Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:30 p.m. on January 11, 1999, in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes VA98-13: Gies LSD98-36: WRMC Amendments to MSP CU95-39: Hayes USDA & EPA Presentation RZ98-23: WRMC CU98-27: WRMC • _ RZ98-22: Littlefield RZ98-24: Laningham COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Alett Little Brent Vinson S Dawn Warrick Chuck Rutherford ACTION TAKEN Consent Agenda - approved Consent Agenda - approved Consent Agenda - approved Approved Approved w/conditions None Approved Approved Approved w/conditions Approved COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT Jim Beavers Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 2 Odom: We would like to welcome Loren Shackelford. He has been appointed to a minimum three years term with this Commission. We have two items that are not on the agenda tonight. One is the CMN Business Park Subdivision. We will be hearing a report on the CMN Business Park but the large scale development has been pulled. If you are here tonight to discuss that, that will not be heard tonight. The second item pulled from the agenda is the Bakery Feeds conditional use which will heard on the January 25 agenda. First tonight, is the approval of the Consent Agenda. These are items that will be approved on consent unless a member of the public or a member of the Planning Commission pulls them off for discussion. Little: We do have a signed conditions of approval for Washington Regional large scale development. The amount of approval that has been assigned to traffic signals is $15,000 which they have agreed to. Odom: Does any member of the public or Planning Commission wish to discuss any of these items? CONSENT AGENDA • APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 14, 1998 MINUTES VA98-13: VACATION GIES PP 404 This street right of way vacation was requested by Andre and Marci Gies for property located at 1250 Stephens Avenue, Garner-Larimore Addition, Block B located between lots 5 and lot 6. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to vacate that portion of the 50 feet wide Cedar Street right of way located between lot 5 and lot 6 subject to the existing utility easements and sewer easements as required. Conditions of Approval Retention of the eastern most 10 feet as Southwestern Bell easement. LSD98-36: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR PP 250,211 This large scale development was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and . west of Northhills Boulevard. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 45.47 acres. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 3 A rezoning application and a conditional use application have been filed. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission determination of the following items: A. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The applicant shall submit material samples prior to the issuance of a building permit for staff to review. Samples shall reflect the colors and materials represented in the color rendered perspective drawing presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. B. Waiver from the requirement that the existing overhead electric lines along Appleby Road be placed underground. C. Widening of Appleby Road to collector street standards. The existing Appleby Road is 31 feet in width and this requires the street to be widened by 2.5 feet on both sides. Staff recommends that the developer widen the north side of Appleby Road 2.5 feet as a part of this proposed construction. The developer's engineer • has provided a cost estimate of $40,306.10 for this construction. D. Recommendation for the City to participate in the upgrade of the proposed 8 inch waterline along Appleby Road to a 12 inch waterline as shown on the Master Water Plan. The developer's engineer has provided a cost estimate of $3,735 for this upgrade. Staff supports the City's participation but the City Council will have to approve the cost share. E. The need for contributions to go toward traffic control devices at Northhills Boulevard's intersection with Appleby Road and Futrall Drive. Staff recommends the applicant contribute $30,000 toward the installation of traffic control devices. Additionally, staff recommends that per plat review comments, the applicant shall place 3 inch conduit under Nortlihills Boulevard at the intersection with Appleby for the future installation of traffic control devices. E. Amended: The need for contributions to go toward traffic Control devices at Northhills Boulevard's intersection with Appleby Road and Futrall Drive. Staff recommends the applicant contribute S15,000 toward the installation of traffic control devices. Additionally, staff recommends that per plat review comments, the applicant shall place 3 inch conduit under Northhills Boulevard at the intersection with Applebyfor the future installation of traffic control devices. 40 2. Developer shall repair any damages to existing streets surrounding the site caused by the • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 4 proposed construction. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. All improvements shall comply with the City's current standards. 5. Dedication of right of way is to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculation for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: A. Grading and drainage permits. • B. Separate easement plat for the project (to be filed of record prior to building permit.) C. An estimate using the same light fixtures as used at Northhills Boulevard, and an agreement stating that the facility will own and maintain the streetlights and a parking lot lighting plan. D. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements." Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. 3 inch PVC under drains are to be provided from the landscaped median along Northhills Boulevard. 10. The tree preservation plan, including measures to save trees, must be approved by the Landscape Administrator. A minimal landscape plan is required and must be approved by the Landscape Administrator. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 10 feet . green space with a minimum 6 feet sidewalk along Northhills Boulevard. Futrall Drive and Appleby Road will have the same requirements with the sidewalk extending to the • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 5 bridge on Appleby. The Highway Department is to be contacted to decide if a sidewalk can be placed along Futrall Drive (it is designated as non -pedestrian and will not be lit.) 12. The entire complex is to be looped with an 8 inch water main supplied from at least two sources. A 20 feet easement needs to be shown and dedicated for the portion of the existing waterline in the Northhills Blvd. right of way that is to be abandoned. The 2 inch waterline located north of the existing house on Appleby Road connecting to the trailer park is to be abandoned. A new water meter and connection from the new waterline will be required for the existing house. Steel encasement will be required under box culverts, wing walls, and retaining walls. The waterline should be constructed 10 feet from any retaining wall footing. 13. The entire complex is to be fully sprinklered. The internal sprinkler system designer is to approve the 6 inch fire protection line size to determine adequacy. A design for the sprinkler system is to be submitted before a building permit is issued. Hydrant spacing intervals should not exceed 600 feet. Hydrants shall be placed at locations approved by the Fire Chief. • 14. Minimum easements or combinations of right of way and easements widths for sanitary sewer lines will be 20 feet with the sanitary sewer centered. The minimum distance from the edge of the sanitary sewer line to the easement will be 10 feet. Wider easements shall be required if the easement contains any other utility or if the sewer line's depth is greater than 10 feet. Easements should be provided for the existing sanitary sewer located within the Northhills Boulevard right of way to be abandoned. Steel encasements will be required under box culverts, wing walls and retaining walls. The sewer line should be constructed 10 feet from any retaining wall footing and all manholes are to have truck access. 15. A left turn lane is to be provided on Northhills Boulevard into the main entrance. Roll Call Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was approved with a vote of 9-0-0. 0 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN Proposed Changes Gregg Street, south of North Street to Lafayette Street, changed from a minor arterial to a collector. West Street, south of Lafayette Street to Dickson Street, changed from a minor arterial to a collector. Dickson Street, east of West Street to School Street, changed from a minor arterial to a collector. 4. School Street, south of Dickson Street to Archibald Yell, changed from a minor arterial to a collector. • 5. Prospect Street, east of Gregg Street to Mission Boulevard, removed from the Master Street Plan and becomes a local street. 6. Stearns Street, west of Old Missouri to where it currently dead ends, removed from the Master Street Plan and becomes a local street. 7. Frazier Terrace, west of Old Missouri Road to planned intersection with Vantage, removed from the Master Street Plan and becomes a local street. 8. Vantage, south of Zion Road to the point where it connects with Millsap to be realigned to the west to reflect the extension of Vantage that was built as a part of Zion Valley PUD. 9. Shepherd Lane, east of College Avenue to Frontage Road is removed from the Master Street Plan. 10. Realign the streets shown on the Master Street Plan to reflect the proposed streets in CMN Phase II and Mall Lane. 11. Designate Steele Boulevard as a minor arterial south of Van Asche to Shiloh Drive. • 12. Shiloh Drive, east of Gregg Street to Steele Boulevard changed from a collector to a minor arterial. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 7 13. Old Missouri Road, at the intersection of Zion Road to be realigned with Old Missouri Road to reflect the current City project to change the intersection to a "T" intersection with Zion Road left as a collector. 14. Deerpath Drive, east of Crossover Road to be removed from the Master Street Plan and to become a local street. Relocation of the minor arterial to the north to line up with Cliffs Boulevard. 15. Happy Hollow, north of Armstrong Road to be removed from the Master Street Plan to become a local street and change Armstrong, south of 15th Street to be a minor arterial to replace the Happy Hollow connection. 16. Designate the proposed streets in the Research and Technology Park as collector. 17. Longview Street, east of Wimberly Drive, to be realigned with the street to the northwest to reflect the Washington Regional Assisted Care large scale development approval. Plainview Avenue, south of Longview Street to be removed from the Master Street Plan. Wimberly Drive to be designated as a collector. • 17. Amended: Longview Street, east of Wimberly Drive, to be realigned with the street to the northwest to reflect the Washington Regional Assisted Care large scale development approval. Wimberly Drive to be designated as a collector. Commission Discussion Conklin: The first four items are to be changed from a minor arterials to collectors. Items 5 through 7 are changes downgrading to local streets. Half of the street addressed in item eight has been constructed as a part of the Zion Valley PUD and this to reflect what has actually been constructed. Item 9 is a result of the construction of Northwest Village which blocks the future extension. Items 10 and I 1 are a result of the plans from CMN Business Park. Item 12 connects a minor arterial to a minor arterial. Item 14 is to effect an eastern bypass connection. These changes are a result from the Street Committee recommendation. These are to be forwarded to the Street Committee and City Council for adoption. Most of the changes are a result of past Planning Commission decisions on development and City Council decisions. These are primarily to clean up the areas where there are conflicts. Public Comments Mr. Bob Brandon of the Wilson Park Historic District was present in support of the proposed • changes in that district. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 8 Commission Discussion Forney: I don't see the advantage of not having that connection. I realize that Fiesta Square is blocking it. Over the long term, parallel routes to Highway 71 could be of help. We're beginning to see a connection from there to Millsap in the last year or two. Conklin: The rationale was that the existing development blocks the future extension. There is no way to connect that street through there. We did leave on that connection from Appleby to Rolling Hills. Forney: There are a few locations along the north property line where a connection is feasible. I realize the parking lot does not make a connection easily available. There has been a transformation in the nature of Fiesta Square. We're seeing smaller scale development infilling around Highway 71 in that neighborhood. I hate to remove potential connections. Since it is on there now, I prefer to leave it alone. Odom: Staff indicates that each item below requires separate discussion and decisions. Does that mean we have to move to approve each one individually? • Conklin: Yes. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve Item 1 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with a vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Ward voted against tine motion. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve Item 2 as proposed. • Mr. Estes seconded the motion. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 9 Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Ward voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve Item 3 as proposed. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 4 as proposed. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION • Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 5 as proposed. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 10 Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with vote of 7-2-0. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Ward voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 6 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion is None. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion carried with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. lu��Yl[��I`►I Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 7 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • MOTION I* I• 1• Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 8 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 9 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Forney voted against the motion. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 10 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item I 1 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion approve Item 12 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. •Further Discussion None. Roll Call • Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 13 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page I3 Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 14 as proposed. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 15 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. is Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 16 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • MOTION • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Odom made a motion to approve Item 17 as proposed. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: I would like the members to consider that we are just giving something away here. If there was compelling need, I would be in favor of it. Hoover: Is there a way to separate the items in number 17? Little: Yes. AMENDED MOTION Ms. Hoover made a motion to approve Item 17 as follows: Longview Street, east of Wimberly Drive, to be realigned with the street to the northwest • to reflect the Washington Regional Assisted Care large scale clevelopmeni approval. Wimberly Drive to be designated as a collector. Mr. Forney seconded the amended motion. Further Discussion None. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Odom vote against the amended motion. CU95-39: CONDITIONAL USE HAVES, PP 562 This request was submitted by Terry Hayes for property located at 802 South School Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the request is for a vehicle storage lot. The conditional use was granted December 11, 1995 and is being brought before the Planning Commission to review the conditions of approval. • Carol Gillespie, Theresa Hayes, Toni Buysee, Terry Hayes, and Ed Hayes were present on behalf • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 15 of the project. Recommended Motion Staff recommends denial of continuation of the conditional use. If the Planning Commission approves the continuation of the conditional use, the approval will be based on the finding included as part of this report; subject to the Planning Commission making the finding required by §163.02; and to the following conditions. An 8 feet solid screening wood fence is to be installed on the west, east, and north sides of the property to screen all vehicles currently being store within the existing chain link fence. Amended: An S feet solid screen wood fence is to be installed on the west, east, and south side of the properly to screen all vehicles currently being stored within the existing chain link fence to prevent any view of the yard from School Sit -eel. 2. All barbed wire will be removed unless approved by the City Council. • 3. Cars being stored on the lot are to be removed after 50 days from the date they are brought onto the site. Amended: Cars being stored on the lot are to be removed after 60 days from the date they are brought onto the site. 4. The parking lot and building must meet the current development design standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. Conditions must be met within 60 days after the January 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting or Conditional Use 95-39 will be revoked and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will be forwarded to the City Prosecutor. 6. Added: Only one company (Terry's Towing) will be able to use the lot. Added: The conditional use will run with this applicant (Terry's Towing) only. Original Conditions of Approval from the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting 0 1. No vehicle storage visible from S. School Street. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 16 2. Installation of vegetative screening along the south (should be north), east, and west property line to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. 3. No razor wire is allowed on any part of the fencing. Entrance will be from 9th Street. No storage was observed on the lot along S. School Street. Committee Discussion Odom: Have the conditions of approval been changed any? Little: item Number 5 needs to be changed because of the date of the meeting has changed. It should read as follows: Conditions must be met within 60 days after the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting or Conditional Use 95-39 will be revoked and enforcement of the Zoning • Ordinance will be forwarded to the City Prosecutor. We have one additional letter which the staff has received. Gillespie: My understanding at the last meeting was that condition number 3 was also being changed because that is covered under Arkansas State Law, Code 2750110 1. They have a maximum of 55 days for storage. They have 10 days to notify the owner of the vehicle and then they have to hold the vehicle for 45 days. it was my understanding that we agreed to amend condition number 3 to 60 days. Odom: That is correct. Gillespie: Regarding condition number I, the 8 feet solid screening wood fence to be installed on the west, east, and south side of the property to screen the vehicles currently in storage behind the existing chain link fence. When this conditional use was originally granted on December 11, 1995, the screening requirement was for a vegetative screen which at maturity would allow for no more than 1 square foot of visibility, along the south, east and west property lines to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. In my conversation with Mr. Tom Buysee who originally brought this request forward, he informed me that the Planning Commission had denied a wood fence because they needed to have some visibility of the towing lot for security reasons. Whenever Terry's Towing was contacted about the screening, they planted additional • shrubs. These plants are not at maturity. The City of Fayetteville mowed the bushes down last July. It was several months before they replaced them. These are fast growing privet hedge • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 17 bushes. We object to the 8 feet solid screening fence. That would defeat the purpose of security. This past week, there have been theft attempts. A neighbor called and notified Terry's Towing and the police that there was someone in there. If there was an 8 feet solid screening fence, someone could easily steal everything from every vehicle in there. Limited visibility is important. Regarding Item 2, barbed wire was not an issue when this was originally granted in December, 1995. The condition at that time, was that no razor wire would be allowed on any part of the fencing. There is no razor wire. Mr. Buysee can verify that the Planning Commission felt the barb wire was appropriate and would be okay as long as there was no more than three strands. There is no more than 3 strands of barbed wire at the top of the chain link fence. The barbed wire is a deterrent to theft. Their insurance company requires some theft deterrents to insure their business. Regarding number 4, this was not included in the original conditions of approval. A building has been constructed and has passed all permits required by the City. In fact, Terry's Towing received a fax of a layout for a handicapped accessible bathroom which is existing in the building. This is the only towing company in the City that has one. This is a permanent structure and not a mobile structure. This is the only towing company to my knowledge that has a permanent structure on the lot. I have an exhibit of photos depicting the various towing companies in the City. They are under different uses and different zones. Some have portable metal buildings with "Beware of Dog" signs which we were told we would not be • allowed to have. Regarding unsightliness as mentioned at the last meeting, Terry's Towing is the only one that has attempted to put up any kind of screening, no use of razor wire, and has tried to make the place look presentable from the street side. All the other conditions from the December 11, 1995 approval have been complied with. The violation notice of November 24, 1998, indicated that there was no razor wire in use, that the entrance was from 9th Street, and that no storage was observed on the lot along S. School. The violations were vegetative screening and barbed wire. The barbed wire was initially granted with the conditional use in 1995. Then Landscape Administrator, Beth Sandeen, made a site visit in June or July of 1998 and requested that four more bushes be planted which was done. Additional shrubs were planted this fall. Their conditional use should not be revoked because they have made every effort to comply with all conditions and violations. An eight feet wood fence is unreasonable. They have invested a lot of money in shrubbery. An eight feet wood fence would jeopardize Terry's Towing because of their insurance requirements. Little: The wooden fence item came to the Planning Commission and was not approved. I would like to say I recommended vegetative screening and I do believe in vegetative screening where it can be used appropriately. I need to call your attention to the regulations and under the Unified Development Ordinance at § 166.10 - Buffer Strips and Screening, Paragraph C. Screening Required: "Where vegetation is used to meet the requirement of this subsection... the vegetation • shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of the planting." Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 13 The two years is very important. By date of December 11, 1997, we should have had a view obscuring hedge. There were some problems. The City Street crew did mow the bushes along the east side of the lot which were part of the view obscuring vegetation. § 166.10 goes on to say: "If vegetation planted under this subsection does not become view obscuring within two years, a view obscuring fence shall be installed." That is simply a matter of regulation. I think I am always on record as opposing fences because of the maintenance problems involved with them when vegetation will do the job. With regard to the barbed wire, it is my understanding that someone from Terry's Towing had talked to the City Attorney's office who advised them that if they wanted barbed wire, they needed to hurry up because the City was going to enact Commercial Design Standards which would not allow the installation of barbed wire. With regard to the handicapped bathroom, that would have come from the Inspection Department. Public Comment Nick Jeffries was present and requested that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use isrequest on the grounds that Terry's Towing was not complying with the ordinances and processes of the City. Further Committee Discussion Buysee: I'm a retired realtor and I handled these negotiations back in 1995. I represented Arvest Trust who owned the property and the Hayes in the negotiations for this conditional use. Specifically, I remember the concerns about fencing. The discussion about the board fencing was that staff was not in support and stated they would prefer cyclone type fence. As far as the barbed wire, I remember that the three wire was acceptable. I have no financial interest in the negotiations at this time. I am not receiving a fee. As far as the lot and building, I was not involved in the negotiations on that. Gillespie: In the minutes of the December 1 1, 1995 meeting when the conditional use was granted, it does not mention a two year time frame. It says that, "at maturity" and there was no mention of two years. Plants mature at different times and if we had that information timely, perhaps another species could have been planted to provide no more than one foot visibility. The reason for selecting the species they did was due to the required area to be screened. The current plantings are not at maturity and they will make a good screen because they do get very large with proper care and pruning. Let's remember that the City mowed down two sides not just one and those had to be replaced. The Hayes did try to plant other shrubbery to try and correct the • violations they were cited for at each and every request. If barbed wire is the main problem they will agree to remove it until they can go to the City Council for approval. They have not pursued • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 19 City Council approval because at the time they were approved they were told three strands of barbed wire was preferable to razor wire. This towing company looks better than many of the other towing companies in the area. It has a gravel lot and other towing lots are basically nothing more than mud holes when it rains. His lot is screened. Another lot in an I-1 zone is required to have screening, too; but, there is none and further, he hasn't used gravel in his lot. Tucker: Can you orient the property for me in terms of School Street. What direction is that? Gillespie: The building faces west. Tucker: I viewed the property this afternoon before I came to this meeting and my inspection of the vegetative screening failed to convince me that the requirement is being met. 1 was hoping that the area which I inspected was the area where the City mowed down your plantings. There wasn't a leaf on them and the tallest one was at most 5 feet and there were only one or two of those along the length of the fence line. Gillespie: They are in their dormant stage in the winter time. • Tucker: If they were fast growing and planted two years ago - Gillespie: I'm comparing privet hedges to some of the other lower lying hedges. I have privet hedges in my yard and they take a little longer than two years if you want them more than 6 feet tall. When they get to that stage, they will start filling out. They grow in height first and then they fill out and you shape them into the form you want them in. One side of the property used to have a greenhouse which has been removed. Beth Sandeen said that as long as the building was there, they didn't need to put up vegetative screening. As soon as the building was gone, they were told to plant more bushes which was in July of 1998. Tucker: If the fence is six feet in height then my statement regarding the height of the bushes being five feet is incorrect. If the guidance that you were given was to get screening up that would shield the public from the view of the cars, it has not been met in three years of process. Gillespie: There were several violation notices. We have discussed the one, November 24, 1998. On September 25, 1996, they were informed they would be inspected. There wasn't indication that they would lose their conditional use. They came out and looked and they weren't contacted. On March 28, 1997, once again they were contacted and inspected and there wasn't any mention. In July of 1998, Beth Sandeen inspected the property and said they were • fine. Whenever they were instructed to do something specific, it was done. They even added more shrubs since the last violation and invited the City to inspect it and was told it was not • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 20 acceptable after they go to the effort to correct their violation. The problem is the eight feet fence. It was originally for security and not screening. We will still have to deal with that problem if the fence is put up now. You will not be able to see in. The shrubs are growing and they can fertilize but it takes time and you can't buy plants that are mature like that. Little: With regard to those letters, a copy of the minutes from the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting were sent so the conditions of approval were included. Forney: All we can work with is the minutes which is the official record. I understand your approval was subject to no razor wire but our regulations do not allow barbed wire. Are you willing to remove barbed wire from your fences as part of your effort to maintain this use. Gillespie: Yes. We will remove it until we can go through the proper channels to get the approval to use it. Estes: It is with great reluctance that I would vote against a conditional use because to me that means denying a substantial property right. That is a person's right to earn a living. However, in this case, there was a conditional use that was granted in December of 1995 and • since that time the record is pregnant with violations, with cure letters, with repeated violations. A conditional use is just that. It is a use conditioned on doing certain things. As I look through the record that we have before us, I see repeated violations and I see a lack of compliance with the original conditions. It is for that reason I am going to vote against this continuation of the conditional use. Gillespie: The only repeated violations I see is constant problem with the vegetative screening. We will remove the barbed wire until we can go through the proper channels to get that approved. The problem with the vegetative screening is that the City mowed two sides down last year and it took time and effort to get the City to replace them. They were only advised that the bushes needed to be a certain height at maturity. They were never cited or informed about the two year maturity period for the screening plants. Estes: The record in this case is not limited to violations of screening. One issue that particularly concerns me is that on September 8, 1998, a complaint was received that three companies were operating out of your lot when Terry's Towing was the ony one given a variance for a towing company. Has that defect been cured? Gillespie: I've been trying to understand. Terry's Towing was given the variance but at that time, Mr. Chuck Sanders was present with Mr. Buysee representing Ed's Towing. It seems they understood that they were going to be using that lot. We're willing to correct that problem if . they are not allowed to have more than one company using that lot. • Minutes of Plamring Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 21 Estes: Is there more than one towing company operating today at that location? Gillespie: Yes. Estes: Why? Gillespie: This is a family business. The other towing companies are the father and uncle of Terry Hayes. They aren't paying Terry anything they just park a few cars in a small corner of the lot. Estes: What are the names of the two companies operating with Mr. Hayes on this lot? Gillespie: Ed's Towing and J.R. Towing. Little: Please refer to page 3.15 on your agenda which is the original application that was filed at the planning office. Specifically in describing the proposed project in detail: "Applicant is seeking a conditional use to allow storage and parking of vehicles that have • been towed. If approved, applicant will provide screening, fencing, and other requirements. Vehicles will be stored only on the northeast section of Tract 2. Tract 3 and 4 will not be used for storage. They will require an amended unit designation to clarify type of business. No structural changes planned." Further in the financial interest section, Terry Hayes is listed as the Lessee (prospective); Arvest Trust as Lessor or property owner; and, Toni Buysee as realtor. We were unaware that there would additional companies. Gillespie: That is financial interest. The other two entities are not financially vested. It was never indicated until the December, 1998 meeting that it was a problem. Little: I will let the Planning Commission determine if the other companies have a financial interest. Estes: What concerns me is this is a conditional use and there have been violations of the conditions allowing that use. When you have been notified that there is a violation, it appears from the record we have before us that no action has been taken. On November 24, 1998, Mr. Hayes was sent a second violation notice to remind him of the condition that there was to be only one towing company operating off of that lot. Why wasn't there something done about that in November of 1998? 1 presume you are going to do something about it now as a condition of the 40 Planning Commission approving the continuation of your conditional use. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 22 Gillespie: You're referring to the November 24, 1998 violation notice? Estes: On September 8, 1998, a complaint was received. The complaint was that three companies were operating out of the lot at 802 S. School and that Terry's Towing was the only one given a variance to do so. Why wasn't that defect cured then? Gillespie: It is our position that the variance was given to Terry's Towing. It attaches to the land. At the time the variance was given, they felt everybody understood that was what was going to be happening. Terry's Towing holds the lease for the entire property through Arvest. He's not allowed to sublet or gain any money by letting anyone else have a financial interest. They just use the lot to store vehicles. Little: Can you tell me when the other two towing companies began to use the lot? Gillespie: Since the conditional use was granted. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sanders was there from the beginning of the negotiations. Little: I really don't understand this. We have been citing Ed's Towing for illegally • operating in a zone out Highway 16 East for maybe a year now. I don't understand why he would have been operating at two locations. Gillespie: We don't know anything about citing for Ed's Towing. Little: We've had to have cars removed from there. We've had to have a fence taken down. We've had to have a fence installed. Gillespie: We don't know anything about that. Little: I'm just saying that Ed's Towing was operating at another location as well. Our office has given several citations for that site. We have almost all of that corrected at this point. Gillespie: We thought it was approved for him to use a small corner of that lot. If that is not correct, then he will have to leave. He has no financial interest in this. Hoffman: I would be very reluctant to deny a conditional use for your livelihood but it seems to me that being granted a conditional use you had agreed to locate a business in a place that wasn't ideally zoned for this business and agreed to certain conditions. Over the past several years, those conditions have not been met. The view obscuring screen is one of those. Referring to page 3.6, we have a findings which were suppose to have been made. • Little: That is a current finding which we have determined to be" not applicable." The • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 23 original requirement was the entrance was to be from 9th Street and that is the location of the entrance. Hoffman: Is there a deficiency with regard to off street parking and loading areas? Little: The current parking lot and the building that has been installed doesn't meet the current ordinances. At the time the conditional use came through, we did not address the building at all. We did not know that there was a building planned. I remember that the application said no structural alterations, so we didn't even look at that particular part of the application. Hoffman: Was there a building permit issued later? Little: There was a building permit issued for that particular structure and I don't have the particulars of that. I can tell you that the building was erected and that it had the fiberboard sheeting on it for sone time, I think well into 1997. There is a picture of that in your packet. Hoffman: My feeling about this is if we approve this conditional use continuation, it would • have to be in a way that all the conditions were met that were originally required. Your application stated there would two or three employees and not other businesses. That there would not be any structural alterations. That there would be screening within two years which there is not and that the parking lot would be in compliance. The only way I can vote for this is if all the conditions can be met as of tomorrow including screening. Gillespie: The barbed wire will be taken down until we can go through the proper channels to get the approval. Hoffman: What about the screening? Gillespie: Whatever the City wants us to do we will do. I don't know how they can fix it by tomorrow. We are certainly willing to do whatever you ask them to do. The wood fence couldn't be erected in one day. The original approval required some visibility. Little: I think you're confusing a police department discussion with a planning department discussion. The requirement was that it had to be view obscuring with no more than one foot of visibility in any one place. I think all of that is really secondary to condition one which says no vehicle storage visible from S. School Street. Then, we start talking about the screening. On Page 3.15, we did not have discussions about any type of building there. It says no structural changes planned. It has a place for building sizes and square feet existing and it • was completed with a zero. It has a place for proposed and it is blank. The minutes are silent as well. We did not talk about a building being erected. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 46 January 11, 1999 Page 24 Gillespie: Do you just want screening from School Street or like you requested, do you want screening around three sides? The record indicates you want it screened on the south, east, and west sides. That is more than School Street. Little: There were two conditions. The first one is that no vehicles storage shall be visible from S. School. The second one is the screening requiring installation of the vegetative screening along the south, east, and west property line to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. Gillespie: Those were the sides that there mowed down by the City. How are we suppose to fix something over night that the City caused. The City mowed the bushes down and came back several months later after repeated requests to come out and replant. They replanted those last year. You're asking us to fix two sides of the property overnight. Whatever you want to do, screen it more from School Street, we are willing to listen to suggestions. Little: The screening that I understand the Street Department did mow was the same as the screening that is in place to the west and that is the side visible from S. School. Is that correct? • Gillespie: It is the same type of shrubbery, yes, but, it had been in place longer. They had done some fill in. There was a building there blocking part of the visibility. Little: What is in place along S. School is fairly representative of what was in place both to the east and south. Gillespie: It was mowed down during it's growing period. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to deny CU95-39. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Further Discussion Shackelford: Is Arvest Trust still operating at Lessor on this property? Gillespie: Yes. They are very happy with it. 0 Shackelford: I should abstain from voting since I am employed by an Arvest participant. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 25 Odom: If the motion to deny fails, does that mean the Towing operation can exist? Little: In the absence of any other motion, yes. Johnson: My problem with making a decision tonight is that I don't think we have enough information about exactly what has happen. I'd like to know more about the City mowing down some of the shrubs. It appears the City has exacerbated this problem. I'm not clear what shrubs the City mowed down. We have had a change in Landscape Administrators and I believe we heard at agenda session that probably the two Landscape Administrators have a slightly different take on what is needed here. I would postpone until we could get more information about cutting down the shrubs and to go back and talk with Beth Sandeen. Ward: I'm not interested in taking away someone's livelihood and/or property rights. I feel like there has been a problem down there and it hasn't been solved. I think they've tried to skirt some things and done things down there that shouldn't have been done. I would suggest that we give them a short time, 180 days, to fix the things we have asked for. If the barbed wire was removed and if there was a lot of landscaping go in, I feel like we should give them the use. I don't have a total solution. I think you have tried to do things that shouldn't have been done. • .Johnson: Where in ow• packet is that language about the vegetative screening and the fact that at maturity it would have no more than one square foot of visibility. Little: It's on page 3.10 just before the Motion. Forney: I remain confused about where we stand on our regulations vis a vis towing yards entirely. We have a lot of barbed wire around town even though our regulations say we shouldn't. I'd feel better if I new it was all grandfathered in. I don't feel that I do know that. The record in this case is exceedingly murky and I feel that no vehicle storage should be visible from S. School Street, yet it is. I understand the City seems to have made a mistake. Unfortunately it is their problem to solve. It seems at some point the Landscape Administrator approved something in the way of vegetative screening at this particular site. I don't think they would today given the removed condition. We confuse matters by the way we state our recommendations. If we don't allow razor wire, we shouldn't allow barbed wire. The last two conditions have been held to. I'm leaning toward going with Mr. Ward by giving them a last chance to make good. 1 would lean toward an opaque wooden fence because evidently the applicant and the City are not able to maintain a vegetative screen. We make allowances and then they are revisited entirely too much. I feel like the applicant has really pressed their luck but I think we should try to accommodate them given the real economic concern of the applicant. 0 Gillespie: An opaque wood fence -- I'm not sure what you have in mind by that. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 26 Forney: No vehicle storage should be visible from South School. Gillespie: The original conditions required a mature screen with no more than one square foot of visibility in any one place. Now, you want to take that requirement away and have no visibility. Forney: I understand your point. That is the written record of the procedure that you attended and if you disagreed with that you should have objected at the time of initial approval. Little: The one foot was intended to convey that it was to be mainly screened. There should not be an opening of greater than one foot. It needed to be basically solid or fully screened. Forney: What the record says is no vehicle storage visible from South School St. Because we have both your economic considerations and a record of less than perfect compliance, the only way I could vote in favor of maintaining this use would be to make sure we draw a bright line so that we don't revisit these definitions in the future. The brightest line is no vehicle storage visible. • Gillespie: I'm asking for your guidance. If we agreed to a wood fence on South School would that meet the requirement or would they have to screen all sides? Forney: No vehicle storage visible from South School St. You would also need an opaque fence on the south face as well. Gillespie: Just as long as you can't view it from School St. Forney: That's what we all agreed to three years ago. Gillespie: Does it have to be a wood fence or could they screen it with something else as long as it was not unsightly. Hoffman: I will not support continuation of a conditional use that is not in compliance. If we could achieve a consensus on a time frame and then we can come back and vote on that conditional use once you have achieved compliance. That is what we're trying to get at. I'm not going to vote tonight to approve this conditional use because it is way out of compliance with all the original requests. Estes: Is your suggestion that we give a cure period of 60 days? • Hoffman: That's a good idea. Either 180 days or 60 days. I'm more for the 60 days. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 27 Estes: We would give a cure period of 60 days and then the applicant would come back at the end of that period? have a problem with. Odom: We need to approve a conditional use with conditions. Gillespie: They are willing to do that. I think the 60 days may not be enough time in the middle of winter. 180 days we don't have a problem with. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to deny the conditional use failed by a vote of 4-4-1. Mr. Forney, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Odom, and Mr. Ward voted against the motion and Mr. Shackelford abstained. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve conditional use 95-39 with the following conditions: I. 8 feet solid screening wood fence is to be installed on the west, east, and south sides of • the property to screen all vehicles currently being stored. No vehicle storage to be seen from South School. 2. All barbed wire will be removed until approved by City Council. 3. Cars being stored on the lot are to be removed after 60 days from the date they are brought on to the site. 4. The parking lot and building must meet the current development design standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. Conditions must be met within 180 days after the January 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting or conditional use 95-39 will be revoked and enforcement of the zoning ordinance will be forwarded to the City Prosecutor. 6. No more than one company operating out of this site. 7. This conditional use runs with the applicant. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. 0 Further Discussion • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 28 Johnson: What is contemplated on the north side? Little: That is a wooded area. Johnson: The north side is not a problem. Little: No. It never has been. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to amend condition 5 to reflect only 60 days. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Roll Call on the Amendment to the Motion Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-1. Ms. Hoover voted • against the amendment to the motion and Mr. Shackelford abstained. Roll Call on the Amended Motion Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-1. Ms. Hoover and Mr. Tucker voted against the motion and Mr. Shackelford abstained. C1 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 29 NEW BUSINESS PRESENTATION AND PANEL DISCUSSION REGARDING MUD CREEK John Gonzales and Katie Teague of the Washington County Extension Service gave a brief slide presentation on their efforts to educate both children and adults on water quality and conservation efforts. Travis James with the USDA stated he would be available to assist the City once a vision had been articulated for the Mud Creek Watershed. Further, he introduced Bob Glennon from the USDA in Little Rock. Mr. Bob Glennon provided handouts and discussed the Mud Creek riparian corridor. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, he stated the most important things to do in order to preserve the riparian corridor were to enact stringent storm water retention ordinances and enforce set back requirements along buffer zones. Ms. Hoover inquired if Mr. Glennon had any good examples of bridges and he stated he would • forward some pictures and stated it is best to follow the natural contours of the bank and stream bed. Ms. Little stated there was a trail plan and Planning had requested the CMN Development provide easements for the trail and orient to the stream in order to provide a river walk. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 30 RZ98-23: REZONING WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP250, 211 The next item on the agenda was the rezoning request submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and west of Northhills Boulevard. The property contains approximately 19.45 acres and is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office. Kurt Jones was present on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Commission Discussion Jones: We have reviewed the staff comments and concur with the comments. Public Discussion • None. MOTION Mr. Ward recommended approval of RZ98-23 rezoning from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote 9-0-0. • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 31 CU98-27: CONDITIONAL USE WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP 250,211 This request was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull, and Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and west of Northhills Boulevard. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 45.47 acres. The request is to allow a medical center. This request is contingent on the approval of RZ98-23. Kurt Jones was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommends approval of the request. Commission Discussion Jones: We concur with staff comments. Public Comment • None. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the conditional use. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. 0 • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 32 RZ98-22: REZONING LITTLEFIELD INVESTMENT CO, PP 565 This request was submitted by Richard Osborne on behalf of Littlefield Investment Company for property located at 1798 East Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial for the purpose of installing a used car lot. Staff does not recommend the approval of the requested rezoning from C-1 to C-2 because there are adequate vacant C-2 parcels in the city to accommodate the proposed use. The Land Use Plan shows the area to be Community Commercial, therefore, the rezoning proposed is not consistent with the land use planning objective, principles, and policies of the land use and zoning plans. Richard Osborne and Conway Massey were present on behalf of the project. Commission Discussion Osborne: I would like to address the items one and two that the land use planning objective, • principles, and polices are not consistent with the General Plan 2020. There is C-2 in the area. It is across the street. It is the Mexican Original Plant. Other than that, there is C-2 in the City that is appropriate but not in that part of the city. We have had three inquiries in the past two years. One was for a small appliance repair which we did not feel would be appropriate there. The other was a flea market. We felt the used car lot is a better use for that area which we cannot do without C-2 zoning. I have a loose view of the General Plan. It is not sculpted in granite and therefore it can be altered. I feel this would an appropriate use in that area. This has not been the finest part of Fayetteville and it is upgrading and I think this will be a continuation of the upgrade. It's ugly now and we'd like to do something nice and progressive there. This would not increase the frequency of traffic or increase of population density. We would appreciate your fair consideration and the opportunity to improve the property. There is only one other used car lot in that area which is west of the what was formerly Watson's Super Market. I have the platted survey for staff. Little: Thank you. Public Discussion None. Further Commission Discussion • Odom: Car lots are only allowed in C-1. Is that correct? • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 33 Little: That is correct. Odom: Would we be able to grant a rezoning contingent upon it being for one particular use. Little: No. That would not be advisable unless offered by the applicant. Osborne: We will offer a Bill of Assurance that it will only be rezoned for a used car lot. If something else were to occur we would simply come back. Hoffman: Is there not any way to grant a conditional use? Little: No. Forney: Rezonings are a really important part of our work and we need to exercise a lot of care. I think the General Land Use Plan should be our proper guide and I appreciate the staff's report. I appreciate the applicant's view that this area is not being used to it's full potential. I am • optimistic about the future of that intersection given the increased development north of there. Since this property is for lease, I think rezoning to accommodate a rental opportunity seems contingent and short sighted. Rezoning should be a long term decision. Odom: I wasn't originally going to support this but since the offer of the Bill of Assurance, I'm not as concerned about it. Forney: How does this work? What would happen to the zoning on the site after the lease expires? Little: It would be C-1 or it could be used again for another used car lot. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve 98-22 to rezone the property from C -I to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance that this will be used for a used car lot only and the zoning will revert to C-1 at the expiration of the lease or change in use. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion • Little: This will be limited to one use. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 34 Forney: How often do we do this? Little: Limiting to one use is unusual. It says it is not appropriate for that zone except for that one use. It is not generally advisable to do that. I think at the City Council level the City Attorney will caution the Council against that. way to treat our land use plan. If we don't Forney: Have we done this before? Little: Not just for one use. Forney: We have a mechanism and it may not address the specific cases as we think it should. We are putting ourselves in an awkward position. I think we'll see a lot of people come in here to rezone for just one use. That is not a good way to treat our land use plan. If we don't like the way our regulations are we should revise the regulations. Odom: This would not be allowed as conditional use in C-1. • Unon Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-4-0. Mr. Forney, Ms. Hoover, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Tucker voted against the motion. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 35 RZ98-24: REZONING LANINGHAM, PP 444 This project was submitted by Deborah and Calvin Laningham for property located at 731 North Leverett Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-3, High Density Residential. Staff supports rezoning from C-1 to R-3 which would allow construction of up to 16 units on the site. Staff supports the zoning change because all of the surrounding properties are R-3; however, support is tempered with concern that if development occurs to the full density allowed under R-3, it will be difficult to provide adequate onsite parking. This statement is included in the recommendation as a caveat that development of the site at the maximum density is probably not feasible because of site issues. This site will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to development. Mr. Calvin Laningham and Collier Parish were present on behalf of the project. • Commission Discussion Laningham: My interest in rezoning is to sell the property to Collier Parish for development of apartments. Odom: Do you understand the concerns of the staff about being allowed to develop to the fullest extend on R-3? Parish: I understand and it is my intention to limit the development to eight units. It will probably be upscale student housing. Little: That sounds reasonable. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve rezoning RZ98-24. is Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 36 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. F�I L • • Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 1999 Page 37 OTHER BUSINESS Little: I would like to make you aware that the CMN project will have a special meeting on that scheduled for Friday, January 15, 1999, at 2 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 7:47. • 0 JONES, KURT CU98'-27. `............ 01/11/99 JONES, KURT LSD98-36.:.......... .O1/l 1/99 JONES, KURT. RZ98-'23 "..1..........101/11/99 MCCORD, JIM CU98-28 ............. KRAUFTLSD98-27..''. ,,.:`;.... MCILROY BANK LSD99-16...... .-..01/25/99 MEADOWLANDS RZ99-3.... ...:'..:02/22/99 LAKE'HILLS CHURCH CU99-8..... 04/26/99' LAKE HILLS CHURCH RZ99-8:..:':. '04/26/99 LANINGHAM RZ98-24 ':.:..:01/11/99 MID SOUTHERN RZ99-16........... ..:'.`.'. CARSON 06/28799 LARSONLS99-1I.:','.;i..:,".1:....06/2$/99 ' LINDSEY RZ99-1.':'i ..'....'' .`..::. `..02/08/99 MTM VA99-7...... :...... :: }..:..' LTTLEFIELD RZ9$-22.'.,.;.:.." ":'.,. '..01/11/99 '! LONGER INVESTMENT'AD99-�.. .: 44/26/99 " , LS99-11 LARSON :.....:...........06/28/99 02/22/99 ` LSD98-36 WASH REG MED CTR .....01/11/99' t 1'; OSBOURNE, RICHARD RZ98-22..... LSD98-27 KRAUFT .......: `..'. 01/2599 LSD99-2 TOWN CENTER:' ......I ... 02/22/99 LSD99-3 ALLIED STORAGE ... i ::.. 02/22/99 LSD99-4 WEDINGTON PLACE'..:... 02/22/99 " LSD99-5 WALGREENS...... ` 03/08/99 ....... LSD99-10 MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS 04/26/99 LSD99-12 RAZORBACK ESTATES..': 04/26/99 LSD99-14 NELMS...... '..:........ 05/24/99 LSD99-17 SPRING CREEK:.'.. J'.... 06/28/99 LSD99-12.1 TRICHELL MED OFFICE. 06/28/99' LSD99-15.1 ST LOUIS BREAD CO... 06/28/99 LSD99-16 MCILROV`BANK........ 06/28/99 PP994 SUMMERSBY.............. 06/28/99 MARINONI RZ99-6.`.............'.. 034099, MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS LSD99-10 04/26/99 MCCORD, JIM CU98-28 ............. 01/25/99 MCILROY BANK LSD99-16...... i :. 06/28/99 MEADOWLANDS RZ99-3.... ...:'..:02/22/99 ROBINWOOD PP99-3.:::..::..:.....03/08/99 MEADOWLANDS RZ994........... 02/22/99 MEADOWLANDS RZ99-5........... 02/22/99 MID SOUTHERN RZ99-16........... 06/24/99 MID SOUTHERN RZ99-17.......... 06/24/99 MILHOLLAND, MEL PP98-12 .. -.. ,':. 01Y25/99" MTM VA99-7...... :...... :: }..:..' 05/24/99 MUD CREEK CORRIDOR.. !:....... 01/11/99 NELMS LSD9944...... I ....... :'...... 05/24/99 02/22/99 ` kZ99-4 MEADOWLANDS.... 6 .......02/22/99 t 1'; OSBOURNE, RICHARD RZ98-22..... . 01/11/991p 02/22/99 RZ99-6 MARINONI................ u; -,,,.,PENDERGRAFT RZ99-7............ 04/26/99 PETRINO CU99-7....'.:............. 04/12/99 PETRTNO CU99=7:.................04/26/99 RZ99-9 SMITH .................... PLATA CU99-1l................... 05/10/99 04/26/99 RZ99-11 FOSTER......:.....: x....04/26/99 PP98-12 CMN BUSINESS PARK...... 01/25/99 PP99-1 CANDLEWOOD.............02/22/99 'RZ99-13 FOCHTMAN......,'... , , .. PP99-2 ALTUS ADDITION ..........03/08/99 ` ' PP99-3 ROBINWOOD...............03/08/99 4 .... PP994 SUMMERSBY.............. 06/28/99 SIMMONS AD99-4... :'............. 04/12/99 RAZORBACK ESTATES LSD99-12... 04/26/99 RNCIC VA99-4... ....... ...`i.,..'.... 04/12/99 RNCIC VA99-5....................04/12/99 ..... 01/25/99 ROBINWOOD PP99-3.:::..::..:.....03/08/99 r SOUTHWESTERN BELL CU99-2..... 03/08/99 RZ98-22 LITTLEFIELD..............01/11/99 05/24/99 ` RZ98-23 WASH REG MED CTR:.., . .01/11/99 RZ98-24 LANINGHAM ...::.:"...::.. , .Ol/l 1/99'' RZ99-1: LINDSEY 02/08/99'. .........::.:... RZ99-2; HENSEN..............:... 02/08/99 SUMMERSBY PP994 ............... 06/28/99 RZ99-3 ' MEADO W LANDS......:.... 02/22/99 ` kZ99-4 MEADOWLANDS.... 6 .......02/22/99 RZ99-5 MEADOWLANDS ...... :..... 02/22/99 RZ99-6 MARINONI................ 03/08/99 RZ99-7 PENDERGRAFT..... 6 ...... 04/26/99 RZ99-8 LAKE HILLS CHURCH...... 04/26/99 RZ99-9 SMITH .................... 0.4/26/99 RZ99-10 FOSTER...... ..... 04/26/99 RZ99-11 FOSTER......:.....: x....04/26/99 RZ99-12 SHIREMAN....:.......... 05/24/99 'RZ99-13 FOCHTMAN......,'... , , .. 05/24/99 RZ99-14 FOCHTMAN.....:... 05/24/99 4 .... RZ99-15 FOCHTMAN.... . ......... 05/24/99 RZ99-16 MID SOUTHERN.......... 06/24/99 RZ99-17 MID SOUTHERN.......... 06/24/99 SHIREMAN RZ99-12............... 05/24/99 SIMMONS AD99-4... :'............. 04/12/99 SIMMONS AD99-4................. 04/26/99 SMITH RZ99-9....................04/26/99 RNCIC .....................04/12/99 SOUTHWESTERN BELL CU99-2 ..... 01/25/99 SOUTHWESTERN BELL CU99-2 ..... 02/22/99 SOUTHWESTERN BELL CU99-2..... 03/08/99 SPARKS CU99-12.................. 05/24/99 ` SPRING CREEK LSD99-17.......... 06/28/99 ST LOUIS BREAD CO CU99-9....... 04/26/99 ST LOUIS BREAD CO LSD99-15.1 ... 06/28/99 STUART, HUNTER CU99-2.......... 01/25/99 SUMMERSBY PP994 ............... 06/28/99 TOWN CENTER LSD99-2............ 02/22/99 TOWN CREEK BUILDERS AD99-1.... 03/22/99 ;. TOWNCREEK BUILDERS, VA99-3..... 03/22/99 ,, TRICHELL MED OFFICE LSD99-12.1.. 06/28/99 'UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST........ 02/08/99 USDA & EPA PRESENTATION....... 01/11/99 VA99-1: GEORGE ...'.............. 02/08/99 VA99-2: BUILD A HOME........... 02/08/99 VA994 RNCIC .....................04/12/99 VA99=5 RNCIC .................... 04/12/99 VA99-6 BURNS ................... 05/10/99 VA994 MTM ................. . ... 05/24/99 VA99-12: UNITARIAN UNIVER.:..... 02/08/99 VA99-13: GIES .....................01/11/99 WALGREENS LSD99-5..............03/08/99 WALGREENS AD99-2.............. 03/22/99 WASHINGTON MADISON CU99-14.. 06/14/99. WASH REG MED CTR CU95-39....... 01/11/99 WASH REG MED CTR LSD98-36...... 01/11/99: WASH REG MED CTR RZ98-23 ...... 01/11/99, WEDINGTON PLACE LSD99-4....... 02/22/99 WEDINGTON PLACE FP99-1........ 04/12/99 WEDWGTON PLACE FP99-1........ 04/26/99 1.40 10 0 _0 C I 10' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - INDEX JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1999 4786 N. Crossover Rd......... 07/12/99 2200 W. Deane ............... 09/13/99 2201 W. Deane .............. 09/13/99 1854 S. Garland .............. 10/11/99 2892 Huntsville Rd........... 10/25/99 1603 Jordan Lane............ 08/09/99 3290 N. Lee Ave ............. 10/25/99 1701 E. Mission Blvd......... 07/12/99 3351 W. Wedington Dr........ 11/08/99 2922 Whippoorwill Ln........ 08/28/99 3686 Wilson Hollow Rd....... 07/12/99 1041 N. Woolsey Ave........ 12/13/99 AD99-17 WEDINGTON PL APT 08/28/99 AD99-18 DOE'S EAT PLACE, 08/28/99 AD99-19 NELM'S AUTO PK.. 08/28/99 AD99-21 WRMC............. 09/27/99 AD99-21 WRMC............. 10/11/99 AD99-22 CAFE NIBBLES..... 10/25/99 AD99-23 MILLENNIUM 2000.. 10/25/99 AD99-24 MILLENNIUM 2000.. 10/25/99 AD99-25 MASTER STR PLAN, 10/25/99 AD99-26 H.M.T. 3 SISTERS... 10/25/99 AR RESEARCH & TECH PP99-8 12/13/99 ATLAS CONSTR RZ99-29..... 09/13/99 ATLAS CONSTR RZ99-29 ..... 10/11/99 BANK OF FAY LSD99-21..... 08/28/99 BARNES RZ99-31............ 10/25/99 BRIDGEPORT VI V VI PP99-10. 12/13/99 BRONSON LSD99-18......... 07/12/99 CAFE NIBBLES AD99-22..... 10/25/99 CANDLEWOOD VA99-14..... 10/25/99 CITY OF FAY RZ99-33........ 12/13/99 CITY OF FAY RZA99-4....... 12/13/99 CLARY DEV VA99-9......... 08/09/99 COLEMAN VA99-11......... 08/28/99 CONNELLY LSD99-20........ 09/27/99 CRYSTAL SPRINGS II PP99-9 . 09/27/99 CRYSTAL SPRINGS II PP99-9. 10/11/99 CU99-16 DEEN.............. 07/12/99 CU99-17 SHIREMAN......... 07/12/99 CU99-18 MARTIN........... 09/27/99 CU99-22 ROHRBACH........ 12/13/99 DEEN CU99-16.............. 07/12/99 DEWEESE/SCHMIDT RZ99-27 08/28/99 DEWEESE/SCHMIDTRZA99-3 08/28/99 DOE'S EAT PLACE AD99-18.. 08/28/99 EAST AVENUE VA99-8...... 07/12/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-18........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-I8........ 08/28/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-19........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-19........ 08/28/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-20........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-20........ 08/28/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-21........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-21........ 08/28/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-22........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-22........ 08/28/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-23........ 08/09/99 FOCHTMAN RZ99-23........ 08/28/99 HANNA RZA99-1............ 07/12/99 HTM 3 SISTERS AD99-26..... 10/25/99 LSD99-18 BRONSON......... 07/12/99 LSD99-21 BANK OF FAYE.... 08/28/99 LSD99-20 CONNOLLY....... 09/27/99 LSD99-25 3R & 8 WEDINGTO 12/13/99 MARTIN CU99-18........... 09/27/99 MASTER STR PLAN AD99-25.. 10/25/99 MCMAHON VA99-10......... 08/09/99 MID SOUTHERN RZ99-16.1 ... 07/12/99 MILLENNIUM PL PP99-7..... 09/13/99 NELM'S AUTO PK AD99-19... 08/28/99 PEOPLES VA99-13.......... 10/25/99 PEOPLES VA99-13........... 11/08/99 PP99-5.1 STONEWOOD....... 07/12/99 . PP99-6.1 SILVERTHORN...... 11/08/99 PP99-7 MILLENNIUM PL..... 09/13/99 PP99-8 AR RESEARCH/TECH.. 12/13/99 PP99-9 CRYSTAL SPRINGS 11.. 09/27/99 PP99-9 CRYSTAL SPRINGS 11.. 10/11/99 PP99-10 BRIDGEPORT IV, V VL .12/13/99 PP99-14 WOODLANDS........ 12/13/99 REALTY RESOURCES RZ99-28 09/13/99 ROBERTSON RZ99-24........ 08/09/99 ROBERTSON RZ99-24........ 08/28/99 ROBERTSON RZ99-25........ 08/09/99 ROBERTSON RZ99-25........ 08/28/99 ROHRBACH CU99-22........ 12/13/99 RZ99-16.1 MID SOUTHERN... 07/12/99 RZ99-18 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-18 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 RZ99-19 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-19 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 RZ99-20 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-20 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 RZ99-21 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-21 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 RZ99-22 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-22 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 . RZ99-23 FOCHTMAN........ 08/09/99 RZ99-23 FOCHTMAN........ 08/28/99 RZ99-24 ROBERTSON....... 08/09/99 RZ99-24 ROBERTSON....... 08/28/99 RZ99-25 ROBERTSON....... 08/09/99 RZ99-25 ROBERTSON....... 08/28/99 RZ99-26 ZAMBERLETTI..... 08/28/99 RZ99-27 DEWEESE/SCHMIDT 08/28/99 RZ99-28 REALTY RESOURCES 09/13/99 RZ99-29 ATLAS CONST...... 09/13/99 RZ99-29 ATLAS CONST...... 10/11/99 RZ99-30 SCHADER.......... 10/11/99 RZ99-31 BARNES........... 10/25/99 RZ99-32 THETFORD......... 11/08/99 RZ99-33 CITY OF FAY........ 12/13/99 RZA99-1 HANNA............ 07/12/99 RZA99-2 ZAMBERLETTI..... 08/28/99 RZA99-3 DEWEESE/SCHMIDT 08/28/99 RZA 99-4 CITY OF FAY....... 12/13/99 SCHADER RZ99-30 .......... 10/11/99 SHIREMAN CU99-17......... 07/12/99 SILVERTHORNE PP99-6.1..... 11/08/99 STONEWOOD PP99-5.1....... 07/12/99 THETFORD RZ99-32.......... 11/08/99 3 SISTERS HTM AD99-26..... 10/25/99 VA99-8 EAST AVENUE...... 07/12/99 S VA99-9 CLARY DEV........ 08/09/99 VA99-10 MCMAHON........ 08/09/99 VA99-11 COLEMAN......... 08/28/99 VA99-13 PEOPLES.......... 10/25/99 VA99-13 PEOPLES.......... 11/08/99 VA99-14 CANDLEWOOD.... 10/25/99 VA99-15 LT 3R & 8 WED..... 12/13/99 WEDINGTON PL APT AD99-17 08/28/99 WEDINGTON 3R & 8 VA99-15..12/13/99 WEDINGTON 3R & 8 LSD99-25 12/13/99 WOODLANDS PP99-14....... 12/13/99 WRMC AD99-21............. 09/27/99 WRMC AD99-21............. 10/11/99 ZAMBERLETTI RZ99-26...... 08/28/99 ZAMBERLETTI RZA99-2..... 08/28/99 0. • BYLAWS CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Revised and Adopted May 24, 1999 ARTICLE I. MEMBERS AND TERMS A. The members and terms of service shall be as stipulated by ordinance. Any member who is absent for three (3) consecutive regular meetings, except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances, shall tender his resignation. ARTICLE II. OFFICES A. The chair shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of chair, vice -chair and secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect, by secret ballot, the chair, vice -chair and secretary annually at the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. B. The chair shall preside at all meetings and public hearings of the Planning Commission and shall decide all points of order or procedure. All plans, plats, etc., requiring the signature of the Planning Commission shall be signed by the chair (or vice -chair) and the • secretary; when authorized by the Commission. These officers or either of them shall sign all other documents on behalf of the Commission. The chair (or any other member of the Commission, when specifically authorized by vote of the Commission) shall transmit reports and recommendations of the Commission. C. The vice -chair shall assume the duties of the chair in the chair's absence. D. In the event of the absence or disability of both the chair and vice -chair at any meeting, the oldest appointive member in point of service shall act as chair during such meeting. E. The planning staff of the City of Fayetteville shall be responsible for the minutes of every meeting, shall send out mail notice of regular meetings of the Planning Commission at least four (4) days in advance of the meetings, shall give all telephone notice of special meetings, and shall carry on routine correspondence and maintain the files of the Commission. All notices of public hearings and similar notices requiring the legal publication shall be signed by a member of the planning staff of the City of Fayetteville. F. Should any unusual circumstance prevent the election of officers at the regular annual meeting, officers shall serve until their successors are elected. • • ARTICLE III. MEETINGS A. All meetings of the Planning Commission shall be public and no meeting can be held without full compliance of the Freedom of Information Act. B. The regular annual meeting of the Planning Commission shall be held at the first meeting of the month of April each year, at 5:30 p.m. on the second Monday of the month or on such other day of the month as may be fixed by vote of the Commission. C. The regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Notice of such meetings shall be mailed at least four (4) days in advance of each meeting. D. Special meetings may be called by the chair at any time and shall be called at the request of any three (3) members of the Commission. At least four (4) days notice of special meetings shall be given each member, if possible, but under extraordinary circumstances special meetings may be called by telephone and without other notice. E. A quorum shall consist of five (5) members. No formal business may be conducted without a quorum and no vote shall be cast by proxy. No action may be taken on any item on which, excluding those members who abstain, there are fewer than five members voting. Any member who abstains should inform the Chair of his or her intention prior to • commencement of discussion of the item. F. 1. It shall require five (5) positive votes to carry the following items: a. Zoning Changes b. Amendments or changes to the Master Plan C. All Conditional Uses d. Amendments of the Planning Commission Bylaws. A majority vote of those members present shall be needed for adoption of any other motions. An abstention shall not be construed as a vote either for or against the item under consideration, and the abstaining member shall be treated as if absent for the purpose of determining the number comprising a majority on the vote on that item. For example, if eight members are present and a vote is four "ayes," three "nays," and one abstention, the motion passes. G. The order of business at all regular meetings shall be as follows: Reading of minutes of previous meeting (except reading of minutes may be 0 • dispensed with by unanimous vote or copy of minutes as mailed to Commission members may be approved without reading); 2. Unfinished Business; 3. New Business; and, 4. Other Business. H. Public hearings shall be conducted formally, and the chair shall make all rulings and determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence; the scope of the inquiry; the order in which evidence, objections and arguments shall be heard; and other like matters, except that when in doubt, he may refer to staff, the city attorney, or to any member with knowledge of the problem. Any member shall be privileged to make inquiries personally and to call for a vote on any ruling of the chair with which he does not agree, whereupon the vote shall determine the effective ruling. It shall be the purpose of the chair to expedite all hearings, confining them to the presentation of only essential matters in the interest of saving time, but entertaining the presentation of sufficient matter to do substantial justice to all concerned. Official action shall be taken only in regular or special session of the Planning Commission. I. A rehearing shall be called for only if there was a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration or at the request of the City Council. A request for a rehearing must be made in writing and must state the factual error, omission or oversight asserted as the basis for a rehearing. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Planning • Administrator within thirty (30) days from the date of final action on the matter by the Planning Commission. During Planning Commission meetings Planning Commission members shall preserve order and decorum and shall neither by conversation or otherwise delay or interrupt the proceedings. Neither shall they refuse to obey the orders of the chair or the rules of the Planning Commission. Members of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the chair, shall confine themselves to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language. A Commissioner, once recognized, shall not be interrupted while speaking unless a point of order is raised by another member or unless the member chooses to yield to questions from another member. If a member is called to order while he/she is speaking, he/she shall cease speaking immediately until the question or order is determined. If ruled not to be in order, he/she shall remain silent or shall alter his/her remarks to as to comply with the rules of the Planning Commission. All members of the Planning Commission shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city employees and to members of the public appearing before the Planning r1 LJ • Commission, and shall refrain at all times from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements as to motives and personalities. Commissioners shall confine their questions as to the particular matters before the Planning Commission and in debate shall confine their remarks to the issues before the Planning Commission. K. All submittals for hearings regarding jurisdiction of lands shall be by the owner thereof or a duly authorized representative. L. All meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order. ARTICLE IV. COMMITTEES A. The Planning Commission may establish such standing or special or advisory committees as it deems advisable, and may assign to each committee specific duties or functions and establish the terms of members of each such committee. Members of such committees may be persons other than members of the Planning Commission, but a member of the Planning Commission shall be named as chair, either active or ex -officio, of each such committee. B. The chair of the Planning Commission shall name the chair and members of each such committee subject to approval of the Planning Commission and any vacancies on such • committee shall be filled in the same manner. C. A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioners shall serve as a standing committee that reviews development items after Technical Plat Review and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission; the remaining six (6) members of the Planning Commission shall be named as alternates who shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting. The Chair shall designate the order of alternates. The developer is required to give notice to adjacent property owners and provide proof of same to the Planning Administrator at least seven (7) days prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. The Subdivision Committee shall approve, disapprove, refer back to the developer for more information, or refer to the Planning Commission development items. 2. For final approval, it shall require a unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee to carry the following items: 0 • a. Large Scale Developments; b. Lot Splits; C. The right to have a rehearing before the full Planning Commission; d. Final Plats; and, e. Sidewalk variances for projects other than large scale developments or subdivisions. No development item can receive final approval at Subdivision Committee level if waivers are being sought. Any development with a waiver request (except for sidewalk variances) must be forwarded to Planning Commission. All preliminary plats shall be referred to the Planning Commission for action. D. No member of the Planning Commission shall be required to serve on more than two committees. ARTICLE V. RECORDS The Planning Staff of the City of Fayetteville shall maintain a file of studies, plans, reports and recommendations made by the Planning Commission in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities. ARTICLE VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND • ZONING ORDINANCE A. Consideration of Proposals for Changes to Zoning Districts. Before considering a request or proposal for the change of a zoning district, the Commission shall determine that it has before it the following: A map of the parcel of land for which rezoning is proposed or requested indicating the current zoning of the property and the current zoning of the property in the immediate vicinity; A vicinity map indicating the location of the parcel of property, the major thoroughfares and collector streets in the area, and the zoning of property within an approximate one mile radius of the parcel of property in question. If there is a proposed subdivision within a one mile radius of the parcel for which the preliminary plat has been approved, the vicinity map should show the streets in the proposed subdivision. A map indicating the planned land use and public facilities in the area as indicated in the comprehensive land use plan; and 0 • 4. A staff report from the City's planning consultant or staff planner containing the following information: a. General Information The name of the applicant The nature of the proposed rezoning and a brief description of the property. b. Findings of the Staff A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. • 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. C. Recommendations of Staff • 6 • • r1 U ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission. Any proposed amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten (10) days written notice of the proposal has been given to all Commissioners, in which case action may be taken at any regular or called meeting; or amendment may be made by unanimous vote without notice. Revised and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on the day of , 1999. I .' IN I pr C�air ADOPTED: November 11, 1959 REVISED: January 16, 1962 February 16, 1965 May 6, 1969 February 6, 1973 March 6, 1973 January 27, 1976 February 28, 1977 November 1, 1977 April 24, 1978 December 12, 1986 September 22, 1986 November 25, 1991 May 22, 1995 May 6, 1996 December 9, 1996 June 23, 1997 May 10, 1999 May 24, 1999 Lee Ward Secretary • BYLAWS CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Revised and Adopted December 9, 1996 ARTICLE L MEMBERS AND TERMS A. The members and terms of service shall be as stipulated by ordinance. Any member who is absent for three (3) consecutive regular meetings, except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances, shall tender his resignation. ARTICLE II. OFFICES A. The chairman shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect, by secret ballot, the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary annually at the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. B. The chairman shall preside at all meetings and public hearings of the Planning Commission and shall decide all points of order or procedure. All plans, plats, etc., requiring the signature of the Planning Commission shall be signed by the chairman (or vice-chairman) and the • secretary; when authorized by die Commission these officers or either of them shall sign all other documents on behalf of the Commission. The chairman (or any other member of the Commission, when specifically authorized by vote of the Commission) shall transmit reports and recommendations of the Commission. C. The vice-chairman shall assume the duties of the chairman in the chairman's absence. D. In the event of the absence or disability of both the chairman and vice-chairman at any meeting, the oldest appointive member in pointof service shall act as chairman during such meeting. E. The planning staff of the City of Fayetteville shall be responsible for the minutes of every meeting, shall send out mail notice of regular meetings of the Planning Commission at least four days in advance of the meetings, shall give all telephone notice of special meetings, and shall carry on routine correspondence and maintain the files of the Commission. All notices of public hearings and similar notices requiring the legal publication shall be signed by a member of the planning staff of the City of Fayetteville. F. Should any unusual circumstance prevent the election of officers at the regular annual meeting, officers shall serve until their successors are elected. • ARTICLE III. MEETINGS A. All meetings of the Planning Commission shall be public and no meeting can be held without full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. B. The regular annual meeting of the Planning Commission shall be held at the first meeting of the month of April each year, at 5:30 p.m. on the second Monday of the month or on such other day of the month as may be fixed by vote of the Conunission. C. The regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Mail notices of such meetings shall be given at least four days in advance of each such meeting. D. Special meetings may be called by the chairman at any time and shall be called at the request of any three members of the Commission. At least four days notice of special meetings shall be given each member, if possible, but under extraordinary circumstances special meetings may be called by telephone and without other notice. E. A quorum shall consist of five members. No formal business may be conducted without a quorum and no vote shall be cast by proxy. • F. 1. It shall require five positive votes to carry the following items: a. Zoning Changes b. Amendments or changes to the Master Plan C. All Conditional Uses d. Amendments of the Planning Commission Bylaws. 2. A simple majority of those present (assuming a quorum) shall be needed for adoption of any other motions. An abstention from voting on a matter by a commissioner shall not be construed as a vote either for or against the matter under consideration. G. The order of business at all regular meetings shall be as follows: Reading of minutes of previous meeting (except reading of minutes may be dispensed with by unanimous vote or copy of minutes as mailed to Commission members may be approved without reading); 0 2. Unfinished Business 3. New Business; and 4. Other Business. H. Public hearings shall be conducted formally, and the chairman shall make all rulings and determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence; the scope of the inquiry; the order in which evidence, objections and arguments shall be heard; and other like matters, except that when in doubt, he may refer to staff, the city attorney, or to any member with knowledge of the problem. Any member shall be privileged to make inquiries personalty and to call for a vote on any ruling of the chairman with which he does not agree, whereupon the vote shall determine the effective ruling. It shall be the purpose of the chairman to expedite all hearings, confining them to the presentation of only essential matters in the interest of saving time, but entertaining the presentation of sufficient matter to do substantial justice to all concerned. Official action shall be taken only in regular or special session of the Planning Commission. I. A rehearing shall be called for only if there was a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration or at the request of the City Council. A request for a rehearing must be made in writing and must state the factual error, omission or oversight asserted as the basis for a rehearing. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Planning Administrator • within thirty (30) days from the date of final action on the matter by the Planning Commission. J. During Planning Commission meetings Planning Commission members shall preserve order and decorum and shall neither by conversation or otherwise delay or interrupt the proceedings. Neither shall they refuse to obey the orders of the chairman or the rules of the Planning Commission. Every member of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the Chair and, upon recognition by the Chairman, shall confine herself or himself to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language. A Commissioner, once recognized, shall not be interrupted while speaking unless a point of order is raised by another member or unless the member chooses to yield to questions from another member. If a member is called to order while he/she is speaking, he/she shall cease speaking immediately until the question of order is determined. If ruled not to be in order, he/she shall remain silent or shall alter his/her remarks so as to comply with the rules of the Planning Commission. All members of the Planning Commission shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city employees and to members of the public appearing before the Planning Commission, is and shall refrain at all times from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements as to motives and personalities. Commissioner shall confine their questions as to the particular matters before the Planning Commission and in • debate shall confine their remarks to the issues before the Planning Commission. K. All submittals for hearings regarding jurisdiction of lands shall be by the owner thereof or a duly authorized representative. L. All meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order. ARTICLE IV. COMMITTEES A. The Planning Commission may establish such standing or special or advisory committees as it deems advisable, and may assign to each committee specific duties or functions and establish the terms of members of each such committee. Members of such committees may be persons other than members of the Planning Commission, but a member of the Planning Commission shall be named as chairman, either active or ex -officio, of each such committee. B. The chairman of the Planning Commission shall name the chairman and members of each such committee subject to approval of the Planning Commission and any vacancies on such committee shall be filled in the same manner. C. A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioner shall serve as a standing committee that 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 with full voting rights 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. The Subdivision Committee shall approve, disapprove, refer back to the developer for more information, or refer to the Planning Commission development items. For final approval, it shall require a unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee to carry the following items: a. Large Scale Developments b. Lot Splits C. The right to have a rehearing before the full Planning Commission. d. Final Plats C. Sidewalk variances for projects other than large scale developments or subdivisions. 3. No development item can receive final approval at Subdivision Committee level if waivers are being sought. Any development with a waiver request (except for • sidewalk variances) must be forwarded to Planning Commission. All preliminary plats shall be refer -red to the Planning Commission for action. • D. No member of the Planning Commission shall be required to serve on more than two committees. ARTICLE V. RECORDS The Planning Staff of the City of Fayetteville shall maintain a file of studies, plans, reports and recommendations made by the Planning Commission in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities. ARTICLE VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE A. Consideration of Proposals for Changes to Zoning Districts. Before considering a request or proposal for the change of a zoning district, the Commission shall determine that it has before it the following: 1. A map of the parcel of land for which rezoning is proposed or requested indicating the current zoning of the property and the current zoning of the property in the immediate vicinity; 2. A vicinity map indicating the location of the parcel of property, the major • thoroughfares and collector streets in the area, and the zoning of property within an approximate one mile radius of the parcel of property to question. If there is a proposed subdivision within a one -mile radius of the parcel for which the preliminary plat has been approved, the vicinity map should show the streets in the proposed subdivision. 3. A map indicating the planned land use and public facilities in the area as indicated in the comprehensive land use plan; and 4. A staff report from the City's planning consultant or staff planner containing the following information. a. General Information The name of the applicant 2. The nature of the proposed rezoning and a brief description of the property. b. Findings of the Staff A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. 11 • 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. C. Recommendations of Staff ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS a. These By -Laws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission. Any proposed amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten days written notice of the proposal has been given to all Commissioners, in which case action may be taken by any regular or called meeting; or amendment may be made by unanimous vote without notice. Revised and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on the day of 7DC:�,C..E.MrPR1996. ATTEST: ADOPTED: November 11,1959 REVISED: January 16, 1962 Robert Reynolds SECRETARY (• February 16, 1965 May 6, 1969 February 6, 1973 March 6, 1973 January 27, 1976 February 28, 1977 November 1, 1977 April 24, 1978 December 12, 1983 September 22, 1986 November 25, 1991 May 22, 1995 May 6, 1996 December 9,1996 Ii• • VO4 0 • 11 CGVAWW �TONN6 I.EDBFrrGr PET21E vEWpgLE • WA�� K �uN�1 0 0 0 0 11 0 � I 0 E 0 0 • 5: ZIP 5: ZF 5: Zz4 5: Z7kYYY4 5•. I�d� 523; 5: 25 S. IqF 0 PA PC MEETING 9 9 C�NsrLAJ ITEM # -13 Coate cel ITEM #-t3 MOTION ow SECOND SHACICFO D. BUNCH B. ESTES L.HOFFMAN ! S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM ` L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION AWE. W/ZIO VOTE �n1A�lC' lL �61-�15 P rfZIe �foV e E • 0 G�►1 0 0 PACE i z pEOPU5 GluezTWoews • PC MEETING I t �$ �� ITEM # VA99-13 ITEM # fF MOTION SECOND AN #5 D. BUNCH B. ESTES L.HOFFMAN S: S. HOOVER A T P. JOHNSON 1 D. MARR • C.ODOM 5: L. SHACKELFORD Assarr L. WARD 5: ZD ACTION VOTE rJ Z -O • C • CI CCF ZS P.4 Pase 1 ma PMRGS • • • awl mom • r • � r i, r r : r r 1-3 • n U PC MEETING CAFE IJ031, OEOWrAM ITEM # ADR4-ZZ. RM -70 ITEM # "Z(o rhummum 2ow 2a=kr(3w!wQ OX NUE UunL 1 vI t ITEM #AocR_�4 MOTION SECOND D. BUNCH B.ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON N D. MARR Y C.ODOM 6L5 A�fA L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION No ZN Ar00 0 n • 0 LIi M PC MEETING rn%u0k)uwm ZK- fagwo5m� ITEM CM mlU�QjNwuN ?X R ICE ITEM #"q4 MN a:*jwwm ?r� QAWJNG - 5WZE _ ITEM # �g MOTION QWm SECOND WAW D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN N S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARK C. ODOM L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION G� _O _ 9_0-0 AAEW n u • Cl la I I1 lq i PC MEETING OWS� AC„0 A4 ITEM # WMC ITEM #".Zl FPM -9: Ce%f5 xL- ITEM # MOTION Ho AKI ODW SECOND SN N D. BUNCH B. ESTES AE3sgJT AEgse.IT" L. HOFFMAN y S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR ABSGQT ABSENT ASSeJ7 C. ODOM y L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD A85EkFF ACSSEkrr ACTION 0 CI 0 Za::�-Z 1011 L leg PC MEETING e7.qt Zq : ATLP6 ITEM # ezffl-3O:Szki� ITEM # ITEM # MOTION S"ACXQLF� CDM SECOND U� D. BUNCH N B. ESTES j�gs�jt Amari L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ARSPiTT ACTION FAILED ARM- CI • 0 PC MEETING CQ► r PGeJgq ITEM # c.'3�i - a5 o3kitioO ITEM #3 Cu 9Q- t8 mAenn1 ITEM # MOTION ESTES =rn SECOND D. BUNCH B.ESTES r,; L. HOFFMAN Jr: S. HOOVER J P. JOHNSON D. MARR A8S;Gjr A8304 - C. ODOM 1 L. SHACKELFORQ L. WARD — AST ABsEuT AesuiT ACTION Appopupp APPeojM AFFCOV(g�)� 0 0 PAGE1 aFP PC MEETING COUSB.n- AGMOA ITEM # RULICI 1 02SOUeCE5 ITEM # en _73 m Iu.eiNium PiCE ITEM #("-j MOTION WpCD � SECOND MAM S 4 D. BUNCH B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN — jags S. HOOVER 5: a P. JOHNSON j: ZZ D.MARR 5,. ZZ C. ODOM ABSEva-r L.SHACKELFORb L. WARD 5. ACTION -6 WR PEW l • U CI 0 pq i�__. •0 AP do _.;. OIL ,..A nou • • . - -_ - A OR all a • y moon • MMILIM, S. HOOVER 15,ZL , P. JOHNSON C. ••• r' x,11 ._ ••. �,e._ ,"' •I •I •I 0 A n lJ 0 PPIQEzOP 5 8l to PC MEETING monou Ta �r1 fCtif�►YIAIJ ITEM #eZ`(Q ft nou TO pAJi %CtflirlHN ITEM # VZCtq_ rh6n°uro - 004 F�CkfTTY)AN1 z ITEM # gZ�R- MOTION SECOND D. BUNCH 1 B. ESTES 7 L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON N D. MARR N C. ODOM L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION 0 CI 0 R2c� 3 of S 8 (Z3 199 PC MEETING 10 Affil E ra- UM l ITEM # e-ep _-ZS 10 APFKVV of CAr% • ITEM # LSOCR-Z.I ZO AFWM:-E ObSe 1 ITEM # eZI9 _74 MOTION SECONDQiAumEn D. BUNCH N N B. ESTES N L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARK I� C. ODOM N L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD 3-�-o a -o- ACTION • wi • 0 PA"4(DF 5 8IZ3 I c PC MEETING � ��t &88M* ITEM #eZ5p-7$ -TO AWDXG 7AMeW-Lr::.171 ITEM #J�Zqq4-Z -b -DWSC tem ITEM #t2Z4i_3 MOTION SECOND U C D. BUNCH i B.ESTES y 7 L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARK C. ODOM y L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD 9-0-0 4 ct-O ACTION 171 UAA • 0 PfGe 5cF � 3173t= lz3 n PC MEETING Wwemqsanor ITEM # x}94-3 meeselswrmcm ITEM #eZFq.27 ITEM # MOTION VIAM S 4A SECOND D. BUNCH B.ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARK C. ODOM Y L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD a-ao a -o -o ACTION AeEDZIgn 0 Ll PACE -1OF Z 8Jq IaQ PC MEETING T� qL, I1z 1908 mwureS ITEM # L R)cj417nmj ITEM # 2Z94 -►e CLA�y ITEM #VpFR_q MOTION wprm SECOND j-pF}� D. BUNCH B.ESTES L. HOFFMAN A6SG�J f AEnflmT AAASS9.1T S. HOOVER ASSemT AeSGM7 EKp- P. JOHNSON D. MARR C.ODOM ABSEN-r A2S94T ABSo.IT L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION APPejovtm 0 PC MEETING MCMA � ITEM # VA9R-10 ITEM # ITEM # MOTION c) SECOND D. BUNCH B.ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER ABE P. JOHNSON D. MARR y C. ODOM AFra4dl L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION CDUSB�T HAWKIA SwN'sDN AuueAT" t913 • PC MEETING 1 2 ITEM # J--rnINuIE ITEM /#�R�U419- I ITEM #W-� Ig V - MOTION om yy�I,_6 SECOND � I �Af�!� D a &14S: z B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER : 23 P. JOHNSON D. MARR • C. ODOM 5: Z5 j L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD 5: 3 ACTION Apw VOTE — is -o.:o 8-0.0Vv;2cs�b CouruN S(�INS V WAWdcr, � �e�E r -I U n U PC MEETING 1 lZ rn IIE-SCcTCL-i ►Luawl1JG ITEM # Cll- , I Deaj ITEM # 'i9- bE3 J ITEM # CU lqR-Ib MOTION SAper La- eD SECOND ra� CT I Mflee� B. ESTES I v L. HOFFMAN AE$gl t- /� affi S. HOOVER N I P. JOHNSON D. MARR �N N C. ODOM N L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD 7 N ACTION DUN VOTE 5-:s -0 4-4-0 4-4-0 ll PAILED 0 VIM FAU, PLAW rA I -E OFj PCMEETING �� Op •� • 7m is•• • . „Fmwl A 2r- 1 . IN • • L. •-D �1 ���l;.o�� • • A,w PC MEETING s�WcEmAd ITEMI, #'/1CU�`R-t7 ITEM # ITEM # MOTION VUprn SECOND L B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION /1 VOTE - - E pa C. P( -,p CF4 PC MEETING oQu99- Is ©LS44-II ITEM #(%Iiy MIKI, ME PLAgr ITEM # AD49-I3 17ejE PLANT ITEM # R—1 MOTION HOFFmL}rJ HOFFMAN SECOND — WAM �• gUwc�c-F S: IS 1 B. ESTES Af3sckrr PrE3safF ARgnir A L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER 5: ZO P. JOHNSON 5'-Z I D. MARR 5'. ZO C. ODOM 5'• Zl ( I� J L. SHACKELFORD 5: L. WARD 5 c ziq ACTION AppmepSAI — NCAppemm VOTE Sl AFF CUM ICLIN JON ws PE-W� IE •VI NSON WAPZCr • U 0 ( GE PC MEETING (o Ice MID SOUTHEoj ITEM # QM -1 M I o sour�-lelm ITEM # Q�47 53prlUG e2eEIL ITEM # (SD9t- l MOTION M A22 owm 01)5 SECOND owrn S MADE! D. f3okiciA B. ESTES AQSEKIT ARSB L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER 7 Y P. JOHNSON l D. MARR -� C. ODOM L.SHACKELFORD L. WARD ACTION VOTE PC MEETING 6 � PC MEETING �o � Summ�sQy ITEM ITEM # �-4 T�eicN�-t.�, ITE 0���� ITEIM,,#(Spgg- Sr. Louls't3r�p ITEM ITEM # l5 99-I5. t MOTION MOTION ' '^� t�CWf- WQ S SECOND SECOND FYI © (YJ QQ. � (cam D. s�� y N B. ESTES B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER S. HOOVER nI N P. JOHNSON P. JOHNSON Y 1 N N D. MARR D. MARR C. ODOM 000M L SHACKELFORD L. SHACKELFORD l Y Y 7 L. WARD L. WARD ACTION ACTION WI VOTE VOTE 0 PJ • PC MEETING Yilclum/ ITEM # UMgR- I(o ITEM # ITEM # MOTION WAM SECOND UL,C)li Q. Buklu+ B. ESTES A L. HOFFMAN S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON \TI D. MARR C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD Agsmwin L. WARD ACTION VOTE -'�- • PC MEETING APPeOV4L, OF MiNuTes ITEM # ITEM # CU99-1 ITEM # C096 2�. MOTION OOb WFF(Y)AAl SECOND SIA MAIZ2 B. ESTES Aosekm Af3smT L.HOFFMAN S. HOOVER : Z1 P. JOHNSON 5= 11 D. MARR 5149 I C. ODOM ty�6R0A1 i L.SHACKELFORD S:2 ZJa� L. WARD S' 3 ACTION PPe. ARM, Wl VOTE is PACE 1OP�� rouSekrr PQ3JI)A aCID 6�51NeZ; C(3qq- tZ sho miwpEs mod sPAers PC MEETING ITEM # L ITEM # Z ITEM # MOTION WAIED SECOND rnAoc x)20 B. ESTES L.HOFFMAN 5. S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON 5:2j \/ I D. MARR S:Z.0 C. ODOM 5.. 3Z \7/ L. SHACKELFORD 5-- Z 7 L. WARD 5: Z3 ACTION AAFe APEL APPfZ. VOTE - -Q - WAMQ� Som s PETCUE NESSE Wl vw. C` r1 U PC MEETING S Z4 q9 VAaq--1 rm-m ITEM # 4 ez9cl-tz St4l[OM" ITEM # S Rzg9-(3 Roco-rm ij ITEM # MOTION 6DGIY1 SECOND NOFF FF: -MAN B. ESTES L. HOFFMAN IV S. HOOVER N Y P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOMN L.SHACKELFORD A I 7 L. WARD `I V ACTION A �/ FAILED - pen VOTE I 0 n U 0 I1h0m`: PC MEETING 51 Z4 R 2Z99-14 FpCHTMAN ITEM # QZ99-s Focwftim ITEM # LSD 9q -l9 NEL(Y)s. ITEM # -I MOTION m FFMAKI SECOND SEI d B. ESTES L.HOFFMAN S. HOOVER 1 P. JOHNSON `/ D. MARR \f► �I C. ODOM L. SHACKELFORD `1 �Y L. WARD ACTION - pay Aope/ VOTE L OF • Fj • CU tom- l3 AtfR-$ Req _y PC MEETING S Z4 lqct ITEM # 10 ITEM # ITEM # Z MOTION 1nIAQD 4D61Y1 HoFF AN SECOND B. ESTES 1 1 L. HOFFMAN N S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON N D. MARR \N Y C. ODOM \1' N L. SHACKELFORD 1 N L. WARD ACTION 1ltorpuTo AFPQ• ALLOW CUPg 9w w L- VOTE FAILED LSD Affe- -'4-4-6 9-6-G (o -Z-0 MF -Z. C^oUsarr LqW 9"W ^ r c. , nq Ame�crnew Amsomyr PC MEETING 5110/99 ITEM # 1+3 ITEM # AD99- ITEM # A MOTION SECOND rn B. ESTES S' J. FORNEY L.HOFFMAN 1 7 S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON I y D. MARR l C. ODOM S: L. SHACKELFORD 5:Z7 L. WARD 5-. zs ACTION APP2 III Z APPe. VOTE �7 - �j-d -Q • P 16FZ E • • PC MEETING RATA (ZK'oAl ITEM#M9q-10 ITEM # ITEM # MOTION WAeQ SECOND cDom B. ESTES J. FORNEY L.'HOFFMAN N S. HOOVER P. JOHNSON D. MARR C. ODOM V L. SHACKELFORD L. WARD �/ 1 ACTION calirn VOTE c -1-O P.z�z 0 0 PAGe (.1)GF(G) PC (/TTG , 41z� Item #= la Z- °0"�'T AG90A Item #3 sl MnyhZ AD94-4 Item #11 �,rb 009.1 MOTION SECOND I Mao B. Estes A T J. Forney v L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom 1 N r A L. Ward 1 ACTION I I PIT, \011C'A VOTE —0--0 -1-0 c9A uli TM►S Pmzte WCC • 0 0 P,r-4c (2)OP(G oil 91 .:vs iUALEJ, • Ell 10mralm's • : r / • • I E 0 Item #7 Item #1 Item #:7 MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom N L. Ward ACTION FA L - N I VOTE PAGE IO6 • • Item # � WEEiIIIS CU94- Item #9 ST. (9UlS 9q- Item # (Q FCSTiE:e q -to R MIM (Iryyn � HQFFMAN SECOND I V B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom N R-Rericids 'N MAZE. L. Ward ACTION VOTE -5-0 • • 0 RAGe 5 o=(o 11;m # 10 s itemi FOS -- ' • • S,• we NOR • • ... �� -�•� wu _ MAMIE !TIMMMMOL • n U Rc—E G OF( Item # lZ AAO Item #: (3 lA NGt✓'Iz ApRq Item # MOTION QCQ SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover Y P.Johnson C. Odom I Y AICY G��ke,— A y L. Ward I ACTION VOTE -O- Ll • 0 4Iizlc?� Pc--rnTG ft 1 QP73 mpg oTaH KSON ESTE-S Hcovt��c F6" y W40D Cann l roFFmQj �®4tq5 v�N�N Coti�cc.in� Item # Item # P.kr. Ic Item #: 2Ncic VA9?-S MOTION WAC13 Q SECOND (` B. Estes J. Forney / L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom i y L. Ward ACTION �1 VOTE mpg oTaH KSON ESTE-S Hcovt��c F6" y W40D Cann l roFFmQj �®4tq5 v�N�N Coti�cc.in� PG zoF s • • Item # NO U 99 Item #- W � A - I Item # N AN yq_ MOTION ncnm I ►4 SECOND t-}6FFII B. Estes 'V J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover N Y P. Johnson C. Odom R-Rert&I4&&iACVR MM L. Ward ACTION VII w C[xrlm rnm VOTE — —Q — • • 0 fc� mTg F:. 3aF3 Item # Stmmon� Item # Item # MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom L. Ward ACTION VOTE 4- — ?Z 14 O Ze Item # CO Item #:" TauN czEla[ A9- I (Y -i Item #1 7O1v N C2eEV V MOTION SECOND AceaRm F B. Estes J. Forney •.3 L. Hoffman S-.7.5 S. Hoover So P. Johnson 1+us C. Odom R6SE B�(X SH � G. Tucker K: M L. Ward 5: 1N ACTION —0-0 � —Q-0 VOTE f}PP� AMR 0 5'•IS S: Zz S :3a 5:30 S 35 S: zo 5%28 5 -Ac 5: Z7 0 RGE S Cour.unl VI NSON ;M4R LtTar WAZELCK Item #- CousekrF Ag Item # SWB`� TGA Uqq- Z Item #, NOm NRn®4� Q7rYl 1 act MOTION S OMM SECOND -0 AcC, r✓ST-es B. Estes O J. ForneyZFl�.. ✓ / L. Hoffman © AlA] S. Hoover P. Johnson ® -rAzfjl �{ C. Odom ® G. Tucker TAZLD L. Ward ACTION -Q -[�- VOTE E� S Cour.unl VI NSON ;M4R LtTar WAZELCK • Item # Item #. Item #, AUTusPcDoITIOnl 2a&NWOC�a WALGeSPNIS f'P99� z _ 3 LSD99-S MOTION HGFFfn AN HOt=F A SECOND -p B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom ® �% R. * \4 Y G. Tucker L. Ward 6 ACTION � I APFQ VOTE • Item # Item #. Item #, AUTusPcDoITIOnl 2a&NWOC�a WALGeSPNIS f'P99� z _ 3 LSD99-S MOTION HGFFfn AN HOt=F A SECOND -p B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom ® �% R. * \4 Y G. Tucker L. Ward 6 ACTION � I APFQ Item #-. ry\(3w .1-7,1 Item #L P_Zq - Item #' MOTION E►OOVEK MTES SECOND B. Estes J. Forney 9 L. Hoffman N y S. Hoover - P. Johnson g� C. Odom Z R. G. Tucker L. Ward 11/ ACTION F4lL A(aF'P . VOTE 0 • L STAFF Item # 1 Ouse AG. Item #; Z Inst. nJ Item # MOTION ODOCO SECOND T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Estes 5•. ZZ B. Vinson J. Forney5:2b D. Warrick L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson NTJ C. Odom (5 sc Y s si-wce.�s: zs y G. Tucker (5:Z0 L. Ward 5'33 ACTION 20 — L�— VOTE G -O -7-2-0 Z -Z -O STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers 2. pl 1m E T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick IC.2uTHt�a�D • • Item # eMSP —ry\sp l Item # Item # SQ MOTION Q(k51'Yl SECOND B. Estes Y J. Forney STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION Pf�� VOTE -O --d 7- � • • Item # eMSP —ry\sp l Item # Item # SQ MOTION Q(k51'Yl SECOND B. Estes Y J. Forney STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick nf • o I L� - yo-., i ssr Item # Item #' Ite: MOTION Q SECOND -� B. Estes J. Forney STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom Sil G. Tucker � L. Ward ACTION � VOTE E q,-¢� nf • o I L� - yo-., i ssr Item # Item #' Ite: MOTION Q SECOND -� B. Estes J. Forney STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick • • It(WLSP M? Afm §m ## Item #•: Item MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom R. Reynolds S L. STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick Ward ACTION I iq VOTE • • It(WLSP M? Afm §m ## Item #•: Item MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P. Johnson C. Odom R. Reynolds S L. STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick 0 C1 J 40 STAFF Itepl# YYIS;p It #. It#: MOTION a SECOND T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Estes B. Vinson J. Forney D. Warrick L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom v 6. Tucker L. Ward ACTION VOTE STAFF PRESENT ABSENT J. Beavers T. Conklin J. Johns A. Little B. Vinson D. Warrick CI 0 Item #' It # Itpr��l MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom R. G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION VOTE c�l —1—Cj E CI • Item # g8- w Item #• - Item # E,7 -- MOTION SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman \ f y S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom R. Reynolds G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION VOTE Item # Item # Item # MOTION SECOND B. Estes Y J. Forney L. Hoffman y S. Hoover P. Johnson N C. Odom R. Reynolds G. Tucker N L. Ward ACTION � t VOTE S-� Item #, Item # Item # cu98-Z$ Cv98-7B u�-s6AVCr,�l Ftp BAVCIZ�4 FEELS cobs . Acs MOTION tST1=5 I 6FIN47,Q SECOND B. Estes 5. Z5 J. Forney 5: Zq Y L. Hoffman 5 3z. S. Hoover 5: as P. Johnson C. Odom 5:Z L. SHACICEUbm 5:23 G. Tucker 5:2 • L. Ward ABSEVF- j- es&7- ACTION APPO.NelP VOTE STAFF pe2SEt ' �"A 7 QAlS Wn'l 6aVW 251El aT vwS3j� 1�31H PC-M(:F DAwn1 WK!)CICL • Amr-bDm1=rJT Item # Pf 96-IZ Cmu ri *>n -s F " r Item #. Fflc18-17 CMN -B., N Ir rt �' w/& Item # CU`r4-Z -Twa MOTION esMFS oxm TUCYEF SECOND IAWV Gk' SHACV.Q RSTF4S B. Estes J. Forney N L. Hoffman B S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom it. SH%KKE1.F-oe0 �I G. Tucker y L. Ward A BSEYJr A—ntr A BSE7dt- ACTION APPeovpp FAIL D iAB VOTE -Z-Q 3-5-C) Item # LSD Cts -37 kP�.UP-r Item #' Item # MOTION f=OfL.N-Gq SECOND B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman � S. Hoover P. Johnson N C. Odom N '.L sHtqci�5Lr-oW G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION No nCcess VOTE — - 0 swq 5 3ivin 53, em 5zsPm 51s Pm 56 wa 5& FM • 5:z5vn 0 Item # 02cs A& Item # SC44I Ci+G�R-P c -tsar- Item # m6qD0wwW�& a4- 3 MOTION DO SECOND ACO B. Estes J. Forney L. Hoffman Y ( U S. Hoover I Y P.Johnson C. Odom Sk G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION Z -Q- I A VOTE PAa. E • LUS' Item #. �Zqq r} Item # 5 Item #; W I:;Q NIQ TZ J Ls 9t-4 MOTION SECOND B. Estes YV v J. Forney A '- L. Hoffman S. Hoover P.Johnson C. Odom sffAcp G. Tucker V y L. Ward V yy ACTION Appoz VOTE -0-6 • Item # Item #. Item # G4NOLEW60rJ 16WN C WW4- -Z MOTION SECOND B. Estes N J. Forney Iq L. Hoffman I� S. Hoover N P. Johnson C. Odom R'71��SHACWjZcp • G. Tucker L. Ward ACTION fl VOTE - • Item # Item #. Item # G4NOLEW60rJ 16WN C WW4- -Z MOTION SECOND B. Estes N J. Forney Iq L. Hoffman I� S. Hoover N P. Johnson C. Odom R'71��SHACWjZcp • 0 CI • PC Meeting 2-8-99 1. Minutes 1-25-99 Consent Agenda 4. VA 98-12 UUFF Consent Agenda 5. VA 99-1 George Consent Agenda MOTION SECOND Estes Hoffman Hoover Odom Forney Shackleford Tucker Johnson Ward ACTION VOTE 0 • • PC Meeting 2-8-99 3. CU 98-28 Bakery Feeds 6, RZ 99-1 Lindsey 7, CU -99-5 Light/Faust MOTION SECOND Estes VV IY Hoffman Hoover Y Odom N Forney Shackleford Tucker Johnson Ward y/ ACTION h'l� — .Q VOTE 0 • • PC Meeting 2-8-99 8. CU 99-3 Suzie Stephens 9, CU 99-4 Butler/Holmes 10, RZ 99-2 Hensen MOTION 6&k SECOND Estes Hoffman Hoover Odom Forney Shackleford Tucker Johnson Ward ACTION VOTE— -0-0-0