIRE PARKER - SW OF APPLEBY RD, N OF BISHOP DR. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on a request for change of zoning from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential submitted by Mike Parker and represented by Harry Gray for property located southwest of Appleby Road, north of Bishop Drive and containing 6.29 acres. Becky Bryant explained the subject property was a strip of 6.29 acres fronting Appleby Road on which a plat for townhouses had been submitted. She further stated the applicants also owned an approximately equal size parcel directly to the north of the subject tract. She explained the surrounding zoning was A-1 and R-2. She stated staff felt the request was compatible with surrounding land uses and recommended approval of the request. She noted that a mobile home located on the tract had a certificate of occupancy, which according to ordinance, would be automatically revoked upon rezoning. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Bryant explained the Bishop property had probably been zoned R-2 because that was the best zoning for it. Mr. Hanna stated there were triplexes on the Bishop property. Mike Parker, the applicant, explained he believed R-2 would be the best use of the property and consistent in zoning with adjacent properties. He further explained that 4 of the 6 adjoining lots were triplexes. He stated he did not believe it would adversely affect any adjoining property. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Parker explained they would need R-2 zoning. He further explained the plat for the townhouses would be presented to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Mr. Parker requested the mobile home be retained until the final plat was approved. Ms. Bryant stated she did not believe the Planning Commission had the authority to grant that variance. She further stated that, according to ordinance, the mobile home would have to be moved immediately. 23Z • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 2 In response to a question from Mr. Merrell, Mr. Parker explained everything should be finalized by the end of the year. Mr. Merrell stated that, if Mr. Parker would send a letter to Planning staff to that effect, he believed they could consider leaving the mobile home on a temporary basis. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the rezoning from A-1 to R-2. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION C. W. COMBS - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD, W OF ED EDWARDS RD. The third item on the agenda was a request for annexation of property located south of Huntsville Road and west of Ed Edwards Road, containing 47.22 acres, submitted by Alan Gauldin and Lamar Pettus on behalf of C. W. Combs. Me. Bryant explained the subject property was 47.22 acres, located off of Ed Edwards Road adjacent to the Fayetteville City Limits and entirely within the growth area. She stated Judge Johnson had signed an annexation order for Washington County. She explained that, should the Planning Commission grant the request, it would go to the City Board of Directors. Ms. Bryant explained that on the south side of Highway 16 East the main body of the city limits ended at Stone Bridge Road. On the north side of Highway 16 East, the city limits extend approximately one-quarter of a mile further east. She stated there was a narrow strip of annexed territory on both sides of Highway 16 extending approximately 4 miles east. She further stated the subject property was located two miles east of the main body of territorial jurisdiction. She stated annexation was often not in the city's best interest because it encouraged leap frog development and sprawl. She further stated utilities were accessible to the site but, once annexed, the city would have to provide other services such as fire and police protection, public education, social services, code enforcement, street maintenance, and administration. Me. Bryant informed the Commission density was one of the key factors that influenced municipal economics. She stated the total population of Fayetteville was 42,000 and covered 42 square miles. She explained she had just returned from Kansas City for a conference and she had been amazed at the number of public works projects that city had been able to afford. She stated Kansas City had a population of over one million but only 100 square miles of territory. She explained that it was obvious that, the more people per square mile of city territory, the less the cost of public improvements per individual. She further explained that one of the best ways to limit sprawl and encourage higher density was to control annexations. She stated staff had reservations regarding the annexation request; however, since the City had been very generous regarding annexation requests in the past, she was reluctant to recommend a formal change in policy without an annexation plan upon which to base the change. She further stated that, if the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the annexation, she suggested the rezoning be granted as well. 233 • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Merrell recalled that approximately two years ago a similar annexation request had been received along with a request for rezoning and a subdivision plat. He explained the property had never been developed. He further stated he believed the city needed to come up with an annexation plan, particularly with Fayetteville's rapid growth rate. He explained they first needed to finish the master plan for the area already inside of the city. He further explained the Vision project had been completed as phase one and phase two, the Fayetteville Profile, was almost complete. Later in the year, staff would start working on the Fayetteville Plan. Mr. Merrell stated numerous annexation requests had been denied by the courts on the East Coast because cities were not providing adequate services inside the city limits. He expressed hope an annexation plan could be formatted toward the middle or later part of the following year. He stated the plan was badly needed since the city close to being was landlocked on all sides by the neighboring towns of Springdale, Johnson, Farmington and Greenland. Mr. Springborn asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to approve annexations or did they have to be approved by the Board of Directors. Mr. Merrell explained the Planning Commission did not have the authority to approve an annexation but staff had determined that, since annexations were urban planning matters, the Commission should have the opportunity to review the annexation and submit a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Mr. Allred asked why there was a 300 foot strip on both sides of Highway 16 that was annexed. He stated there was a business establishment located 301 feet from the highway and people crossed city property to get to the business that paid no city taxes. Mr. Hanna stated it had been his understanding that when the 300 foot strip had been annexed approximately 10 years ago it was to control the type of businesses and city growth. He explained he would rather have this development in the city limits and get the tax monies. Mr. Merrell agreed with Mr. Hanna explaining he had reviewed the minutes of the annexation meeting when they had annexed the corridor, and understood that the city leaders wanted to control future land use and zoning. Ms. Britton stated she believed former city leaders had annexed the land in order to annex Lake Sequoyah. She explained state law did not allow annexation of property that was not adjacent to current city limits. She expressed concern that there would be a lot of land to service. Mr. Allred asked what would happen if the annexation was not approved, the property developed but not according to city standards and then, at a later date, annexed. He asked what type of problem they would be looking at in the future. He asked if it would not be better to annex the land now before development so there would be some control over the property. Mr. Merrell explained that, based on his past experience, it was probably best for the annexation to be done now so the development was to city standards. He further explained staff did not foresee problems with the provision of water and sewer. He stated sooner or later the city had to come up with an annexation plan and some type of policies to guide this type of decision. He stated that, given those choices, he would rather see the property be annexed sooner than later. He stated he believed that would save the city a lot of headaches down the road. • Mr. Combs stated he planned on the development being similar to Paradise Lane with minimum size of homes being 1,200 square feet with attached 2 -car garages. • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 4 He explained there would be other covenants. He further explained he had decided to request the annexation so they would not have to install septic tanks. He stated the first phase would include approximately 30 lots, 300 feet of that already being in the city limits, leaving approximately 24 lots that are not already in the city. Mr. David Hicks, a resident of the area, explained that, should the annexation be approved, the middle of the road would be the city limits line. He expressed fear that neither the city nor the county would then maintain the road. He stated he was not opposed to the housing development but 7 to 10 residents would be facing Ed Edwards Road and no one would maintain the road. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Combs stated in the first phase he planned on building 30 homes. At a later date, he would build another 60 to 70 homes. Ms. Britton asked if there would be any affect on the sewer treatment plant and the servicing of the subdivision. Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe there would be any affect on the sewer system. He further stated a parallel water line was planned for that area and there might be some minimal effect on the water system until the parallel water line was completed. He stated there had been some problems in the higher elevations along that line. Mr. Merrell stated that one feature of the city Five Year Capital Improvement Plan did involve the paving of all the gravel streets that were inside the city limits. He stated that, should the annexation be granted, these streets would be added to the list. Mr. Bunn explained that, when staff reviewed the subdivision plans, they would consider requiring improvements to the street. Mr. Robertson stated the first quarter mile of Ed Edwards Road would not be in the city limits even if the property were annexed. Mr. Bunn stated staff would also consider requiring off-site improvements. Mr. Combs explained that Judge Johnson had indicated the county planned on paving Ed Edwards Road. He further stated there would be only one exit on Ed Edwards together with the 7 or 8 lots facing Ed Edwards Road. Mr. Merrell explained that, assuming the annexation and rezoning were approved by the city board, staff could work with Mr. Combs and Judge Johnson in seeing how and when they planned on doing their share of the road and then present that information to the Commission when the subdivision plat came before them for consideration. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that Edwards Road would have to be paved or a Bill of Assurance accepted for the paving before the final plat would be accepted. Mr. Allred asked, if the annexation were approved and the 100 homes were built, what the impact would be on the tax base for the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Merrell stated it would increase the tax base. He explained traditionally residential development did not impact the tax base as favorably as commercial or industrial property but there would some increase. He further explained they weighed the cost to the city to provide the urban services against the increase in the tax base. • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Allred stated he was thinking of the school system -- it would receive more funds than if the property was not annexed. Ms. Bryant stated it was her understanding that the property tax receipts from the subject property would not be adequate for education let alone all of the other services that would have to be provided. Mr. Allred pointed out that, if the 100 houses were in the county rather than the city the children would still be going to Fayetteville schools only the city would be receiving no revenue. (The property is already in the Fayetteville school district which means that property tax revenues current accrue to the Fayetteville school system.) Mr. Springborn stated he had listened to the pros and cons and had, for the last four years, been looking forward to an ordinance concerning annexation and now it appeared it would be at least another year. He further stated residential development existed at the present time in the subject area, and the subject property did corner on existing residential development within the city limits. He stated he believed annexation was the reasonable approach to the area both from the standpoint of control and not stepping out beyond what is now developed within the city limits in the vicinity of Lake Sequoyah. He explained he believed the annexation was completely reasonable. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved that the annexation be approved and recommendation given to the City Board of Directors. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated she had reviewed the zoning map and did not believe annexation of this property was in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville at this time because it was too far from the main body of the city. She stated she believed it would be a mistake to annex the property. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Allred, Mr. Springborn and Mr. Tarvin "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-21 C. W. COMBS - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD., W OF Mr. Cato, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Robertson, voting "yes" and Me. Britton voting ED EDWARDS RD The next item on the agenda was a request south of Huntsville Road and west of Ed and Larmar Pettus on behalf of C. W. property from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Mr. Allred explained that the rezoning approval of the annexation by the Board MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the rezoning as requested. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. for rezoning of the 47.22 acres located Edwards Road submitted by Alan Gauldin Combs. The request is to rezone the Low Density Residential. would have to be approved subject to of Directors. 234 • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 6 CONCURRENT PLAT - RUPPLE SUBDIVISION PHILIP HUBBARD - NW CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR. AND RUPPLE RD. The next item to be reviewed by the Commission was a request for approval of a concurrent plat for Rupple Subdivision located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road, presented by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Leona Toiley of First National Bank of Springdale, Executor of the Hoyet Greenwood Estate. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains 3.0 acres with 2 lots. Mr. Bunn explained this was a concurrent plat and the applicant was asking that it be approved as both preliminary and final. He stated that was within the ordinance requirements for a concurrent plat. He further stated there were no significant comments from plat review or subdivision committee meetings. He recommended approval as a final plat subject to the plat review and subdivision comments, extension of the public sewer to serve lot 1 directly, and construction of sidewalks as required by ordinance. Ms. Britton stated she had suggested the rear setback line be designated on the plat. She asked what the setback footage should be for C-1 property. Mr. Bunn stated it should be 20 feet. NOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to accept and approve the concurrent plat subject to staff comments and plat review and subdivision comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE CU 91-18 - YOUTH SHELTER GINA ERVIN - W CROSSOVER RD., S OF ZION RD. The sixth item on the agenda was request for a conditional use to allow a youth shelter on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Zion Road submitted by Gina Ervin of Youth Bridge Properties Corporation, Inc. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office. Ms. Bryant explained that Youth Bridge was requesting to construct a seven - bedroom youth shelter behind an existing office complex. She stated the surrounding zoning was R-2 on the west C-1 to the northeast, R -O to the east, and A-1 and R-2 to the south. She explained a youth shelter fell under Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities and was a conditional use in R -O district. She stated that section 160.195 set forth the City Planning Commission could grant a conditional use if it found that the request complied with certain statutory rules. She explained those rules dealt with the adequacy of ingress - egress, parking, utilities, screening, etc. She further explained the planning commission had to also find that the requested use was compatible with surrounding properties and would not adversely impact the neighborhood. She stated staff had found substantial compliance with the rules and recommended the conditional use be granted. Mr. Merrell stated this facility was badly needed in Fayetteville. He further stated Youth Bridge had provided many great services for the youth of the area for a long time. He stated this facility would greatly benefit the city. 235 • • • • • 1 Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the conditional use. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - YOUTH BRIDGE YOUTH SHELTER GINA ERVIN - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF ZION RD. The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for Youth Bridge Youth Shelter submitted by Gina Ervin of Youth Bridge Properties Corporation, Inc., for property located on the west side of Crossover Road and south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office. Mr. Bunn stated this item had been taken to plat review the previous Thursday. There had been only one request - that a 10 -foot utility easement be expanded to a 20 -foot utility easement. He explained the easement needed to be dedicated by separate instrument. He stated the fire chief had recommended the building be sprinkled but that was not a requirement. He recommended approval of the large scale development. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the large scale development as submitted contingent upon staff comments. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - ROLL -TYPE CURBS HARRY GRAY - PROPOSED WEDINGTON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION The eighth item on the agenda was a request from Harry Gray for a variance from subdivision regulations regarding roll type curbs in the proposed Wedington Heights Subdivision. Mr. Bunn presented pictures to the Commission of the curb proposed by Mr. Gray. He explained the reason for the request was that it is easier to construct driveways with roll type curbs. He recommended against granting of the variance. He explained he believed the standard curb did a better job of controlling drainage and containing traffic. He further explained that, should they allow a variance in this case, they would be hearing variances from all subdivisions. He stated he did not feel it was in the best interest of the City to grant a variance at this time. Mr. Cato asked if the proposed curb was the same type as was in the Mark Foster subdivision off Manor Road. Mr. Bunn stated it was not the curb in the public portion but he did not know about the private streets. Mr. Gray stated it was similar. He stated he was representing BMP Development. He further stated he understood Mr. Bunn's concerns regarding control of drainage and containment of traffic. He explained he would not want to see this type of curbing anywhere except in a residential development. He stated that as part of the request they had agreed to build the sidewalk adjacent to the right-of-way, 236 • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 8 allowing a five and one-half foot green area between the curb and the edge of the sidewalk. He stated the rolled curb was three inches high instead of the normal six inches. He stated the sidewalk would be constructed at an elevation of six inches above the gutterline so storm drainage would still be controlled. He explained that the greenspace between the curb and sidewalk should alleviate cars driving over the curb and sidewalk. Mr. Gray further stated he was not sure how much of a concern the control of traffic was. He stated there was a possibility they would receive requests for variances for all subdivisions. He explained this would save money on the construction of driveways and, at the same time, it would allow all of the driveways to be constructed so they would work well and look good. He presented pictures to the Board of existing driveways. He explained that the curbing was put in with six inch vertical curb and then, when a house was constructed, the builder would take a sledgehammer to knock the top of the curb off and try to pour a driveway in the site. He explained that, with this type of curb, the top would not have to be knocked off. He stated it cost approximately $200 - $300 just to take the curb and gutter out and re -pour it. He stated he believed the rolled curb looked better, controlled drainage, functioned well, and alleviated the cracking problem. Mr. Tarvin stated in North Little Rock they did not tear the curb out to pour the driveway but had a three inch "lip". He stated he had seen asphalt put in the gutter to smooth out the "lip" which blocked the flow of stormwater. He asked if they would need to do the same with the rolled curb. Mr. Gray stated they would not. Mr. Springborn stated the rough edge he had seen in the pictures was related to how carefully the contractor cleaned off the curb before pouring the drive. He stated he had seen curbs cleared without any raw edge. Mr. Gray explained it was more a function of thickness. He further explained they just took a sledgehammer, knocked the curb off, and then tapered the concrete down so there could be from zero to an inch or two thickness over the six inches. He said there was typically a minimum four inch thickness on any concrete placement. He further explained water got under the new concrete and froze and expanded. Mr. Springborn stated he had observed differential settling between the street and the driveway. Mr. Gray stated he believed the rolled curb would eliminate that situation. Ms. Britton stated she had lived in a development that had "rolled" curbs. She further stated the curbing did not maintain traffic well. She also stated the curbing did not do an adequate job of controlling drainage. She pointed out the area between the curb and sidewalk would be soil, which would erode and fill up the storm drainage. She agreed that the curb sounded good and the current system was not perfect, but she believed the standard curb would be a better option. Mr. Springborn agreed that the rolled curb did invite traffic onto the grass area. Mr. Hanna stated that, after seeing the photographs and remembering seeing other areas where the curb had been knocked out with a sledgehammer, he believed they would look a lot nicer. He expressed his belief that, since this was an affordable housing project, they should do whatever they could within reason to help keep the prices down. He further explained they were defeating the concept of affordable housing when they required unnecessary improvements that added to • • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 9 the cost of a house. He stated he was in favor of letting the developer use the rolled curbs on this subdivision. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe there were any rolled curbs in the city unless they were in some of the older subdivisions. Mr. Mark Marquess, the developer on this subdivision, stated there were rolled curbs on private streets in the area of North Street and Manor Drive. Mr. Allred stated the curbs would have to be in an area of level terrain so drainage would not be a problem. Mr. Gray agreed that the curbs would not work on a hillside with a slope, the terrain needed to be relatively level. He stated he believed they would work and look .nice in this particular development. He further stated he could understand that, if they granted this variance, they would probably get many more requests. Mr. Allred suggesting using this development as a pilot project to see how the rolled curbs worked with the understanding that this was a trial basis just to compare the two types of curb. He stated each development would have to be determined on its own merits, taking into consideration drainage, slopes, etc. Mr. Gray pointed out that the street requirements of the subdivision regulations allowed for rolled curbs in "rural additions". Mr. Allred stated he had attended a seminar a few years ago in preparation for low income housing. One of F.H.A.'s comments was that cities the size of Fayetteville normally do not have the cost structure that would allow for affordable housing. He explained he believed that, if they would compromise and use this on a trial basis, perhaps the city could have some affordable housing. Mr. Allred questioned if the developer would actually have a cost savings after they expended extra labor and energies to reform the sidewalks. He stated he appreciated the sidewalk being separate from the street, making it safer to walk on. He further stated he could also see the problem of other developments wanting to use this type of curb and, should the Commission grant the request, they needed to make a condition that this was a trial situation. Mr. Hanna stated that, since the rolled curb had to be approved by variance, they had some control over it. Because they grant one variance did not mean they had to grant them all. He stated he thought there would be a savings when the difference was considered between having to pour the entire project with a standard curb, knocking the curb out and redoing it. He further stated he thought it was almost worth letting them have the rolled curb to have the sidewalks set back. Mr. Marquess stated he had spent quite a bit of time researching the rolled curbs. He stated he had looked at curbing in various cities. He stated these curbs were not only in affordable housing developments but also in areas with $250,000 to $300,000 homes. He stated the curbs worked extremely well. Mr. Marquess explained he felt that, if they did a poor job, it would come back to haunt them on the second, third and fourth phases of the development. He stated he and Mr. Gray had looked over the terrain, looked over the way they could adequately handle the drainage through storm sewers. He explained that when a cold joint on the curb flare was made, after a period of time the curb would bust out and become a problem and nuisance. He further stated there would not be dirt in the greenspace area between the curb and sidewalk because they immediately sodded every yard in the subdivision. He explained they would be Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 10 creating minimum erosion, if any. He stated they would take extreme measures to be sure the curbing looked good. He further explained, should they get a bad reputation in the development, it would slow their sales and probably cost them more in the long run. He pointed out they would have restrictive covenants that set out off and on street parking regulations. Mr. Hanna asked if they would be willing to put a section in the covenants restricting the pouring of asphalt in the gutter. Mr. Marquess stated they would. Mr. Tarvin stated he had a few comments he would like the Commission to consider. He expressed concern that, even though the house and driveway were smaller, the residents would have the same number of cars, encouraging them to go over the curb and park in the yard. He asked why the developer could not plan in advance where the driveways would be and then depress the curbs in those sites when paving. Mr. Marquess stated they had looked at that on their last subdivision. He further stated he had seen a lot of subdivisions that had tried that but none of them had been successful. He stated they did not know which house would go on the lot when the curb was poured, and it seemed the driveway would always be in the wrong place. Mr. Tarvin stated that, if they allowed the curbing for affordable houses to save money, then the argument could be why not save the money for high cost housing if the curb was just as good. He further stated he liked the sidewalks back away from the street. He asked what assurance would they have that the savings would be passed on to the house buyer. Mr. Springborn stated he was not sure an affordable housing project was the best place to test the rolled curb because of the parking situation. He further stated the driveways for affordable housing were only one car wide. Further, people took advante when there was curbing low enough for them to drive up on. He stated if they had a problem with cutting through the curb in order to pour the drive, that needed attention, but he was not sure this was the solution to that problem. He further stated that, lacking figures showing how much would be saved in using this curb, he had a problem justifying it. Mr. Marquess explained the normal two -car driveway was 16 to 18 feet wide and the ones in his subdivision were 18 to 22 feet wide, with a minimum depth of 34 feet. He stated this allowed them 4 off-street parking spaces without using the garage. He stated they also addressed off-street parking in their subdivision regulations. He explained they had not had a major problem with off-street parking. Mr. Tarvin suggested planting trees between the sidewalk and street to discourage people from parking in that area. Mr. Marquess stated they put in a 12 - 14 foot redbud tree on every lot with shrubbery included. He stated it would not be a problem for them to redesign the landscape budget to accommodate trees in the greenspace. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Marquess explained the majority of lots were 60 foot wide with a 18 to 20 foot driveway leaving approximately 40 feet. Ms. Britton stated a small tree came to the exact height to block visibility of anyone backing out of the driveway. • • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Page 11 Mr. Allred suggested they could approve the variance with the condition that the city horticulturist approve the type of trees planted in the apron. Mr. Robertson suggested there could be a list of six or seven different species. Mr. Marquess he wanted to possible but agreed, explaining they would need to be within budget. He stated work with the City on the subdivision and make it as successful as not hinder anyone. Mr. Robertson stated in central Florida rolled curbing was used and had been successful even though they had more rainfall in that area. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance from subdivision regulations subject to the insertion into the subdivision covenants that asphalt cannot be applied to the gutter to make a level entryway, and with the recommendation that the developer work with city staff and city horticulturist to try to choose the proper type of vegetation for the space between the sidewalk and the curb to discourage people from driving into the yard. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-2-0 with Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Mr. Springborn, and Mr. Tarvin voting "yes" and Mr. Cato "no". OTHER BUSINESS Robertson, Mr. Allred, and Me. Britton voting Planning Commission Bylaws: Mr. Allred stated Ms. Bryant had suggested that the Commission might want to update their rules and procedures. He explained he had asked Mr. Hanna to chair a review committee. He further explained staff would send copies of the existing rules and regulations to all members to make comments on. He requested they make their comments to Mr. Hanna. He further requested two other people volunteer to assist Mr. Hanna so they could update their rules and procedures by January 1. Fayetteville Vision Mr. Cleghorn asked if staff knew when the Vision Plan would come before the Commission for review. Mr. Merrell stated he did not know. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. 237