Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-12 Minutes• ea • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 12, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes Election of Officers VA99-4: RNCIC pp 561 VA99-5: RNCIC pp 561 CU99-7: Petrino, pp 370 FP99-1: Wedington Place, pp 401 AD99-4: Simmons, pp135 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn Approved -no waiver *Also see 4/26/99 minutes Denied -not heard * Also see 4/26/99 minutes COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Alett Little • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1999 MEETING The minutes were approved as submitted on the consent agenda with a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 3 ELECTION OF OFFICERS The following were elected by a unanimous vote: Phyllis Johnson, Chair Bob Estes, Vice Chair Lee Ward, Secretary Johnson: As the first order of business, I would like to give this Certificate of Appreciation to the former chairman, Conrad Odom, for dedicated service to the City as chairman of the Planning Commission for April, 1998 through April, 1999 term. Chairman Odom served for two terms and we appreciate that. • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS VA99-4: VACATION RNCIC-GOVERNMENT, PP561 This item was submitted by Virginia Middleton on behalf of the Regional National Cemetery Improvement Corporation for property located at 903 South Government. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to vacate a portion of a 10 foot alley lying contiguous to the west side of lot 10 and the east side of lot 11 in Dowell's Addition. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation. Commission Discussion Johnson: Items 3 and 4 are both vacations submitted by the same person for the same National Cemetery. Does staff have anything additional? • Conklin: There are no comments. There was no objection to the vacation by the utility companies or the City. • Johnson: We toured this site at agenda session last Thursday I think if you will look in your packet at page 3.3, perhaps that gives a clearer view of the property that is owned by the Cemetery and you will see, at least according to the drawing of the Dallas Addition, that the National Cemetery already owns lots 10 and 11. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Johnson: One of the alleys to be vacated is located between two lots already owned by the Cemetery. Conklin: That is also correct. Johnson: Then the other portion of the alley which is west of lots 13 and 14 is not contained within the Cemetery Association. When we were on site on Thursday, we were told that there was one neighbor who had some concerns and some questions. Staff, I understand that neighbor contacted you and said those concerns were answered and he now agrees with the proposed vacation. Is that correct? Warrick: I talked to that person and that is correct. Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 5 Johnson: Is the applicant here? Probably for this kind of project, it is not necessary that the applicant be here. Are there questions or comments from any of the members? Public Comment Marla Hargess was present and inquired as to the procedure to vacate the portion of the alley adjoining her property. Mr. Vinson provided her with his business card to contact him regarding her request. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve VA99-4. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Johnson: This is a vote is merely a recommendation that will go on to the City Council. Is there discussion of the motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 6 VA99-5: VACATION RNCIC-HILL, PP561 This item was submitted by Virginia Middleton on behalf of the Regional National Cemetery Improvement Corporation for property located at 898 Hill Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and A-1, Agricultural. The request is to vacate a portion of a 20 foot alley lying contiguous to the west side of a part of lot 9 and all of lots 10, 13 and 14 in Dowell's Addition. Staff recommends approval of the alley vacation. Public Comment None. Commission Discussion MOTION • Mr. Odom made a motion to approve RZ99-5. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Roll Cal Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • G • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 7 CU99-7: CONDITIONAL USE PETRINO, PP370 This item was submitted by Ed Prince for Sandra Petrino for property located at 1926 East Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 2.77 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Sandra Petrino was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. The access easement, which is approximately 32 feet wide, will be placed to the west of the existing resident (only 25 feet is required.) 2. The private drive to the tandem lot shall be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from said intersection. Trash cans from the tandem lot residence will be brought to the street by the resident of the house on appropriate trash pick up days only. A concrete pad large enough for two trash cans with a masonry garbage can holder will be provided with screening shrubs to be 3 feet tall at maturity planted on all sides except the side facing the street. 4. The property sewer line to the new residence and all easements shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. The applicant shall dedicate 55 feet of right of way along the front of both tract A and tract B. 6. A 6 foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Mission Blvd. on both tract A and tract B at the time of development. Commission Discussion Johnson: Do you have anything further for us? Petrino: I have a few questions. I understand the sewer situation. I have a question regarding the sidewalk. I would like to do the sidewalk on tandem A but not on B at this time. The reason being is there are no sidewalks to conform on either side of the property. It might compromise my shrubbery and tree barrier there in front. I do live in the home that is present now. It would give the would be litter bugs a concrete landing pad for their beer bottles. Right now, I am able to pick those up intact and I like to do that. I do agree to tract A though on either • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 8 side of the easement. The 55 foot easement is an increase of 30 feet. Vinson: It is an increase of 25 feet. Petrino: I agree to that on the tandem A. I would, however, like some compensation on the tandem B. Like I say, that property does have a debt on it and I would like to be compensated for that extra 25 feet in front of the existing property on B, if possible, please. I have friends on Highway 265 that discussed this with me and they are being compensated for their property that is being taken in as an easement for that Highway. I assume it is for widening of the road If it does take place then the sidewalk would probably be included in that easement and at some point removed. If we could wait on the sidewalk until after the widening. I agree to the sidewalk at a later date for B, but not at this time. Johnson: Any other items on the recommendations or conditions that you would like to address? Petrino: No, ma'am. Johnson: Let me be sure that I understand from the drawing that we have on page 5.11 that tract A only touches the highway at the west edge of tract B9 Vinson: It is a 32.4 foot width. Johnson: You don't object to building the sidewalk there which means that essentially it would just go through the driveway. Petrino: There is a little space on either side of the driveway that I could certainly put the sidewalk and the trash can receptacle. Johnson: All right. Any questions for the applicant? Hoffman: On page 5.13 and comparing it to 5.10, is the tract in question shown on 5.13 does it not touch the boundary at the back of the houses along Winwood? It appears on 5.10 that it's that entire -- Petrino: The person to the west of me owns property that goes behind me. She has an "L" shape that goes behind me. So, no. Hoffman: There is a tract in between there? • Petrino: Yes, ma'am. • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 9 Hoffman: I was confused about where it was located. I'll just voice my opinion on the right of way dedication and the sidewalk. We try to be consistent at all times with the City Ordinances and I believe that we have approved several conditional uses along Mission recently or within the last year with which sidewalks were required and which right of way dedication was granted without compensation. That would be my concern about starting a tend or going against what we usually do. I would be in favor of the right of way dedication instead of compensating. Johnson: What is the second issue about the sidewalk? Hoffman: We have granted several conditional uses for, I think it was a dance studio and an architect's office and some other businesses. Not residences but businesses that were granted conditional uses and I think all of those had sidewalk requirements. Johnson: I know they didn't all. Staff, can you help me with that? I was thinking that because we think in the future, Mission will be -- Conklin: With regard to conditional uses, this is a conditional use for a lot split that will create a tandem lot. This is a little different than just a regular conditional use. By ordinance, in order to go through the lot split process and not have to do a subdivision with preliminary and final plat, they are required to dedicate the right of way based on the Master Street Plan. The Planning Commission can allow or recommend a lesser dedication but it has to be approved by the City Council. I'm trying to answer your question. With regard to conditional uses, I am not sure about the right of way. I can't recall. Johnson: It's the sidewalk. Conklin: Or the sidewalk. I'm not sure about the dance studio or whether or not they were going to have one. I think the condition was that it would come back through as a large scale development but I can't recall. Vinson: I talked to Chuck Rutherford, the Sidewalk Coordinator, today and he told me that there was a project at the cemetery just west of this property where sidewalk was dedicated. Some of the neighbors do have sidewalks. Conklin: This recommendation did come from the Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator, Chuck Rutherford, who did contact them and this is what he recommended. Johnson: Is there any plans that we know of for the State to improvement this part of Highway 45? • Petrie: Not to my knowledge. • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 10 Johnson: Since it isn't in the State plan, we would assume that if it were going to be done within a certain number of years, it probably already would be in the State plan. So, since it isn't, we should be safe to assume that the highway won't be rebuilt by the State for how many years out? Probably it will stay as it is for a minimum of how long? Petrie: sure. I would say 5 years. That is an estimate. There is really no way of knowing for Hoffman: Would there be a way for the Sidewalk Coordinator to work with the applicant for moving the sidewalk around the existing landscaping? Conklin: Yes. Mr. Rutherford does try to work with the applicants to minimize the impact on the shrubs and trees. Public Comments None. Further Discussion Johnson: My memory in the sidewalk is that at least from the architect's office which is on the opposite side of the street, we waived the sidewalk and I don't remember whether there is any sidewalk on the Root School side anywhere past Root School. Ward: Is there anything where the Dillon's Market used to be? Is thy„ re any sidewalk over there now? Conklin: I have one conditional use for the View Time Party Warehouse and I don't believe there was sidewalk on that one. Let me remind the Commission one more time that this is a lot split which is a subdivision of land. I want to make the distinct that they are dividing this land. Johnson: I think there is no place where a sidewalk is needed more desperately than on such a busy highway very near a school. Forney. The staff mentioned that the cemetery to the west had made a dedication of a sidewalk. Would that mean they are going to build the sidewalk or that they have dedicated right of way for a sidewalk? I may have misunderstood the comment. Vinson. They would have to dedicate the right of way and also construct the sidewalk. • Forney: They are in the process of constructing a sidewalk on that side? • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 11 Vinson: No. Odom: Something has been started. Forney. I'm trying to understand what staff thinks is happening there. Vinson: On this property? Forney: No, on the cemetery property. Vinson: Chuck Rutherford told me that they were starting to put the sidewalk in I guess they are starting the sidewalk. Forney: So there is the beginning of some sidewalk continuity on the north side of Mission in this area Thank you. Ward: Where she is living -- we drove by there and there are a lot of hedges and shrubbery. It keeps the noise from all the traffic on 45. My understanding is that you are in the process of building a new home on the back part of the property and keep the existing house and rent it out. My solution to the problem was, we need the right of way and we're going to have sidewalk out there. There is no doubt about that. My solution to the problem would be that at the time you finish the new home, the new sidewalk would have to be finished before you would get your Certificate of Occupancy. I would be happy with that and it would give you time -- if you don't want to build a new house and you want to stay in the old house -- something like that would be a solution. Petrino: Repeat that for me, please? Ward: If you do this, we are going to demand that you give us the right of way because that is just what is required. Petrino: Sure. Ward: The sidewalk is very needed out there. The only solution that since you are still living in the home there is that we would require you to mess up all your hedges and shrubbery and noise breaks until you were able to move into the new home. Johnson: Is the sidewalk condition reasonably enforceable and workable in staff's view that the sidewalk wouldn't have to be completed until the permit for occupancy was granted? • Conklin: As long as the occupancy permit was not issued, it would be enforceable. We • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 12 would have to keep up with it and make sure when the project is finished that the sidewalk is in. They would not be allowed to occupy it. Johnson. Is that something that you can track? Conklin: We can make that notation on the building permit. Forney. The Planning Commission is not in any position to give compensation to anybody. We don't have that power. That would be a Council consideration. More importantly, as staff has pointed out, subdivision of land is an instance when we do try to get the necessary right of way for our Master Street Plan. That Master Street Plan accommodates the increased growth that we get along our highways and byways. From my point of view, the City is correct in recognizing that with increased development along that road, we need to increase capacity. There is a trade off that we ask the developer to make. The situation on Highway 265 is a different one because of increased right of way because of a State Highway Department project. That is where the compensation is coming from that you indicated earlier. I think this is not a comparable situation. Johnson We do not have the power to compensate you for the right of way. If you wanted to pursue that which I think you could do, I suspect unsuccessfully, you would have to pull this conditional use request and first go to the Council with your compensation request. Petrino: I don't like to be referred to as a developer. I'm not. I'm building one little house back there. It's not a very large house. I don't intend to disrupt the habitat anymore than you would like me to. I think -- do you need to take a vote before do anything else? To insure domestic tranquility, the co-owner of this property is not able to be here with me tonight. I'd ask you to table this. Is this the appropriate time to ask for that? Johnson: If you wish to do that, unless there is objection that the chair would allow you to withdraw the request at this time. I think that we could require that we go ahead and vote on it now. But, if there is no objection, I would allow you to withdraw it. Petrino: I don't really know if I'm out of place, I really feel like I need my husband to be present so that he understand what I am agreeing to. Johnson. It is helpful to us that the Commission is fully communicating, so without objection, we will allow you to go ahead and postpone this item and see whether or not from the discussion tonight, you want to pursue it or whether you don't. Ward: Do we need a motion and a second? • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 13 Johnson. I take the position that the applicant is just withdrawing the request at this time. Petrino: I am happy with everything except for the sidewalk and I will do the sidewalk if you will allow me to do it when other people on either side or whatever -- Odom: The problem we have with that is that we have to start somewhere. Who do we start requiring to do it? We require those who are developing -- you are not a developer but you are improving the area -- that's who we typically start with. If we don't start. somewhere, we will never get anywhere. Petrino: Just for my own piece of mind, I would like to take the next step and find out if there is some way to be compensated for that 25 feet. 25 feet by 165 feet is quite a bit of property. I do have a debt on that property. It does decrease it's value somewhat. I don't want to withdraw it all together, maybe table it. Johnson: I don't think it's appropriate for the Commission to vote to table or postpone because to postpone or table, I think implies that the Commission has additional work to do or the staff has additional work to do and since I think the applicant has additional work to do with her spouse that we'll allow you to merely take it off our agenda and we'll take no action. You won't be prejudiced but it's my ruling unless there is objection that it is not appropriate for us to have a motion on it. Petrino: Okay. So what steps do I take now to get -- Johnson: To come back before us? Petrino: Yes. Johnson: Be sure that all of the owners are ready for this to come before us. Petrino: These things were discussed ahead of time and we didn't find out these additional things until Friday. Johnson: Just to get back in touch with the staff and see when you can get back onto the agenda. Petrino: Thank you for your time. Johnson: Thank you very much. Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 14 FP99-1: FINAL PLAT WEDINGTON PLACE, pp 401 This item was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located in Wedington Place Addition, Phase 11. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 29.998 acres with 8 lots proposed. Jeff Maxwell was present on behalf of the project and was in agreement with the staff recommendations as follows: Staff Recommendation Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for overhead electric located adjacent to the east subdivision boundary. A waiver was previously granted by the Planning Commission for the preliminary plat to leave one power pole located at the southeast corner of the property and that the remainder be placed underground. 2. Planning Commission determination to accept a financial guarantee in the amount of $3,740 for the sanitary sewer extension to Lot 5. Acceptable to staff provided that the construction is completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. Planning Commission determination to accept the final plat prior to installation of street lights provided that proof of payment to the electric company for installation is submitted to City Staff. 4. Dedication of additional right of way as shown on the final plat for Hwy 16 (Wedington Drive) by warranty deed. 5. Submit a signed access easement or right of way dedication document for the owner of Lot 1, Walnut Haven Subdivision for the offsite street and sidewalk improvements. 6. All plat review and subdivision committee comments. 7. Assessments in the amount of $45,060 for Salem Road and Shiloh Drive improvements and $50,956.29 for Wedington Road Improvements are done. 8. Assessments for improvements to the Hamestring basin will be made for each lot (except lots IR and 2 which have been received) at the time that the individual lot processes a large scale development. Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 15 9. Each lot in this subdivision is required to go through the large scale development approval process. 10. A unified development theme for the subdivision is required per the City's Commercial Design Standards. Unless a comprehensive theme is presented before, the first large scale development will set this theme. Commission Discussion Johnson: Item 1 absolutely determines that this comes before the Commission for the waiver request for overhead electric located adjacent to the east subdivision boundary. Warrick: We did provide the staff report to Clary Development or their representative at DCI. I believe that was faxed Friday or this morning or both. Maxwell: It was faxed Friday morning. Johnson: You are in agreement with the 10 conditions? Maxwell: We are agreeing to all of the conditions. We do want to discuss the waiver request which is item I. Also, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, item 7 the assessment for Wedington Drive was discussed by the city as something that might come up on another project by another developer and might have some affect on how the in lieu fees are assessed. We're not asking to reconsider that at this time but we would ask that if the other developer is successful in his appeal that we be given the same consideration. Otherwise, we are in agreement with the dedication. Johnson: What Mr. Maxwell is talking about is The Cliffs on 265 which ever phase received approval some months back and is now appealing to the entire Council our requirement of some of the right of way dedication and the requirement for a contribution for part of the construction of the street. Since that appeal is pending, at Subdivision we told this applicant that we wanted him to know about the pending appeal. If we pass the project tonight with these conditions in it, of course you will have the right to appeal but the Planning Commission will be requiring it. You would have to meet with whatever deadlines there are in the appeal process if you choose to do that. Maxwell: Is the other developer who is currently scheduled -- Conklin: The City Council agenda session is tomorrow and the appeal will be heard Tuesday, April 20, 1999. • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 16 Johnson. Could you address the issue on the waiver? Maxwell: There is no question that we are in full agreement that all new lines within the development will be buried. The only line in question is an existing line along our east property line. It's a high voltage transmission line. It's 12kva or above. We had heard that the Commission had some discussion about lines of this nature not being required to be buried since they are existing and serve other developments. Additionally, at preliminary plat, we got a verbal estimate from SWEPCO in the range of about $24,000 Two and half weeks ago, we got the written estimate and it was in excess of $107,000, not $24,000. Based on those issues, we want you to reconsider the requirement to bury that line. Johnson: Staff, can you tell us briefly what the status is on any revisiting that the Council has done or is doing on the underground electric utility lines? Conklin: The Ordinance Review Committee has not been meeting on that ordinance. They are currently working on cell towers. Johnson: So the ordinance that was in place when we last saw this development is still in place now. There have been no recent amendments in the last year or so. Conklin: There have been no amendments to this ordinance. Johnson: Under that ordinance, this east line would have to be put underground. Conklin: That is correct and that is what was required at the time of preliminary approval for the plat. Estes: What is the size of the line we are talking about? Maxwell: I have letters here that I can pass out to you from SWEPCO if you like. One contains a cost estimate and the other stating the size of the line is a 3 phase 12kv line. Warrick. Those are in your agenda at pages 6.8 and 6.9. Hoffman: Could you comment about the status of the ordinance? As I remember, the ordinance was reviewed at the Planning Commission level and we did determine and forwarded on to City Council that we would exempt existing lines 12kva and above and require all new lines to go underground. I think that was the consensus of the Commission. So, this would meet with the Planning Commission's last work on that ordinance. • Johnson: To not require putting existing lines of 12kva or more underground. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 17 Estes: My memory is the same as Commissioner Hoffman's. However, the ordinance that we now have in place and the duly constituted ordinance by which we must abide provides the transmission lines of 34.5kva and above should be exempt from the ordinance. I'm having difficulty moving away from the ordinance. The ordinance exists and it is in place. Johnson: You're not in favor of saying that the ordinance is less than perfect and so disregard it. Estes: I think to do what has been suggested by innuendo would mean that this Commission has power and authority to amend or enact ordinances and we simply do not. We sit as an administrative and administerial body and we must abide by the ordinances that are in place. Forney: I thought that the issue here was one of appealing and that we do have the ability to waive these requirements in specific cases. I appreciate the reminders from both Commissioner Hoffman and Estes, but my sense was this particular situation was simply one pole. Am I correct about that? Maxwell: There was another waiver at preliminary plat. It's the line that comes across Wedington and then splits and goes toward the Holiday Inn and serves that. That constitutes an off site line and the pole that was waived was where that line branches off. Otherwise, we would have had to bury a line that serves the Holiday Inn. Forney: Clarify for me the location of what you are going to potentially bury for $107,000. Maxwell: It runs the entire length of the east property line. I would ask Roger Trotter with DCI to also point out -- he got a plan from SWEPCO which I believe burying this line also affects some off site or adjacent property owners. There are some vaults and so on that would have to buried on other people's property. I think the nature of the voltage involved means that you don't just start at our property line and end at the property. It actually carries over into some of the other developments. Odom. How much does it cost to put the street in? Johnson: Steamboat Drive. Maxwell: Steamboat and Colorado round numbers was $350,000. Water and sewer in the ballpark was another $100,000 to $120,000. Odom: Are you planning on building on these lots or are you selling these lots? • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 18 Maxwell: Some of both. We have a contract on lot 8. We have previously sold lot 2. We have a contract on lot 1. You have seen a large scale development on the lot at the rear for assisted living type units. That would be sale. The remaining lots we still own and don't know whether we will develop those or sell them. Hoover: Maxwell: without really engineering -- Hoover: Maxwell: Did they have any reasoning why the estimate went from $24,000 to $107,000? I think before they just said they had to bury a line and it runs about $20 a foot -- I don't know. There was additional work off site that once they did the actual It seems like such a range. It shocked us, too. Ward: Have we buried any of these kinds of lines yet? Existing lines? I know when the hospital came to us, we voted for it 8 to 1 and they took it to City Council and got it over turned unanimously against our Planning Commission and that is when we got together and started doing all this research. We went to a lot of meetings with SWEPCO and Ozarks Electric and underground utilities and this 12kv thing came up as what was acceptable. Anything 12kv or above should be left where it's at especially in commercial subdivisions and along North College. Have there been any of these lines buried anywhere, yet? Conklin: I do know that Staffmark is required to put their line underground. It's a new line going to the building. Ward: Is that a new line? • Conklin: No. They were required to put the existing electric lines underground as part of their approval Ward: Is that a high voltage line? Conklin: I don't have the numbers on that. It was significant. Maxwell: The only other thing I might point out is that we had been trying to get this estimate ever since preliminary plat. Each time I called, I got a response that was -- they wanted to put it off and maybe it would go away. They really don't want to put that line underground. Since this is final plat, they were required to give us the official estimate so that was why we never learned the cost until the last couple of weeks. • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 19 Johnson: I think the situation is that the Planning Commission is certainly in the middle and kind of in a bind because as Commissioner Estes pointed out, we do have this existing ordinance that has not been amended. It has not been repealed. On the other hand, in our meetings with the two electric companies, it has been clear that they have no desire to put lines like this underground although some cities do, it is not commonly done. In any event, it leaves us in the middle. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Warrick: May I add a little? Commissioner Ward asked for information about other existing lines that have been placed underground. The Staffmark project that Tim mentioned is one that comes to mind. During a recent plat review meeting, we were talking about a project along the bypass and Ozarks Electric mentioned a 3 phase electric line that they do have buried adjacent to the bypass. I'm not sure the status of that line as to which businesses is serves but there is one in existence in that location. Just to give you a little bit of additional history on this particular request, there are minutes in your packet from the October, 1997 meeting when this waiver was originally requested and denied. What the information in here lacked was the follow up waiver request which happened in April of 1998 when this came before you as a preliminary plat to allow that one single pole at the southeast corner of the property to remain above ground with the remainder of that line in question being placed underground. That was the request granted by the Planning Commission for their two previous waiver requests that are being discussed in connection with this. The waiver request, I believe, that they are requesting at this point is to waiver all of the overhead electric specifically that overhead electric line on the eastern property line which was in essence the original request in 1997. Maxwell: We're not requesting to waive any lines within the development, just the existing lines. Johnson: You're hoping at this point we ratify the earlier waiver to leave the one pole above ground. Warrick: That is the waiver that stands currently. Johnson: We don't have to take new action on that. It would merely be a waiver of the east line. • Maxwell: This is a new waiver request. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 20 MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve FP99-1 subject to all staff comments and granting the waiver of the overhead line requirement based upon the cost analysis as cost prohibited to the project. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Odom, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman that we approve final plat 99-1 subject to all the conditions of approval numbered 2 through 10 and granting the waiver request for waiving the requirement of putting underground the existing overhead electric line that is along the east side of the property there at Steamboat Drive. Is there discussion of the motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-1. Commissioners Estes, Hover, and Johnson voted against the motion and Commissioner Ward abstained. Odom: Did you count it? Johnson: I believe we have 5-2-1? Johns: 4-3-1. Johnson: 4 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention and so the motion fails because it does not gain a majority vote. Odom: Point of order -- there are certain items that require 5 votes. Conklin: That is correct -- Johnson: The ruling is not that this requires 5 votes. The ruling is that there are 8 members present and this did not gain a majority of the 8 members present. Commission Odom, is there further questions on the chair's ruling? Odom: No. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve FP99-1 subject to all staff comments denying the • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 21 requested waiver for the overhead electric. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Johnson. We have a motion by Hoffman and seconded by Estes that we approve final plat 99-1 subject to the staff conditions numbered 2 through 10 and denying the waiver request. That is, denying the right to leave overhead that electric on the east boundary of the property. Is there discussion of the motion? Odom. If we unanimously approve this, does that waive the right of the applicant to appeal the original denial. Johnson: It's my opinion that it does not. Ask your question again? Odom. If we approve by this vote this request, does that waive the applicant's right to appeal the underlying denial of the waiver request? Johnson: I don't think so. I think that they can appeal the fact that we required it to be • underground. Staff, don't you agree? Warrick: I believe that is correct. Conklin: Yes. The ordinance gives them the right to appeal any approval or denial. Johnson: And I think any portion of it as I understand it. • Estes: I believe that we have no choice but to act under existing ordinances as promulgated by the City Council and it's for that reason that I would vote for the pending motion. Johnson: I agree. It seems to me that it really is not within our power to waive except for the reason that Commissioner Odom gave which is the exorbitant cost. I think that we either comply with the ordinance or we don't. Hoffman: I think this would be duly noted with the City Council should an appeal come up and it would again point out our need for keeping our ordinances in pace with the times. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Ward abstained. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 22 Maxwell: May I ask the appeal schedule with City Council? Johnson: Staff may know or you may need to contact staff after the meeting. Do you know the appeal schedule? You'll just need to contact them. (*Also see 4/26/99 Minutes) • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 23 AD99-4• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SIMMONS FIRST BANK, pp135 This item was submitted by Joe Rudell for Simmons First Bank for property located at 670 East Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.7 acres. The request is to reconsider the previous requirement of semi- permeable parking spaces. Joe Rudell was present on behalf of the applicant. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is an administrative item. The semipermeable parking was required for 8 parking spaces. Staff, would you give us a sketch of why we are looking at this item. Warrick: This item is a request for reconsideration of a condition that was placed on the approval of a large scale development for Simmons First Bank on Joyce Boulevard. The requirement was placed by the Planning Commission that any parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance would be installed with semipermeable surfaces. This is surfacing that reduces the amount of runoff by allowing filtration of water through a more porous type surface than traditional asphalt and concrete. The applicant is at a point where they are requesting a certificate of occupancy for the structure and that has been held up because the conditions placed by the Planning Commission have not been achieved. Johnson: Tell us specifically how the conditions have not been achieved. Warrick. The parking spaces in questions have been installed with traditional asphalt pavement. Johnson. And that is 8 of them that we required to be semipermeable? Warrick. That is correct. Johnson: Would the applicant identify himself'? Rudell: I'm Joe Rudell. I am the Vice President at Simmons Bank. I would like to say first of all, I do not dispute that they are asphalt at this time. I would like to give you the details of how it happened. Johnson: Let me ask you initially, is your understanding of what we required and what has • happened essentially the same as what Dawn has told us? • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 24 Rudell: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Let me then ask the Commission -- it seems to me that this is something that I'm not sure is appropriate to be before the Commission. It seems to me that this is an action that we have previously taken. We dealt with this, according to the minutes, specifically and talked in detail. It appears the requirements were not met. I think before we really cm take this up that it requires something in the nature of a motion to reconsider. I don't know that we have the power to do that. I think we can assume that power. It would be the ruling of the chair that before we even would take up this matter on our agenda that we must have a motion to reconsider which would have to carry by a majority vote of those present because it seems to me that under normal procedures, we have already acted on this. There is nothing new except that our requirements were not complied with. MOTION Mr. Estes moved that the Simmons Bank presentation be reconsidered and allow the applicant to proceed with his presentation before the Commission. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: Is there discussion of the motion to reconsider? Odom: This is only a vote to -- Johnson: This is only a vote as to whether or not we will allow this to come back on the table before us when we have already dealt with this matter once. Forney. I would like to hear some argument in favor of the motion. I'm not sure I should characterize the chair's description of the situation but I do fear that we are basically setting ourselves up to have people come back and reconsider things with us over and over again and why should we visit them once if we are going to visit them twice and three times. At present, until I hear a Commissioner argue otherwise, I am not inclined to favor the motion. Odom. I'm not in favor of allowing the request. But, I am in favor of hearing the appeal. I want to hear the excuse. I think that mistakes can be made. If it happens a lot, maybe we need to stop reconsidering but this doesn't happen all that often at least in the business community. We see it sometimes within the residential community. We do hear those appeals. It is that reason that I seconded the motion. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 25 Johnson: Being a lawyer, I want to quibble with the term appeal because I don't think it is an appeal. This has gone all the way through and now that it hasn't been done the way we required, it is coming back. Hoover: 8 spaces getting covered up is very difficult to do on a job. That is a large portion of asphalt. I think that would be rather difficult to have made a slight error with the plan. Even in doing the estimating -- I won't be in favor hearing this. Johnson: This is Just the motion to reconsider. What I really would be looking for, I guess, would be arguments in addition to Commissioner Odom's -- well, on either side as to whether we should revisit this again. It's not the substance. Estes: This was first brought before us as a large scale development. There were certain conditions of approval attached to that. From reviewing the other material which we now have provided to us this evening from both staff and Simmons First Bank, it appears that something went wrong and something didn't get done that should have gotten done. I would like to give Simmon's First Bank an opportunity to make their presentation to explain to us what went wrong and how they propose to solve this problem. Johnson: Other comments before we vote on the motion as to whether or not we will take another look? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-1. Commissioners Forney, Hoover, and Johnson voted against the motion to reconsider. Commissioner Marr abstained from voting. Johnson: The motion to reconsider fails. Rudell: I appreciate your time. I do feel that there are circumstances that I could have brought out to you. I would like to say publicly that we did not intentionally do anything incorrect. It was an error while we were reviewing the cost and appropriate product to put in this area. This is an area that we'll be parking on 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The grass will not grow. Subsequently, it is an area that is going to be dead all the time based on what you are requiring but we will live up to your guidance. Johnson: I think that the Commission has no desire to be harsh although you may well perceive -- Rudell: I don't think that. I would have liked the chance to at least present the case. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 26 Ward: Is that appealable to City Council? Johnson: I don't know whether this is appealable to City Council. It's not something -- I don't know. Conklin: The ordinance on appeals -- all appeals shall be submitted in writing with the applicable UDO sections setting out the reasons for the applicant's to contend the decision is in error. Appeals shall be submitted within 10 working days from the final action taken. I guess the question is was the final action the approval of the large scale development? Johnson: This may be something that you have to take a look at and you might even want to raise the issue with the City's legal staff. I'm really uncertain. We appreciate your coming. We understand that it was not an intentional error on the part of the bank and we have not given the bank a black mark as a result. Rudell: I appreciate that. (*Also see 4/26/99 minutes) • • • Minutes of Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 27 OTHER BUSINESS Johnson: I believe there are a couple of other things. I would like to welcome our newest Commissioner, Don Man. Welcome. We are glad to have you as our newest member. He is replacing Mr. Gary Tucker. We will need a new member for the Subdivision Committee because having been elected chair, I have been serving on Subdivision and I need to appoint someone to take my spot. Commissioner Ward, would you be willing to serve on Subdivision? Ward: Sure. Johnson: I appreciate that. Hoffman: Will appoint a designated alternate? We will need one. Johnson: I also need to appoint a chairman. Commissioner Hoffman, would you be willing to chair the Subdivision Committee. Hoffman: Certainly. Johnson: Thank you. I appreciate that. I took a look at the bylaws and I understand that actually, all other Commissioners are alternates to serve on the Subdivision Committee and I believe the chair is suppose to list the sequence of alternates. I haven't had a chance to do that. I would say if you have a particular interest, you can let me know that. I may do it by seniority. I will come up with a list of altemates and we'll be more official about that at the next meeting. Odom: It may be better to appoint someone now because Hoffman is not going to be here. Johnson: All right. Do we have a volunteer to sit in this Thursday at 8:30? Odom: I would but I have depositions. Johnson: We need a volunteer. Estes: I will. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m.