Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-02 Minutes?qq • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 2, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Gary Tucker, Conrad Odom, John Forney, Mark Sugg, and Jerry Allred. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the October 28, 1996 meeting were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS RZ96-18.00: REZONING FOR JOYCE OGDEN CATO SPRINGS AND TREAT STREET. • The first item was submitted by Ronald Woodruff on behalf of Joyce Ogden for property located at the northeast comer of Cato Springs Road and Treat Street. The property is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 10. 19 acres. The request is to rezone only the west 6.17 acres from R-2 to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial). This is an amendment to a previous petition heard and denied at the Planning Commission meeting of 10/28/96. The staff recommended approval of the rezoning (with the amended acreage, decreasing from 10.19 acres to 6.17 acres) as requested based on the designation of this area in General Plan 2020 as Regional Commercial. General Plan 2020 states that the purpose of the regional commercial development is to "maximize and enhance the existing regional commercial areas of the City and to create regional identity." Section 6.4.e. under Regional Commercial: Implementation Strategies reads as follow, "Direct new regional development into designated regional commercial centers." This area (71 Bypass intersection with U.S. 7l/Razorback Road/Cato Springs Road) is specifically designated as a "new center" of regional commercial activity. Although staff recommended approval of the previous submittal, the amended proposal appears to be a better with the R-2 buffer to the east (4.02 acres). The applicant is advised that the "tract A & B" description should only be utilized for zoning purposes and will not be recognized by the City as separate tracts. A lot split will be required before these tracts could be sold separately. • Mr. Tucker asked if the applicant was willing to put all of the proposed rezoning under the design overlay district. 7�5 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Woodruff stated they were willing to offer a Bill of Assurarc.e accepting the Overlay District for the proposed 6.17 acre rezoning. Ms. Johnson clarified some of the six acres did not lay within the Overlay District. Mr. Woodruff replied there was about an acre out of it, but they ere willing to cover the whole tract. Mr. Allred commented the land was not subject to the Overlay District now because it was not zoned commercial. Ms. Little explained as long as the parcel was zoned R-2 (or anv residential classification) it would not be subject to the Overlay District. The Overlay District only applied to commercial property. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Woodruff if he was willing to have the entire tract of C-2 in the Overlay District. • Mr. Woodruff stated they were willing to have the entire commercial area in the Overlay District. Mr. Forney questioned the need for more property zoned commercially. Ms. Johnson stated the staff had observed there was very little commercial property in that area. The implication being, it was not sensible to have all the commercial development in one region of the City. Ms. Little stated the Land Use Plan showed this area to be Regional Commercial. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the rezoning subject to staff comments and the applicant's willingness to offer a Bill of Assurance to subject the entire C-2 tract to requirements of the Overlay District. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson explained to Mr. Woodruff a rezoning required five positive votes to pass. She gave him the option to wait until they had more members present- 0 Mr. Woodruff stated he would accept this vote. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Forney commented there was a lot of C-2 at the intersection of Hwy 62 and 71B as well as S. School. He objected to making thi_ regional commercial at this time because of these strong commercial strips. Ms. Johnson commented the area north of the bypass was largely regional commercial and the areas south of the bypass had more of a local flavor. She could not see the logic in pushing such a large portion of the commercial development to the north, excluding the mall area. Mr. Forney stated the 2020 Plan had five nodes of regional commercial along the bypass. It was his argument that they did not need to develop another intersection in the same manner as Hwy 62. He did not believe they should rezone more land for heavy commercial use than what was needed. He felt one of the dangers was that if all the land was developed to its highest potential, by -right, use in C-2 then they would have a remarkable amount of commercial development and it would be hard for the City's infrastructure to support. They might be over taxing the highway if they were to develop that densely. He added the northern region had always been seen as the primary regional commercial area. because they had more potential customers from Springdale and Rogers. • Mr. Sugg stated this was a better proposal and he hoped that the Overlay District would do what it was intended to do and make it a pleasant entry. would cause traffic problems. Mr. Tucker commented the infrastructure was part of the reason he was inclined to vote for this. The City had already built a five -lane road out there. He believed it was in preparation for heavy commercial use. Mr. Forney expressed concern that they were encouraging strip developments along major arterial. He was in favor of commercial nodes. He argued that using the five lane street as a route to commercial properties would cause traffic problems. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Forney if he agreed or disagreed with the 2020 Plan. Mr. Forney stated the rezoning complied with the 2020 plan, however, rezoning more land C-2 was in contradiction with the plan because it would create an excess of C-2 property in Fayetteville. Ms. Johnson asked if the cemetery on the north side of Razorback Road joined the road. Mr. Woodruff thought it was a private cemetery and it did come to the road. • Ms. Johnson thought the location of the cemetery would prevent that side of the highway from being developed commercial adding this node would not be so heavily developed as some of the • Planning Commission Meeting December 2. 1996 Page 4 other intersections Ms. Little stated the cemetery did adjoin the right-of-way. The land use plan only showed the northeast comer of the intersection being zoned regional commercial, reasoning that the steep terrain to the south of the intersection would limit commercial developments there. Mr. Sugg asked Mr. Woodruff if the terrain would affect the access to the propem. Mr. R-oodruff replied the property did sit a little low along the south side of the highway but the existing driveway was at a slope that leveled off before it met the highway. Mr. _Allred commented they had two options: a commercial development or an apartment compiex. Ms. Little added apartment complexes were not subject to the Overlay District Mr. Allred stated the City would benefit by the rezoning because they would be subject to the Overlav beautification requirements. If they did not rezone, they could have an apartment • complex not subject to any of the requirements. Mr. Forney expressed concerns that the entire Razorback extension would become strip development. Ms. Johnson responded they would have more control over this because it was going across fresh land and that Hwy 62 had existing commercial developments for years. Mr. Woodruff stated Richard Poole, who owned the lots on the west side, had no intentions of developing his land commercial. He added the proposed rezoning was surrounded by City property to the north and east who had control over how the land would be developed. Mr. Sugg thought the land across the road would be undevelopable because of the slope. Ms. Johnson stated the motion was to approve the rezoning subject to the staffs comments and subject to the applicant's offer of a Bill of Assurance to apply all requirements of the Overlay District to the entire six plus acres. The roll was called and the item was approved by a vote of 6-1-0. Mr. Forney voting nay. 0 n • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 5 CU96-27: CONDITIONAL USE (PP528) FOR A DANCE HALL ROBERT EITER-2892 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item on the agenda was a conditional use for a dance hall submitted by Robert Eiter for property located at 2892 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request was for a rehearing of the previous approval at the Planning Commission meeting of 10/28/96. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Inspection by Fire Marshall ad Building Inspector. 2. Compliance with the noise ordinance, including section §96.04. Limiting maximum noise levels by land use. 3. Provide 25 parking spaces (two of which must be ADA accessible) and landscaping Applicant must obtain a parking lot permit and drainage permit if additional parking is required by Planning Commission. 4. Compliance with conditional use criteria, section § 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, lighting and glare, and signage. 5. The conditional use will be reheard in one year if there are significant complaints (as • determined by the Planning Director). Ms. Johnson stated they were rehearing the item because of incorrect information about police calls to the previous establishment. The report noted only two calls for alarms. The correct report showed numerous calls to the bar. She read part of a letter from David Ferguson, owner, stating the previous occupants had been evicted and the Eiters were not related to them in anyway. In response to a question asked by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Eiter stated he had signed a lease in September of 1996. They had been operating for approximately twelve weeks and had no police reports. Ms. Johnson asked why there had been an extra police patrol in October. Mr. Eiter explained he had requested an extra patrol for security purposes. He added there had not been any disturbances or problems. Ms. Isa Isaacs, an area resident, asked if Mr. Eiter pianned to obtain a beer and wine license. She suggested the only reason there had not been any reports was because there had not been any liquor served. • Ms. Johnson responded the Planning Commission could only address the conditional use to allow dancing. The liquor license was a State issue. • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the conditional use, subject to staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The roll was called and the item was approved by a 6-1-0 vote. Ms. Hoffman voting nay. 0 3 to 35� • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 7 FP96-13.00: FINAL PLAT FOR DAVID LYLE SUBDIVISION HWY 16 E AND E. OF HWY 265 The next item on the agenda was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Fadil Bayyari for property located north of Hwy 16 E and 1.5 miles east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned RS (Residential Small lot) and contains approximately 15.14 acres with 63 units proposed. The staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed: 1. All conditions of approval for the preliminiary plat (PC meeting 11 March 96) shall be completed and verified prior to the City staff signing the final plat. 2. All public improvements (except final pavement and sidewalks which may be bonded) shall be complete and pass the City's final inspection, including all remedial work, punch list items and furnishing of the maintenance bonds prior to the City Engineer's signing the final plat. 3. Additional utility easements as requested by the public utilities at the Plat Review meeting. • 4. Staff approval of the covenants for the subdivision and also the bill of assurance with regards to the required four `large canopy" tree planting per lot. Please not that the covenants on file do not match the bill of assurance given by Bayyari to the City Council. The assurance given the City council stated a minimum house size of 1450 square feet (heated.). The Covenants proposed stated a minimum house size of 1,200 square feet (heated). Ms. Johnson put the applicant on notice that the covenants he had presented did not match the bill of assurance which was given to the City Council. The assurance given to the City Council stated a minimum house size of 1450 square feet. The covenants would have to be amended to incorporate the assurance given to the City Council. She asked the staff if the conservation easement had been received. Ms. Little stated it had been received and had been transmitted to Ozark Land Trust. They have executed an acknowledgment and it had been returned to her. Mr. Odom asked if they had a signed condition of approval. Ms. Little did not believe they had a copy of that. Mr. Ron Petrie, Milholland Engineering, stated the applicant concurred with all of the conditions of approval with the exception of #4, the size of the house. 0 Mr. Bayyari stated he had talked with Mr. Schaper about 1200 square foot homes. He said he ;Sl • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 8 had talked to Ms. Little who told him to go back and clear it with Mr. Schaper. He had a copy of the amended bill of assurance which was filed on July 24, 1995. He cleared the reduction with Mr. Schaper because he was the one negotiating the conditions of approval. Ms. Little stated she remembered seeing the amended bill of assurance copy, that there had been five different bills of assurances through the process and she did not remember the reduction in the house size. She wished that the bill of assurance had been presented to City Council and the addendum had gone back to the Council. It had been filed and marked July 24, 1995. Mr. Bayyari stated the covenants had not been filed at that time, but he had given her a draft of the covenants. He did not file the covenants until today. Ms. Little asked if the covenants had been revised to 1200 square feet Mr. Bayyari stated that they had. Mr. Odom thought it was premature for this item to be before them. He did not think that Mr. Schaper stood as the authority for negotiating for the City Council. He preferred that this • addendum go before the full City Council for approval before it came to the Planning Commission. Ms. Little asked if he would consider approving it subject to the City Council approval. Mr. Odom replied he would. Mr. Allred asked if the covenants required the approval of City Council. Mr. Odom stated it had been offered as a bill of assurance to the City Council. Mr. Beaver stated, as a citizen, the adjacent property owners thought that the 1450 square feet for the homes were set. He thought if they were going to change that they neighbors needed a chance to come in and make their case. Mr. Odom stated he was not comfortable approving something when the bill of assurance had already been given to the full City Council. if it was going to be changed that was where it needed to be changed. Not here and not with this Commission. Mr. Bayyari commented that the City Council had been after him to get the building to 1200 square feet. He had requested a higher square footage. He then changed his mind. 0 Ms. Johnson stated the problem that she had_ as chairman of the Planning Commission, was that • Planning Commission Meeting December_. 1996 Page 9 whatever was done between him and Mr. Schaper was done between him and Mr. Schaper. Whatever was done between him and the City Council was done between him the City Council. If he gave the City Council a bill of assurance and that was where he left it and now he %%-as coming back to the Planning Commission to change the bill of assurance. The Commission was not persuaded that they were allowed to do that. Mr. Bayyari stated he did not change it today. He had changed it a week later after he had submitted it. a year ago. Ms. Johnson stated if he submitted it to the Council, whatever he gave to the Council he was going to have to get the Council okay. They Commission did not have the authority to change action that the Council had taken. Mr. Bayyari stated he had given concessions to the City that he normally would not have made based on these negotiations. Ms. Johnson responded the City had not told him to enter into private negotiations. It was not the way they did business on the Commission. • Mr. Bayyari stated he was under the impression that he was heading the entire thing. He gave him what he asked for, for the approval. Ms. Johnson asked who had approved it. Mr. Bayyari stated it had been approved by Mr. Schaper. Ms. Johnson replied that Mr. Shapner did not speak for the City Council and they could not accept anything other than Council action. Ms. Little commented that there had been a lot of Bill of Assurances, a lot of changes, and a lot of negotiations. She suggested they approve the item, subject to this addendum going to the City Council. It would give public notification. Mr. Allred thought they did not have the authority to approve what he was asking for. He added it was unfortunate that one person negotiated on behalf of the Planning Commission and City Council. MOTION • Mr. Allred moved to approve the final plat, subject to staff comments and the City Council approve the reduction of the square footage. He thought the Council was the only one that had • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 10 the authority to change the square footage from 1450 square feet to 1200 square feet. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Mr. Forney stated he was not comfortable approving the potential change concerning the house sizes. He asked if the Commission wanted to let the Council decide the size of the homes. Ms. Johnson replied that was the essence of the motion. Mr. Forney asked where would be the proper place to debate the square footage was, at Planning Commission or City Council. He thought it should be the Commission. Ms. Johnson replied in the normal course of events it usually did happen here the Commission level, but this subdivision had not been handled in the normal way. It had gone outside channels. She question Ms. Little if they decided that 1200 square foot was the appropriate square footage did they have the power to approve a minimum house size of 1200 square foot tonight. Ms. Little stated she had never known of a subdivision where the Planning Commission • prescribed the minimum square feet in a house. She stated they had bills of assurances which had been discussed at the Council level. In ordinance 3912. July 21, 1995, the rezoning was not made subject to a bill of assurance. They had Bills of Assurance, they had talked about them, but the ordinance approving the rezoning was silent on the Bill of Assurance. She explained that in the ordinance approving the rezoning, no bill of assurance -VT-asmentioned but she knew that a bill of assurance had been offered at the time of rezoning. There had been a lot of negotiation, but in the end on the ordinance she was holding, the rezoning had not been made subject to a Bill of Assurance. Her best advice was to act on the motion on the table and she would get all of the information to the City Council and they could make the decision. She did not think it was proper for the Planning Commission to decide the square footage of homes. Ms. Johnson stated she was in favor of the motion. Ms. Hoffman stated she was in favor of the motion as well. they needed to offer the applicant the opportunity to provide affordable housing. The roll was called and the item passed unanimously. 7-0-0. 0 3s3 35;4 • Planning Commission Meetir-_ December 2, 1996 Page 11 LSD96-37.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR WAL-MART WAL-MART-SOUTHWEST COR\TR OF MALL AVENUE The next item on the agenda was a large scale development submitted by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. On behalf of Wal-Mart for property located at the southwest intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Mall Avenue and Joyce Street. The site contains 24.94 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. If the Planning Commission approves the LSD, then the staff requests that the approval be subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer. streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall compiy with the City's current requirements. This shall include the new sidewalk specifications which are before the City council (19 Nov 96) and require concrete • approaches and that sidewalk, be continuous through the driveway entrances into the Wal -mart Parking lot. 2. A letter agreement from Wal-Mart prohibiting the storage or seasonal sales in any parking area. 3. Plat review and Subdivision committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Pleas; note that this includes the Public Utilities (AWG, SWEPCO, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. 4. Sidewalks shall be provided along Mall Avenue, including the private portion of Mall Avenue in accordance with the plat review comments. 5. Water and sewer easements shall be 20 feet minimum width and are subject to be wider depending upon the final desim of the water and sewer. The easement must allow a minimum 1:1 side slope from the bottom of the lines. "Large" trees shall not be allowed within the water, sewer or utility easements. 6. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement stating that he understands that the City is not responsible for repairing or replace any surface or feature (other than normal asphalt or concrete pavement and grass) including special paving, irrigation, landscaping or trees within an easement due to the City's normal maintenance or repair work on any water and sewer line. 7. The drainage within the development's parking area shall be private. The owner shall execute a letter of agreement to maintain the private drainage. 8. Provide an easement plat to the City of Fayetteville prior to the issuance of the building permit. • 9. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. 35-5- Planning SS Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 12 Ms. Little stated the development was subject to the Commercial Design Standards. She noted Wal-Mart had submitted another rendered front elevation showing their trademark blue, rather than the beige ordinally presented. Mr. Tucker asked about the development's drainage. Mr. Beavers stated Wal-Mart would be allowed to increase their runoff because of their closeness to Mud Creek. He explained if they were to retain the runoff in a detention pond, they would be releasing the runoff at the same time as the properties uphill. It was better to get their runoff out of the way. Mr. Tucker commented the more parking they were allowed to have, the more water would be running into the storm systems and/or creeks. He suggested they were creating more problems for the down stream owners. He suggested Wal-Mart be required to justify their request for an additional 20% parking. Mr. Beavers replied the City had not extended their study to show the effects on people outside City Limits. • Mr. Sugg asked if they had taken into consideration the parking across the street. Ms. Little stated they had not taken the other parking into account, because this was not considered a true shopping center. She added it was not reasonable to ask people to walk to the 25 acre site. There were 1,000 proposed parking spaces for the 209,000 square feet building. It was important to have adequate.parking to keep people from parking in the streets. Mr. Sugg asked if there was enough permeable area under the trees in the parking lot. Ms. Sandeen stated they were meeting the code. Ms. Little thought they had met the new standards. Wal-Mart had used the color scheme prevalent in the surrounding developments. She added they had also discussed enclosed storage areas and the Joyce Street elevation. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the Joyce Street elevation was concealed by a 14' berm planted with trees. Ms. Johnson asked what was to the west. Ms. Bunch stated the property to the west was NANCHAR. • Ms. Johnson asked what the master street plan had envisioned for the property to the west of this site. 3SG • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 13 Ms. Little stated they had planned a north south street which would connect to the Frontage Road, which would cross over the creek. Ms. Johnson asked what the connection to the south would be to. Mr. Forney replied it would connect to the NANCHAR property. He added they had discussed two potential connections. One to the west, at the south edge of the property; the other was south along the building face line. Mr. Tucker stated the Subdivision Committee had asked for an agreement from Clary development authorizing adjacent properties the right to access the private street. This was an agreement to minimize the traffic congestion. T:ey had requested from Clary Development: a complete and up-to-date final plat, including dates of actions including lots -splits and revised plats and an agreement authorizing adjacent lots and adjacent property owners the right to access private streets, private drives, and private parking lots to allow traffic circulation. Ms. Little stated they had received the complete and up-to-date final plat, but they had not received an agreement from Clary Development authorizing adjacent lots to access their private • drive. Ms. Bunch stated this Subdivision had a recorded Declaration of Restrictions and Grants on easements. To allow anyone else access would require written agreements from all the property owners: Brandon Properties, National Home Centers, Clary Development and Wal-Mart. She added it had been difficult to get all of them on the phone in one week, much less to come to an agreement. Wal-Mart had an aversion to another development's traffic coming across their parking lot, that they would have to maintain. She reminded the Commission the streets were private with common access agreements. All the parties involved would have to agree and they would have to amend their Declaration of Restrictions and Easements to allow such an agreement to occur. She requested that Wal -Man have the final approval to the access point as well as the use of the NANCHAR property. Ms. Little responded the City and the Subdivision Committee was requesting an assurance that the connection, if necessary, would not be denied when the NANCHAR property developed. She reminded the City had given them the rights to Mall Avenue when the subdivision had been approved. They had done it with the understanding there would be good circulation. The City was still seeking good circulation. Ms. Johnson asked it the southern end of Mall Avenue would be available for access to the development to the south, if it seemed appropriate. • Ms. Bunch stated Wal-Mart wanted to discourage a lot of high traffic thoroughfare through the 3s? • Planning Commi=cion Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 14 main drive, because it was the entrance into the store. They were agreeable to amending their agreement, but they wanted control over where the access would be granted. Ms. Johnson commented There would be a large parcel of land without a north south access if they did not require access onto Mall Avenue. Ms. Little replied there was a portion of NANCHAR property north of Mud Creek that was zoned R -O. Ms. Bunch added NANCHAR was considering two high rise buildings, but there was only a small portion developable. Ms. Johnson commented if NANCHAR could not put a lot on the site then the additional traffic would be minimal. Ms. Bunch commented it was hard to make any assurances not knowing what would develop there. • Ms. Little expressed concerns that the adjoining the property to the south and north of the creek only had two to three ways to be accessed. To the east to Frontage Road, to the north through this property, and to the west through other contiguous NANCHAR properties, because Mud Creek running south of the R -O property would require the construction of another bridge. They did not think it was reasonable to expect the R -O property to construct a bridge to access to the south. Ms. Bunch stated she had spoken to the NANCHAR developer this week they had planned to take an east west road along the creek so they would have a connection to the major north south connector that would intersect Joyce Street. Ms. Little asked if they were willing to give her a letter to that effect. Mr. Jeff Maxwell- Clary Development, stated Jim Erwin, representative for NANCHAR, did not know where they would need access because they did not know what they were going to develop. Ms. Little stated the Subdivision Committee had not asked for an agreement with NANCHAR. They had asked for an assurance from Clary Development stating access would be granted if needed. Mr. Maxwell stated Clary could only speak for a small portion of the property line along the • NANCHAR property, the rest was owned by National Home Center and Brandon Properties. 3 53 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 15 Ms. Johnson asked why they were not talking about the access to the street they knew was going to be built. She asked what kind of street would be on the south _ide of the property. Ms. Bunch stated the whole subdivision had been set up to use the drive for truck deliveries and garbage collection. Ms. Johnson asked if the service drive ran the entire length of the south boundary. Ms. Bunch stated it started at Shiloh, north of Mud Creek and cu,�%red around to Joyce. The ending of the service drive was their western most drive. Ms. Johnson asked if there was any way the owners of the private drive could restrict its accessibility to the public. Ms. Little stated they could, but it would be counter productive to their purpose. They were retail and they wanted to attract customers. Ms. Johnson commented the adjacent property should be allowed to access Mall Avenue, if they • needed to. They would not have to provide access to the service drive. Mr. Sugg pointed out Clary only owned a small portion of the private drive. Ms. Bunch replied this agreement would require the approval of Wal-Mart, National, Brandon, Clary. Mr. Allred stated Subdivision wanted an agreement with Wal-Mart allowing access onto the private street. As he understood the conversation, Wal-Mart could allow a curb cut at their south property line. Mr. Maxwell responded the agreement had been requested of Clary. Mr. Allred stated it was Wal-Mart who would have to give the City permission. Mr. Maxwell stated all the property owners would have to agree. because of their cross access agreements. Mr. Allred stated they could require the access during the Large Scale Development process. They needed an agreement from Wal-Mart stating the neighboring development could access and use the private drive. 0 Mr. Odom stated Wal-Mart did not have the exclusive say in decision. 3�;l • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Maxwell stated that all the properny owners would have to be in agreement. Mr. Allred asked who would repair the streets if they were owned by four or five people. Mr. Maxwell explained if an owner did not repair his portion of the street, then the other property owners would maintain it and bill the owner. Mr. Allred commented if it was a maior undertaking to get conversation with these people, it would be more difficult when there was a problem. Ms. Bunch defended, it was hard to do in a week. Mr. Allred continued if it was hard to do on the front end it would be more difficult when the developments were done. Ms. Grelle explained if the City was to dump traffic into the center it would flow onto other streets exterior to Wal -Mart's properr. It would allow traffic to flow onto other people's property in Spring Creek Center. There would have to an agreement with all the property owners • stating they were willing to accept the extra traffic. Mr. Maxwell added NANCHAR would have to enter into the same agreement. Ms. Little stated the traffic the City was "dumping" were customers. Generally, stores want customers. She disagreed with the term "dumping" and "traffic." Ms. Johnson added all of the traffic anticipated on Mall Lane was created by the entities they were talking out. them access. Mr. Allred stated they were trying to increase traffic flow. Ms. Grelle stated they did not want to grant a blanket easement at this time because the owners had no control over what the development would be. Ms. Little stated they would be notified when the property come through large scale and they would be allowed to discuss it then. them Mr. Maxwell asked how they would have no control over the adjacent development if they had already given them access. • Ms. Johnson responded he would be giving the City the assurance. If the City believed a Mowed development should be owed to connect to Mall Avenue, then Clary Development would 3vo • Planning Commission Meeting DecemcZer 2, 1996 Page 1 I allow them to connect. Mr. Ma"well thought they were discussing the southern property line. Ms. Johnson stated it was Mall Avenue. Ms. Little stated they had not been every clear at Subdivision. She was very hesitant to get off of the Wal-Mart Supercenter site in terms of them being 100% legal in what they were requiring. As long- as the Planning Commission was talking about Wal-Mart lot they had every right to ask for an%- :hung they felt was necessary for this large scale and for traffic flow. It became an issue with regards to the subdivision because it was a part of a large development. She did not know if they were outside of their rights. Ms. Johnson asked if the southern extension of Mall Lane was on the Wal-Mart site. Ms. Little answered it was not. Mall Avenue would be between lot 4 and lot 7 if it was to take its most direct coarse. • Mr. Maxwell stated Mall Avenue would be on Clary Development's property. He added they had an escrow account in place for the funds for its construction . Ms. Uile clarified Wal-Mart would not actually build the road, Clary Development would construct the road. go in to different stores. Each store had become its own destination. Mr. Su_,g asked if the Brandon properties would have access to the Wal-Mart road. Mr. Maxwell explained the access agreement was for all property owners within the development to have access to each others parking lots and cross access. He explained Spring Creek was a shopping center with individual lots because Wal-Mart and Nations Homes Center preferred to buy their own property. This was actually a single development with different owners. Mr. Sugg replied it was not a shopping center because people were not going to park in one place and go in to different stores. Each store had become its own destination. Ms. Johnson asked if the staff or any commissioner were wanting access to any other street other than Mall Avenue. Ms. Bunch stated there was no way to get to Mall Avenue, unless they went through the common access areas. She reminded they were talking about a small piece of property. They were not • talking about a major east west connector that could fit between the flood plain and their property line. They were talking about a service drive that would be servicing the office complex that to 3�1 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 18 the south of them. What they were talking about was a simple connectivity between the shopping center and the proposed office complex. Ms. Johnson stated they were talking about was the so:_th end of Mall Avenue being available for access. Ms. Little added they had talked generally about connectivity, Mall Avenue seemed to be the logical place. Ms. Johnson asked them to limit their discussion to acc: ss to Mall Avenue. She asked what the problem would be, if they required the possibility of fu-tre access to the southern end of Mall Avenue. Mr. Maxwell stated Mall Avenue would not extend in a straight line. Ms. Johnson agreed, but on the east edge of the Wal -start property it would extend to the south edge of the property. • Mr. Maxwell clarified -the south edge of Wal -mart's property. West of National Home Center is a large development in place that would prohibit Mall _-venue from extending south to the NANCHAR property. Ms. Little added directly south. Ms. Johnson stated all they wanted was to have access available at the south east edge of the Wal-Mart project. Ms. Little stated all they were asking for was the right :o access the private street. Mr. Maxwell thought they were talking about the south property line of the whole development. Mr. Allred explained they were talking about the south property line from the southeast corner of the Wal-Mart development. Ms. Bunch stated it was common access easement. They did not have the authority to grant access to that easement. Mr. Maxwell stated it was already there. 40 Mr. Forney asked if lot 4-R had been approved through the large scale development process. 3to?, • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 19 Ms. Little answered it had been, but it was over a year old. If the development still met the current standards the Cite would allow them to construct. of the site plan. Ms. Johnson asked if it contained a continuation of Mall Avenue south past the Wal -mart project and down south to the south edge of the site plan. Ms. Little stated that it did. but it was shared between lot 4R and 7R. Their property line went to the center of the access. Mr. Maxwell stated it was a private drive similar to the one in front of National Home Center. Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee requested that the access would not be closed. Mr. Forney stated he wouid not approve this large scale development without knowing how they were going to accomplish the connection to the south. If they could not make it along the adjoining line between lots 4R and 7 then they needed to look at the connection to Wal-Mart to the west. • Ms. Johnson asked why they were not in a position to require that the access be between lot 4R and 7. Ms. Little replied she thought they had the right to require access on the Wal -mart property. They had been lead to beiieve at the final plat stage and all the revisions that there would be a street which approached the south property line. They had somewhat of an assurance that Mall Avenue will extend to the south as it was shown on the large scale. All they were asking for was an assurance that there would be access to the south property line of all of Spring Creek Center. Ms. Johnson asked if she was implying that they had the power to do that. Ms. Little responded they did. Explaining it was an access and circulation relating to this project as well as, the traffic this project would generate. Mr. Forney asked if there had been an access road between lot 7 and 4R Ms. Little replied there was a service drive, the road between 4R and 7, joined a service drive which did not touch the south property line (15 to 20 feet from the property line). Ms. Johnson asked why it did not go to the property line. • Ms. Little explained it was a service drive, that ran along the south property line of all of Spring Creek Center. 3(a3 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 20 Ms. Johnson asked if Clary had paid for the street improvement. Mr. Beavers stated the City had invoiced Clary Development four times ier the improvements at the intersection on 71B and Joyce Street. The balance due was approxima_*ely 578,000. Mr. Maxwell stated he had only seen one invoice, which he had approve.. He did not know what the payment schedule was. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any other conditions of approval they wished to discuss. Ms. Bunch responded they did not agree with the condition prohibiting ou.-door sales. She added Wal-Mart had always had outside sales. The majority of the sales would ':�e done in the garden center, but they did not want to relinquish the rights to have sales outside. Mr. Allred commented they would be using some of the additional 20% parking for outdoor sales. Ms. Bunch responded were showing less parking than what Wal-Mart had required them to • obtain. not pass it. Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission could deny the extra 20% parking Mr. Tucker replied reduction would decrease the opportunity for storage and seasonal sales in the parking area, assuming parking was more valuable than season selling square footage. Ms. Bunch responded there would be minimal outdoor storage or sales bnause they had provided garden center. They were open to negotiation whether it be percentage or number of spaces they could take up, but they did not want to relinquish all rights to having outdoor sales. Ms. Johnson asked if the City had any regulations prohibiting street vendors from setting up on street comers. Ms. Little responded the Planning Commission did recommend an ordinance to the City Council, but the City Council did not pass it. Ms. Johnson stated she was reluctant to make it harder for Wal-Mart to do seasonal sales in its parking lot than someone could do on a street corner. Mr. Odom commented he would rather not see the sales in the parking logy but City Council had • already told them that street vendors were okay. 3CO4 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 21 Ms. Bunch explained the area where the sales would be held would be directly in front of the garden center in a policed area. Ms. Johnson questioned the type of storage -.%?ould be in the parking area. Ms. Bunch stated they did not want storage Ln the parking area. They were looking for outdoor, temporary seasonal sales and storage, such as Christmas trees and plants. Mr. Allred pointed out they would be payir-_ sales tax on the seasonal sales, where the street venders would not be. Mr. Odom questioned how Clary's debt of _78,000 related to the Wal-Mart project. Ms. Little explained Wal-Mart was on a lot in the subdivision Clary had developed. Mr. Maxwell stated he would check with \L. Clary and call Ms. Little this week. He added Wal- Mart was not part of their agreement with tie City. • Ms. Little stated the traffic generated by 'A -_i -Mart had been calculated in the cost of the improvements. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the large scale subject to the nine conditions of approval listed by the staff. There would be one amendment to condition #2 "seasonal sales" would be deleted. Condition #2 would read, " A letter of agreement from Wal-Mart prohibiting storage in any parking area." She added an additional requirement: "access be assured at the south end of Mall Avenue, if the City had need of that access.' Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Bunch asked if they could clarify stora_e. Ms. Johnson stated they could not have storage in the parking lot, but they could have seasonal sales. If it was something they only sold seasonally such as Christmas Trees, plants, lawn mowers; they were to sell them outside exc=usively. If they did not sell the item outside exclusively then they could not have it there- If they had the item outside and inside it would be considered storage. • Ms. Little asked about selling large farm equipment, such as fences and large metal cattle feeders. • Planning Commission Meeting December 2. 1996 Page 22 Mr. Allred da not believe those would be considered seasonal sales. He would interpret tt= as not being allowed, because they were not seasonal. Ms. Bunch argued they would be sold exclusively outdoors. Ms. Kim Lane. real-estate manager for Wal-Mart, expressed concerns about not being allowed to sell from the rarkins lot. Mr. Allred asked if they could approve this and let the staff and Wal -Mart's real estate department :cork out the definition for storage. Ms. Lane stated they typically had storage trailers in the service drive to the rear and to the _de of the store. They did not want to put themselves in violation for having a drop trailer and storage area_ Mr. Odom stated they were talking about spaces allocated for parking. Ms. Little stated parking was calculated and striped as parking spaces. • Mr. Allred asked if the motion included the change in the color scheme for the front. Ms. Little thought it would be a good idea. Mr. Forney disagreed. the design standards asked that they present the elevation. The Planni g Commission did not specifically need to approve any specific aspect of the elevation. Ms. Little stated it might help clarify things if there was ever a question. Ms. Johnson added to the motion, "the building would be built according to the elevation presented at the Planning Commission, 12 Dec 96." Ms. Hoffman asked if they could include the lower loop drive on the southern most portion of the lot to the motion. Ms. Johnson replied it went beyond the intent of the motion and would require an amendment. AMENDNII 7 Ms. Hoffman proposed the required access also apply to the southwest comer of lot 7. • Amendment failed for lack of second. M10 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 23 Mr. Tucker asked if the private drive went to the south proper -N. line or to the service road. Ms. Johnson stated the south drive was intended to go to the �Duthem edge of the site plan. Mr. Allred asked how they would legally do that since Wal -Wart did not own the property. Ms. Johnson replied Wal-Mart was closely related to Clary. She thought the requirement could only go to Clary and Wal-Mart. The road would not be extenZJed, but the access. Wal-Mart and Clary would grant access from Mall Avenue where it was going to be built to the south edge along the dogleg and down to the south edge of the property. Mr. Allred clarified if they required the access at the edge of :�ie Wal-Mart property, then when lot 4R come through large scale they could require the rest of :he access. Mr. Forney asked when they saw lot 4R in the large scale process would they have the ability to require access from Mall Avenue to the north to the property :o the south along the west edge of 4R. • Ms. Little replied they could require access, but there was a possibility they would never see lot 4R. There was no reason why they could not accomplish wh_t they were wanting to accomplish, because Clary controlled lot 4R. Clary had the right to access_ as a property owner, joint access to any other party. If Clary wanted to give access to the property the south on their property their lot 4R they could do that. They had the right to have the joint access. They could give the Commission that tonight if they wanted to. Mr. Maxwell stated they had asked NANCHAR if they wanted access to lot 4R and they had responded they did not know where they wanted access. Ms. Little stated that was not what the Planning Commission had asked for. Mr. Maxwell stated they would not veto the idea of giving them access. It would not be a absolute no. Ms. Little stated they did not want access to be blocked. Thev asked for an assurance. They had asked for a letter. Ms. Johnson stated the motion was Wal-Mart and Clary muse grant access from the south edge of Mall Avenue, that would be built with this project, to the souzb to the NANCHAR property. She added the route had not been set, but the requirement would Lne that the access would be granted • if the City ever requested it. • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 24 The roll was called, the item was ;proved of 7-0-0. • C� I 3G • Planning Commission Meeting December 2. 1996 Pag� 25 AD96-30.00: PRESENTATION OF DESIGN THEME FOR LSD96-25.00 GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER Ms. Johnson stated they had been offered the right to see the design theme early curing the planning of this project. Ms. Little stated Mr. Cozart had offered to bring the Planning Commission a desi_n theme for the Glennwood Shopping Center. She referred to the Planning Commission minutes of June 24, 1996. they had talked about the shopping center being approved and wanting to see the design theme established. A suggestion had been made that the large scale development would be approved contingent upon some type of design standards coming back before the Commission for approval. Mr. Cozart had offered and it had been determined that Ms. Amirrroez would be submitted the design plans as approved by the development's committee. In orde- to proceed with the building of Harps Store, Ms. Amirmoez would present a design theme. Nis. Amirmoez stated Harps was proceeding ahead of rest of the development, she would verbally present what they had intended to do with the design of the overall center. It was there intention that the Harps and the shopping center would blend together. She did not have • elevations of their design, but she had reviewed the design of the Harps Center and what they were showing would be easily incorporated into their plans for the rest of the center. Ms. Johnson asked to discuss several items in particular and what they could expect to see. "A pedestrian friendly environment using landscaping, clearly defended pedestrian paths within the site and wide weather protected sidewalk". She questioned wide weather protected sidewalk. MS. Amirmoez replied the store fronts would be covered. There would also be some focal points such as water features, if the budget would allow. Nis. Johnson questioned what a landmark focal point would be. Nis. Aminnoez replied a focal point would be an element that would help people Identify the center and orient themselves. without obstructing the view of the stores. Nis. Johnson asked how she would create a sense of continuity with the rest of the center though the --sight walls". Nis. A-tirmoez stated they were freestanding 4' brick walls, placed in different parts of the center to help block the view of cars, without obstructing the view of the stores. • Nit. Sugg did not understand the meaning of this verbal presentation. He added Eley could submit one building at a time and tell the Planning Commission they were meeting Glennwood's 36? • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 26 design guide lines. Ms. Hoffman asked if she had brought anything to: them to look at. Ms. Amirmoez stated she had not brought anythin_ on the design of the center, but she brought Harps design. Mr. Allred asked how her verbal presentation was reduced into writing so she could sign off on the conditions. Ms. Amirmoez stated she had presented to them a :atter. Mr. Allred stated they were expecting to see sometYing similar to what Wal -mart had presented. Ms. Amirmoez stated because of the schedule, the shopping center was not proceeding as fast as Harps. In order not to hold them up she was to assure the Planning Commission that the design of the center would incorporate Harps into their design. • Ms. Johnson asked if they had the power to require Harps to present them something like this. Mr. Allred stated it had been part of the LSD approval. The entire large scale which had Harps as a portion of. Ms. Little stated at the time this development went through the process the City did not have Commercial Design Standards. It had been volunteered. She added they would not see Harps again. What had occurred was Harps had presenter a building permit to her office. One of the conditions of the large scale was that they were to ging the design theme before the Planning Commission. She had talked with the developer =d they were not able to bring forward a whole design theme now, but they wanted the building permit for Harps. The had two options: adopt the theme of Harps as their theme for the whole center or bring the Planning Commission something the staff could enforce in the future. T''he developer had reduced their theme to words, but they were not ready to design the entire thing. Ms. Amirmoez stated they could work with the Harps design. Harps would be guiding the theme, they would be setting a precedent for what -pe s of material and features would be used throughout the development. Mr. Beavers stated the building permit was for Don Cozart, not for Harps. Harps was leasing the property, they did not own the building, Don Cozart would own the building. It was Harps • architecture and design. 30?a • Planning Commission !Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 27 Ms. Amirmoez presented the design of Harps and stated they had no problem incorporating their design with what the,. were trying to do. Mr. Allred asked Ms. Amirmoez if she was willing to bind the owner/developer to what they were discussing tonic�nt. now December and trey were saying they did not have time. Ms. Amirmoez stated she was willing to bind the owner to incorporating Harps into their design. Mr. Allred stated whet the Commission was wanting was something concrete that they could sign off on, that was goin_ to be built and look like what was presented. Ms. Amirmoez stated it would not look exactly like the Harps design because they would be working with asmall=r scale of stores. What she could do was incorporate design elements like Harps. Mr. Allred commented the developer offered this as a condition of his approval in June. It was now December and trey were saying they did not have time. rest of the center. • Ms. Amirmoez stated she could use the same types of materials and colors and elements to unify this development with the rest of the center. Ms. Little remembered Mr. Cozart making the statement that the McDonalds will look like a McDonalds and Taco Bell would look like a Taco Bell. She asked if the design theme would affect these buildings. Mr. Odom stated it affected the large scale development that had been presented to them. Ms. Johnson stated her recollection was the same as Ms. Little. She thought they were specifically were told there would be a McDonalds and it would look like a McDonalds. Ms. Little commented she could not remember where that comment had come in the discussion before he offer the deign theme or after he offered the design theme. Mr. Allred commented if they were requiring Wal-Mart and others to submit color drawings and a materials board and then they accept something like Ms. Amirmoez was presenting, then they were setting a precedent that they were circumventing the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Little added this large scale through before commercial design standards. It came through during the formulation of the standards. • Mr. Allred agreed, bm stated Mr. Cozart agreed to do it. 3?1 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 28 Ms. Johnson responded he did not agree to do Commercial design stzndards, he agreed to show the Commission some design concepts. Ms. Amirmoez stated Mr. Cozart would not have a problem designing the center to look exactly like Harps, but she was saying there were things that could be done wetter and still incorporate the design theme of the Harps. If they were to use the elements and :.he colors that they had used, break down the scale, they could look unified. Mr. Allred asked if she was willing to bind her client to what she was presenting tonight as the theme for the center. Ms. Amirmoez replied the pedestrian walk ways and features would depend on the budget. Mr. Allred asked what would happen if the budget was exhausted when they got to that area. Ms. Amirmoez replied they would have other chances to look at the development as it progressed to make sure they were unifying them. did not look anything like what they had been told. • Mr. Sugg stated they would not have another chance to look at this. Mr. Allred stated they had been told many times, in the past, that something was going to look a certain way and when it was built it did not look anything like what they had been told. Ms. Little stated what had been agreed upon was that before any buuding permits were issued, there would be a design theme. . Ms. Amirmoez stated she could design something similar to what Harps had designed, but she could not bind him to money he might not have. She did not know how much of the screen walls or brick pavers could be used because of his budget. She could not bind him into that tonight. She could say that they would have this theme. Ms. Little read the minutes where Mr. Cozart had promised to submit a design theme before any building permits would be issued. Now they had a request for a building permit, and now they needed to establish the theme because all the rest of the building permits would follow behind this one. Mr. Sugg suggested to do the entire center with the Harps incorporated in it and bring it back. Ms. Amirmoez thought they could allow the Harps to go then she could come back with the rest • of the center. 3-7z • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 29 Ms. Hoffman stated she would like to set her theme more developed and asked if there was a limited building permit. Mr. Allred stated this was not what they had agreed on. Ms. Johnson commented Ms. Amirmoez had done what the minutes had required her to do. She had some major design features and if the Planning Commission wanted them to be the architectural theme for the center. She would agree to this theme, although she thought they would be loosing a better architectural design overall. Ms. Johnson suggested the Commission either agree to accept the Harps design as the theme for the entire center or accept this as the design for Harps and allow the developer to come back to them and show them the major design features for the entire center. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to accept the Harps design as the design theme for entire large scale development. It would be subject to a complete presentation being made on the rest of the large scale. The rest of the large scale will be centered around this theme. He added, before any other • building permits were issued. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson thought they would be limiting the development to the theme of a grocery store. She did not want Harps to set the theme for the rest of the development. Mr. Forney agreed with Ms. Johnson. He would support a motion to allow the building permit, but required them to come back with a design theme, but did not apply the building as the design theme. Mr. Allred amended his motion that they would accept the design of Harps and allow building permit and would require that the applicant come back with a theme for the entire large scale showing site plan and elevations in color before any other building permits were granted. Mr. Forney added they would not accept a written or verbal presentation of design theme. Mr. Beavers asked them to clarify the building permit, commenting that the building pad for Taco Bell was almost finished and they were separate out lots that he had sold. Were they to sign off on the outlot. 0 Mr. Odom stated it applied to anything in the large scale development. • Planning Commission Meeting Decembe- ?, 1996 Page 30 The roll as called and carried unanimously, 9-0-0. • 0 3�3 • Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1996 Page 31 AD96-31.00: DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT OF THE BYLAWS OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE The next item on the agenda was a discussion of an amendment to the bylaws regulating the Subdivision Committee. A. Discussion of number of members on the Subdivision Committee. B. Provision to allow approval of items with a majority vote rather than requiring unanimity. Ms. Johnson stated the committee presently had three members on it. Under the regulations it had the potential maximum of four members with no fewer than three. The last amendment in May of 1996 made it clear that Subdivision had the power to approve: large scales, lot splits, the right to have a rehearing before the Commission, final plat, and sidewalk variances for projects other than large scale or subdivisions. The bylaws required Subdivision have a unanimous vote of the total membership (all three people must be present and must vote for it). This requirement made it impossible for the Committee to approve anything if one member was absent. Ms Johnson suggested they allow for alternates who would be on call to attend Subdivision • Committee meetings if one of the regular members was unable to attend. Another possibility was to require less than unanimous approval for final approval of the five items listed. She asked for a proposal that they could put in writing. Ms. Little stated in order to stay in concert with bylaws, the Subdivision Committee had not been able to make any approvals when one member had been absent. If they had the ability to call another person or could allow items to be approved with less than unanimous vote of the total membership, then they could have conducted the business and kept the Planning Commission agenda more concise. Mr. Allred thought the Committee always needed to have a voting quorum so the meetings could be conducted when they were scheduled. Mr. Odom stated he liked the alternate idea better than just allowing two members to approve an item. Mr. Allred agreed, adding he did not think there were two members who wanted to take the full responsibility. Ms. Hoffman agreed the alternate idea was a good one. • Mr. Forney suggested the alternates be approved by the chair. 3?S • Planning Commission Mee-ing December 2, 1996 Page 32 Mr. Allred suggested the Cc amtittee or the Chairman of the Commission appoint the alternates. He suggested a standing lis of alternates close to City Hall, so they could come on short notice. Ms. Hoffman suggested oni;: one alternate be allowed per meeting, believing that two alternates would not have enough bac ground to conduct business. Johnson disagreed, believi.-_ the alternates should be able to function as full Subdivision Committee members. Ms. Hoffman asked if there ad a case when two subdivision committee members had been absent at the same time. Mr. Allred answered it was �sually only one. Ms. Johnson referred to Artcle IV COMMITTEES (C): C. A Subdivision Corr=dttee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioners shall serve as a standing committee tha_ reviews development items after Technical Plat Review and makes • recommendations to the Planning Commission; two alternates shall be named, one or both of whom shall sit in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting. The developer is required to give notice to adjacent property owners and provide proof of same to the Planning Administrator at least seven days prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Allred added historical:_,. the Committee had not addressed any waiver, variances or controversial items, but had forwarded them to the Planning Commission, stating those types of comments needed to be add essed at the Planning Commission level and not at the Subdivision level. Ms. Johnson asked if anyoc= else would like to suggest a new language for the change. She did not see why they could not `cave more written proposals in front of them. Mr. Forney thought the language was good, but wondered how they would enact the alternate. Ms. Johnson suggested the :.hair should appoint the alternates and that the Committee member that was going to be absent -would call the first alternate. If that person could not attend, then they would have to call the second alternate. Ms. Little stated the staff would be willing to help any way they could. She suggested if the regular member was not going be there, that they call the alternate and notify the staff so they . would know where to send _he agenda packet.